The legislative powers granted the Virginia Assembly in the Magna Charta, and continued with slight alterations after the revocation of the charter of the London Company, were very extensive. The Assembly could pass laws dealing with a vast variety of matters appertaining to the safety and welfare of the colony. Statutes were enacted in the session of 1619 touching upon Indian affairs, the Church, land patents, the relations of servants and landlords, the planting of crops, general morality in Virginia, the price of tobacco, foreign trade, etc. The collected laws of the entire colonial period fill many volumes, and cover a vast variety of subjects. But there were three things which limited strictly the Assembly's field of action. They must pass no statutes contravening first, the laws of England; secondly, the charters; thirdly, the instructions sent them by the London Company. When the colony passed into the hands of the King, all statutes were forbidden that conflicted with the charters, or with the instructions of the Crown. These restrictions lasted during the entire colonial period, but they were not always carefully regarded. The Company, and later the King, retained two ways of nullifying legislation which was unauthorized, or was distasteful to them. First, there was the veto of the Governor. As the guardian of the interests of England and his monarch, this officer could block all legislation. Secondly, the Company, and later the King, could veto laws even though the Governor had consented to them.

But the most important power exercised by the Assembly was its control over taxation in Virginia. In the very first session it made use of this privilege by ordering, "That every man and manservant of above 16 years of age shall pay into the handes and Custody of the Burgesses of every Incorporation and plantation one pound of the best Tobacco".[147] The funds thus raised were utilized for the payment of the officers of the Assembly.

The levy by the poll, here used, was continued for many years, and became the chief support of the government. As the colony grew, however, and the need for greater revenues was felt, customs duties and other forms of taxation were resorted to. Large sums were raised by an export duty upon tobacco. At times tariffs were placed upon the importation of liquors, slaves and other articles. But these duties had to be used with great care, for the carrying of the colony was done chiefly by English merchants, and Parliament would permit nothing detrimental to their interests.

The Assembly claimed the exclusive right to levy general taxes. The Governor and Council time and again tried to wrest this privilege from them, but never with success.[148] The Burgesses, realizing that their hold upon the exchequer was the chief source of their power, were most careful never to relinquish it. From time to time the Governors sought to evade this restraint by levying taxes under the guise of fees. But this expedient invariably excited intense irritation, and yielded a revenue so small that most Governors thought it best to avoid it entirely. Of more importance were the quit-rents, a tax on land, paid to the King by all freeholders. But this was frequently avoided, and, except at rare intervals, the funds raised by it were left in Virginia to be expended for local purposes. The greatest blow to the power of the Burgesses was struck by the King in 1680, when he forced through the Assembly a law granting to the government a perpetual income from the export duty on tobacco. This revenue, although not large, was usually sufficient to pay the Governor's salary, and thus to render him less dependent upon the Assembly. Finally, it must not be forgotten that the English government, although it refrained from taxing the colony directly, imposed an enormous indirect tax by means of a tariff upon tobacco brought into England. These duties were collected in England, but there can be no doubt that the incidence of the tax rested partly upon the Virginia planters. Despite these various duties, all levied without its consent, the Assembly exercised a very real control over taxation in Virginia, and used it as an effective weapon against the encroachments of the Governors.

From the very first the General Assembly showed itself an energetic and determined champion of the rights of the people. Time and again it braved the anger of the Governor and of the King himself, rather than yield the slightest part of its privileges. During the decade preceding the English Revolution only the heroic resistance of this body saved the liberal institutions of the colony from destruction at the hands of Charles II and James II.

The General Assembly was not only a legislative body, it was also a court of justice, and for many years served as the highest tribunal of the colony. The judicial function was entrusted to a joint committee from the two houses, whose recommendations were usually accepted without question. Since this committee invariably contained more Burgesses than Councillors, the supreme court was practically controlled by the representatives of the people. During the reign of Charles II, however, the Assembly was deprived of this function by royal proclamation, and the judiciary fell almost entirely into the hands of the Governor and Council.

The General Assembly consisted of two chambers—the House of Burgesses and the Council. In the early sessions the houses sat together and probably voted as one body.[149] Later, however, they were divided and voted separately. The Burgesses, as time went on, gradually increased in numbers until they became a large body, but the Council was always small.

The Councillors were royal appointees. But since the King could not always know personally the prominent men of the colony, he habitually confirmed without question the nominations of the Governor. The members of the Council were usually persons of wealth, influence and ability. As they were subject to removal by the King and invariably held one or more lucrative governmental offices, it was customary for them to display great servility to the wishes of his Majesty or of the Governor. It was very unusual for them to oppose in the Assembly any measure recommended by the King, or in accord with his expressed wishes. Although the Councillors were, with rare exceptions, natives of Virginia, they were in no sense representative of the people of the colony.

As the upper house of the Assembly, the Council exercised a powerful influence upon legislation. After the separation of the chambers their consent became necessary for the passage of all bills, even money bills. Their legislative influence declined during the eighteenth century, however, because of the growing spirit of liberalism in Virginia, and the increasing size of the House of Burgesses.

The executive powers entrusted to the Council were also of very great importance. The Governor was compelled by his instructions to secure its assistance and consent in the most important matters. And since the chief executive was always a native of England, and often entirely ignorant of conditions in the colony, he was constantly forced to rely upon the advice of his Council. This tendency was made more pronounced by the frequent changes of Governors that marked the last quarter of the seventeenth century. So habitually did the Council exercise certain functions, not legally within their jurisdiction, that they began to claim them as theirs by right. And the Governor was compelled to respect these claims as scrupulously as the King of England respects the conventions that hedge in and limit his authority.

Before the end of the seventeenth century the Council had acquired extraordinary influence in the government. With the right to initiate and to block legislation, with almost complete control over the judiciary, with great influence in administrative matters, it threatened to become an oligarchy of almost unlimited power.

But it must not be supposed that the influence of the Council rendered impotent the King's Governor. Great powers were lodged in the hands of this officer by his various instructions and commissions. He was commander of the militia, was the head of the colonial church, he appointed most of the officers, attended to foreign affairs, and put the laws into execution. His influence, however, resulted chiefly from the fact that he was the representative of the King. In the days of Charles I, in the Restoration Period and under James II, when the Stuarts were combating liberal institutions, both in England and in the colonies, the Governor exercised a powerful and dangerous control over affairs in Virginia. But after the English Revolution his power declined. As the people of England no longer dreaded a monarch whose authority now rested solely upon acts of Parliament, so the Virginians ceased to fear his viceroy.

The powers officially vested in the Governor were by no means solely executive. He frequently made recommendations to the Assembly, either in his own name or the name of the King, and these recommendations at times assumed the nature of commands. If the Burgesses were reluctant to obey, he had numerous weapons at hand with which to intimidate them and whip them into line. Unscrupulous use of the patronage and threats of the King's dire displeasure were frequently resorted to. The Governor presided over the upper house, and voted there as any other member. Moreover, he could veto all bills, even those upon which he had voted in the affirmative in the Council. Thus he had a large influence in shaping the laws of the colony, and an absolute power to block all legislation.

Such, in outline, was the government originated for Virginia by the liberal leaders of the London Company, and put into operation by Sir George Yeardley. It lasted, with the short intermission of the Commonwealth Period, for more than one hundred and fifty years, and under it Virginia became the most populous and wealthy of the English colonies in America.

The successful cultivation of tobacco in Virginia, as we have seen, put new life into the discouraged London Company. The shareholders, feeling that now at last the colony would grow and prosper, exerted themselves to the utmost to secure desirable settlers and to equip them properly. Soon fleets of considerable size were leaving the English ports for America, their decks and cabins crowded with emigrants and their holds laden with clothing, arms and farming implements.[150] During the months from March 1620 to March 1621 ten ships sailed, carrying no less than 1051 persons.[151] In the year ending March, 1622, seventeen ships reached Virginia, bringing over fifteen hundred new settlers.[152] And this stream continued without abatement until 1624, when disasters in Virginia, quarrels among the shareholders and the hostility of the King brought discouragement to the Company. In all, there reached the colony from November, 1619, to February, 1625, nearly five thousand men, women and children.[153]

Although tobacco culture was the only enterprise of the colony which had yielded a profit, it was not the design of Sandys and his friends that that plant should monopolize the energies of the settlers. They hoped to make Virginia an industrial community, capable of furnishing the mother country with various manufactured articles, then imported from foreign countries. Especially anxious were they to render England independent in their supply of pig iron. Ore having been discovered a few miles above Henrico on the James, a furnace was erected there and more than a hundred skilled workmen brought over from England to put it into operation. Before the works could be completed, however, they were utterly demolished by the savages, the machinery thrown into the river, all the workmen slaughtered,[154] and the only return the Company obtained for an outlay of thousands of pounds was a shovel, a pair of tongs and one bar of iron.[155] Efforts were made later to repair the havoc wrought by the Indians and to reestablish the works, but they came to nothing. Not until the time of Governor Spotswood were iron furnaces operated in Virginia, and even then the industry met with a scant measure of success.

The Company also made an earnest effort to promote the manufacture of glass in Virginia. This industry was threatened with extinction in England as a result of the great inroads that had been made upon the timber available for fuel, and it was thought that Virginia, with its inexhaustible forests, offered an excellent opportunity for its rehabilitation. But here too they were disappointed. The sand of Virginia proved unsuitable for the manufacture of glass. The skilled Italian artisans sent over to put the works into operation were intractable and mutinous. After trying in various ways to discourage the enterprise, so that they could return to Europe, these men brought matters to a close by cracking the furnace with a crowbar. George Sandys, in anger, declared "that a more damned crew hell never vomited".[156]

In order to show that they were sincere in their professions of interest in the spiritual welfare of the Indians, the Company determined to erect a college at Henrico "for the training up of the children of those Infidels in true Religion, moral virtue and civility".[157] The clergy of England were enthusiastic in their support of this good design, and their efforts resulted in liberal contributions from various parts of the kingdom.[158] Unfortunately, however, the money thus secured was expended in sending to the college lands a number of "tenants" the income from whose labor was to be utilized in establishing and supporting the institution.[159] As some of these settlers fell victims to disease and many others were destroyed in the massacre of 1622, the undertaking had to be abandoned, and of course all thought of converting and civilizing the savages was given up during the long and relentless war that ensued.

Even more discouraging than these failures was the hostility of the King to the cultivation of tobacco in Virginia, and his restrictions upon its importation into England. Appeals were made to him to prohibit the sale of Spanish tobacco, in order that the Virginia planters might dispose of their product at a greater profit. This, it was argued, would be the most effective way of rendering the colony prosperous and self sustaining. But James, who was still bent upon maintaining his Spanish policy, would not offend Philip by excluding his tobacco from England. Moreover, in 1621, he issued a proclamation restricting the importation of the leaf from Virginia and the Somers Isles to fifty-five thousand pounds annually.[160] This measure created consternation in Virginia and in the London Company. The great damage it would cause to the colony and the diminution in the royal revenue that would result were pointed out to James, but for the time he was obdurate.[161] Indeed, he caused additional distress by granting the customs upon tobacco to a small association of farmers of the revenue, who greatly damaged the interests of the colony. In 1622, James, realizing that his policy in regard to tobacco was injuring the exchequer, made a compromise with the Company. The King agreed to restrict the importation of Spanish tobacco to 60,000 pounds a year, and after two years to exclude it entirely. All the Virginia leaf was to be admitted, but the Crown was to receive one third of the crop, while the other two thirds was subjected to a duty of six pence a pound.[162] This agreement proved most injurious to the Company, and it was soon abandoned, but the heavy exactions of the King continued. Undoubtedly this unwise policy was most detrimental to Virginia. Not only did it diminish the returns of the Company and make it impossible for Sandys to perfect all his wise plans for the colony, but it put a decided check upon immigration. Many that would have gone to Virginia to share in the profits of the planters, remained at home when they saw that these profits were being confiscated by the King.[163]

Yet the strenuous efforts of the London Company would surely have brought something like prosperity to the colony had not an old enemy returned to cause the destruction of hundreds of the settlers. This was the sickness. For some years the mortality had been very low, because the old planters were acclimated, and few new immigrants were coming to Virginia. But with the stream of laborers and artisans that the Sandys regime now sent over, the scourge appeared again with redoubled fury. As early as January, 1620, Governor Yeardley wrote "of the great mortallitie which hath been in Virginia, about 300 of ye inhabitants having dyed this year".[164] The sickness was most deadly in the newly settled parts of the colony, "to the consumption of divers Hundreds, and almost the utter destruction of some particular Plantations".[165] The London Company, distressed at the loss of so many men, saw in their misfortunes the hand of God, and wrote urging "the more carefull observations of his holy laws to work a reconciliation".[166] They also sent directions for the construction, in different parts of the colony, of four guest houses, or hospitals, for the lodging and entertaining of fifty persons each, upon their first arrival.[167] But all efforts to check the scourge proved fruitless. In the year ending March, 1621 over a thousand persons died upon the immigrant vessels and in Virginia.[168] Despite the fact that hundreds of settlers came to the colony during this year, the population actually declined. In 1621 the percentage of mortality was not so large, but the actual number of deaths increased. During the months from March, 1621, to March, 1622, nearly twelve hundred persons perished. It was like condemning a man to death to send him to the colony. Seventy-five or eighty per cent. of the laborers that left England in search of new homes across the Atlantic died before the expiration of their first year. The exact number of deaths in 1622 is not known, but there is reason to believe that it approximated thirteen hundred.[169] Mr. George Sandys, brother of the Secretary of the London Company, wrote, "Such a pestilent fever rageth this winter amongst us: never knowne before in Virginia, by the infected people that came over in ye Abigall, who were poisoned with ... beer and all falling sick & many dying, every where dispersed the contagion, and the forerunning Summer hath been also deadly upon us."[170] Not until 1624 did the mortality decline. Then it was that the Governor wrote, "This summer, God be thanked, the Colony hath very well stood to health".[171] The dread sickness had spent itself for lack of new victims, for the immigration had declined and the old planters had become "seasoned".

History does not record an epidemic more deadly than that which swept over Virginia during these years. It is estimated that the number of those that lost their lives from the diseases native to the colony and to those brought in from the infected ships amounts to no less than four thousand.[172] When the tide of immigration was started by Sir Edwin Sandys in 1619, there were living in Virginia about nine hundred persons; when it slackened in 1624 the population was but eleven hundred. The sending of nearly five thousand settlers to Virginia had resulted in a gain of but two hundred. It is true that the tomahawk and starvation accounts for a part of this mortality, but by far the larger number of deaths was due to disease.

Yet hardly less horrible than the sickness was the Indian massacre of 1622. This disaster, which cost the lives of several hundred persons, struck terror into the hearts of every Englishman in Virginia. The colonists had not the least intimation that the savages meditated harm to them, for peace had existed between the races ever since the marriage of Rolfe and Pocahontas. Considering the protection of their palisades no longer necessary after that event, they had spread out over the colony in search of the most fertile lands. Their plantations extended at intervals for many miles along both banks of the James, and in the case of a sudden attack by the Indians it would obviously be difficult for the settlers to defend themselves or to offer assistance to their neighbors.

The apparent friendship of the Indians had created such great intimacy between the two races, that the savages were received into the homes of the white men and at times were fed at their tables.[173] At the command of the London Company itself some of the Indian youths had been adopted by the settlers and were being educated in the Christian faith. So unsuspecting were the people that they loaned the savages their boats, as they passed backward and forward, to formulate their plans for the massacre.[174]

The plot seems to have originated in the cunning brain of Opechancanough. This chief, always hostile to the white men, must have viewed with apprehension their encroachment upon the lands of his people. He could but realize that some day the swarms of foreigners that were arriving each year would exclude the Indians from the country of their forefathers. Perceiving his opportunity in the foolish security of the English and in their exposed situation, he determined to annihilate them in one general butchery.

His plans were laid with great cunning. Although thousands of natives knew of the design, no warning reached the white men until the very eve of the massacre. While Opechancanough was preparing this tremendous blow, he protested in the strongest terms his perpetual good will and love, declaring that the sky would fall before he would bring an end to the peace.[175] In order to lull the suspicions of the planters, "even but two daies before the massacre", he guided some of them "with much kindnesse through the woods, and one Browne that lived among them to learne the language", he sent home to his master. The evening before the attack the Indians came as usual to the plantations with deer, turkeys, fish, fruits and other provisions to sell.[176]

That night, however, a warning was received, which although too late to save the most remote settlements, preserved many hundreds from the tomahawk. Chanco, an Indian boy who had been adopted by an Englishman named Race, revealed the entire plot to his master. The man secured his house, and rowed away before dawn in desperate haste to Jamestown, to give warning to the Governor. "Whereby they were prevented, and at such other plantations as possibly intelligence could be given."[177]

The assault of the savages was swift and deadly. In all parts of the colony they fell upon the settlers, and those that had received no warning were, in most cases, butchered before they could suspect that harm was intended. Sometimes the Indians sat down to breakfast with their victims, "whom immediately with their owne tooles they slew most barbarously, not sparing either age or sex, man woman or childe".[178] Many were slain while working in the fields; others were trapped in their houses and butchered before they could seize their weapons. The savages, "not being content with their lives,... fell againe upon the dead bodies, making as well as they could a fresh murder, defacing, dragging, and mangling their dead carkases into many peeces".[179]

That the plot was so successful was due to the completeness of the surprise, for where the English made the least resistance the savages were usually beaten off. A planter named Causie, when attacked and wounded and surrounded by the Indians, "with an axe did cleave one of their heads, whereby the rest fled and he escaped; for they hurt not any that did either fight or stand upon their guard. In one place where they had warning of it, (they) defended the house against sixty or more that assaulted it."[180]

At the plantation of a Mr. Harrison, where there were gathered seven men and eighteen or nineteen women and children, the savages set fire to a tobacco house and then came in to tell the men to quench it. Six of the English, not suspecting treachery, rushed out, and were shot full of arrows. Mr. Thomas Hamor, the seventh man, "having finished a letter he was writing, followed after to see what was the matter, but quickly they shot an arrow in his back, which caused him to returne and barricade up the dores, whereupon the Salvages set fire to the house. But a boy, seizing a gun which he found loaded, discharged it at random. At the bare report the enemy fled and Mr. Hamor with the women and children escaped."[181] In a nearby house, a party of English under Mr. Hamor's brother, were caught by the Indians without arms, but they defended themselves successfully with spades, axes and brickbats.[182]

One of the first to fall was Reverend George Thorpe, a member of the Virginia Council, and a man of prominence in England.[183] Leaving a life of honor and ease, he had come to Virginia to work for the conversion of the Indians. He had apparently won the favor of Opechancanough, with whom he often discoursed upon the Christian religion. At the moment of his murder, his servant, perceiving the deadly intent of the savages, gave him warning, but his gentle nature would not permit him to believe harm of those whom he had always befriended, and he was cut down without resistance.[184]

The barbarous king failed in his design to destroy the English race in Virginia, but the massacre was a deadly blow to the colony. No less than three hundred and fifty-seven persons were slaughtered, including six Councillors. The news of the disaster brought dismay to the London Company. For a while they attempted to keep the matter a secret, but in a few weeks it was known all over England. Although the massacre could not have been foreseen or prevented, it served as a pretext for numerous attacks upon Sandys and the party which supported him. It discouraged many shareholders and made it harder to secure settlers for the colony. Even worse was the effect in Virginia. The system of farming in unprotected plantations, which had prevailed for some years, had now to be abandoned and many settlements that were exposed to the Indians were deserted. "We have not," wrote the Assembly, "the safe range of the Country for the increase of Cattle, Swyne, etc; nor for the game and fowle which the country affords in great plentye; besides our duties to watch and warde to secure ourselves and labor are as hard and chargeable as if the enemy were at all times present."[185]

The massacre was followed by a venomous war with the Indians, which lasted many years. The English, feeling that their families and their homes would never be safe so long as the savages shared the country with them, deliberately planned the extermination of all hostile tribes in Virginia. Their conversion was given no further consideration. "The terms betwixt us and them," they declared, "are irreconcilable."[186] Governor Wyatt wrote, "All trade with them must be forbidden, and without doubt either we must cleere them or they us out of the Country."[187]

But it soon became apparent that neither people would be able to win an immediate or decisive victory. The Indians could not hope to destroy the English, now that their deeply laid plot had failed. In open battle their light arrows made no impression upon the coats of plate and of mail in which the white men were incased, while their own bodies were without protection against the superior weapons of their foes. On the other hand, it was very difficult for the colonists to strike the savages, because of the "advantages of the wood and the nimbleness of their heels".[188] Even though they "chased them to and fro", following them to their villages and burning their huts, they found it very difficult to do them serious harm.

Finally the English hit upon the plan of bringing distress upon the savages by destroying their corn. Although the Virginia tribes subsisted partly upon game, their chief support was from their fields of maize, and the entire failure of their crop would have reduced hundreds of them to the verge of starvation.[189] Each year the white men, in small companies, in various parts of the country, brought ruin to the corn fields. Sometimes the savages, in despair at the prospect of famine, made valiant efforts to defend their fields, but were invariably beaten off until the work of destruction was done.

The natives retaliated with many sudden raids upon the more exposed parts of the colony, where they burned, pillaged and murdered. The planter at work in his fields might expect to find them lurking in the high grass, while their ambushes in the woods made communication from plantation to plantation very dangerous. "The harmes that they do us," wrote the Assembly, "is by ambushes and sudden incursions, where they see their advantages."[190] In 1625 Captain John Harvey declared that the two races were "ingaged in a mortall warre and fleshed in each others bloud, of which the Causes have been the late massacre on the Salvages parte.... I conceive that by the dispersion of the Plantations the Salvages hath the advantage in this warre, and that by their suddaine assaults they do us more harme than we do them by our set voyages".[191]

When the English had recovered from the first shock of the massacre, they planned four expeditions against the tribes living on the river above Jamestown. Mr. George Sandys attacked the Tappahatomaks, Sir George Yeardley the Wyanokes, Captain William Powell the Chickahominies and the Appomatocks, and Captain John West the Tanx-Powhatans. The savages, without attempting to make a stand, deserted their villages and their crops and fled at the approach of the English. Few were killed, for they were "so light and swift" that the white men, laden with their heavy armor, could not overtake them.[192] In the fall Sir George Yeardley led three hundred men down the river against the Nansemonds and against Opechancanough. The natives "set fire to their own houses, and spoiled what they could, and then fled with what they could carry; so that the English did make no slaughter amongst them for revenge. Their Corne fields being newly gathered, they surprised all they found, burnt the houses (that) remained unburnt, and so departed."[193]

It is remarkable that the colonists could continue this war while the sickness was raging among them. At the very time that Yeardley was fighting Opechancanough, hundreds of his comrades were dying "like cats and dogs". "With our small and sicklie forces," wrote Mr. George Sandys, "we have discomforted the Indians round about us, burnt their houses, gathered their corn and slain not a few; though they are as swift as Roebucks, like the violent lightening they are gone as soon as perceived, and not to be destroyed but by surprise or famine."[194]

How bitter was the war is shown by an act of treachery by the English that would have shamed the savages themselves. In 1623, the Indians, discouraged by the destruction of their crops, sent messengers to Jamestown, asking for peace. The colonists determined to take advantage of this overture to recover their prisoners and at the same time to strike a sudden blow at their enemy. Early in June, Captain William Tucker with twelve well armed men was sent "in a shalope under colour to make peace with them". On the arrival of this party at the chief town of Opechancanough, the savages thronged down to the riverside to parley with them, but the English refused to consider any terms until all prisoners had been restored. Assenting to this, the savages brought forth seven whites and they were placed aboard the vessel. Having thus accomplished their purpose, the soldiers, at a given signal, let fly a volley into the midst of the crowd, killing "some 40 Indians including 3 of the chiefest".[195]

In 1624 the English won a great victory over the most troublesome of the Indian tribes, the Pamunkeys. Governor Wyatt, in leading an expedition against this people had evidently expected little resistance, for he brought with him but sixty fighting men. The Pamunkeys, however, had planted that year a very large crop of corn, which they needed for the support of themselves and their confederates, and they determined to protect it at all hazards. So Wyatt and his little band were surprised, on approaching their village to find before them more than eight hundred warriors prepared for battle. The English did not falter in the face of this army, and a fierce contest ensued. "Fightinge not only for safeguards of their houses and such a huge quantity of corn", but for their reputation with the other nations, the Pamunkeys displayed unusual bravery. For two days the battle went on. Whenever the young warriors wavered before the volleys of musketry, they were driven back into the fight by the older men. Twenty-four of the English were detached from the firing line and were employed in destroying the maize. In this they were so successful that enough corn was cut down "as by Estimation of men of good judgment was sufficient to have sustained fower thousand men for a twelvemonth". At last the savages in despair gave up the fight and stood nearby "rufully lookinge on whilst their Corne was cutt down". "In this Expedition," wrote the colonists, "sixteene of the English were hurte our first and seconde day, whereby nyne of the best shott were made unserviceable for that tyme, yett never a man slayne, nor none miscarried of those hurtes, Since when they have not greatly troubled us, nor interrupted our labours."[196]

The series of misfortunes which befel the London Company during the administration of Sir Edwin Sandys culminated in the loss of their charter. For some time King James had been growing more and more hostile to the party that had assumed control of the colony. It is highly probable that he had had no intimation, when the charter of 1612 was granted, that popular institutions would be established in Virginia, and the extension of the English parliamentary system to America must have been distasteful to him. The enemies of Sandys had been whispering to the King that he "aymed at nothing more than to make a free popular state there, and himselfe and his assured friends to be the leaders of them".[197] James knew that Sandys was not friendly to the prerogative of the Crown. It had been stated "that there was not any man in the world that carried a more malitious heart to the Government of a Monarchie".[198]

In 1621 the controlling party in the London Company was preparing a new charter for Virginia. The contents of this document are not known, but it is exceedingly probable that it was intended as the preface to the establishment of a government in the colony far more liberal than that of England itself. It was proposed to have the charter confirmed by act of Parliament, and to this James had consented, provided it proved satisfactory to the Privy Council.[199] But it is evident that when the Councillors had examined it, they advised the King not to assent to it or to allow it to appear in Parliament. Indeed the document must have stirred James' anger, for not only did he end all hopes of its passage, but he "struck some terrour into most undertakers for Virginia", by imprisoning Sir Edwin Sandys.[200]

Even more distasteful to the King than the establishment of popular institutions in the little colony was the spreading of liberal doctrines throughout England by the Sandys faction of the Company. James could no longer tolerate their meetings, if once he began to look upon them as the nursery of discontent and sedition. The party that was so determined in its purpose to plant a republican government in Virginia might stop at nothing to accomplish the same end in England. James knew that national politics were often discussed in the assemblies of the Company and that the parties there were sometimes as "animated one against the other" as had been the "Guelfs and Gebillines" of Italy.[201] He decided that the best way to end these controversies and frustrate the designs of his enemies was to annul the charter of the Company and make Virginia a royal colony.

The first unmistakable sign of his hostility came in June 1622, when he interfered with the election of their treasurer. It was not, he told them, his intention "to infringe their liberty of free election", but he sent a list of names that would be acceptable to him, and asked them to put one of these in nomination. To this the Company assented readily enough, even nominating two from the list, but when the election was held, the King's candidates were overwhelmingly defeated.[202] When James heard this, he "flung himself away in a furious passion", being "not well satisfied that out of so large a number by him recommended they had not made any choice".[203] The incident meant that James had given the Company an unmistakable intimation that it would be well for them to place the management of affairs in the hands of men more in harmony with himself, and that they had scornfully refused.

The Company was now doomed, for the King decided that the charter must be revoked. He could not, of course, annul a grant that had passed under the Great Seal, without some presence of legal proceedings, but when once he had determined on the ruin of the Company, means to accomplish his end were not lacking. John Ferrar wrote, "The King, notwithstanding his royal word and honor pledged to the contrary ... was now determined with all his force to make the last assault, and give the death blow to this ... Company."[204]

James began by hunting evidence of mismanagement and incapacity by the Sandys party. He gave orders to Captain Nathaniel Butler, who had spent some months in Virginia, to write a pamphlet describing the condition of the colony. The Unmasking of Virginia, as Butler's work is called was nothing less than a bitter assault upon the conduct of affairs since the beginning of the Sandys administration. Unfortunately, it was not necessary for the author to exaggerate much in his description of the frightful conditions in the colony; but it was unfair to place the blame upon the Company. The misfortunes of the settlers were due to disease and the Indians and did not result from incapacity or negligence on the part of Sandys. The Company drew up "A True answer to a writing of Information presented to his Majesty by Captain Nathaniel Butler", denying most of the charges and explaining others, but they could not efface the bad impression caused by the Unmasking.[205]

In April, 1623, James appointed a commission to make enquiry into the "true estate of ... Virginia".[206] This body was directed to investigate "all abuses and grievances ... all wrongs and injuryes done to any adventurers or planters and the grounds and causes thereof, and to propound after what sort the same may be better managed".[207] It seems quite clear that the commissioners understood that they were expected to give the King "some true ground to work upon", in his attack on the Company's charter.[208] In a few weeks they were busy receiving testimony from both sides, examining records and searching for evidence. They commanded the Company to deliver to them all "Charters, Books, Letters, Petitions, Lists of names, of Provisions, Invoyces of Goods, and all other writing whatsoever". They examined the clerk of the Company, the messenger and the keeper of the house in which they held their meetings.[209] They intercepted private letters from Virginia, telling of the horrible suffering there, and made the King aware of their contents.[210]

In July the commission made its report. It found that "the people sent to inhabit there ... were most of them by God's visitation, sicknes of body, famine, and by massacres ... dead and deceased, and those that were living of them lived in miserable and lamentable necessity and want.... That this neglect they conceived, must fall on the Governors and Company here, who had power to direct the Plantations there.... That if his Majesty's first Grant of April 10 1606, and his Majesty's most prudent and princely Instructions given in the beginning ... had been pursued, much better effects had been produced, than had been by the alteration thereof, into so popular a course."[211] James was much pleased with the report, and it confirmed his determination to "resume the government, and to reduce that popular form so as to make it agree with the monarchial form".[212]

Before taking the matter to the courts, the King resolved to offer the Company a compromise. If they would give up the old charter, he said, a new one would be granted them, preserving all private interests, but restoring the active control of the colony to the Crown. The government was to be modelled upon the old plan of 1606, which had already given so much trouble. "His Majesty," the Company was told, "hath ... resolved by a new Charter to appoint a Governor and twelve assistants, resident here in England, unto whom shall be committed the government.... And his Majesty is pleased that there shall be resident in Virginia a Governor and twelve assistants, to be nominated by the Governor and assistants here ... whereby all matters of importance may be directed by his Majesty."[213] The Company was commanded to send its reply immediately, "his Majesty being determined, in default of such submission, to proceed for the recalling of the said former charters".[214]

A special meeting of the stockholders was called, October 30th, 1623, to consider the King's proposal. Every man present must have known that the rejection of the compromise would mean the loss of all the money he had invested in the colony, and that if the King's wishes were acceded to his interests would be preserved. But the Company was fighting for something higher than personal gain—for the maintenance of liberal institutions in America, for the defence of the rights of English citizens. After a "hot debate" they put the question to the vote, and the offer was rejected, there being "only nine hands for the delivering up of the Charters, and all the rest (being about three score more) were of a contrary opinion".[215]

As a last hope the Company resolved to seek the assistance of Parliament. A petition was drawn up to be presented to the Commons, and the shareholders that were members of that body were requested to give it their strenuous support when it came up for consideration. The petition referred to Virginia as a "child of the Kingdom, exposed as in the wilderness to extreme danger and as it were fainting and labouring for life", and it prayed the House to hear "the grievances of the Colony and Company, and grant them redress".[216] The matter was brought before the Commons in May, 1624, but before it could be considered, a message was received from the King warning them "not to trouble themselves with this petition as their doing so could produce nothing but a further increase Schisme and factions in the Company". "Ourself," he announced, "will make it our own work to settle the quiet, and wellfare of the plantations."[217] This was received with some "soft mutterings" by the Commons, but they thought it best to comply, and the Company was left to its fate.[218]

In the meanwhile the King had placed his case in the hands of Attorney-General Coventry, who had prepared a quo warranto against the Company.[219] Although all hope of retaining the charter was gone, the Sandys party were determined to fight to the end. They voted to employ attorneys and to plead their case before the King's Bench. The quo warranto came up June 26th, 1624, and "the Virginia Patent was overthrown", on a mistake in pleading.[220] With this judgment the London Company practically ceased to exist, and Virginia became a royal province.

FOOTNOTES:

[117] F. R., p. 6.

[118] F. R., p. 76.

[119] Gen., p. 1027.

[120] F. R., p. 265.

[121] F. R., p. 271.

[122] Gen., p. 339.

[123] F. R., p. 6.

[124] Gen. p. 236. Compare F. R., pp. 262, 263, 264, 31, 248, 80; Gen., pp. 49, 146.

[125] F. R., p. 80.

[126] F. R., p. 49.

[127] Gen., p. 50.

[128] Gen., p. 355.

[129] F. R., p. 558.

[130] F. R., p. 85.

[131] F. R., p. 237.

[132] F. R., vi.

[133] F. R., p. 251.

[134] F. R., p. 75.

[135] Gen., pp. 60, 61.

[136] Arb. Smith, lxxxiii.

[137] F. R., p. 266.

[138] F. R., p. 266.

[139] F. R., pp. 281, 282.

[140] F. R., p. 293.

[141] F. R., p. 312.

[142] F. R., p. 315.

[143] Nar. of Va., pp. 249, 250.

[144] Nar. of Va., p. 251.

[145] F. R., p. 317.

[146] Nar. of Va., pp. 252, 253, 254, 255, 260, 261.

[147] Nar. of Va., p. 276.

[148] In 1662 the Assembly granted power to the Governor and Council for three years to levy a small tax by the poll. The county taxes for defraying local expenses, were assessed and collected by the justices of the peace. The vestries controlled the raising of the parish dues.

[149] Miller, p. 41.

[150] F. R., p. 376.

[151] F. R., p. 415.

[152] F. R., p. 464.

[153] F. R., p. 612.

[154] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. II, pp. 448, 449.

[155] Ibid.

[156] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. II, pp. 442, 443.

[157] F. R., p. 322.

[158] F. R., p. 335.

[159] F. R., p. 336.

[160] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, p. 264.

[161] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, p. 265.

[162] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, p. 269.

[163] P. R. O., CO1-3.

[164] F. R., p. 372.

[165] F. R., p. 377.

[166] F. R., p. 377.

[167] F. R., p. 377.

[168] F. R., p. 415.

[169] F. R., p. 506.

[170] F. R., p. 506.

[171] F. R., p. 608.

[172] P. R. O., CO1-36-37.

[173] Stith, p. 210.

[174] Stith, p. 210.

[175] Arb. Smith, p. 573.

[176] Arb. Smith, p. 573.

[177] Arb. Smith, p. 578.

[178] Arb. Smith, p. 573.

[179] Arb. Smith, p. 574.

[180] Arb. Smith, p. 575.

[181] Arb. Smith, p. 576.

[182] Arb. Smith, p. 576.

[183] Stith, p. 211.

[184] Stith, pp. 211, 212.

[185] F. R., pp. 576, 577.

[186] F. R., p. 576.

[187] F. R., p. 508.

[188] F. R., p. 576.

[189] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, pp. 155 to 159.

[190] F. R., p. 576.

[191] F. R., p. 611.

[192] Arb. Smith, p. 594.

[193] Arb. Smith, p. 559; F. R., pp. 475, 495.

[194] F. R., p. 510.

[195] F. R., pp. 514, 515.

[196] P. R. O., CO1-3.

[197] F. R., p. 530.

[198] F. R., p. 529.

[199] F. R., p. 393.

[200] F. R., pp. 436, 437.

[201] F. R., p. 542.

[202] F. R., p. 477.

[203] F. R., p. 478.

[204] F. R., pp. 531, 532.

[205] F. R., p. 524.

[206] F. R., p. 520.

[207] F. R., p. 520.

[208] F. R., p. 521.

[209] F. R., p. 541.

[210] F. R., p. 535.

[211] F. R., pp. 519, 520.

[212] F. R., p. 542.

[213] F. R., p. 551.

[214] F. R., p. 542.

[215] F. R., p. 554.

[216] F. R, pp. 595, 596.

[217] F. R., pp. 597, 598.

[218] F. R., p. 598.

[219] F. R., p. 587.

[220] F. R., pp. 601, 602.



CHAPTER III

THE EXPULSION OF SIR JOHN HARVEY

The people of Virginia sympathized deeply with the London Company in its efforts to prevent the revocation of the charter. The Governor, the Council and the Burgesses gave active assistance to Sandys and his friends by testifying to the wisdom of the management and contradicting the calumnies of their enemies. In the midst of the controversy the Privy Council had appointed a commission which they sent to Virginia to investigate conditions there and to gather evidence against the Company. This board consisted of John Harvey, John Pory, Abraham Piersey and Samuel Matthews, men destined to play prominent roles in Virginia history, but then described as "certayne obscure persons".[221] When the commissioners reached the colony they made known to the Assembly the King's desire to revoke the charter and to take upon himself the direction of the government. They then asked the members to subscribe to a statement expressing their gratitude for the care of the King, and willingness to consent to the contemplated change. The Assembly returned the paper unsigned. "When our consent," they said, "to the surrender of the Pattents, shalbe required, will be the most proper time to make reply: in the mean time wee conceive his Majesties intention of changing the government hath proceeded from much misinformation."[222]

After this they ignored the commissioners, and addressed themselves in direct letters and petitions to the King and the Privy Council.[223] They apprehended, they wrote, no danger from the present government, which had converted into freedom the slavery they had endured in former times.[224] They prayed that their liberal institutions might not be destroyed or the old Smith faction of the Company placed over them again.[225] These papers they sent to England by one of their number, John Pountis, even refusing to let the commissioners see them. But Pory succeeded in securing copies from the acting secretary, Edward Sharpless.[226] The Council, upon learning of this betrayal, were so incensed against the secretary that they sentenced him to "stand in the Pillory and there to have his Ears nailed to it, and cut off".[227] His punishment was modified, however, so that when he was "sett in the Pillorie", he "lost but a part of one of his eares".[228] The King, upon learning of this incident, which was represented to him "as a bloody and barbarous act", became highly incensed against the Council.[229]

In the meanwhile James had appointed a large commission, with Viscount Mandeville at its head, "to confer, consult, resolve and expedite all affaires ... of Virginia, and to take care and give order for the directing and government thereof".[230] This body met weekly at the house of Sir Thomas Smith, and immediately assumed control of the colony.[231] Their first act was to decide upon a form of government to replace the Virginia Magna Charta. In conformance with the wishes of the King they resolved to return to the plan of 1606. In their recommendations no mention was made of an Assembly. It seemed for a while that the work of Sandys was to be undone, and the seeds of liberty in Virginia destroyed almost before they had taken root. Fortunately, however, this was not to be. The commission, perhaps wishing to allay the fears of the colonists, reappointed Sir Francis Wyatt Governor, and retained most of the old Council. This made it certain that for a while at least the government was to be in the hands of men of lofty character and liberal views.[232] More fortunate still for Virginia was the death of James I. This event removed the most determined enemy of their Assembly, and placed upon the throne a man less hostile to the Sandys faction, less determined to suppress the liberal institutions of the colony.

Soon after his accession Charles I abolished the Mandeville commission and appointed in its place a committee of the Privy Council.[233] For a while he seemed inclined to restore the Company, for he consulted with Sandys and requested him to give his opinion "touching the best form of Government".[234] But he finally rejected his proposals, declaring that he had come to the same determination that his father had held. He was resolved, he said, that the government should be immediately dependent upon himself and not be committed to any company or corporation.[235] But, like his father, he was "pleased to authorise Sir Francis Wyatt knight to be governor there, and such as are now employed for his Majesties Councell there to have authoritie to continue the same employment". No provision was made for a representative body, the power of issuing decrees, ordinances and public orders being assigned to the Council.

But the Assembly was saved by the unselfish conduct of Wyatt and Yeardley and their Councils.[236] Had these men sought their own gain at the expense of the liberty of their fellow colonists, they would have welcomed a change that relieved them from the restraint of the representatives of the people. The elimination of the Burgesses would have left them as absolute as had been Wingfield and the first Council. But they were most anxious to preserve for Virginia the right of representative government, and wrote to England again and again pleading for the reestablishment of the Assembly.[237] "Above all," they said, "we humbly intreat your Lordships that we may retaine the Libertie of our Generall Assemblie, than which nothing can more conduce to our satisfaction or the publique utilitie."[238] In 1625 Yeardley himself crossed the ocean to present a new petition. He pleaded with Charles "to avoid the oppression of Governors there, that their liberty of Generall Assemblyes may be continued and confirmed, and that they may have a voice in the election of officers, as in other Corporations".[239] After the overthrow of the Company charter, there could be no legal election of Burgesses and no legislation save by proclamation of the Governor and Council. Yet Wyatt, in order to preserve as far as possible some form of representative government, held conventions or informal meetings of leading citizens, to confer with the Council on important matters. They issued papers under the title of "Governor, Councell and Collony of Virginia assembled together",[240] and it is possible that the people elected their delegates just as they had formerly chosen Burgesses. Since, however, acts passed by these assemblages could not be enforced in the courts, all legislation for the time being took the form of proclamations.[241]

Finally Charles yielded to the wishes of the people, and, in the fall of 1627, sent written instructions to the officials in Virginia to hold an election of Burgesses and to summon a General Assembly.[242] The King's immediate motive for this important step was his desire to gain the planters' acceptance through their representatives of an offer which he made to buy all their tobacco. In the spring of 1628 the Council wrote, "In obedience to his Majesties Commands wee have given order that all the Burgesses of Particular Plantations should shortly be assembled at James Citty that by the general and unanimous voice of the whole Colony his Majesty may receave a full answere."[243] Although the Assembly must have realized that its very existence might depend upon its compliance with the King's wishes, it refused to accept his proposition. The planters were willing to sell their tobacco to his Majesty, but only upon more liberal terms than those offered them. Charles rejected the counter-proposals of the Virginians, with some show of anger, but he did not abolish the Assembly, and in ensuing years sessions were held with great regularity.[244]

The apprehensions of the colonists during this trying period were made more acute by the resignation of Sir Francis Wyatt. In the winter of 1625-26 the Council wrote the Virginia commissioners, "The Governor hath long expected a Successor, and the necessity of his private estate compelling him not to put off any longer his return for England, wee hope it is already provided for."[245] Great must have been the relief in the colony when it was learned that Sir George Yeardley had been chosen to succeed Governor Wyatt. Yeardley had been the bearer of the Virginia Magna Charta, under which the first Assembly had been established, and his services had not been forgotten by the people. But he was not destined to see the restoration of the Burgesses, for he died in November, 1627.[246] We have lost, wrote the Council in great grief, "a main pillar of this our building & thereby a support to the whole body".[247]

By virtue of previous appointment, Captain Francis West, brother of the Lord De la Warr who had lost his life in the service of Virginia, at once assumed the reins of government. Captain West continued in office until March 5th, 1629, when he resigned in order to return to England.[248] John Harvey, a member of the Virginia commission of 1624, was the King's next choice for Governor, but pending his arrival, the office fell to one of the Council—Dr. John Pott. This man had long been a resident of Virginia, and had acted as Physician-General during the years when the sickness was at the worst. He is described as "a Master of Arts ... well practiced in chirurgery and physic, and expert also in the distilling of waters, (besides) many other ingenious devices".[249] He had made use of these accomplishments to poison large numbers of Indians after the massacre of 1622.[250] This exploit caused the temporary loss of his place in the Council, for when James I settled the government after the fall of the Company, Pott was left out at the request of the Earl of Warwick, because "he was the poysoner of the salvages thear".[251] In 1626 his seat was restored to him. He seems to have been both democratic and convival, and is described as fond of the company of his inferiors, "who hung upon him while his good liquor lasted".[252]

In the spring of 1630 Sir John Harvey arrived in Virginia.[253] This man proved to be one of the worst of the many bad colonial governors. Concerned only for his own dignity and for the prerogative of the King, he trampled without scruple upon the liberties of the people, and his administration was marked throughout by injustice and oppression.

His first efforts as Governor were to attempt to win the friendship and support of one of the Council and to bring humiliation and ruin upon another. He had been in Virginia but a few weeks when he wrote the King asking especial favors for Captain Samuel Matthews. "This gentleman," he said, "I found most readie to set forward all services propounded for his Majesties honor, ... and without his faithful assistance perhaps I should not soe soon have brought the busines of this Country to so good effect." It would be a just reward for these services, he thought, to allow him for a year or two to ship the tobacco of his plantation into England free of customs.[254] At the same time Harvey seemed bent upon the utter undoing of Dr. Pott. Claiming that the pleasure loving physician while Governor had been guilty of "pardoninge wilfull Murther, markinge other mens Cattell for his owne, and killing up their hoggs", Harvey suspended him from the Council and, pending the day of his trial, confined him to his plantation.[255]

It seems quite certain that this treatment of the two Councillors was designed to impress upon the people a just appreciation of the Governor's power. Harvey felt keenly the restriction of the Council. It had been the intention of James and after his death Charles to restore the government of the colony to its original form, in which all matters were determined by the Council. "His Majesties ... pleasure," wrote the Privy Council in 1625, "is that all judgements, decrees, and all important actions be given, determined and undertaken by the advice and voices of the greater part."[256] If these instructions were adhered to, the Governor would become no more than the presiding officer of the Council. To this position Harvey was determined never to be reduced. He would, at the very outset, show that he was master in Virginia, able to reward his friends, or to punish those that incurred his displeasure.

Dr. Pott could not believe that the proceedings against him were intended seriously, and, in defiance of the Governor's commands, left his plantation to come to Elizabeth City. "Upon which contempt," wrote Harvey, "I committed him close prisoner, attended with a guard." At the earnest request of several gentlemen, the Governor finally consented that he might return to his plantation, but only under bond. Pott, however, refused to avail himself of the kindness of his friends, and so was kept in confinement.[257] On the 9th of July he was brought to trial, found guilty upon two indictments, and his entire estate confiscated.[258]

That Pott was convicted by a jury of thirteen men, three of them Councillors, is by no means conclusive evidence of his guilt. The close connection between the executive and the courts at this time made it quite possible for the Governor to obtain from a jury whatever verdict he desired. In fact it became the custom for a new administration, as soon as it was installed in power, to take revenge upon its enemies by means of the courts.

Pott's guilt is made still more doubtful by the fact that execution of the sentence was suspended "untill his Majesties pleasure might be signified concerning him", while the Council united in giving their security for his safe keeping.[259] Harvey himself wrote asking the King's clemency. "For as much," he said, "as he is the only Physician in the Colonie, and skilled in the Epidemicall diseases of the planters, ... I am bound to entreat" your Majesty to pardon him.[260] It would seem quite inexplicable that Harvey should go to so much trouble to convict Dr. Pott, and then write immediately to England for a pardon, did not he himself give the clue to his conduct. "It will be," he said, "a means to bring the people to ... hold a better respect to the Governor than hitherto they have done."[261] Having shown the colonists that he could humble the strongest of them, he now sought to teach them that his intercession with the King could restore even the criminal to his former position.

When Dr. Pott was at Elizabeth City his wife was reported to be ill, but this did not deter her from making the long and dangerous voyage to England to appeal to the King "touching the wrong" done her husband.[262] Charles referred the matter to the Virginia commissioners, who gave her a hearing in the presence of Harvey's agent. Finding no justification for the proceedings against him, they wrote Harvey that for aught they could tell Pott had demeaned himself well and that there seemed to have been "some hard usage against him".[263] The sentence of confiscation seems never to have been carried out, but Pott was not restored to his seat in the Council.[264]

This arbitrary conduct did not succeed in intimidating the other Councillors. These men must have felt that the attack upon Dr. Pott was aimed partly at the dignity and power of the Council itself. If Harvey could thus ruin those that incurred his displeasure, the Councillors would lose all independence in their relations with him. Soon they were in open hostility to the Governor. Claiming that Harvey could do nothing without their consent, and that all important matters had to be determined "by the greater number of voyces at the Councell Table", they entered upon a policy of obstruction. It was in vain that the Governor declared that he was the King's substitute, that they were but his assistants, and that they were impeding his Majesty's business; they would yield to him only the position of first among equals. Early in 1631 Harvey was filling his letters to England with complaints of the "waywardness and oppositions of those of the Councell". "For instead of giving me assistance," he declared, "they stand Contesting and disputing my authoritie, avering that I can doe nothinge but what they shall advise me, and that my power extendeth noe further than a bare casting voice."[265] He had received, he claimed, a letter from the King, strengthening his commission and empowering him to "doe justice to all men, not sparinge those of the Councell", which he had often shown them, but this they would not heed. "I hope," he wrote, "you never held me to be ambitious or vainglorious, as that I should desire to live here as Governor to predominate, or prefer mine owne particular before the generall good." My position in Virginia is most miserable, "chiefly through the aversions of those from whom I expected assistance". He had often tried to bring peace and amity between them, but all to no purpose, for he was scorned for his efforts. He would be humbly thankful if his Majesty would be pleased to strengthen his commission, "that the place of Governor and the duty of Councellors may be knowne and distinguished".[266]

It is probable that the Councillors also wrote to England, to place before the King their grievances against Harvey, for before the end of the year letters came from the Privy Council, warning both sides to end the dispute and to proceed peacefully with the government of the colony. In compliance with these commands they drew up and signed a document promising "to swallow up & bury all forepart Complainte and accusations in a generall Reconciliation". They thanked their Lordships for advice that had persuaded their "alienated & distempered" minds to thoughts of love and peace and to the execution of public justice. The Council promised to give the Governor "all the service, honor & due Respect which belongs unto him as his Majesties Substitute".[267] It is quite evident, however, that this reconciliation, inspired by fear of the anger of the Privy Council, could not be permanent. Soon the Council, under the leadership of Captain Matthews, who had long since forfeited Harvey's favor, was as refractory as ever.

A new cause for complaint against the Governor arose with the founding of Maryland. In 1623 George Calvert, the first Lord Baltimore, had received a grant of the great southeastern promontory in Newfoundland, and had planted there a colony as an asylum for English Catholics. Baltimore himself had been detained in England for some years, but in 1627 came with his wife and children to take personal control of his little settlement. His experience with the severe Newfoundland winter persuaded him that it would be wise to transfer his colony to a more congenial clime. "From the middle of October," he wrote Charles I, "to the middle of May there is a sad face of winter upon all the land; both sea and land so frozen for the greater part of the time as they are not penetrable ... besides the air so intolerable cold as it is hardly to be endured.... I am determined to commit this place to fishermen that are able to encounter stormes and hard weather, and to remove myself with some forty persons to your Majesties dominion of Virginia; where, if your Majesty will please to grant me a precinct of land, with such privileges as the King your father ... was pleased to grant me here, I shall endeavour to the utmost of my power, to deserve it."[268]

In 1629 he sailed for Virginia, with his wife and children, and arrived at Jamestown the first day of October. His reception by Governor Pott and the Council was by no means cordial. The Virginians were loath either to receive a band of Catholics into their midst, or to concede to them a portion of the land that they held under the royal charters. Desiring to be rid of Baltimore as speedily as possible, they tendered him the oath of supremacy. This, of course, as a good Catholic he could not take, for it recognized the English sovereign as the supreme authority in all ecclesiastical matters. Baltimore proposed an alternative oath of allegiance, but the Governor and Council refused to accept it, and requested him to leave at once. Knowing that it was his intention to apply for a tract of land within their borders, the Virginians sent William Claiborne after him to London, to watch him and to thwart his designs.

Despite Claiborne's efforts a patent was granted Baltimore, making him lord proprietor of a province north of the Potomac river, which received the name of Maryland. Baltimore, with his own hand, drew up the charter, but in April, 1632, before it had passed under the Great Seal, he died. A few weeks later the patent was issued to his eldest son, Cecilius Calvert. The Virginians protested against this grant "within the Limits of the Colony", claiming that it would interfere with their Indian trade in the Chesapeake, and that the establishment of the Catholics so near their settlements would "give a generall disheartening of the Planters".[269] But their complaints availed nothing. Not only did Charles refuse to revoke the charter, but he wrote the Governor and Council commanding them to give Lord Baltimore every possible assistance in making his settlement. You must, he said, "suffer his servants and Planters to buy and transport such cattle and comodities to their Colonie, as you may conveniently spare ... and give them ... such lawful assistance as may conduce to both your safetyes".[270]

The second Lord Baltimore appointed his brother, Leonard Calvert, Governor of Maryland, and sent him with two vessels and over three hundred men to plant the new colony. In February, 1634, the expedition reached Point Comfort, where it stopped to secure from the Virginians the assistance that the King had promised should be given them.

They met with scant courtesy. The planters thought it a hard matter that they should be ordered to aid in the establishment of this new colony. They resented the encroachment upon their territories, they hated the newcomers because most of them were Catholics, they feared the loss of a part of their Indian trade, and they foresaw the growth of a dangerous rival in the culture of tobacco. Despite the King's letter they refused to help Calvert and his men. "Many are so averse," wrote Harvey, "that they crye and make it their familiar talke that they would rather knock their Cattell on the heades than sell them to Maryland."[271] The Governor, however, not daring to disobey his sovereign's commands, gave the visitors all the assistance in his power. "For their present accomodation," he said, "I sent unto them some Cowes of myne owne, and will do my best to procure more, or any thinge else they stand in need of."[272] This action secured for Harvey the praise of the Privy Council, but it made him more unpopular with his Council and the people of Virginia.

After a stay of several weeks at Point Comfort, Calvert sailed up the Chesapeake into the Potomac, and founded the town of Saint Mary's. This, however, was not the first settlement in Maryland. In 1631, William Claiborne, returning from England after his unsuccessful attempt to block the issuing of Baltimore's charter, had established a settlement upon Kent Island in the Chesapeake Bay. Here he had built dwellings and mills and store houses, and had laid out orchards and gardens. In thus founding a colony within Baltimore's territory he was sustained by the Council. When Calvert arrived in 1634 he sent word to Claiborne that he would not molest his settlement, but since Kent Island was a part of Maryland, he must hold it as a tenant of Lord Baltimore. Upon receipt of this message Claiborne laid the matter before his colleagues of the Virginia Council, and asked their commands. The answer of the Councillors shows that they considered the new patent an infringement upon their prior rights and therefore of no effect. They could see no reason, they told Claiborne, why they should render up the Isle of Kent any more than the other lands held under their patents. As it was their duty to maintain the rights and privileges of the colony, his settlement must continue under the government and laws of Virginia.

Despite the defiant attitude of the Virginians, it is probable that Calvert would have permitted the Kent Islanders to remain unmolested, had not a report spread abroad that Claiborne was endeavoring to persuade the Indians to attack Saint Mary's. A joint commission of Virginians and Marylanders declared the charge false, but suspicion and ill will had been aroused, and a conflict could not be avoided. In April, 1635, Governor Calvert, alleging that Claiborne was indulging in illicit trade, fell upon and captured one of his merchantmen. In great indignation the islanders fitted out a vessel, the Cockatrice, to scour the Chesapeake and make reprisals. She was attacked, however, by two pinnaces from Saint Mary's and, after a severe conflict in which several men were killed, was forced to surrender. A few weeks later Claiborne gained revenge by defeating the Marylanders in a fight at the mouth of the Potomac.

In these encounters the Kent Islanders had the sympathy of the Virginia planters. Excitement ran high in the colony, and there was danger that an expedition might be sent to Saint Mary's to overpower the intruders and banish them from the country. Resentment against Harvey, who still gave aid and encouragement to Maryland, became more bitter than ever. His espousal of the cause of the enemies of Virginia made the planters regard him as a traitor. In 1635 Samuel Matthews wrote to Sir John Wolstenholme, "The Inhabitants also understood with indignation that the Marylanders had taken Capt. Claibournes Pinnaces and men ... which action of theirs Sir John Harvey upheld contrary to his Majesties express commands."[273] The Councillors held many "meetings and consultations" to devise plans for the overthrow of the new colony, and an active correspondence was carried on with Baltimore's enemies in England in the vain hope that the charter might yet be revoked.[274]

Matters were now moving rapidly to a crisis. Harvey's administration became more and more unpopular. Sir John Wolstenholme, who kept in close touch with the colony, declared that the Governor's misconduct in his government was notorious at Court and in the city of London.[275] When, in the spring of 1635, he was rudely thrust out of his office, the complaints against him were so numerous that it became necessary to convene the Assembly to consider them.[276]

To what extent Harvey usurped the powers of the General Assembly is not clear, but it seems very probable that he frequently made use of proclamations to enforce his will upon the people.[277] It was quite proper and necessary for the Governor, when the houses were not in session, to issue ordinances of a temporary character, but this was a power susceptible of great abuse. And for the Governor to repeal statutes by proclamation would be fatal to the liberties of the people. That Harvey was guilty of this usurpation seems probable from the fact that a law was enacted declaring it the duty of the people to disregard all proclamations that conflicted with any act of Assembly.[278]

Also there is reason to believe that Harvey found ways of imposing illegal taxes upon the people. John Burk, in his History of Virginia, declares unreservedly that it was Harvey's purpose "to feed his avarice and rapacity, by assessing, levying, and holding the public revenue, without check or responsibility".[279]

In 1634 an event occurred which aroused the anger of the people, widened the breach between the Governor and the Council, and made it evident to all that Harvey would not hesitate upon occasion to disregard property rights and to break the laws of the colony. A certain Captain Young came to Virginia upon a commission for the King. Wishing to build two shallops while in the colony and having need of a ship's carpenter, Young, with the consent of Harvey, seized a skilled servant of one of the planters. This arbitrary procedure was in direct defiance of a statute of Assembly of March, 1624, that declared that "the Governor shall not withdraw the inhabitants from their private labors to any service of his own upon any colour whatsoever".[280]

Upon hearing of the incident Captain Samuel Matthews and other members of the Council came to Harvey to demand an explanation. The Governor replied that the man had been taken because Young had need of him "to prosecute with speed the King's service", and "that his Majesty had given him authority to make use of any persons he found there".[281] This answer did not satisfy the Councillors. Matthews declared "that if things were done on this fashion it would breed ill bloude in Virginia", and in anger "turning his back, with his truncheon lashed off the heads of certain high weeds that were growing there".[282] Harvey, wishing to appease the Councillors, said, "Come gentlemen, let us goe to supper & for the night leave this discourse", but their resentment was too great to be smoothed over, and with one accord rejecting his invitation, "they departed from the Governour in a very irreverent manner".[283]

Harvey, in his letters to the English government tried to convey the impression that he was uniformly patient with the Council, and courteous in all the disputes that were constantly arising. That he was not always so self restrained is shown by the fact that on one occasion, he became embroiled with one of the Councillors, Captain Stevens, and knocked out some of his teeth with a cudgel.[284] Samuel Matthews wrote that he had heard the Governor "in open court revile all the Councell and tell them they were to give their attendance as assistants only to advise with him". The Governor attempted, he declared, to usurp the whole power of the courts, without regard to the rights of the Councillors, "whereby justice was now done but soe farr as suited with his will, to the great losse of many mens estates and a generall feare in all".[285]

In 1634 the King once more made a proposal to the colonists for the purchase of their tobacco, and demanded their assent through the General Assembly. The Burgesses, who dreaded all contracts, drew up an answer which was "in effect a deniall of his Majesties proposition", and, in order to give the paper the character of a petition, they all signed it. This answer the Governor detained, fearing, he said, that the King "would not take well the matter thereof, and that they should make it a popular business, by subscribing a multitude of hands thereto, as thinking thereby to give it countenance".[286] The Governor's arbitrary action aroused great anger throughout the colony. Matthews wrote Sir John Wolstenholme, "The Consideration of the wrong done by the Governor to the whole Colony in detayning the foresaid letters to his Majesty did exceedingly perplex them whereby they were made sensible of the condition of the present Government."[287]

The crisis had now come. During the winter of 1634-35 the Councillors and other leading citizens were holding secret meetings to discuss the conduct of the Governor. Soon Dr. John Pott, whose private wrongs made him a leader in the popular discontent, was going from plantation to plantation, denouncing the Governor's conduct and inciting the people to resistance. Everywhere the angry planters gathered around him, and willingly subscribed to a petition for a redress of grievances. In April, 1635, Pott was holding one of these meetings in York, at the house of one William Warrens, when several friends of the Governor presented themselves for admission. "A servant meeting them told them they must not goe in ... whereupon they desisted and bended themselves to hearken to the discourse among them." In the confusion of sounds that came out of the house they could distinguish many angry speeches against Harvey and cries against his unjust and arbitrary government. When Pott read his petition, and told the assemblage that it had the support of some of the Councillors, they all rushed forward to sign their names.

When Harvey heard of these proceedings he was greatly enraged. Summoning the Council to meet without delay, he issued warrants for Dr. Pott and several others that had aided in circulating the petition. "After a few days Potts was brought up prisoner, having before his apprehending bin in the lower parts of the Country there also mustering his names at a meeting called for that purpose."[288] He does not seem to have feared the angry threats of the Governor, for when put in irons and brought before the Council, he readily consented to surrender the offending petition. At the same time he asserted "that if he had offended he did appeal to the King, for he was sure of noe justice from Sir John Harvey". When some of the other prisoners, in their hearing before the Council, asked the cause of their arrest, the Governor told them they should be informed at the gallows.

Shortly after this the Council was summoned to deliberate on the fate of the accused. The Governor, fearing that he might not secure conviction from a jury, "declared it necessary that Marshall law should be executed upon" them. When the Councillors refused to consent to any other than a legal trial, Harvey flew into a furious passion. For a while he paced back and forth in the room hardly able to contain himself. At length he sat down in his chair, and with a dark countenance commanded his colleagues to be seated. A long pause ensued, and then he announced that he had a question that they must answer each in his turn, without deliberation or consultation. "What," he enquired, "doe you think they deserve that have gone about to persuade the people from their obedience to his Majesties substitute?" "And I begin with you," he said, turning to Mr. Minifie. "I am but a young lawyer," Minifie replied, "and dare not uppon the suddain deliver my opinion." At this point Mr. Farrar began to complain of these strange proceedings, but Harvey commanded him to be silent. Captain Matthews also protested, and the other Councillors soon joined him in refusing to answer the Governor's question. "Then followed many bitter Languages from him till the sitting ended."

At the next meeting Harvey asked what the Council thought were the reasons that the petition had been circulated against him, and demanded to know whether they had any knowledge of the matter. Mr. Minifie replied that the chief grievance of the people was the detaining of the letter of the Assembly to the King. This answer seems to have aroused the Governor's fury, for, arising from his seat, and striking Mr. Minifie a resounding blow upon the shoulder, he cried, "Doe you say soe? I arrest you upon suspicion of treason to his Majesty." But Harvey found that he could not deal thus arbitrarily with the Councillors. Utie and Matthews rushed up and seizing him cried, "And we you upon suspicion of treason to his Majestie". Dr. Pott, who was present and had probably been waiting for this crisis, held up his hand as a signal to confederates without, "when straight about 40 musketiers ... which before that time lay hid, came ... running with their peeces presented" towards the house. "Stay here," commanded Pott, "until there be use of you."

In the meanwhile the Councillors crowded around Harvey. "Sir," said Matthews, "there is no harm intended you save only to acquaint you with the grievances of the Inhabitants and to that end I desire you to sit downe in your Chayre."

And there, with the enraged Governor seated before him, he poured out the recital of the people's wrongs. When he had finished there came an ominous pause. Finally Matthews spoke again. "Sir," he said, "the peoples fury is up against you and to appease it, is beyond our power, unlesse you please to goe for England, there to answer their complaints." But this Harvey refused to do. He had been made Governor of Virginia by the King, he said, and without his command he would not leave his charge.

But before many days the Governor changed his mind. He found himself deserted by all and entirely in the power of the Councillors. As sentinals were placed "in all wayes & passages so that noe man could travell or come from place to place", he could make no effort to raise troops. Dr. Pott and the other prisoners were set at liberty. A guard was placed around Harvey, ostensibly to protect him, but really with the purpose of restraining him. A letter came from Captain Purifee, a Councillor then in the "lower parts" of the colony, which spoke of designs of the people to bring Harvey to account for his many wrongs. In alarm the Governor consented to take the first ship for England. He endeavored, however, to name his successor, to induce Matthews, Pierce, and Minifie to go with him to England, and to secure a promise from the Council not to molest Maryland. But they would consent to none of these things.

In the meantime an Assembly had been called to consider the innumerable grievances against the Governor. When they met at Jamestown, Harvey sent them a letter, declaring the session illegal and ordering them to disperse to their homes. "Notwithstanding his threats ... the assembly proceeded according to their former intentions." Harvey then dispatched a letter to the Council, ordering them to send him his royal commission and instructions, but these documents had been intrusted to the keeping of Mr. Minifie with directions not to surrender them. The Council then turned themselves to the task of selecting a successor to Harvey. Their unanimous vote was given to Captain Francis West, the senior member of the board and formerly Governor. Feeling that since the expulsion of Harvey had been primarily a movement to protect the rights of the people, the Burgesses should have some voice in the election of the new Governor, they appealed to the Assembly for the ratification of their choice. West was popular in the colony, and "the people's suffrages" were cast for him as willingly as had been those of the Council. The Assembly then drew up resolutions setting forth the misconduct of Harvey and justifying their course in sending him back to England. These documents were entrusted to one Thomas Harwood, who was to deliver them to the King. Of what happened after Harvey's departure we have little record, but it is probable that the colonists revenged themselves upon the deposed Governor by confiscating all his ill gotten possessions.

It was decided that Dr. Pott should go to England to stand trial as his appeal to the King had taken the case beyond the jurisdiction of the Virginia courts. He and Harwood sailed upon the same vessel with Sir John. It is not hard to imagine with what dark looks or angry words Pott and Harvey greeted each other during their long voyage across the Atlantic. Doubtless Harwood and Pott held many a consultation upon what steps should be taken when they reached England to secure a favorable hearing for the colony, and to frustrate Harvey's plans for revenge. It was Harwood's intention to hasten to London, in order to forestall the Governor and "to make friends and the case good against him, before he could come".[289] But Sir John was too quick for him. Hardly had the ship touched the dock at Plymouth, than he was off to see the mayor of the city. This officer, upon hearing of the "late mutiny and rebellion" in Virginia, put Pott under arrest, "as a principal author and agent thereof", and seized all the papers and letters that had been entrusted to Harwood. Having thus gotten his hands upon the important documents, Harvey proceeded to London to complain of the indignities shown him and to ask for the punishment of his enemies.

When Charles I learned that the Virginians had deposed his Governor and sent him back to England, he was surprised and angered. It was, he said, an assumption of regal power to oust thus unceremoniously one of his officers, and he was resolved to send Harvey back, if for one day only. And should the Governor acquit himself of the charges against him, he was to be inflicted upon the colony even longer than had at first been intended. The case came before the Privy Council in December 1635.[290] In the charges that were made against Harvey nothing was said of the illegal and arbitrary measures that had caused the people to depose him. All reference was omitted to the detaining of the Assembly's letter, to the support given Maryland, to the abuse of the courts, to illegal taxes and proclamations. Possibly the agents of the Virginians felt that such accusations as these would have no weight with the ministers of a monarch so little in sympathy with liberal government, so they trumped up other charges to sustain their cause. Despite the assertion of Harwood that Harvey "had so carryed himself in Virginia, that if ever hee retourned back thither hee would be pistolled or Shott", he was acquitted and restored to his office. West, Utie, Matthews, Minifie and Pierce, whom Harvey designated as the "chief actors in the munity", were ordered to come to England, there to answer before the Star Chamber the charge of treason.[291]

As the time approached for him to return to Virginia, Harvey began to show symptoms of nervousness. Feeling possibly that the threats of "pistolling" were not to be taken lightly, he requested the King to furnish him a royal vessel in which to make the journey. The appearance of one of the King's own ships in the James, he thought, would "much abate the bouldness of the offenders". This request was granted, and, after some months of delay, Harvey set forth proudly in the Black George. But Charles had not cared to send a really serviceable vessel to Virginia, and for a while it seemed that the Black George would relieve the colonists of their troubles by taking Sir John to the bottom. The vessel, it would appear, sprang a leak before it had been many hours at sea, and was forced to return to port. The Governor then decided that a merchant vessel would suffice for his purposes, and set sail again, upon a ship of the Isle of Wight.

He reached Point Comfort in January, 1637. Not wishing to wait until his ship reached Jamestown before asserting his authority, he landed at once and established a temporary capital at Elizabeth City. He had received instructions to remove from the Council all the members that had taken part in the "thrusting out", and he brought with him commissions for several new members. Orders were issued immediately for this reconstructed Council to convene in the church at Elizabeth City. There, after the oath had been administered, he published a proclamation of pardon to all persons implicated in the "mutiny", from which, however, West, Matthews, and the other leaders were excluded. The Governor then proceeded to displace all officials whom he considered hostile to his administration. "Before I removed from Elizabeth City," he wrote, "I appointed Commissioners and sheriffs for the lower counties, and for the plantation of Accomack, on the other side of the Bay."

The "thrusting out" did not cause Harvey to become more prudent in the administration of the government. His restoration, which Charles had meant as a vindication of the royal authority, the Governor seems to have interpreted as a license for greater tyranny. If the accusations of his enemies may be credited, he went to the greatest extremes in oppressing the people and in defying their laws. With the Council now completely under his control, he was master of the courts, and inflicted many great wrongs by means of "arbitrary and illegal proceedings in judgment". Confiscations and other "most cruel oppressions", it was declared, were used to punish all that showed themselves hostile to his government. He and his officers did not scruple to impose many unjust fines, which they converted "to their own private use", nor to strike terror into the people with whippings and "cutting of ears".[292]

Nor did Sir John neglect to take revenge upon those old enemies that had so defied and humiliated him. West, Utie, Matthews and Pierce were sent at once to England, and their goods, cattle and servants seized. Beyond doubt it was against Samuel Matthews that Harvey bore the most bitter animosity, and it was his estate that suffered most. The Governor had been heard to say that if one "stood, tother should fall, and if hee swomme, the other should sinke". Matthews was one of the wealthiest men of the colony, his property consisting largely of cattle, but Sir John now swore that he would not leave him "worth a cow taile". At the next session of the Quarter Court, suit was entered against Matthews by one John Woodall, for the recovery of certain cattle. The learned judges, upon investigation, found that in the year 1622 Matthews held two cows rightfully belonging to Woodall. It was their opinion that the increase of these cows "unto the year 1628 ... might amount unto the number of fifteen". "Computing the increase of the said fifteen head from the year 1628 to the time of their inquiry, they did return the number of fiftye head to the said Woodall."[293]

When Matthews heard that his estate had been seized and "havoc made thereof", he entered complaint with the Privy Council and secured an order requiring Harvey to restore all to his agents in Virginia. But the Governor was most reluctant to give up his revenge upon his old enemy. For seven months he put off the agents and at last told them that he had received new orders from the Privy Council, expressing satisfaction with what had been done and bidding him proceed.[294] Thereupon Secretary Kemp and other friends of the Governor entered Matthews' house, broke open the doors of several chambers, ransacked all his trunks and chests, examined his papers, and carried away a part of his goods and eight of his servants.[295] Soon after, however, Harvey received positive commands from the Privy Council to make an immediate restoration of all that had been taken. In January, 1639, he wrote that he had obeyed their Lordships exactly, by calling a court and turning over to Matthews' agents many of his belongings.[296] But Harvey denied that he had ever appropriated the estate to his own use, and claimed that he had been misrepresented by "the Cunning texture of Captain Mathews, his complaint".[297]