Virginia Under the Stuarts

1607-1688

Virginia Under the Stuarts

1607-1688

By

THOMAS J. WERTENBAKER

_New York_RUSSELL & RUSSELL1959

COPYRIGHT 1914 BY PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESSCOPYRIGHT 1958, 1959 BY THOMAS J. WERTENBAKER

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER 39-11229

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

_Dedicated

to my mother_

PREFACE

It was in May, 1910, that the author came to Princeton for an interviewwith President Woodrow Wilson concerning an appointment as Instructor inthe Department of History, Politics, and Economics. He was elated whenPresident Wilson engaged him, though not happy over the $1, 000 salary. Yet with this sum to fall back on he borrowed $200, and took a trip toEngland. 

In London he went treasure hunting, the treasure of old documentsrelating to the history of colonial Virginia. He sought out the BritishPublic Record Office, off Chauncery Lane, and was soon immersed in themass of letters, official reports, journal of the Assembly, and otherpapers. 

The author was prepared to find valuable historical materials in London, for he had spent the summer of 1908 studying the William Noel Sainsburyand the McDonald abstracts and transcripts of the documents in theRecord Office deposited in the Virginia State Library. But he wasstaggered at the extent of the manuscript collection on Virginia historyalone. Among the scores of volumes are thirty-two devoted to thecorrespondence of the Board of Trade, seventeen to the correspondence ofthe Secretary of State, twenty-two to entry books, letters, commissions, warrants, etc. 

When the summer waned he left for America taking with him many pages ofclosely written notes. But what he had learned served to whet hisappetite for more, so that in 1912 and again in 1914 he was back, goingover volume after volume, searching eagerly for fear some importantpoint would escape him. The mass of abstracts and notes which heaccumulated formed the basis of this volume. 

In fact, any political history of Virginia in the colonial period mustbe based on the documents in the Public Record Office, since most ofthe copies left in Virginia have been lost or destroyed. Today, however, colonial historians no longer have to visit London to consult them, since transcripts have been made and deposited in the Library ofCongress. 

In recent years the American Council of Learned Societies has madeavailable other collections of manuscripts which have thrown new lighton early Virginia history. The most important of these are the CoventryPapers at Longleat, the residence of the Marquess of Bath. Many of theletters deal with Bacon's Rebellion, and include the correspondencebetween Berkeley and Bacon, accounts of the Indian war, complaints ofthe misgovernment of Berkeley, the account of the evacuation ofJamestown written by Berkeley, accounts of Bacon's death and thecollapse of the rebellion. 

This new material adds new weight to the conclusions reached in thisbook--that the causes of Bacon's Rebellion were deep-seated, that itgrew out of the discontent caused by the Navigation Acts, the heavytaxes, the corrupting of the Assembly by Berkeley, and the misuse of thecourts. It in no way shakes the conviction expressed by Thomas Mathews, who himself was involved in the rebellion, that the Indian war was theexcuse for it rather than the cause. 

Yet certain recent historians have contended that this violent uprisingwas not a protest against injustice and misgovernment. One has gone sofar as to call it merely a quarrel between a rash young man and an oldfool. We could with equal justice call the American Revolution just aquarrel between George Washington and George III. Mathews tells us thatit was the general opinion in Virginia at the time that it was not Baconwho was chiefly responsible for the uprising, but Thomas Lawrence. Bacon"was too young, too much a stranger there, and of a disposition tooprecipitate to manage things to that length they were carried, " hepointed out, "had not thoughtful Mr. Lawrence been at the bottom. "

But neither Lawrence's hatred of Berkeley, nor Bacon's rashness, norBerkeley's folly, nor the Indian war suffice to explain the rebellion. When the news of the uprising reached Charles II, he thought it pastbelief that "so considerable body of men, without the least grievanceor oppression, should rise up in arms and overthrow the government. " Hewas quite right. Had there been no grievances and oppression there wouldhave been no uprising. 

That Bacon's Rebellion is explained in part by poverty and suffering isclear. Philip Ludwell said that the rebel army was composed of men"whose condition ... Was such that a change could not make worse. " Themen who fought so valiantly against the Indians and Berkeley's forces, braved the King's anger, faced death on the gallows were called incontempt "the bases of the people, " "the rabble, " the "scum of thepeople, " "idle and poor people, " "rag, tag, and bobtail. " The Councilreported that there were "hardly two amongst them" who owned estates, orwere persons of reputation. Berkeley complained that his was a miserabletask to govern a people "where six parts of seven at least are poor, indebted, discontented, and armed. "

So when Bacon sent out his agents to every part of Virginia to denouncethe governor for not permitting an election for a new Assembly, accusinghim of misgovernment, and complaining of the heavy and unequal taxes, they "infested the whole country. " Berkeley stated that the contaigionspread "like a train of powder. " Never before was there "so great amadness as this base people are generally seized with. " When, in panic, he dissolved the Long Assembly and called for a new election, all excepteight of those chosen were pro-Bacon men. 

One cannot but ask why. Surely the voters would not have sided with thisyoung man who had been in Virginia but a few months had he not taken thelead in protesting against the many wrongs to which they had beensubjected. And had those who rushed to arms, risking their property, ifnot their necks, done so merely because of a quarrel between Bacon andBerkeley, they would have been more than base, they would have beenfools. 

What these wrongs were Bacon and his followers tell us in what theycalled the Declaration of the People. Berkeley and his favorites theydenounced "for having upon specious pretences of public works raisedgreat unjust taxes upon the commonalty for the advancement of privatefavorites and other sinister ends... ; for having abused and renderedcontemptible the magistrates of justice, by advancing to places ofjudicature scandalous and ignorant favorites.... "

In a burning manifesto, denouncing the injustice and corruption of theruling group, Bacon said: "We appeal to the country itself what and ofwhat nature their oppressions have been, and by what cabal and mysterythe design of many of those whom we call great men have been transactedand carried on.... See what sponges have sucked up the public wealth andwhether it hath not been privately contrived away by unworthy favorites, by vile juggling parasites, whose tottering fortunes have been repairedand supported by the charge. " The constant breach of laws, unjustprosecutions, excuses, and evasions, proved that the men in power wereconducting public affairs "as if it were but to play a booty, game, ordivide a spoil. "

In view of these statements recent attempts to prove that Bacon was notrue patriot and not interested in righting the people's wrongs seemstrange indeed. It is hardly credible that he was merely pretending whenhe wrote these fiery words, that he posed as the champion of the peopleto further his personal ambitions, that he trumped up charges againstBerkeley because of the disagreement over the Indian war. 

But, it has been said, Bacon showed no interest in the passage of thereform laws enacted by the Assembly of June 1676, refused to have themread before his army, and complained that the Burgesses had not lived upto his expectations. Had he been really interested in reform, would henot have gloried in these laws and have praised the Assembly for passingthem?

Any such conclusion falls flat when we consider the conditions underwhich this session was held. The Burgesses had hardly taken their seatswhen Bacon, who had been elected as one of the members to representHenrico County, was captured. Though Berkeley pardoned him and restoredhim to his seat in the Council, he was a virtual prisoner during thefirst few days of the session. So he looked on with growing resentmentas the governor overawed the Burgesses and reform measures were setaside. 

Then, suddenly, the entire situation changed. Bacon got permission toreturn to Henrico because his wife was ill. Once there he placed himselfat the head of his army of enraged frontiersmen and marched rapidly onJamestown. When this news reached the little capital, the governor, hisCouncil, and the Burgesses were panic stricken. Since resistance wasuseless, every thought was of appeasement. A series of reform laws, which struck at the very roots of Berkeley's system of rule throughplacemen, was introduced in the Assembly, rushed through, and signed bythe governor. 

Not knowing what had happened during his absence, on his arrival Baconmounted the steps to the Long Room of the State House where the Assemblymet, to urge them to right the people's wrongs. Thomas Mathews, who waspresent, says that "he pressed hard, nigh an hour's harangue onpreserving our lives from the Indians, inspecting the revenues, theexorbitant taxes, and redressing the grievances and calamities of thatdeplorable country. " It was only when he had finished that someone spokeup to tell him that "they had already redressed their grievances. " Tocontend that Bacon was not interested in laws which he himself had sopassionately urged and which had obviously been passed to conciliate himand his followers is merely to attempt to disprove the obvious. 

Philip A. Bruce, in a statement published in 1893, in the _VirginiaMagazine of History and Biography_, points out that Bacon's Rebellion"preceded the American Revolution by a century, an event which itresembled in its spirit, if not in its causes and results. Bacon isknown in history as the Rebel, but the fuller information which we havenow as to the motives of his conduct shows that he can with more justicebe described as Bacon the Patriot. He headed a powerful popular movementin which the sovereignty of the people was for the first time reliedupon on American soil by a great leader as the justification of hisacts. The spirit breathing through the Declaration of the People is thespirit of the Declaration of Independence. " Nothing which has beenbrought out in the sixty-four years since Dr. Bruce wrote these wordshas shaken or can shake their truth. Bacon was the torchbearer of theRevolution. 

Attempts to defend Sir John Harvey are as unconvincing as those tobelittle Bacon. Certainly the Sackville Papers, recently made availableto historians, contain nothing to warrant any change in the conclusion, long accepted by Virginia historians, that Harvey's expulsion was richlydeserved. 

Charles Campbell, in his _History of the Colony and Ancient Dominion ofVirginia_, thus describes Harvey's administration: "He was extortionate, proud, unjust, and arbitrary; he issued proclamations in derogation ofthe legislative powers of the Assembly; assessed, levied, held, anddisbursed the colonial revenue without check or responsibility;transplanted into Virginia exotic English statutes; multiplied penaltiesand exactions and appropriated fines to his own use; he added thedecrees of the court of high commission of England to the ecclesiasticalconstitutions of Virginia. " Could we have a more perfect description ofa despot?

It remains to point out a few errors which crept into the originalmanuscript. On page 21 "the falls of the Appomattox" should be "thefirst bend of the Appomattox"; on page 75 "John Pott" should be "FrancisPott"; on page 82 "Matthew Kemp" should be "Richard Kemp". 

_Princeton, New Jersey_ Thomas J. Wertenbaker_August, 1957_

CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN NOTES xi

CHAPTER I--The Founding of Virginia 1

CHAPTER II--The Establishment of Representative Government 29

CHAPTER III--The Expulsion of Sir John Harvey 60

CHAPTER IV--Governor Berkeley and the Commonwealth 85

CHAPTER V--The Causes of Bacon's Rebellion 115

CHAPTER VI--Bacon's Rebellion 146

CHAPTER VII--The Period of Confusion 195

CHAPTER VIII--The Critical Period 225

INDEX 261

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN NOTES

Arb. Smith, _Works of Captain John Smith_, Edward Arber. Scobell, _Scobell's Collection of Acts and Ordinances of General Use_. F. R. , _The First Republic in America_, Alexander Brown. Gen. , _The Genesis of the United States_, Alexander Brown. Force, _Tracts and Other Papers Relating to the Colonies in North America_, Peter Force. Nar. Of Va. , _Narratives of Early Virginia_, Lyon G. Tyler. Va. Car. , _Virginia Carolorum_, E. D. Neill. Hen. , _The Statutes at Large_, W. W. Hening. Proceedings of Va. Co. , _Proceedings of the Virginia Company of London_. Cradle of Rep. , _The Cradle of the Republic_, Lyon G. Tyler. Bruce, Inst. Hist. , _Institutional History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century_, P. A. Bruce. Bruce, EC. Hist. , _Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century_, P. A. Bruce. Miller, _The Legislature of the Province of Virginia_, E. I. Miller. P. R. O. , British Public Record Office. Stith, _History of Virginia_, William Stith. Osg. , _American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century_, H. L. Osgood. Neill, Va. Co. , _History of the Virginia Company of London_, E. D. Neill. Fiske, Old Va. , _Old Virginia and her Neighbors_, John Fiske. Burk, _History of Virginia_, John Burk. Va. Hist. Reg. , _Virginia Historical Register_. Beverley, _History of Virginia_, Robert Beverley. Va. Mag. , _Virginia Magazine of History and Biography_. Wise, _The Early History of the Eastern Shore of Virginia_, J. C. Wise. Southern Lit. Mess. , _Southern Literary Messenger_. Campbell, _History of Virginia_, Charles Campbell. McD. , _McDonald Papers_, Virginia State Library. Jour. H. Of B. , _Journals of the House of Burgesses_. Manuscript copies in the Virginia State Library. Justice in Virginia, _Justice in Colonial Virginia_, O. P. Chitwood. Sains. , _Sainsbury Papers_, Virginia State Library. Mass. S. IV. , _Massachusetts Historical Collections, Series IV. _T. M. , _The Beginning, Progress and Conclusion of Bacon's Rebellion_. W. & M. Q. , _William and Mary Quarterly_. Inds' Pros. , _Indians' Proceedings_. Bac's Pros. , _Bacon's Proceedings_. Ing's Pros. , _Ingram's Proceedings_. Cotton, _Our Late Troubles in Virginia_, Mrs. A. Cotton. Va. Vet. , _Virginia Vetusta_, E. D. Neill. 

CHAPTER I

THE FOUNDING OF VIRGINIA

In December, 1606, three little vessels--the _Sarah Constant_, the_Discovery_ and the _Goodspeed_--set sail from England under CaptainChristopher Newport, for the distant shores of Virginia. [1] After a longand dangerous voyage across the Atlantic the fleet, on the sixth of May, 1607, entered the Chesapeake Bay. [2] The adventurers spent several daysexploring this great body of water, landing parties to investigate thenature of the shores, and to visit the Indian tribes that inhabitedthem. They were delighted with the "faire meddowes, ... Full of flowersof divers kinds and colours", and with the "goodly tall trees" of theforests with "Fresh-waters running" between, but they had instructionsnot to settle near the coast, lest they should fall victims to theSpaniards. [3] So they entered the broad mouth of a river which theycalled the James, and made their way cautiously up into the country. Onthe twenty-third of May they found a peninsula in the river, whichafforded a convenient landing place and was easy to defend, both fromthe Indians and the Spaniards. This place they called Jamestown. Landingtheir men, they set immediately to work building houses and erectingfortifications. Thus did the English begin their first permanentsettlement in the New World. 

The bold band of adventurers that came thus hopefully into thisbeautiful and smiling country little realized that before them lay onlydangers and misfortunes. Could they have foreseen the terrible obstaclesto founding a colony in this land, they would have hesitated beforeentering upon the enterprise. 

Four things conspired to bring misfortune and disaster upon Virginia. The form of government prescribed by the King and the Company wasunsuited to the infant settlement, and its defects kept the colonistsfor many months in turmoil and disorder. The Indians proved a constantsource of danger, for they were tireless in cutting off stragglers, ambushing small parties and in destroying the crops of the white men. Famines came at frequent intervals to weaken the colonists and add totheir misfortunes. But by far the most terrible scourge was the"sicknesse" that swept over Virginia year after year, leaving in itswake horrible suffering and devastation. 

The charter that James I granted to the London Company served as aconstitution for Virginia, for it prescribed the form of government andmade regulations that none could disregard. It provided for a Council, resident in England, to which was assigned the management of the colonyand the supervision of its government. [4] This body was appointed by theKing and was strictly answerable to him through the Privy Council forits every act. [5] The immediate government of the colony was entrustedto a local Council, selected by the Council in England, and responsibleto it. The Virginia Council exercised extraordinary powers, assuming alladministrative, legislative and judicial functions, and being in no wayrestrained by the wishes or demands of their fellow colonists. [6]Although they were restricted by the charter and by the instructions ofthe Council in England, the isolation of the settlement and theturbulent spirit of the adventurers made them reckless in enforcingtheir own will upon the colonists. More than once they were guilty ofunpardonable harshness and cruelty. 

The charter did not provide for the appointment of a Governor. Thenominal leadership of the colony was entrusted to a President, chosen bythe local Council from among its members. This officer had no dutydistinct from that of the Councillors, other than to preside at theirmeetings and to cast a double or deciding vote in case of deadlock. [7]He was to serve but one year and if at any time his administrationproved unsatisfactory to his colleagues, they could, by a majority vote, depose him. In like manner, any Councillor that had become obnoxiouscould be expelled without specific charges and without trial. [8] Theseunwise provisions led naturally to disorder and strife, and added muchto the misfortunes of the infant colony. [9]

The selections for the Council were made some days before the fleetsailed, but the Company, fearing a conflict of authority during thevoyage, thought it best that they should be kept secret until thecolonists had reached Virginia. The names of the appointees wereembodied in "several instruments" which were entrusted to the commandersof the vessels, with instructions that they should be opened withintwenty-four hours after they had arrived off the coast of America. [10]Upon entering the Chesapeake Bay the adventurers read the papers, andfound that Christopher Newport, the commander of the fleet, EdwardWingfield, Bartholomew Gosnold, George Kendall, John Ratcliffe, JohnMartin and John Smith were those that had been chosen. [11]

After the landing the Council met, were sworn to office, and thenelected Wingfield President. [12] Captain John Smith, who had beenaccused of mutiny during the voyage, was not allowed to take his seat, and was kept under restraint until the twentieth of June. [13]

Hardly had the founding of Jamestown been effected when the weakness ofthe constitution became apparent. The meetings of the Council werediscordant and stormy. The members were utterly unable to act withvigor and determination, or to agree upon any settled course of actionin establishing the little colony. The President, because of thelimitation of his powers, could do nothing to restore harmony or toenforce his own wishes and policies. Confusion and mismanagementresulted. In less than a month after the first landing the inefficiencyof the government had created such discontent that the colonistspetitioned the Council for redress. [14] It was only the tact andmoderation of Captain Newport that appeased the anger of the settlersand persuaded them to submit to the decrees of the governing body. [15]

On the second of July, Newport, with his little fleet, sailed forEngland, leaving the ill-fated colonists to their own resources. [16] Nosooner had he gone than the spirit of discord reappeared. The quarrelswithin the Council became more violent than ever, and soon resulted inthe complete disruption of that body. Captain Kendall, who seems to havebeen active in fomenting ill feeling among his colleagues, was the firstto be expelled. Upon the charge of exciting discord he was deprived ofhis seat and committed to prison. [17]

As Captain John Smith had, before the departure of Newport, been allowedto take his place in the Council, there were now five members of thatbody. The number was soon reduced to four by the death of CaptainGosnold, who fell a victim to the sickness. [18] One would imagine thatthe Council, thus depleted, would have succeeded in governing the colonyin peace, but the settlers were given no respite from their wranglingand disputes. In September, Ratcliffe, Smith and Martin entered into anagreement to depose President Wingfield and to oust him from theCouncil. Before they proceeded against him, however, they pledged eachother that the expulsions should then stop, and that no one of the threeshould be attacked by the other two. 

The Councillors then appeared before Wingfield's tent with a warrant, "subscribed under their handes, to depose the President; sayeing theythought him very unworthy to be eyther President or of the Councell, andtherefore discharged him of both". [19] They accused him ofmisappropriating funds, of improper division of the public stores, ofbeing an atheist, of plotting to desert Virginia in the pinnace left atJamestown by Captain Newport, of combining with the Spaniards for thedestruction of the colony. Wingfield, when he returned to England, madea vigorous defense of his conduct, but it is now impossible to determinewhether or not he was justly accused. After his expulsion from office, he was summoned before the court by the remnant of the Council to answerthese numerous charges. It might have gone hard with him, had he notdemanded a hearing before the King. As his enemies feared to deny himthis privilege, they closed the court, and committed him to prison onboard the pinnace, where he was kept until means were at hand to sendhim to England. [20]

The removal of the President did not bring peace to the colony. If wemay believe the testimony of Wingfield, the triumvirate that now heldsway ruled the settlers with a harsh and odious tyranny. "Wear, " hesays, "this whipping, lawing, beating, and hanging, in Virginia, knownin England, I fear it would drive many well affected myndes from thishonourable action. "[21] One day Ratcliffe, who had been chosen tosucceed Wingfield, became embroiled with James Read, the smith. Readforgot the respect due his superior, and struck the new President. Soheinous a crime was this affront to the dignity of the chief officer ofthe infant colony, that the smith was brought to trial, convicted andsentenced to be hanged. But he saved his life, upon the very eve of hisexecution, by revealing to Ratcliffe a plot against the government, headed, he declared, by Captain Kendall. [22] Immediately Kendall, whohad long been an object of suspicion, was tried for mutiny, found guiltyand executed. [23]

In December, 1607, when the colony was suffering severely for the wantof food, Captain Smith led an expedition into the territory of theChickahominies in quest of corn. [24] During his absence the President, despite the protests of Martin, admitted Captain Gabriel Archer to theCouncil. [25] Archer, who seems to have been a bitter enemy of Smith, hadno sooner attained this place of power, than he set to work to ruin theadventurous captain. "Being settled in his authority", he "sought tocall Master Smythes lief in question, and ... Indicted him upon aChapter in Leviticus for the death" of two men under his charge, thathad been murdered by the Indians. He was to have had his trial upon thevery day of his return from his thrilling adventures with the savages. His conviction and immediate execution would doubtless have resulted, had not the proceedings against him been interrupted by the arrival ofthe First Supply from England. [26] Captain Newport, whose influenceseems always to have been exerted in favor of moderation and harmony, persuaded the Council to drop the charges against Smith, to release himfrom restraint, and to restore him to his seat in the Council. 

Of extraordinary interest is the assertion of Wingfield that the arrivalof the fleet "prevented a Parliament, which ye newe Counsailour (Archer)intended thear to summon". [27] It is not surprising that the settlers, disgusted as they were with the violence and harshness of their rulers, should have wished to share in the government. But we cannot but wonderat their boldness in attempting to set aside the constitution given themby the King and the Company. Had they succeeded in establishing directgovernment by the people, it could not be supposed that James would havepermitted it to continue. But the attempt is very significant, asindicating that they were desirous, even at this early date, of having avoice in the management of affairs. 

Archer and the unfortunate Wingfield sailed with the fleet when CaptainNewport returned to England, and a few months later Martin followedthem. [28] Since, with the First Supply had come a new Councillor, Matthew Scrivener, the governing body once more numbered three. 

During the summer of 1608 Smith was frequently away, chasing the phantomof the passage to the South Sea, but this did not prevent the usualquarrels. If we may believe the account in Smith's history, Ratcliffewas deposed from the Presidency because of "pride and unreasonableneedlesse cruelty" and for wasting the public stores. [29] It is probablethat for some weeks Scrivener conducted the government, while Ratcliffewas kept a prisoner. [30] In September, Captain Smith, returning from avoyage in the Chesapeake Bay, "received the letters patents, and tookupon him the place of president". [31]

Smith was now supreme in the government, for the Council was reduced totwo, and his casting vote made his will superior to that of Scrivener. But he was not long to enjoy this power. In October, 1608, CaptainNewport, arriving with the Second Supply, brought with him two "antientsouldiers and valient gentlemen"--Richard Waldo and Peter Wynne--bothbearing commissions as Councillors. [32] Soon afterward Ratcliffe wasrestored to his seat. The Council, thus recruited, resumed its controlover the colony, "so that although Smith was President yet the Councilhad the authority, and ruled it as they listed". [33]

Two months later, when Newport sailed again, Ratcliffe returned toEngland. Smith wrote the English Council, "Captaine Ratcliffe is ... Apoore counterfeited Imposture. I have sent you him home, least thecompany should cut his throat. "[34] The next spring Waldo and Scrivener, with nine others, were caught in a small boat upon the James by aviolent gale, and were drowned. [35] As Captain Wynne soon succumbed tothe sickness, Smith became the sole surviving Councillor. [36] During thesummer of 1609 the colony was governed, not, as the King and Company haddesigned, by a Council, but by the will of this one man. 

In the meanwhile the London Company was becoming aware that a mistakehad been made in entrusting the government of the colony to a body ofCouncillors. The reports of Wingfield, Archer, Newport and Ratcliffemade it evident that the lack of harmony in the Council had been aserious hindrance to the success of the enterprise. [37] Feeling, therefore, that this "error in the equality of the governors ... Had alittle shaken so tender a body", the managers held an especial meetingto effect a change. [38] A new charter was drawn up by Sir Edwin Sandys, approved by the Company and assented to by the King. 

In this document James relinquished into the hands of the Company notonly the direct management of the colony, but the power of drawing up anew and more satisfactory system of government. Acting under thisauthority, Sandys and his associates abolished the Council and entrustedthe entire control of the colony to an all-powerful Governor. Thedisorder that had so impeded the success of the enterprise was to becrushed under the iron hand of a despot. Doubtless Sandys would haveattempted to establish representative government at once in Virginia, had conditions favored so radical a change. But the colony was too youngand feeble, and James could hardly be expected to give his consent. Yetthe many liberal members of the Company were deeply interested inVirginia and were determined, should a favorable opportunity occur, toestablish there an Assembly similar in character to the EnglishParliament. 

The granting of the new charter aroused extraordinary interest in thefortunes of the colony throughout England and stimulated the Company torenewed efforts. [39] Thousands of pounds were contributed to defray theexpenses of another expedition, and hundreds of persons responded to theappeals for settlers. The first Governor was a man of ability anddistinction--Thomas Lord De la Warr. Sir Thomas Gates was madeLieutenant-Governor, George Summers, Admiral, and Captain Newport, Vice-Admiral. [40] De la Warr found it impossible to leave at once toassume control of his government, but the other officers, with ninevessels and no less than five hundred colonists, sailed in June, 1609. [41] Unfortunately, in crossing the Gulf of Bahama, the fleetencountered a terrific storm, which scattered the vessels in alldirections. When the tempest abated, several of the ships reunited andcontinued on their way to Jamestown, but the _Sea Adventure_, whichcarried Gates, Summers and Newport, was wrecked upon an island in theBermudas. [42] As a result of this misfortune none of the leaders of theexpedition reached Virginia until May, 1610, ten months later. 

The other vessels, with most of the settlers, arrived at Jamestown inAugust, 1609. The newcomers told Captain Smith of the Company's new planof government, and requested him to relinquish the old commission. Thisthe President refused to do. All the official papers relating to thechange had been aboard the _Sea Adventure_, and he would not resignuntil he had seen them. [43] A long and heated controversy followed, butin the end Smith gained his point. [44] It was agreed that until thearrival of the _Sea Adventure_ the colony should remain under the oldcharter, and that Smith should continue to act as President until thetwentieth of September, when he was to relinquish the government toCaptain Francis West. [45]

This arrangement did not restore harmony. West felt aggrieved thatCaptain Smith should insist upon continuing the old order of affairsdespite the known wishes of the Company, and took occasion to ignore andslight his authority. This so angered the President that he is said tohave plotted with the Indians to surprise and cut off a party of menthat his rival was leading up the James. Before this could beaccomplished, however, Smith met with a serious accident, which led tohis immediate overthrow. "Sleeping in his Boate ... Accidentallie, onefired his powder-bag, which tore the flesh ... In a most pittifullmanner; but to quench the tormenting fire ... He leaped over-board intothe deepe river, where ever they could recover him he was neeredrowned. "[46] Three former Councillors--Ratcliffe, Archer andMartin--who had come over with the new fleet, availed themselves of thehelplessness of their old foe to rid the colony of his presence. Claiming, with some justice, that if Smith could retain his office underthe old charter, they were by the same power still members of theCouncil, they held a meeting, deposed him from the Presidency and senthim back to England. [47] Having thus disposed of the troublesomeCaptain, they looked about them for some man suitable to head the colonyuntil the arrival of Gates. Neglecting the claims of West, whom theyprobably considered too inexperienced for the place, they selectedCaptain George Percy. [48]

In the meanwhile, the crew and passengers of the _Sea Adventure_ werestranded in the Bermudas, upon what was called Devil's Island. Some oftheir number were daring enough to venture out into the ocean in thelongboat, in an attempt to reach the colony, but they must haveperished, for they were never heard from again. [49] The rest of thecompany, seeing no other way of escape, built two pinnaces and, in May, 1610, sailed away in them for Jamestown. A few days later, upon theirarrival in Virginia, Gates received the old patent and the seal from thePresident and the period of the first royal government in Virginia cameto an end. [50]

But the "faction breeding" government by the Council was by no means theonly cause of trouble. Far more disastrous was the "sicknesse". When thefirst expedition sailed for Virginia, the Council in England, solicitousfor the welfare of the emigrants, commanded them to avoid, in the choiceof a site for their town, all "low and moist places". [51] Well would ithave been for the colonists had they obeyed these instructions. CaptainSmith says there was in fact opposition on the part of some of theleaders to the selection of the Jamestown peninsula, and it was amplyjustified by the event. The place was low and marshy and extremelyunhealthful. [52] In the summer months great swarms of mosquitoes arosefrom the stagnant pools of water to attack the immigrants with a stingmore deadly than that of the Indian arrow or the Spanish musket ball. 

Scarcely three months had elapsed from the first landing when sicknessand death made their appearance. The settlers, ignorant of the use ofPeruvian bark and other remedies, were powerless to resist the progressof the epidemic. Captain George Percy describes in vivid colors thesufferings of the first terrible summer. "There were never Englishmen, "he says, "left in a forreign country in such miserie as wee were in thisnew discouvered Virginia. Wee watched every three nights, lying on thebare-ground, what weather soever came;... Which brought our men to beemost feeble wretches.... If there were any conscience in men, it wouldmake their harts to bleed to heare the pitifull murmurings and outcriesof our sick men without reliefe, every night and day for the space ofsixe weekes; in the morning their bodies being trailed out of theircabines like Dogges, to be buried. "[53] So deadly was the epidemic thatwhen Captain Newport brought relief in January, 1608, he found butthirty-eight of the colonists alive. [54]

Nor did the men that followed in the wake of the _Sarah Constant_, the_Discovery_ and the _Goodspeed_ fare better. In the summer of 1608, thesickness reappeared and once more wrought havoc among the unhappysettlers. Captain Smith, who probably saved his own life by his frequentexploring expeditions, on his return to Jamestown in July, "found theLast Supply al sicke". [55] In 1609, when the fleet of Summers andNewport reached Virginia, the newcomers, many of whom were already inill health, fell easy victims to malaria and dysentery. Smith declaredthat before the end of 1610 "not past sixtie men, women and children"were left of several hundred that but a few months before had sailedaway from Plymouth. [56] During the short stay of Governor De la Warr onehundred and fifty, or more than half the settlers lost their lives. [57]

Various visitors to Virginia during the early years of the seventeenthcentury bear testimony to the ravages of this scourge. A Spaniard namedMolina, writing in 1613, declared that one hundred and fifty out ofevery three hundred colonists died before being in Virginia twelvemonths. [58] DeVries, a Dutch trader to the colony, wrote, "During themonths of June, July and August it is very unhealthy, then people thathave lately arrived from England, die, during these months, like catsand dogs, whence they call it the sickly season. "[59] This testimony iscorroborated by Governor William Berkeley, who reported in 1671, "Thereis not now oft seasoned hands (as we term them) that die now, whereasheretofore not one of five escaped the first year. "[60]

In 1623 a certain Nathaniel Butler, in an attack upon the LondonCompany, called "The Unmasked Face of our Colony in Virginia", drew avivid, though perhaps an exaggerated picture of the unhealthfulness ofthe climate. "I found the plantations, " he said, "generally seated uponmeer salt marshes, full of infectious bogs and muddy creeks and lakes, and thereby subjected to all those inconveniences and diseases which areso commonly found in the most unsound and most unhealthy parts ofEngland, whereof every country and climate hath some. " It was by nomeans uncommon, he declared, to see immigrants from England "Dying underhedges and in the woods", and unless something were done at once toarrest the frightful mortality Virginia would shortly get the name of aslaughter house. [61]

The climate of eastern Virginia, unhealthful as it undoubtedly was inthe places where the first settlements were made, cannot be blamed forall the epidemics that swept the colony. Much of the ill health of theimmigrants was due to unwholesome conditions on board the ships whichbrought them from England. The vessels were usually crowded far beyondtheir real capacity with wretched men, women and children, and were foulbeyond description. [62] Not infrequently great numbers died at sea. Onevessel is reported to have lost a hundred and thirty persons out of ahundred and eighty-five. On the ships that left England in June, 1609, both yellow fever and the London plague appeared, doing fearful havoc, and making it necessary to throw overboard from two of the vessels alonethirty-two unfortunate wretches. [63] The diseases, thus started, oftenspread after the settlers had reached their new homes, and underfavoring conditions, developed into terrible epidemics. [64]

Less deadly than the "sicknesse", but still greatly to be dreaded, wasthe hostility of the Indians. [65] The natives, resentful at the attemptof the white men to establish themselves in their midst, proved aconstant menace to the colony. Their superstitious awe of the strangenewcomers, and their lack of effective weapons alone prevented untiringand open war. Jamestown was but a few days old when it was subjected toa violent assault by the savages. On the twentieth day of May, 1607, thecolonists, while at work without their arms in the fields, were attackedby several hundred Indians. In wild dismay they rushed into the fort, while the savages followed at their heels. "They came up allmost intothe ffort, shot through the tents, appeared in this Skirmishe (whichlasted hott about an hower) a very valient people. " The guns of theships came to the aid of the English and their thunders struck dismayinto the hearts of the savages. Yet they retired without panic, takingwith them their dead and wounded. Four of the Council, standing in thefront ranks, were wounded by the natives, and President Wingfield, whilefighting valiently, had an arrow shot through his beard, "yet scapedhurte". [66]

A few days after this event a gentleman named Clovell came running intothe fort with six arrows sticking in him, crying, "Arm, arm". He hadwandered too far from the town, and the Indians, who were still prowlingnear, shot him from ambush. Eight days later he died. [67] Thus at thevery outset, the English learned the nature of the conflict which theymust wage against the Indians. In open fight the savages, with theirprimitive weapons, were no match for them, but woe to any of theirnumber that strayed far from the fort, or ventured into the long grassof the mainland. So frequently were small parties cut off, that itbecame unsafe for the English to leave their settlements except inbodies large enough to repel any attack. [68]

The epidemics and the wars with the Indians conspired to bring upon thecolony still another horrible scourge. The constant dread of attack inthe fields and the almost universal sickness made it impossible for thesettlers to raise crops sufficient for their needs. During the summer of1607 there were at one time scarce five able men at Jamestown, and thesefound it beyond their power even to nurse the sick and bury the dead. And in later years, when corn was planted in abundance, the stealthysavages often succeeded in cutting it down before it could be harvested. There can be no surprise then that famines came at frequent intervals toadd to the misery of the ill-fated colonists. The most terrible of thesevisited Virginia in the winter of 1609-10. Smith's Historie gives agraphic account of the suffering during those fearful months. Those thatescaped starvation were preserved, it says, "for the most part, byroots, herbes, acornes, walnuts, berries, now and then a fish: they thathad starch in these extremities, made no small use of it; yea, even thevery skinnes of our horses. Nay, so great was our famine, that a Salvagewe slew and buried, the poorer sort took him up againe and eat him; andso did divers one another boyled and stewed with roots and herbs: Andone amongst the rest did kill his wife, powdered her, and had eaten partof her before it was knowne; for which hee was executed, as hee welldeserved.... This was the time, which to this day we call the starvingtime; it were too vile to say, and scarce to be believed, what weendured. "[69]

The misery of the wretched settlers in time of famine is vividlydescribed in a letter written in 1623 by a servant to his parents. Thepeople, he said, cried out day and night, "Oh that they were in Englandwithout their limbs ... Though they begged from door to door". Hedeclared that he had eaten more at home in a day than was now allowedhim in a week, and that his parents had often given more than hispresent day's allowance to a beggar at the door. Unless the ship _SeaFlower_ came soon, with supplies, his master's men would have but half apenny loaf each a day for food, and might be turned away to eat bark offthe trees, or moulds off the ground. "Oh, " he said, "that you did see mydaily and hourly sighs, groans, tears and thumps that I afford mine ownbreast, and rue and curse the time of my birth and with holy Job Ithought no head had been able to hold so much water as hath and dothdaily flow from mine eyes. "[70]

Thus was the immigrant to Virginia beset on all sides with deadlyperils. If he escaped the plague, the yellow fever and the scurvy duringhis voyage across the Atlantic, he was more than apt to fall a victim tomalaria or dysentery after he reached his new home. Even if he survivedall these dangers, he might perish miserably of hunger, or be butcheredby the savage Indians. No wonder he cursed the country, calling it "amiserie, a ruine, a death, a hell". [71]

It is remarkable that the enterprise, in the face of these stupendousdifficulties, should ever have succeeded. The explanation lies in thegreat enthusiasm of all England for this attempt to extend the Britishdomains to the shores of the New World, and in the devotion of a fewbrave spirits of the London Company, who would not be daunted byrepeated failures. It mattered not to them that thousands of pounds werelost in the undertaking, that many hundreds of men perished, theEnglish flag and the English religion must gain a foothold upon theAmerican continent. 

Sir Thomas Gates found the colony in a pitiable condition. The tomahawkof the Indians, famine and pestilence had wrought terrible havoc withthe settlers. A mere handful of poor wretched men were left to welcomethe newcomers and to beg eagerly to be taken away from the ill-fatedcountry. The town "appeared rather as the ruins of some auntientfortification, then that any people living might now in habit it: thepallisadoes he found tourne downe, the portes open, the gates from thehinges, the church ruined and unfrequented.... Only the block house ... Was the safetie of the remainder that lived: which yet could not havepreserved them now many days longer from the watching, subtile, andoffended Indians. "[72]

Nor was it in the power of Gates to remedy these conditions, for he hadbrought with him from Devil's Island but a limited supply of provisions. So, with great reluctance, the Lieutenant-Governor decided to abandonVirginia rather than sacrifice his people. As the colonists climbedaboard the vessels which were to take them from the scene of theirsufferings, they would have set fire to the town had not Gates preventedwith his soldiers. He, himself, "was the last of them, when, about noon, giving a farewell with a peale of small shott, he set sayle, and thatnight, with the tide, fell down ... The river. "[73]

But it was not destined that this enterprise, which was of suchimportance to the English nation, should be thus abandoned. In April, 1610, De la Warr, the Lord Governor, had sailed for Virginia with threevessels, about a hundred and fifty immigrants and supplies for therelief of the colony. [74] Reaching Cape Comfort June the sixteenth, helearned from a small party there of the intended desertion of Jamestown. Immediately he sent a pinnace up the river to meet Gates, advise him ofhis arrival and to order his return to the abandoned town. Uponreceiving these welcome tidings, Gates bore "up the helm" for Jamestown, and the same night landed all his men. [75] Soon after, the Governorreached the town and took formal possession of the government. 

De la Warr began his administration by listening to a sermon from thegood pastor, Mr. Buck. He then made an address to the people, "layingsome blames on them for many vanities and their idleness", andpromising, if occasion required, to draw the sword of justice. [76]

The Governor was not unrestrained in his authority over the colonists, for he was to "rule, punish, pardone and governe according to suchdirections" as were given him by the London Company. In case ofrebellion or mutiny he might put into execution martial law. In mattersnot covered by his instructions he was to "rule and governe by his ownediscretion or by such lawes" as he should think fit to establish. [77]The Council, which had formerly been all-powerful, was now but anadvisory body, appointed by the Governor and removable at hisdiscretion. De la Warr chose for his Council Sir Thomas Gates, SirGeorge Somers, Captain George Percy, Sir Ferdinando Weinman, CaptainChristopher Newport and William Strachey, Esquire. [78]

Forgetting their former quarrels and factions, the people united in azealous effort to serve their noble Governor. "You might shortly beholdthe idle and restie diseases of a divided multitude, by the unity andauthority of the government to be substantially cured. Those that knewnot the way to goodnes before, but cherished singularity and faction, can now chalke out the path of all respective dutie and service. "[79]

For a while peace and prosperity seemed to have come at last to thelittle colony. All set to work with a good will to build comfortablehouses and to repair the fort. The chapel was restored. The Governorfurnished it with a communion table of black walnut and with pews andpulpit of cedar. The font was "hewn hollow like a canoa". "The churchwas so cast, as to be very light within and the Governor caused it tobe kept passing sweet and trimmed up with divers flowers. " In theevening, at the ringing of the bell, and at four in the afternoon, eachman addressed himself to prayer. [80] "Every Sunday, when the LordGovernor went to Church he was accompanied with all the Councillors, Captains, other officers, and all the gentlemen, and with a guard offifty Halberdiers in his Lordships Livery, fair red cloaks, on each sideand behind him. The Lord Governor sat in the choir, in a green velvetchair, with a velvet cushion before him on which he knelt, and theCouncil, captains, and officers, on each side of him. "[81]

But the misfortunes of the colony were far from being at an end. Theprincipal causes of disaster had not yet been removed. Before many weekshad passed the "sickly season" came on, bringing the usual accompanimentof suffering and death. "Not less than 150 of them died of pestilentdiseases, of callentures and feavors, within a few months after" Lord Dela Warr's arrival. [82] So universal was the sickness among the newcomersthat all the work had to be done by the old settlers, "who by use wearegrowen practique in a hard way of livinge". [83]

The war with the Indians continued without abatement, causing constantalarm to the settlers and keeping them closely confined to their forts. At one time fourteen were treacherously massacred by the Queen ofAppomattox. The English revenged themselves by attacking the savages, burning their villages and destroying their crops, but they could notforce them into friendly relations. [84]

Lord De la Warr, himself, was assailed by a series of maladies, thatcame near costing him his life. "Presently after my arrival in JamesTown, " he wrote, "I was welcomed by a hot and violent Ague, which heldmee a time.... That disease had not long left mee, till ... I began tobe distempered with other greevous sickness, which successively &severally assailed me: for besides a relapse into the former disease;... The Flux surprised me, and kept me many daies: then the crampassaulted my weak body, with strong paines; & afterward the Goutafflicted me in such sort, that making my body through weaknesse unableto stirre, ... Drew upon me the disease called Scurvy ... Till I wasupon the point to leave the world. "[85] Realizing that it would be fatalfor him to remain longer in Virginia, the Lord Governor set sail withCaptain Argoll for the West Indies, where, he hoped, he would recoverhis health. [86] As Gates had left the colony some months before, thegovernment fell into the experienced hands of Captain George Percy. [87]

In the meanwhile the London Company, undismayed by their formerfailures, were preparing a new expedition, which they hoped wouldestablish the colony upon a firm footing. Three hundred immigrants, carefully selected from the better class of working men, were assembledunder the command of Sir Thomas Dale, and, on March the twenty-seventh, 1611, embarked for Virginia. Upon the arrival of the fleet at Jamestown, Dale received the letters patent from Captain Percy, and assumed commandof the colony as Deputy for Lord De la Warr. [88]

The new Governor seems to have perceived at once that the chief sourceof disaster had been the location of the settlement upon the Jamestownpeninsula. The small area which this place afforded for the planting ofcorn, and the unhealthfulness of the climate rendered it mostundesirable as the site for a colony. Former Governors had refused todesert the peninsula because of the ease with which it could be defendedagainst the Indians. But Dale at once began a search for a spot whichwould afford all the security of Jamestown, but be free from its manydisadvantages. This he succeeded in finding up the river, some fiftymiles from Jamestown. [89] "I have surveyed, " he wrote, "a convenientstrong, healthie and sweet seate to plant the new towne in, from whencemight be no more remove of the principall Seate. " This place, which henamed Henrico, was located not far from the point of juncture of theJames and the Appomattox, at what is now called Farrar's Island. Herethe river makes a sweeping curve, forming a peninsula about one squaremile in extent. 

[Illustration: DALE'S SETTLEMENTS ON THE UPPER JAMES]

In August, 1611, Sir Thomas Gates, returning to assume the command ofthe colony, pushed vigorously the work upon the new settlement. [90] Dalewas sent up the river with no less than three hundred men, withdirections to construct houses and fortifications. The settlers, workingwith new life and vigor in the more wholesome air of the upper James, soon rendered the place almost impregnable to attack from the Indians. They cut a ditch across the narrow neck of the peninsula, and fortifiedit with high palisades. To prevent a sudden raid by the savages incanoes from the other shore, five strong block houses were built atintervals along the river bank. Behind these defenses were erected anumber of substantial houses, with foundations of brick and framesuperstructures. Soon a town of three streets had been completed, morecommodious and far more healthful than Jamestown. [91]

When this work had been completed, Dale led a force of men across to thesouth bank of the river and took possession of the entire peninsulalying between the Appomattox and the James. An Indian settlement justbelow Turkey Island bend was attacked and destroyed, and the savagesdriven away. The English built a palisade over two miles long andreinforced at intervals with forts and block houses, from the James atHenrico to the falls of the Appomattox. These fortifications securedfrom the attacks of the savages "many miles of champion and woodland", and made it possible for the English to lay out in safety several newplantations or hundreds. Dale named the place Bermuda, "by reason of thestrength of the situation". 

Here, for the first time, something like prosperity came to the colony. Although the "sicknesse" was not entirely eliminated even at Henrico, the percentage of mortality was greatly reduced. Soon there were inVirginia several hundred persons that had lived through the fatal monthsof June, July and August and were thoroughly "seasoned" or immune to thenative disorders. Not until 1618, when the settlers, in their greed forland suitable for the cultivation of tobacco, deserted their homes onthe upper James for the marshy ground of the lower country, and new, unacclimated persons began arriving in great numbers, did the pestilenceagain assume its former proportions. 

Thus protected from the ravages of disease and from the assaults of thesavages, Dale's men were able to turn their attention to the cultivationof the soil. Soon they were producing an annual crop of corn sufficientto supply their more pressing needs. And it was well for them that theycould become, to some extent, independent of England, for the LondonCompany, at last discouraged by continued misfortune, was often remissin sending supplies. Clothing became exceedingly scarce. Not only werethe gaudy uniforms of De la Warr's time lacking, but many persons wereforced to imitate the savages by covering themselves with skins andfurs. [92] The Company, however, succeeded in obtaining for them from theKing many suits of old armor that were of great value in their wars withthe savages. Coats of mail and steel that had become useless on thebattlefields of Europe and had for years been rusting in the Tower ofLondon, were polished up and sent to Virginia. Thus, behind thepalisades of Henrico or in the fort at Jamestown one might have seen atthis time soldiers encased in armor that had done service in the days ofRichard III and Henry VII. [93]

The London Company, when they sent Sir Thomas Gates to Virginia with theletters patent of 1609, gave directions that the utmost severity shouldbe used in putting an end to lawlessness and confusion. Gates, who hadfought against the Spaniards in the Netherlands and had the soldier'sdislike of insubordination, was well suited to carry their wishes intoeffect. No sooner had he arrived from Devil's Island in 1610 than heposted in the church at Jamestown certain laws, orders and instructionswhich he warned the people they must obey strictly. [94] These laws wereexceedingly severe. It was, for instance, ordered that "every man andwoman daly twice a day upon the first towling of the Bell shall upon theworking daies repaire into the Church, to hear divine Service upon painof losing his or her dayes allowance for the first omission, for thesecond to be whipt, and for the third to be condemned to the Gallies forsix Months". Again, it was decreed that "no man shall give anydisgracefull words, or commit any act to the disgrace of any person ... Upon paine of being tied head and feete together, upon the guard everienight for the space of one moneth.... No man shall dare to kill, ordestroy any Bull, Cow, Calfe, Mare, Horse, Colt, Goate, Swine, Cocke, Henne, Chicken, Dogge, Turkie, or any tame Cattel, or Poultry, of whatcondition soever, ... Without leave from the Generall, upon paine ofdeath.... There shall no man or woman ... Dare to wash any uncleanlinnen ... Within the Pallizadoes, ... Nor rench, and make clean, anykettle, pot or pan ... Within twenty foote of the olde well ... Uponpain of whipping. "[95]

During the administration of Gates and De la Warr these laws seem not tohave been enforced vigorously, but were utilized chiefly _interrorem_. [96] Under Dale and Argoll, however, not only were they putinto merciless operation, but were reinforced with a series of martiallaws, drawn from the code in use among the armies of the Netherlands. 

The Divine, Moral and Martial Laws, as they were called, undoubtedlybrought about good order in the colony, and aided in the establishmentof prosperity, but they were ill suited for the government of free-bornEnglishmen. They were in open violation of the rights guaranteed to thesettlers in their charters, and caused bitter discontent and resentment. 

At times they were enforced with odious harshness and injustice. Molinadeclared that the Governors were most cruel in their treatment of thepeople, often using them like slaves. [97] The Virginia Assembly of 1624gives a vivid, though perhaps an exaggerated, picture of the severity ofthe government. "The Colony ... Remained in great want and misery undermost severe and Cruell lawes sent over in printe, " they said, "andcontrary to the express Letter of the Kinge in his most graciousCharter, and as mercylessly executed, often times without tryall orJudgment. " Many of the people fled "for reliefe to the Savage Enemy, whobeing taken againe were putt to sundry deathes as by hanginge, shootingand breaking uppon the wheele and others were forced by famine to filchfor their bellies, of whom one for steelinge of 2 or 3 pints of oatmealehad a bodkin thrust through his tounge and was tyed with a chain to atree untill he starved, if a man through his sicknes had not been ableto worke, he had noe allowance at all, and soe consequently perished. Many through these extremities, being weary of life, digged holes in theearth and there hidd themselves till they famished. "[98] In 1612, several men attempted to steal "a barge and a shallop and therein toadventure their lives for their native country, being discovered andprevented, were shot to death, hanged and broken upon the wheel". [99]There was some criticism in England of the harshness of the laws, butSir Thomas Smith, then the guiding spirit of the London Company, declared that they were beneficial and necessary, "in some cases _adterrorum_, and in others to be truly executed". [100]

As time passed and the population of the colony increased, it becamenecessary to extend beyond the confines of Jamestown and Henrico. Thecultivation of tobacco, which was rapidly becoming the leading pursuitof the people, required more ground than was comprised within thefortified districts. Even the expansion of the settlement upon the upperJames to other peninsulas along the "Curls of the River" could notsatisfy the demand for arable land. At one time the very streets ofJamestown were planted with tobacco. [101] Soon the people, despite theirdread of the savages, were deserting their palisades, and spreading outin search of fertile soil. 

This recklessness brought upon the colony a renewal of the disastrousepidemics of the earlier period, and exposed the planters to imminentdanger from the savages. Fortunately, however, at this very time thelong sought peace with the Indians was brought about by the romanticmarriage of Pocahontas, the daughter of the powerful chief Powhatan, with Captain John Rolfe. 

In the spring of 1613 Sir Samuel Argoll, while cruising in theRappahannock in quest of corn, learned from the natives that theprincess was visiting Japazaws, a neighboring king, at his village uponthe Potomac. Argoll at once resolved to capture the daughter of thegreatest enemy of the white men, and to hold her until all the tools andweapons stolen by the Indians had been returned. [102] Hastening into thecountry of the Potomacs, he demanded the maid of Japazaws. The king, fearing the hostility of the English more than the anger of Powhatan, consented, although with great reluctance, and she was placed aboardArgoll's ship. 

The news of the capture of his favorite child filled Powhatan with rageand grief. Imploring Argoll to do Pocahontas no harm, he promised toyield to all his demands and to become the lasting friend of the whitemen. [103] He liberated seven captives and sent with them "three pieces, one broad Axe, and a long whip-saw, and one canow of Corne". [104]Knowing that these did not constitute all the tools in the hands of theking, the English refused to relinquish Pocahontas, but kept her aprisoner at Jamestown. [105]

The young princess was treated with consideration and kindness byGovernor Dale. Her gentle nature, her intelligence and her beauty wonthe respect and love of the sternest of her captors. Dale himselfundertook to direct her education. "I was moved, " he exclaimed, "by herdesire to be taught and instructed in the knowledge of God, hercapableness of understanding, her aptness and willingness to receive anygood impression.... I caused her to be carefully instructed in theChristian religion, who, after she had made some good progress therein, renounced publicly her Country's idolatry; openly confessed herChristian faith; and was, as she desired, baptized. "[106]

Before many months had passed the charm of this daughter of the Americanforest had inspired a deep love in the breast of Captain John Rolfe. This worthy gentleman, after struggling long against a passion sostrange and unusual, wrote Dale asking permission to wed the princess. Iam not ignorant, he said "of the inconvenience which may ... Arise ... To be in love with one whose education hath bin rude, her mannersbarbarous, her generation accursed". [107] But I am led to take thisstep, "for the good of the plantation, for the honour of our countrie, for the glory of God, for my owne salvation, and for the converting tothe true knowledge of God and Jesus Christ, an unbeleeving creature, like Pokahuntas. To whom my heartie and best thoughts are, and have along time bin so intangled, and inthralled in so intricate a laborinth, that I was awearied to unwinde myselfe thereout. "[108]

Dale, overjoyed at this opportunity to secure the friendship of theIndians, consented readily to the marriage. Powhatan, too, when helearned of his daughter's affection for Captain Rolfe, expressed hisapproval of the union, and sent Apachisco, an uncle of the bride, andtwo of her brothers to represent him at the ceremony. 

Both English and Indians regarded this wedding as a bond of friendshipbetween the two races. Apachisco, acting as deputy for Powhatan, concluded with Governor Dale a peace which lasted eight years and wasfairly well kept by both parties. [109] "Besides this, " wrote CaptainRalph Hamor, "we became in league with our next neighbors, theChicahamanias, a lustie and daring people, free of themselves. Thesepeople, as soone as they heard of our peace with Powhatan, sent twomessengers with presents to Sir Thomas Dale and offered ... Theirservice. "[110] Thus was one of the greatest menaces to the prosperityof the colony removed. Now the settlers could cultivate the soil, orhunt and fish without fear of the treacherous savage, and leave theircattle to range in comparative safety. John Rolfe himself wrote, "Thegreat blessings of God have followed this peace, and it, next to him, hath bredd our plentie--everie man sitting under his fig tree in safety, gathering and reaping the fruits of their labors with much joy andcomfort. "[111]

In 1616 Sir Thomas Dale, who had been in command of the colony since thedeparture of Gates in 1614, returned to England, leaving the governmentin the hands of Captain George Yeardley. Despite the harshness andcruelty of Dale and Gates, they must be credited with obtaining thefinal success of the colony. These two stern soldiers of the Dutch warshad found the settlers dispirited, reduced in numbers, fighting a losingbattle against pestilence, starvation and the savages. By their rigiddiscipline and able leadership they had brought unity and prosperity, had taught the people how to resist the sickness, and had secured a longpeace with the Indians. [112] Dale left about three hundred and fiftypersons in Virginia, most of them thoroughly acclimated and busilyengaged in building up prosperity for the colony. 

Tobacco was already becoming the staple product of Virginia. As early as1612 Captain Rolfe had been experimenting with the native leaf, in aneffort to make it suitable for the English market. [113] In 1613 he senta part of his crop to London, where it was tested by experts andpronounced to be of excellent quality. [114] The colonists were greatlyencouraged at the success of the venture, for the price of tobacco washigh, and its culture afforded opportunities for a rich return. Soonevery person that could secure a little patch of ground was devotinghimself eagerly to the cultivation of the plant. It even becamenecessary for Dale to issue an order that each man should "set two acresof ground with corn", lest the new craze should lead to the neglect ofthe food supply. [115] In 1617 _The George_ sailed for England ladenwith 20, 000 pounds of tobacco, which found a ready market at fiveshillings and three pence a pound. John Rolfe's discovery was openingfor Virginia a veritable gold mine. 

Fortunately the King, in 1612, had granted the Company an exemption forseven years from custom duties upon goods brought from the colony. So, for a while, at least, the Crown could not appropriate to its own usethe profits from the Virginia tobacco. Since, however, the exemption hadonly a few years more to run, the Company hastened to secure whatimmediate returns were available. They took from the planters the entirecrop, giving them for it three pence per pound, while they themselveswere able to obtain a much larger price from the English dealers. 

The profits thus secured were at once utilized in new measures forincreasing and strengthening the colony. Encouraged by the discovery inVirginia of so profitable a commodity, the Company became convinced thatnow at last success was at hand. "Broadsides" were sent out to theBritish people, depicting in glowing terms the advantages of thecountry, and asking for immigrants and for financial support. Once morea wave of enthusiasm for the enterprise swept over England. Money wascontributed liberally. The clergy, interested in the spread of theAnglican Church, and in the conversion of the savages, worked ardentlyfor the success of the colony. Soon vessel after vessel was being fittedout for the voyage across the Atlantic, and hundreds of artisans andlaborers were preparing to risk their all in the New World. [116]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] F. R. , pp. 21, 22. 

[2] F. R. , p. 23. 

[3] Arb. Smith, lxi-lxii. 

[4] Gen. , p. 55. 

[5] Gen. , p. 56. 

[6] Gen. , pp. 55, 70, 73. 

[7] Gen. , p. 77. 

[8] Gen. , p. 67. 

[9] Gen. , pp. 342, 411. 

[10] Gen. , p. 77. 

[11] Arb. Smith, p. 91. 

[12] Arb. Smith, p. 91. 

[13] Arb. Smith, p. 91; F. R. , pp. 27, 32. Smith denied the justice ofthese charges. "Now Captaine Smith, who all this time from theirdeparture from the Canaries, was restrained as a prisoner, upon thescandalous suggestions of some of the chiefe (envying his repute); whofained he intended to ursurpe the government, murder the Councell, andmake himself king; that his confederats were dispearsed in all the threeships, and that divers of his confederats that revealed it, wouldaffirme it: for this he was committed. " Arb. Smith, p. 92. 

[14] Arb. Smith, liii. 

[15] Arb. Smith, liv. 

[16] F. R. , p. 39. 

[17] Arb. Smith, lxxvii. 

[18] Arb. Smith, lxxvi. 

[19] Arb. Smith, lxxix. 

[20] Arb. Smith, lxxxi. 

[21] Arb. Smith, lxxxiv. 

[22] Arb. Smith, lxxxiv. 

[23] Arb. Smith, lxxxv. 

[24] Arb. Smith, lxxxv. 

[25] F. R. , p. 54. 

[26] Arb. Smith, lxxxvi. 

[27] Arb. Smith, lxxxvi. 

[28] F. R. , p. 58. 

[29] Arb. Smith, pp. 114, 115. 

[30] Arb. Smith, p. 119. 

[31] Arb. Smith, p. 121; F. R. , p. 61. 

[32] F. R. , p. 68; Arb. Smith, p. 122. 

[33] Arb. Smith, p. 122. 

[34] Arb. Smith, p. 444. 

[35] F. R. , 70. 

[36] F. R. , 71. 

[37] F. R. , p. 73. 

[38] F. R. , p. 73. 

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

[40] F. R. , p. 84. 

[41] F. R. , p. 84. 

[42] Gen. , pp. 1329, 1330, 346, 400; Force, III; Arb. Smith, p. 635. 

[43] F. R. , p. 93. 

[44] Gen. , pp. 331, 347. 

[45] Gen. , pp. 331, 332; F. R. , p. 98. 

[46] Arb. Smith, p. 484. 

[47] Ratcliffe wrote the Earl of Salisbury, "This man is sent home toanswere some misdemenors, whereof I perswade me he can scarcely clearhimselfe from great imputation of blame. " Gen. , p. 334. 

[48] F. R. , p. 108. 

[49] F. R. , p. 115. 

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

[51] Gen. , p. 84. 

[52] Arb. Smith, p. 5. 

[53] Arb. Smith, lxxii. 

[54] F. R. , p. 55. 

[55] Nar. Of Va. , p. 146. 

[56] Many of these, however, died of starvation or were killed by theIndians. Nar. Of Va. , p. 200. 

[57] Nar. Of Va. , p. 212. 

[58] Nar. Of Va. , p. 220; Gen. , p. 648. 

[59] Va. Car. 

[60] Hen. , Vol. I; Gen. , p. 499. 

[61] Proceedings of Va. Co. , p. 171. 

[62] Gen. , p. 489. 

[63] Gen. , p. 329. 

[64] F. R. , p. 98. 

[65] Gen. , p. 503. 

[66] Arb. Smith, lii. 

[67] Arb. Smith, liii. 

[68] Force, Vol. III, Tract I, p. 17; Gen. , p. 405, 419, 456. 

[69] Force, Vol. III, Tract I, p. 17; Nar. Of Va. , p. 295; Gen. , pp. 330, 392, 401, 404, 456. 

[70] Va. Vet. 

[71] Nar. Of Va. , p. 117. 

[72] Gen. , p. 405. 

[73] Gen. , p. 406; Force, Vol. III, Tract I, p. 18. 

[74] F. R. , p. 127. 

[75] F. R. , p. 128; Force, Vol. III, Tract I, p. 19; Gen. , p. 407. 

[76] Gen. , p. 407. 

[77] Gen. , p. 379. 

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

[79] Force, Vol. III, Tract I, p. 20. 

[80] F. R. , pp. 129, 130. 

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

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

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

[84] F. R. , pp. 135, 136. 

[85] Gen. , p. 479. 

[86] Gen. , p. 480. 

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

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

[89] Gen. , p. 492; Arb. Smith, p. 507; F. R. , p. 150. 

[90] Gen. , p. 474. 

[91] Arb. Smith, pp. 509, 510; F. R. , p. 157; Cradle of Rep. , p. 136. 

[92] F. R. , p. 226. 

[93] F. R. , p. 172. 

[94] F. R. , p. 126; Gen. , pp. 342, 345, 528, 529; Force, Vol. III, TractII, pp. 9-19. 

[95] Force, Vol. III, Tract II, pp. 9-19. 

[96] Bruce, Inst. Hist. , Vol. I, p. 474. 

[97] Gen. , p. 648. 

[98] Nar. Of Va. , pp. 422, 423. 

[99] F. R. , pp. 148, 172. 

[100] Gen. , pp. 529, 530. 

[101] Bruce, Ec. Hist. , Vol. I, p. 222. 

[102] Gen. , p. 642. 

[103] Gen. , p. 643. 

[104] Gen. , pp. 643, 644. 

[105] Nar. Of Va. , p. 308. 

[106] Arb. Smith, p. 512. 

[107] Nar. Of Va. , p. 241. 

[108] Nar. Of Va. , pp. 240, 241. 

[109] F. R. , p. 205; Arb. Smith, p. 514. 

[110] Arb. Smith, p. 515. 

[111] F. R. , p. 226. 

[112] F. R. , pp. 230, 236. 

[113] Bruce, Ec. Hist. , Vol. I, p. 211. 

[114] F. R. , p. 197; Bruce, Ec. Hist. , Vol. I, p. 217. 

[115] F. R. , p. 228; Gen. , p. 782. 

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

CHAPTER II

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT

King James I, from the beginning of his reign, was deeply desirous ofplanting the English nation upon the shores of the New World. It waswith envy and alarm that he witnessed the extension of the power ofSpain and of the Roman Catholic church across the Atlantic, while hisown subjects were excluded from a share in the splendid prize. He musthave perceived clearly that if the English wished to maintain theirposition as a great naval and mercantile people, the establishing ofcolonies in America was imperative. Peru, Mexico and the West Indiesadded greatly to the wealth and power of the Spanish King; why shouldEngland not attempt to gain a foothold near these countries, before itbecame too late?

But James had no desire to arouse the hostility of Philip III. Despitereligious differences, despite the hatred of the English for theSpaniards, he had reversed the policy of Elizabeth by cultivating thefriendship of these hereditary enemies. And so wedded was he to thisdesign, that later, when his son-in-law, Frederick of the Palatinate, was being overwhelmed by a coalition of Catholic nations, he refused toaffront Spain by coming to his rescue. Yet he knew that Philipconsidered America his own, and would resent any attempt of the Englishto establish colonies on its shores. So the crafty James resolved todisguise the founding of a royal colony under the guise of a privateventure. [117] If the Spaniards complained of the occupation of theirterritory, he could free himself from blame by placing theresponsibility upon the London Company. "If it take not success, " hisadvisors told the King, "it is done by their owne heddes. It is but theattempt of private gentlemen, the State suffers noe losse, noedisreputation. If it takes success, they are your subjects, they doe itfor your service, they will lay all at your Majesty's feet and interessyour Majesty therein. "[118]

James was quite liberal in granting charters to those that hadundertaken the settlement, and he encouraged them as much as wasconsistent with his friendship for Spain. It was truly written of himafter his death, "Amongst the ... Workes of the late Kinge, there wasnone more eminent, than his gracious inclination ... To advance and settforward a New Plantation in the New World. "[119] That he was deeplyinterested in the undertaking is shown most strikingly by his consent tothe establishment of the Puritans in America. James hated the tenets ofCalvin from the depths of his soul, and could have no desire to see theminfect the English settlements in America, yet his solicitude for thewelfare of the colony induced him to yield to the request of thePilgrims for permission to settle there. How much greater was hisforesight than that of Louis XIV, who, by refusing to allow thepersecuted Huguenots to settle in any part of his domains, deprived theFrench colonies of what might have been their most numerous and valuablerecruits! When some of the leading men of the London Company pleadedwith James for the Puritans, the King lent a ready ear. He was asked toallow them "liberty of conscience under his ... Protection in America;where they would endeavour the advancement of his Majesty's dominions, and the enlargement of the interests of the Gospel". James replied thatit was "a good and honest motion". He refused to tolerate them by publicauthority and would not confirm under the broad seal their petition forleave to worship as they chose, but he let it be understood that theywere not to be molested in their new homes in any way. [120] And in thispromise they finally decided to put their trust, feeling that "ifafterwards there should be a purpose or desire to wrong them, thoughthey had a seale as broad as ye house flore, it would not serve ye turn;for ther would be means a new found to recall or reverse it". [121]

But the chief glory of the establishment of the English in America mustbe given to the patriotic and persevering men of the Virginia Company. It is erroneous and unjust to accuse them of mean and mercenary motivesin founding and maintaining the colony at Jamestown. Some of them, perhaps, were dazzled with visions of a rich harvest of gold and silver, but most must have realized that there was small chance of remuneration. Many were merchants and business men of great foresight and ability, andit is quite evident that they were fully aware of the risks of theundertaking in which they ventured their money. What they did hope togain from the colony was the propagation of the English Church, theextension of the English nation and its institutions, and the increaseof British trade. 

Over and over again it was asserted that the first object of theenterprise was to spread the Christian religion. In 1610 the LondonCompany declared it their especial purpose "to preach and baptize ... And by propagation of the Gospell, to recover out of the armes of theDivell, a number of poore and miserable soules, wrapt up unto death, inalmost invincible ignorance". [122] The first draft of the Virginiacharter of 1606 declared that the leading motive of this "noble work", was "the planting of Christianity amongst heathens". [123] The charter of1609 asserted that the "principle effect, which we can desire or expectof this action, is the conversion and reduction of the people in thoseparts unto the true worship of God". [124]

That they were also actuated by a desire to extend the Britishpossessions and trade is attested by numerous documents and letters. TheCompany declared it their purpose to promote the "honor and safety ofthe Kingdome, the strength of our Navy, the visible hope of a great andrich trade". [125] One of the leading shareholders wrote that the colonyshould be upheld for "ye Honor and profitt to our Nation, to makeprovinciall to us a land ready to supply us with all necessarycommodytyes wanting to us: In which alone we suffer ye Spanishreputation and power to swell over us. "[126] The colonists themselvesdeclared that one of the objects of the settlement of America was theextension of British territory and the enriching of the kingdom, "forwhich respects many noble and well minded persons were induced toadventure great sums of money to the advancement of so pious and noble aworke". [127]

The Company, in fact, did no more than take the lead in the work. It wasreally the English nation that had decided to second their King ingaining a foothold in America, and it was they that insisted that thisfoothold should not be relinquished. Again and again the London Companyappealed to the people for support, and never without success, for allclasses of Englishmen felt that they were interested in this newventure. The spirit of the nation is reflected in the statement of theCouncil for Virginia in 1610, that the Company "are so farre fromyielding or giving way to any hindrance or impeachment ... That many ... Have given their hands and subscribed to contribute againe and againe tonew supplies if need require". [128]

But although James I and his people were agreed as to the necessity ofextending the English nation to America, they were not in accord inregard to the form of government which should be established there. TheKing, who was always restive under the restraint placed upon him by theEnglish Parliament, had no desire to see the liberal institutions of themother country transplanted to Virginia. He wished, beyond doubt, tobuild a colonial empire which should be dependent upon himself for itsgovernment and which should add to the royal revenues. In this way hewould augment the power of the Crown and render it less subject to therestraint of Parliament. But to found colonies that would set up littleassemblies of their own to resist and thwart him, was not at all hisintention. 

On the other hand, many of the leading spirits of the London Companyhoped "to establish a more free government in Virginia". [129] Some, perhaps, feared that the liberties of the English people might besuppressed by the King, and they looked hopefully to this new land as ahaven for the oppressed. "Many worthy Patriots, Lords, Knights, gentlemen, Merchants and others ... Laid hold on ... Virginia as aprovidence cast before them. "[130] In the meetings of the Company weregathered so many that were "most distasted with the proceedings of theCourt, and stood best affected to Religion and Liberty", that Jamesbegan to look upon the body as a "Seminary for a seditiousParliament". [131]

The leader of these liberals was Sir Edwin Sandys. This man, who waswidely known as an uncompromising enemy of despotism, was heartilydetested by the King. [132] In his youth he had gone to Geneva to studythe reformed religion and while there had become most favorablyimpressed with the republican institutions of the little Swiss state. Hewas afterwards heard to say that "he thought that if God from heaven didconstitute and direct a forme of government on Earth it was that ofGeneva". [133] Returning to England, he had entered Parliament, where hehad become known as an eminent advocate of liberal principles. He hadcontended for the abolition of commercial monopolies; had demanded thatall accused persons be given the assistance of counsel; had denouncedmany of the unjust impositions of the Crown; had raised "his voice forthe toleration of those with whom he did not wholly agree"; and hadaided in drawing up the remonstrance against the conduct of Jamestowards his first Parliament. [134]

But Sandys and his friends were not without opposition in the LondonCompany. Many of the "adventurers", as the stockholders were called, were by no means willing to permit the liberal party to utilize theCompany as an instrument for propagating their political tenets. Thegreat struggle between the forces of progress and reaction that wasconvulsing Parliament and the nation, was fought over again in theQuarter Courts. At times the meetings resounded with the quarrels of thecontending factions. Eventually, however, Sandys was victorious, andrepresentative government in America was assured. 

Sandys seems to have planned to secure from the King successive charterseach more liberal than its predecessor, and each entrusting more fullythe control of the colony to the Company. This could be done withoutarousing the suspicions of James under the pretext that they werenecessary for the success of the enterprise. When at length sufficientpower had been delegated, Sandys designed to establish in Virginia arepresentative assembly, modelled upon the British Parliament. 

Under the provisions of the charter of 1606 Virginia had been, in allbut form, a royal colony. The King had drawn up the constitution, hadappointed the Council in England, and had controlled their policies. This charter had granted no semblance of self-government to thesettlers. But it was declared "They shall have and enjoy all theliberties, franchises, and immunities ... To all intents and purposes, as if they had been abiding and born, within ... This realm ofEngland". [135] This promise was not kept by the Kings of England. Several of the provisions of the charter itself were not consistent withit. In later years it was disregarded again and again by the royalcommissions and instructions. Yet it was of the utmost importance, forit set a goal which the colonists were determined to attain. Throughoutthe entire colonial period they contended for all the rights of nativeEnglishmen, and it was the denial of their claim that caused them torevolt from the mother country and make good their independence. Provision had also been made for trial by jury. James had decreed thatin all cases the Council should sit as a court, but in matters of"tumults, rebellion, conspiracies, mutiny, and seditions ... Murther, manslaughter", and other crimes punishable with death, guilt orinnocence was to be determined by a jury of twelve. To what extent theCouncil made use of the jury system it is impossible to say, butWingfield states that on one occasion he was tried before a jury forslander, and fined £300. [136]

The second charter had been granted in 1609. This document is of greatimportance because through it the King resigned the actual control ofthe colony into the hands of the Virginia Company. And although this didnot result immediately in the establishment of representativegovernment, it strengthened the hands of Sandys and made it possible forhim to carry out his designs at a future date. Under this charter theCompany might have set up liberal institutions at once in Virginia, butconditions were not ripe, either in England or in America, for soradical a change. 

In 1612 the third charter had been granted. This had still furtherstrengthened the Company and made them more independent of the King. Itgave them the important privilege of holding great quarterly meetings orassemblies, where all matters relating to the government of the colonycould be openly discussed. Still Virginia remained under the autocraticrule of Dale and Gates. 

In 1617 or 1618, however, when the liberals were in full control of theCompany, it was decided to grant the colonists the privilege of aparliament. [137] In April, 1618, Lord De la Warr sailed for Virginia toreassume active control of affairs there, bringing with him instructionsto establish a new form of government. What this government was to havebeen is not known, but it was designed by Sir Edwin Sandys, and beyonddoubt, was liberal in form. [138] Possibly it was a duplicate of thatestablished the next year by Governor Yeardley. Most unfortunately, LordDe la Warr, whose health had been shattered by his first visit toVirginia, died during the voyage across the Atlantic, and it becamenecessary to continue the old constitution until the Company couldappoint a successor. [139]

In November, 1618, George Yeardley was chosen Governor-General ofVirginia, and was intrusted with several documents by whose authority hewas to establish representative government in the colony. [140] Thesepapers, which became known as the Virginia Magna Charta, were the verycorner-stone of liberty in the colony and in all America. Theirimportance can hardly be exaggerated, for they instituted the firstrepresentative assembly of the New World, and established a governmentwhich proved a bulwark against royal prerogative for a century and ahalf. 

Governor Yeardley sailed from England January, 1619, and reachedVirginia on the 29th of April. After some weeks of preparation, heissued a general proclamation setting in operation the Company's orders. It was decreed, "that all those who were resident here before thedeparture of Sir Thomas Dale should be freed and acquitted from suchpublique services and labors which formerly they suffered, and thatthose cruel laws by which we had so long been governed were nowabrogated, and that now we were to be governed by those free laws whichhis Majesty's subjects live under in Englande.... And that they mighthave a hand in the governing of themselves, it was granted that aGeneral Assembly should be held yearly once, whereat were to be presentthe Governor and Counsell, with two Burgesses from each plantationfreely to be elected by the inhabitants thereof; this Assembly to havepower to make and ordaine whatsoever lawes and orders should by them bethought good and proffittable for our subsistence. "[141]

The exact date of the election for Burgesses is not known. [142] Thestatement that the representatives were to be "chosen by theinhabitants" seems to indicate that the franchise was at once given toall male adults, or at least to all freemen. "All principall officers inVirginia were to be chosen by ye balloting box. " From the very firstthere were parties, and it is possible that the factions of the LondonCompany were reflected at the polls in the early elections. The MagnaCharta made provision for the establishment of boroughs, which were toserve both as units for local government and as electoral districts. Noattempt was made to secure absolute uniformity of population in theboroughs, but there were no glaring inequalities. With the regard forthe practical which has always been characteristic of Englishmen, theCompany seized upon the existing units, such as towns, plantations andhundreds, as the basis of their boroughs. In some cases several of theseunits were merged to form one borough, in others, a plantation or a townor a hundred as it stood constituted a borough. As there were eleven ofthese districts and as each district chose two Burgesses, the firstGeneral Assembly was to contain twenty-two representatives. [143]

The Assembly convened at Jamestown, August 9th, 1619. "The mostconvenient place we could finde to sitt in, " says the minutes, "was theQuire of the Churche Where Sir George Yeardley, the Governor, being settdown in his accustomed place, those of the Counsel of Estate sate nextehim on both hands excepte onely the Secretary then appointed Speaker, who sate right before him, John Twine, the clerk of the GeneralAssembly, being placed nexte the Speaker, and Thomas Pierse, theSergeant, standing at the barre, to be ready for any service theAssembly shoulde comand him. But forasmuche as men's affaires doe littleprosper where God's service is neglected, all the Burgesses tooke theirplaces in the Quire till a prayer was said by Mr. Bucke, theMinister.... Prayer being ended, ... All the Burgesses were intreatted toretyre themselves into the body of the Churche, which being done, beforethey were fully admitted, they were called in order and by name, and soevery man tooke the oathe of Supremacy and entered the Assembly. "[144]

The body at once claimed and made good its right to exclude Burgesseswho they thought were not entitled to seats. The Speaker himself raisedan objection to admitting the representatives of Warde's plantation, because that settlement had been made without a commission from theLondon Company. But Captain Warde promised to secure a patent as soon aspossible, and the objection was waived. The Assembly refused absolutely, however, to seat the Burgesses from Martin's Hundred. Captain Martin hadbeen one of the first Council for Virginia, and as a reward for his longservices had been granted privileges that rendered him almostindependent of the government at Jamestown. He was summoned before theAssembly and requested to relinquish these extraordinary rights, but herefused to do so. "I hold my patent, " he said, "for my service don, which noe newe or late comer can meritt or challenge. "[145] So theAssembly, feeling that it would be mockery to permit the Burgesses fromMartin's Hundred to assist in the making of laws which their ownconstituents, because of their especial charter, might with impunitydisobey, refused to admit them. [146]

The legislative powers granted the Virginia Assembly in the MagnaCharta, and continued with slight alterations after the revocation ofthe charter of the London Company, were very extensive. The Assemblycould pass laws dealing with a vast variety of matters appertaining tothe safety and welfare of the colony. Statutes were enacted in thesession of 1619 touching upon Indian affairs, the Church, land patents, the relations of servants and landlords, the planting of crops, generalmorality in Virginia, the price of tobacco, foreign trade, etc. Thecollected laws of the entire colonial period fill many volumes, andcover a vast variety of subjects. But there were three things whichlimited strictly the Assembly's field of action. They must pass nostatutes contravening first, the laws of England; secondly, thecharters; thirdly, the instructions sent them by the London Company. When the colony passed into the hands of the King, all statutes wereforbidden that conflicted with the charters, or with the instructions ofthe Crown. These restrictions lasted during the entire colonial period, but they were not always carefully regarded. The Company, and later theKing, retained two ways of nullifying legislation which wasunauthorized, or was distasteful to them. First, there was the veto ofthe Governor. As the guardian of the interests of England and hismonarch, this officer could block all legislation. Secondly, theCompany, and later the King, could veto laws even though the Governorhad consented to them. 

But the most important power exercised by the Assembly was its controlover taxation in Virginia. In the very first session it made use of thisprivilege by ordering, "That every man and manservant of above 16 yearsof age shall pay into the handes and Custody of the Burgesses of everyIncorporation and plantation one pound of the best Tobacco". [147] Thefunds thus raised were utilized for the payment of the officers of theAssembly. 

The levy by the poll, here used, was continued for many years, andbecame the chief support of the government. As the colony grew, however, and the need for greater revenues was felt, customs duties and otherforms of taxation were resorted to. Large sums were raised by an exportduty upon tobacco. At times tariffs were placed upon the importation ofliquors, slaves and other articles. But these duties had to be used withgreat care, for the carrying of the colony was done chiefly by Englishmerchants, and Parliament would permit nothing detrimental to theirinterests. 

The Assembly claimed the exclusive right to levy general taxes. TheGovernor and Council time and again tried to wrest this privilege fromthem, but never with success. [148] The Burgesses, realizing that theirhold upon the exchequer was the chief source of their power, were mostcareful never to relinquish it. From time to time the Governors soughtto evade this restraint by levying taxes under the guise of fees. Butthis expedient invariably excited intense irritation, and yielded arevenue so small that most Governors thought it best to avoid itentirely. Of more importance were the quit-rents, a tax on land, paid tothe King by all freeholders. But this was frequently avoided, and, except at rare intervals, the funds raised by it were left in Virginiato be expended for local purposes. The greatest blow to the power of theBurgesses was struck by the King in 1680, when he forced through theAssembly a law granting to the government a perpetual income from theexport duty on tobacco. This revenue, although not large, was usuallysufficient to pay the Governor's salary, and thus to render him lessdependent upon the Assembly. Finally, it must not be forgotten that theEnglish government, although it refrained from taxing the colonydirectly, imposed an enormous indirect tax by means of a tariff upontobacco brought into England. These duties were collected in England, but there can be no doubt that the incidence of the tax rested partlyupon the Virginia planters. Despite these various duties, all leviedwithout its consent, the Assembly exercised a very real control overtaxation in Virginia, and used it as an effective weapon against theencroachments of the Governors. 

From the very first the General Assembly showed itself an energetic anddetermined champion of the rights of the people. Time and again itbraved the anger of the Governor and of the King himself, rather thanyield the slightest part of its privileges. During the decade precedingthe English Revolution only the heroic resistance of this body saved theliberal institutions of the colony from destruction at the hands ofCharles II and James II. 

The General Assembly was not only a legislative body, it was also acourt of justice, and for many years served as the highest tribunal ofthe colony. The judicial function was entrusted to a joint committeefrom the two houses, whose recommendations were usually accepted withoutquestion. Since this committee invariably contained more Burgesses thanCouncillors, the supreme court was practically controlled by therepresentatives of the people. During the reign of Charles II, however, the Assembly was deprived of this function by royal proclamation, andthe judiciary fell almost entirely into the hands of the Governor andCouncil. 

The General Assembly consisted of two chambers--the House of Burgessesand the Council. In the early sessions the houses sat together andprobably voted as one body. [149] Later, however, they were divided andvoted separately. The Burgesses, as time went on, gradually increased innumbers until they became a large body, but the Council was alwayssmall. 

The Councillors were royal appointees. But since the King could notalways know personally the prominent men of the colony, he habituallyconfirmed without question the nominations of the Governor. The membersof the Council were usually persons of wealth, influence and ability. Asthey were subject to removal by the King and invariably held one or morelucrative governmental offices, it was customary for them to displaygreat servility to the wishes of his Majesty or of the Governor. It wasvery unusual for them to oppose in the Assembly any measure recommendedby the King, or in accord with his expressed wishes. Although theCouncillors were, with rare exceptions, natives of Virginia, they werein no sense representative of the people of the colony. 

As the upper house of the Assembly, the Council exercised a powerfulinfluence upon legislation. After the separation of the chambers theirconsent 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, andthe increasing size of the House of Burgesses. 

The executive powers entrusted to the Council were also of very greatimportance. The Governor was compelled by his instructions to secure itsassistance and consent in the most important matters. And since thechief executive was always a native of England, and often entirelyignorant of conditions in the colony, he was constantly forced to relyupon the advice of his Council. This tendency was made more pronouncedby the frequent changes of Governors that marked the last quarter of theseventeenth century. So habitually did the Council exercise certainfunctions, not legally within their jurisdiction, that they began toclaim them as theirs by right. And the Governor was compelled to respectthese claims as scrupulously as the King of England respects theconventions that hedge in and limit his authority. 

Before the end of the seventeenth century the Council had acquiredextraordinary influence in the government. With the right to initiateand to block legislation, with almost complete control over thejudiciary, with great influence in administrative matters, itthreatened to become an oligarchy of almost unlimited power. 

But it must not be supposed that the influence of the Council renderedimpotent the King's Governor. Great powers were lodged in the hands ofthis officer by his various instructions and commissions. He wascommander of the militia, was the head of the colonial church, heappointed most of the officers, attended to foreign affairs, and put thelaws into execution. His influence, however, resulted chiefly from thefact that he was the representative of the King. In the days of CharlesI, in the Restoration Period and under James II, when the Stuarts werecombating liberal institutions, both in England and in the colonies, theGovernor exercised a powerful and dangerous control over affairs inVirginia. But after the English Revolution his power declined. As thepeople of England no longer dreaded a monarch whose authority now restedsolely upon acts of Parliament, so the Virginians ceased to fear hisviceroy. 

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

Such, in outline, was the government originated for Virginia by theliberal leaders of the London Company, and put into operation by SirGeorge Yeardley. It lasted, with the short intermission of theCommonwealth Period, for more than one hundred and fifty years, andunder it Virginia became the most populous and wealthy of the Englishcolonies in America. 

The successful cultivation of tobacco in Virginia, as we have seen, putnew life into the discouraged London Company. The shareholders, feelingthat now at last the colony would grow and prosper, exerted themselvesto the utmost to secure desirable settlers and to equip them properly. Soon fleets of considerable size were leaving the English ports forAmerica, their decks and cabins crowded with emigrants and their holdsladen with clothing, arms and farming implements. [150] During the monthsfrom March 1620 to March 1621 ten ships sailed, carrying no less than1051 persons. [151] In the year ending March, 1622, seventeen shipsreached Virginia, bringing over fifteen hundred new settlers. [152] Andthis stream continued without abatement until 1624, when disasters inVirginia, quarrels among the shareholders and the hostility of the Kingbrought discouragement to the Company. In all, there reached the colonyfrom November, 1619, to February, 1625, nearly five thousand men, womenand children. [153]

Although tobacco culture was the only enterprise of the colony which hadyielded a profit, it was not the design of Sandys and his friends thatthat plant should monopolize the energies of the settlers. They hoped tomake Virginia an industrial community, capable of furnishing the mothercountry with various manufactured articles, then imported from foreigncountries. Especially anxious were they to render England independent intheir supply of pig iron. Ore having been discovered a few miles aboveHenrico on the James, a furnace was erected there and more than ahundred skilled workmen brought over from England to put it intooperation. Before the works could be completed, however, they wereutterly demolished by the savages, the machinery thrown into the river, all the workmen slaughtered, [154] and the only return the Companyobtained for an outlay of thousands of pounds was a shovel, a pair oftongs and one bar of iron. [155] Efforts were made later to repair thehavoc wrought by the Indians and to reëstablish the works, but they cameto nothing. Not until the time of Governor Spotswood were iron furnacesoperated in Virginia, and even then the industry met with a scantmeasure of success. 

The Company also made an earnest effort to promote the manufacture ofglass in Virginia. This industry was threatened with extinction inEngland as a result of the great inroads that had been made upon thetimber available for fuel, and it was thought that Virginia, with itsinexhaustible forests, offered an excellent opportunity for itsrehabilitation. But here too they were disappointed. The sand ofVirginia proved unsuitable for the manufacture of glass. The skilledItalian artisans sent over to put the works into operation wereintractable and mutinous. After trying in various ways to discourage theenterprise, so that they could return to Europe, these men broughtmatters to a close by cracking the furnace with a crowbar. GeorgeSandys, in anger, declared "that a more damned crew hell nevervomited". [156]

In order to show that they were sincere in their professions of interestin the spiritual welfare of the Indians, the Company determined to erecta college at Henrico "for the training up of the children of thoseInfidels in true Religion, moral virtue and civility". [157] The clergyof England were enthusiastic in their support of this good design, andtheir efforts resulted in liberal contributions from various parts ofthe kingdom. [158] Unfortunately, however, the money thus secured wasexpended in sending to the college lands a number of "tenants" theincome from whose labor was to be utilized in establishing andsupporting the institution. [159] As some of these settlers fell victimsto disease and many others were destroyed in the massacre of 1622, theundertaking had to be abandoned, and of course all thought of convertingand civilizing the savages was given up during the long and relentlesswar that ensued. 

Even more discouraging than these failures was the hostility of the Kingto the cultivation of tobacco in Virginia, and his restrictions upon itsimportation into England. Appeals were made to him to prohibit the saleof Spanish tobacco, in order that the Virginia planters might dispose oftheir product at a greater profit. This, it was argued, would be themost effective way of rendering the colony prosperous and selfsustaining. But James, who was still bent upon maintaining his Spanishpolicy, would not offend Philip by excluding his tobacco from England. Moreover, in 1621, he issued a proclamation restricting the importationof the leaf from Virginia and the Somers Isles to fifty-five thousandpounds annually. [160] This measure created consternation in Virginia andin the London Company. The great damage it would cause to the colony andthe diminution in the royal revenue that would result were pointed outto James, but for the time he was obdurate. [161] Indeed, he causedadditional distress by granting the customs upon tobacco to a smallassociation of farmers of the revenue, who greatly damaged the interestsof the colony. In 1622, James, realizing that his policy in regard totobacco was injuring the exchequer, made a compromise with the Company. The King agreed to restrict the importation of Spanish tobacco to 60, 000pounds a year, and after two years to exclude it entirely. All theVirginia leaf was to be admitted, but the Crown was to receive one thirdof the crop, while the other two thirds was subjected to a duty of sixpence a pound. [162] This agreement proved most injurious to the Company, and it was soon abandoned, but the heavy exactions of the Kingcontinued. Undoubtedly this unwise policy was most detrimental toVirginia. Not only did it diminish the returns of the Company and makeit impossible for Sandys to perfect all his wise plans for the colony, but it put a decided check upon immigration. Many that would have goneto Virginia to share in the profits of the planters, remained at homewhen they saw that these profits were being confiscated by theKing. [163]

Yet the strenuous efforts of the London Company would surely havebrought something like prosperity to the colony had not an old enemyreturned to cause the destruction of hundreds of the settlers. This wasthe sickness. For some years the mortality had been very low, becausethe old planters were acclimated, and few new immigrants were coming toVirginia. But with the stream of laborers and artisans that the Sandysrégime now sent over, the scourge appeared again with redoubled fury. Asearly as January, 1620, Governor Yeardley wrote "of the greatmortallitie which hath been in Virginia, about 300 of ye inhabitantshaving dyed this year". [164] The sickness was most deadly in the newlysettled parts of the colony, "to the consumption of divers Hundreds, andalmost the utter destruction of some particular Plantations". [165] TheLondon Company, distressed at the loss of so many men, saw in theirmisfortunes the hand of God, and wrote urging "the more carefullobservations of his holy laws to work a reconciliation". [166] They alsosent directions for the construction, in different parts of the colony, of four guest houses, or hospitals, for the lodging and entertaining offifty persons each, upon their first arrival. [167] But all efforts tocheck the scourge proved fruitless. In the year ending March, 1621 overa thousand persons died upon the immigrant vessels and in Virginia. [168]Despite the fact that hundreds of settlers came to the colony duringthis year, the population actually declined. In 1621 the percentage ofmortality was not so large, but the actual number of deaths increased. During the months from March, 1621, to March, 1622, nearly twelvehundred persons perished. It was like condemning a man to death to sendhim to the colony. Seventy-five or eighty per cent. Of the laborers thatleft England in search of new homes across the Atlantic died before theexpiration of their first year. The exact number of deaths in 1622 isnot known, but there is reason to believe that it approximated thirteenhundred. [169] Mr. George Sandys, brother of the Secretary of the LondonCompany, wrote, "Such a pestilent fever rageth this winter amongst us:never knowne before in Virginia, by the infected people that came overin ye _Abigall_, who were poisoned with ... Beer and all falling sick &many dying, every where dispersed the contagion, and the forerunningSummer hath been also deadly upon us. "[170] Not until 1624 did themortality decline. Then it was that the Governor wrote, "This summer, God be thanked, the Colony hath very well stood to health". [171] Thedread sickness had spent itself for lack of new victims, for theimmigration had declined and the old planters had become "seasoned". 

History does not record an epidemic more deadly than that which sweptover Virginia during these years. It is estimated that the number ofthose that lost their lives from the diseases native to the colony andto those brought in from the infected ships amounts to no less than fourthousand. [172] When the tide of immigration was started by Sir EdwinSandys in 1619, there were living in Virginia about nine hundredpersons; when it slackened in 1624 the population was but elevenhundred. The sending of nearly five thousand settlers to Virginia hadresulted in a gain of but two hundred. It is true that the tomahawk andstarvation accounts for a part of this mortality, but by far the largernumber of deaths was due to disease. 

Yet hardly less horrible than the sickness was the Indian massacre of1622. This disaster, which cost the lives of several hundred persons, struck terror into the hearts of every Englishman in Virginia. Thecolonists had not the least intimation that the savages meditated harmto them, for peace had existed between the races ever since the marriageof Rolfe and Pocahontas. Considering the protection of their palisadesno longer necessary after that event, they had spread out over thecolony in search of the most fertile lands. Their plantations extendedat intervals for many miles along both banks of the James, and in thecase of a sudden attack by the Indians it would obviously be difficultfor the settlers to defend themselves or to offer assistance to theirneighbors. 

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

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

His plans were laid with great cunning. Although thousands of nativesknew of the design, no warning reached the white men until the very eveof the massacre. While Opechancanough was preparing this tremendousblow, he protested in the strongest terms his perpetual good will andlove, declaring that the sky would fall before he would bring an end tothe peace. [175] In order to lull the suspicions of the planters, "evenbut two daies before the massacre", he guided some of them "with muchkindnesse through the woods, and one Browne that lived among them tolearne the language", he sent home to his master. The evening before theattack 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 tosave the most remote settlements, preserved many hundreds from thetomahawk. Chanco, an Indian boy who had been adopted by an Englishmannamed Race, revealed the entire plot to his master. The man secured hishouse, and rowed away before dawn in desperate haste to Jamestown, togive warning to the Governor. "Whereby they were prevented, and at suchother plantations as possibly intelligence could be given. "[177]

The assault of the savages was swift and deadly. In all parts of thecolony they fell upon the settlers, and those that had received nowarning were, in most cases, butchered before they could suspect thatharm was intended. Sometimes the Indians sat down to breakfast withtheir victims, "whom immediately with their owne tooles they slew mostbarbarously, not sparing either age or sex, man woman or childe". [178]Many were slain while working in the fields; others were trapped intheir houses and butchered before they could seize their weapons. Thesavages, "not being content with their lives, ... Fell againe upon thedead 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 thesurprise, for where the English made the least resistance the savageswere usually beaten off. A planter named Causie, when attacked andwounded and surrounded by the Indians, "with an axe did cleave one oftheir heads, whereby the rest fled and he escaped; for they hurt not anythat did either fight or stand upon their guard. In one place where theyhad warning of it, (they) defended the house against sixty or more thatassaulted it. "[180]

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

One of the first to fall was Reverend George Thorpe, a member of theVirginia Council, and a man of prominence in England. [183] Leaving alife of honor and ease, he had come to Virginia to work for theconversion of the Indians. He had apparently won the favor ofOpechancanough, with whom he often discoursed upon the Christianreligion. At the moment of his murder, his servant, perceiving thedeadly intent of the savages, gave him warning, but his gentle naturewould not permit him to believe harm of those whom he had alwaysbefriended, and he was cut down without resistance. [184]

The barbarous king failed in his design to destroy the English race inVirginia, but the massacre was a deadly blow to the colony. No less thanthree hundred and fifty-seven persons were slaughtered, including sixCouncillors. The news of the disaster brought dismay to the LondonCompany. For a while they attempted to keep the matter a secret, but ina few weeks it was known all over England. Although the massacre couldnot have been foreseen or prevented, it served as a pretext for numerousattacks upon Sandys and the party which supported him. It discouragedmany shareholders and made it harder to secure settlers for the colony. Even worse was the effect in Virginia. The system of farming inunprotected plantations, which had prevailed for some years, had now tobe abandoned and many settlements that were exposed to the Indians weredeserted. "We have not, " wrote the Assembly, "the safe range of theCountry for the increase of Cattle, Swyne, etc; nor for the game andfowle which the country affords in great plentye; besides our duties towatch and warde to secure ourselves and labor are as hard and chargeableas if the enemy were at all times present. "[185]

The massacre was followed by a venomous war with the Indians, whichlasted many years. The English, feeling that their families and theirhomes would never be safe so long as the savages shared the country withthem, deliberately planned the extermination of all hostile tribes inVirginia. Their conversion was given no further consideration. "Theterms betwixt us and them, " they declared, "are irreconcilable. "[186]Governor Wyatt wrote, "All trade with them must be forbidden, andwithout doubt either we must cleere them or they us out of theCountry. "[187]

But it soon became apparent that neither people would be able to win animmediate or decisive victory. The Indians could not hope to destroy theEnglish, now that their deeply laid plot had failed. In open battletheir light arrows made no impression upon the coats of plate and ofmail in which the white men were incased, while their own bodies werewithout protection against the superior weapons of their foes. On theother hand, it was very difficult for the colonists to strike thesavages, because of the "advantages of the wood and the nimbleness oftheir heels". [188] Even though they "chased them to and fro", followingthem to their villages and burning their huts, they found it verydifficult to do them serious harm. 

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

The natives retaliated with many sudden raids upon the more exposedparts of the colony, where they burned, pillaged and murdered. Theplanter at work in his fields might expect to find them lurking in thehigh grass, while their ambushes in the woods made communication fromplantation to plantation very dangerous. "The harmes that they do us, "wrote the Assembly, "is by ambushes and sudden incursions, where theysee their advantages. "[190] In 1625 Captain John Harvey declared thatthe two races were "ingaged in a mortall warre and fleshed in eachothers bloud, of which the Causes have been the late massacre on theSalvages parte.... I conceive that by the dispersion of the Plantationsthe Salvages hath the advantage in this warre, and that by theirsuddaine assaults they do us more harme than we do them by our setvoyages". [191]

When the English had recovered from the first shock of the massacre, they planned four expeditions against the tribes living on the riverabove Jamestown. Mr. George Sandys attacked the Tappahatomaks, SirGeorge Yeardley the Wyanokes, Captain William Powell the Chickahominiesand the Appomatocks, and Captain John West the Tanx-Powhatans. Thesavages, without attempting to make a stand, deserted their villages andtheir 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 theirheavy armor, could not overtake them. [192] In the fall Sir GeorgeYeardley led three hundred men down the river against the Nansemonds andagainst Opechancanough. The natives "set fire to their own houses, andspoiled what they could, and then fled with what they could carry; sothat the English did make no slaughter amongst them for revenge. TheirCorne fields being newly gathered, they surprised all they found, burntthe houses (that) remained unburnt, and so departed. "[193]

It is remarkable that the colonists could continue this war while thesickness was raging among them. At the very time that Yeardley wasfighting Opechancanough, hundreds of his comrades were dying "like catsand 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 asRoebucks, like the violent lightening they are gone as soon asperceived, 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 Englishthat would have shamed the savages themselves. In 1623, the Indians, discouraged by the destruction of their crops, sent messengers toJamestown, asking for peace. The colonists determined to take advantageof this overture to recover their prisoners and at the same time tostrike a sudden blow at their enemy. Early in June, Captain WilliamTucker with twelve well armed men was sent "in a shalope under colour tomake peace with them". On the arrival of this party at the chief town ofOpechancanough, the savages thronged down to the riverside to parleywith them, but the English refused to consider any terms until allprisoners had been restored. Assenting to this, the savages broughtforth seven whites and they were placed aboard the vessel. Having thusaccomplished their purpose, the soldiers, at a given signal, let fly avolley into the midst of the crowd, killing "some 40 Indians including 3of the chiefest". [195]

In 1624 the English won a great victory over the most troublesome of theIndian tribes, the Pamunkeys. Governor Wyatt, in leading an expeditionagainst this people had evidently expected little resistance, for hebrought with him but sixty fighting men. The Pamunkeys, however, hadplanted that year a very large crop of corn, which they needed for thesupport of themselves and their confederates, and they determined toprotect it at all hazards. So Wyatt and his little band were surprised, on approaching their village to find before them more than eight hundredwarriors prepared for battle. The English did not falter in the face ofthis army, and a fierce contest ensued. "Fightinge not only forsafeguards of their houses and such a huge quantity of corn", but fortheir reputation with the other nations, the Pamunkeys displayed unusualbravery. For two days the battle went on. Whenever the young warriorswavered before the volleys of musketry, they were driven back into thefight by the older men. Twenty-four of the English were detached fromthe firing line and were employed in destroying the maize. In this theywere so successful that enough corn was cut down "as by Estimation ofmen of good judgment was sufficient to have sustained fower thousand menfor a twelvemonth". At last the savages in despair gave up the fight andstood nearby "rufully lookinge on whilst their Corne was cutt down". "Inthis Expedition, " wrote the colonists, "sixteene of the English werehurte our first and seconde day, whereby nyne of the best shott weremade unserviceable for that tyme, yett never a man slayne, nor nonemiscarried of those hurtes, Since when they have not greatly troubledus, nor interrupted our labours. "[196]

The series of misfortunes which befel the London Company during theadministration of Sir Edwin Sandys culminated in the loss of theircharter. For some time King James had been growing more and more hostileto the party that had assumed control of the colony. It is highlyprobable that he had had no intimation, when the charter of 1612 wasgranted, that popular institutions would be established in Virginia, andthe extension of the English parliamentary system to America must havebeen distasteful to him. The enemies of Sandys had been whispering tothe King that he "aymed at nothing more than to make a free popularstate there, and himselfe and his assured friends to be the leaders ofthem". [197] James knew that Sandys was not friendly to the prerogativeof the Crown. It had been stated "that there was not any man in theworld that carried a more malitious heart to the Government of aMonarchie". [198]

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

Even more distasteful to the King than the establishment of popularinstitutions in the little colony was the spreading of liberal doctrinesthroughout England by the Sandys faction of the Company. James could nolonger tolerate their meetings, if once he began to look upon them asthe nursery of discontent and sedition. The party that was so determinedin its purpose to plant a republican government in Virginia might stopat nothing to accomplish the same end in England. James knew thatnational politics were often discussed in the assemblies of the Companyand that the parties there were sometimes as "animated one against theother" as had been the "Guelfs and Gebillines" of Italy. [201] He decidedthat the best way to end these controversies and frustrate the designsof his enemies was to annul the charter of the Company and make Virginiaa royal colony. 

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

The Company was now doomed, for the King decided that the charter mustbe revoked. He could not, of course, annul a grant that had passed underthe Great Seal, without some presence of legal proceedings, but whenonce he had determined on the ruin of the Company, means to accomplishhis end were not lacking. John Ferrar wrote, "The King, notwithstandinghis royal word and honor pledged to the contrary ... Was now determinedwith all his force to make the last assault, and give the death blow tothis ... Company. "[204]

James began by hunting evidence of mismanagement and incapacity by theSandys party. He gave orders to Captain Nathaniel Butler, who had spentsome months in Virginia, to write a pamphlet describing the condition ofthe colony. _The Unmasking of Virginia_, as Butler's work is called wasnothing less than a bitter assault upon the conduct of affairs since thebeginning of the Sandys administration. Unfortunately, it was notnecessary for the author to exaggerate much in his description of thefrightful conditions in the colony; but it was unfair to place the blameupon the Company. The misfortunes of the settlers were due to diseaseand the Indians and did not result from incapacity or negligence on thepart of Sandys. The Company drew up "A True answer to a writing ofInformation presented to his Majesty by Captain Nathaniel Butler", denying most of the charges and explaining others, but they could notefface 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 toinvestigate "all abuses and grievances ... All wrongs and injuryes doneto any adventurers or planters and the grounds and causes thereof, andto propound after what sort the same may be better managed". [207] Itseems quite clear that the commissioners understood that they wereexpected to give the King "some true ground to work upon", in his attackon the Company's charter. [208] In a few weeks they were busy receivingtestimony 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 theCompany, the messenger and the keeper of the house in which they heldtheir meetings. [209] They intercepted private letters from Virginia, telling of the horrible suffering there, and made the King aware oftheir contents. [210]

In July the commission made its report. It found that "the people sentto inhabit there ... Were most of them by God's visitation, sicknes ofbody, famine, and by massacres ... Dead and deceased, and those thatwere living of them lived in miserable and lamentable necessity andwant.... That this neglect they conceived, must fall on the Governorsand Company here, who had power to direct the Plantations there.... Thatif his Majesty's first Grant of April 10 1606, and his Majesty's mostprudent and princely Instructions given in the beginning ... Had beenpursued, much better effects had been produced, than had been by thealteration thereof, into so popular a course. "[211] James was muchpleased with the report, and it confirmed his determination to "resumethe government, and to reduce that popular form so as to make it agreewith the monarchial form". [212]

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

A special meeting of the stockholders was called, October 30th, 1623, toconsider the King's proposal. Every man present must have known that therejection of the compromise would mean the loss of all the money he hadinvested in the colony, and that if the King's wishes were acceded tohis interests would be preserved. But the Company was fighting forsomething higher than personal gain--for the maintenance of liberalinstitutions in America, for the defence of the rights of Englishcitizens. After a "hot debate" they put the question to the vote, andthe offer was rejected, there being "only nine hands for the deliveringup of the Charters, and all the rest (being about three score more) wereof a contrary opinion". [215]

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

In the meanwhile the King had placed his case in the hands ofAttorney-General Coventry, who had prepared a _quo warranto_ against theCompany. [219] Although all hope of retaining the charter was gone, theSandys party were determined to fight to the end. They voted to employattorneys and to plead their case before the King's Bench. The _quowarranto_ came up June 26th, 1624, and "the Virginia Patent wasoverthrown", on a mistake in pleading. [220] With this judgment theLondon Company practically ceased to exist, and Virginia became a royalprovince. 

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 forthree years to levy a small tax by the poll. The county taxes fordefraying local expenses, were assessed and collected by the justices ofthe 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 itsefforts to prevent the revocation of the charter. The Governor, theCouncil and the Burgesses gave active assistance to Sandys and hisfriends by testifying to the wisdom of the management and contradictingthe calumnies of their enemies. In the midst of the controversy thePrivy Council had appointed a commission which they sent to Virginia toinvestigate conditions there and to gather evidence against the Company. This board consisted of John Harvey, John Pory, Abraham Piersey andSamuel Matthews, men destined to play prominent rôles in Virginiahistory, but then described as "certayne obscure persons". [221] When thecommissioners reached the colony they made known to the Assembly theKing's desire to revoke the charter and to take upon himself thedirection of the government. They then asked the members to subscribe toa statement expressing their gratitude for the care of the King, andwillingness to consent to the contemplated change. The Assembly returnedthe paper unsigned. "When our consent, " they said, "to the surrender ofthe Pattents, shalbe required, will be the most proper timeto make reply: in the mean time wee conceive his Majesties intention ofchanging the government hath proceeded from much misinformation. "[222]

After this they ignored the commissioners, and addressed themselves indirect 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 formertimes. [224] They prayed that their liberal institutions might not bedestroyed or the old Smith faction of the Company placed over themagain. [225] These papers they sent to England by one of their number, John Pountis, even refusing to let the commissioners see them. But Porysucceeded in securing copies from the acting secretary, EdwardSharpless. [226] The Council, upon learning of this betrayal, were soincensed against the secretary that they sentenced him to "stand in thePillory and there to have his Ears nailed to it, and cut off". [227] Hispunishment was modified, however, so that when he was "sett in thePillorie", he "lost but a part of one of his eares". [228] The King, uponlearning of this incident, which was represented to him "as a bloody andbarbarous act", became highly incensed against the Council. [229]

In the meanwhile James had appointed a large commission, with ViscountMandeville at its head, "to confer, consult, resolve and expedite allaffaires ... Of Virginia, and to take care and give order for thedirecting and government thereof". [230] This body met weekly at thehouse of Sir Thomas Smith, and immediately assumed control of thecolony. [231] Their first act was to decide upon a form of government toreplace the Virginia Magna Charta. In conformance with the wishes of theKing they resolved to return to the plan of 1606. In theirrecommendations no mention was made of an Assembly. It seemed for awhile that the work of Sandys was to be undone, and the seeds of libertyin Virginia destroyed almost before they had taken root. Fortunately, however, this was not to be. The commission, perhaps wishing to allaythe fears of the colonists, reappointed Sir Francis Wyatt Governor, andretained most of the old Council. This made it certain that for a whileat least the government was to be in the hands of men of lofty characterand liberal views. [232] More fortunate still for Virginia was the deathof James I. This event removed the most determined enemy of theirAssembly, and placed upon the throne a man less hostile to the Sandysfaction, less determined to suppress the liberal institutions of thecolony. 

Soon after his accession Charles I abolished the Mandeville commissionand appointed in its place a committee of the Privy Council. [233] For awhile he seemed inclined to restore the Company, for he consulted withSandys and requested him to give his opinion "touching the best form ofGovernment". [234] But he finally rejected his proposals, declaring thathe had come to the same determination that his father had held. He wasresolved, he said, that the government should be immediately dependentupon himself and not be committed to any company or corporation. [235]But, like his father, he was "pleased to authorise Sir Francis Wyattknight to be governor there, and such as are now employed for hisMajesties Councell there to have authoritie to continue the sameemployment". No provision was made for a representative body, the powerof issuing decrees, ordinances and public orders being assigned to theCouncil. 

But the Assembly was saved by the unselfish conduct of Wyatt andYeardley and their Councils. [236] Had these men sought their own gain atthe expense of the liberty of their fellow colonists, they would havewelcomed a change that relieved them from the restraint of therepresentatives of the people. The elimination of the Burgesses wouldhave left them as absolute as had been Wingfield and the first Council. But they were most anxious to preserve for Virginia the right ofrepresentative government, and wrote to England again and again pleadingfor the reëstablishment of the Assembly. [237] "Above all, " they said, "we humbly intreat your Lordships that we may retaine the Libertie ofour Generall Assemblie, than which nothing can more conduce to oursatisfaction or the publique utilitie. "[238] In 1625 Yeardley himselfcrossed the ocean to present a new petition. He pleaded with Charles "toavoid the oppression of Governors there, that their liberty of GenerallAssemblyes may be continued and confirmed, and that they may have avoice in the election of officers, as in other Corporations". [239] Afterthe overthrow of the Company charter, there could be no legal electionof Burgesses and no legislation save by proclamation of the Governor andCouncil. Yet Wyatt, in order to preserve as far as possible some form ofrepresentative government, held conventions or informal meetings ofleading citizens, to confer with the Council on important matters. Theyissued papers under the title of "Governor, Councell and Collony ofVirginia assembled together", [240] and it is possible that the peopleelected their delegates just as they had formerly chosen Burgesses. Since, however, acts passed by these assemblages could not be enforcedin the courts, all legislation for the time being took the form ofproclamations. [241]

Finally Charles yielded to the wishes of the people, and, in the fall of1627, sent written instructions to the officials in Virginia to hold anelection of Burgesses and to summon a General Assembly. [242] The King'simmediate motive for this important step was his desire to gain theplanters' acceptance through their representatives of an offer which hemade to buy all their tobacco. In the spring of 1628 the Council wrote, "In obedience to his Majesties Commands wee have given order that allthe Burgesses of Particular Plantations should shortly be assembled atJames Citty that by the general and unanimous voice of the whole Colonyhis Majesty may receave a full answere. "[243] Although the Assembly musthave realized that its very existence might depend upon its compliancewith the King's wishes, it refused to accept his proposition. Theplanters were willing to sell their tobacco to his Majesty, but onlyupon more liberal terms than those offered them. Charles rejected thecounter-proposals of the Virginians, with some show of anger, but he didnot abolish the Assembly, and in ensuing years sessions were held withgreat regularity. [244]

The apprehensions of the colonists during this trying period were mademore acute by the resignation of Sir Francis Wyatt. In the winter of1625-26 the Council wrote the Virginia commissioners, "The Governor hathlong expected a Successor, and the necessity of his private estatecompelling him not to put off any longer his return for England, weehope it is already provided for. "[245] Great must have been the reliefin the colony when it was learned that Sir George Yeardley had beenchosen to succeed Governor Wyatt. Yeardley had been the bearer of theVirginia Magna Charta, under which the first Assembly had beenestablished, and his services had not been forgotten by the people. Buthe was not destined to see the restoration of the Burgesses, for he diedin November, 1627. [246] We have lost, wrote the Council in great grief, "a main pillar of this our building & thereby a support to the wholebody". [247]

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

In the spring of 1630 Sir John Harvey arrived in Virginia. [253] This manproved 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 hisadministration was marked throughout by injustice and oppression. 

His first efforts as Governor were to attempt to win the friendship andsupport of one of the Council and to bring humiliation and ruin uponanother. He had been in Virginia but a few weeks when he wrote the Kingasking especial favors for Captain Samuel Matthews. "This gentleman, " hesaid, "I found most readie to set forward all services propounded forhis Majesties honor, ... And without his faithful assistance perhaps Ishould not soe soon have brought the busines of this Country to so goodeffect. " It would be a just reward for these services, he thought, toallow him for a year or two to ship the tobacco of his plantation intoEngland free of customs. [254] At the same time Harvey seemed bent uponthe utter undoing of Dr. Pott. Claiming that the pleasure lovingphysician 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 wasdesigned to impress upon the people a just appreciation of theGovernor's power. Harvey felt keenly the restriction of the Council. Ithad been the intention of James and after his death Charles to restorethe government of the colony to its original form, in which all matterswere determined by the Council. "His Majesties ... Pleasure, " wrote thePrivy Council in 1625, "is that all judgements, decrees, and allimportant actions be given, determined and undertaken by the advice andvoices of the greater part. "[256] If these instructions were adhered to, the Governor would become no more than the presiding officer of theCouncil. To this position Harvey was determined never to be reduced. Hewould, at the very outset, show that he was master in Virginia, able toreward his friends, or to punish those that incurred his displeasure. 

Dr. Pott could not believe that the proceedings against him wereintended seriously, and, in defiance of the Governor's commands, lefthis plantation to come to Elizabeth City. "Upon which contempt, " wroteHarvey, "I committed him close prisoner, attended with a guard. " At theearnest request of several gentlemen, the Governor finally consentedthat he might return to his plantation, but only under bond. Pott, however, refused to avail himself of the kindness of his friends, and sowas kept in confinement. [257] On the 9th of July he was brought totrial, found guilty upon two indictments, and his entire estateconfiscated. [258]

That Pott was convicted by a jury of thirteen men, three of themCouncillors, is by no means conclusive evidence of his guilt. The closeconnection between the executive and the courts at this time made itquite possible for the Governor to obtain from a jury whatever verdicthe desired. In fact it became the custom for a new administration, assoon as it was installed in power, to take revenge upon its enemies bymeans of the courts. 

Pott's guilt is made still more doubtful by the fact that execution ofthe sentence was suspended "untill his Majesties pleasure might besignified concerning him", while the Council united in giving theirsecurity for his safe keeping. [259] Harvey himself wrote asking theKing's clemency. "For as much, " he said, "as he is the only Physician inthe Colonie, and skilled in the Epidemicall diseases of the planters, ... I am bound to entreat" your Majesty to pardon him. [260] It wouldseem quite inexplicable that Harvey should go to so much trouble toconvict 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 theGovernor than hitherto they have done. "[261] Having shown the coloniststhat he could humble the strongest of them, he now sought to teach themthat his intercession with the King could restore even the criminal tohis former position. 

When Dr. Pott was at Elizabeth City his wife was reported to be ill, butthis did not deter her from making the long and dangerous voyage toEngland to appeal to the King "touching the wrong" done herhusband. [262] Charles referred the matter to the Virginia commissioners, who gave her a hearing in the presence of Harvey's agent. Finding nojustification for the proceedings against him, they wrote Harvey thatfor aught they could tell Pott had demeaned himself well and that thereseemed to have been "some hard usage against him". [263] The sentence ofconfiscation seems never to have been carried out, but Pott was notrestored to his seat in the Council. [264]

This arbitrary conduct did not succeed in intimidating the otherCouncillors. These men must have felt that the attack upon Dr. Pott wasaimed partly at the dignity and power of the Council itself. If Harveycould thus ruin those that incurred his displeasure, the Councillorswould lose all independence in their relations with him. Soon they werein open hostility to the Governor. Claiming that Harvey could do nothingwithout their consent, and that all important matters had to bedetermined "by the greater number of voyces at the Councell Table", theyentered upon a policy of obstruction. It was in vain that the Governordeclared that he was the King's substitute, that they were but hisassistants, and that they were impeding his Majesty's business; theywould yield to him only the position of first among equals. Early in1631 Harvey was filling his letters to England with complaints of the"waywardness and oppositions of those of the Councell". "For instead ofgiving me assistance, " he declared, "they stand Contesting and disputingmy authoritie, avering that I can doe nothinge but what they shalladvise me, and that my power extendeth noe further than a bare castingvoice. "[265] He had received, he claimed, a letter from the King, strengthening his commission and empowering him to "doe justice to allmen, 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 tobe ambitious or vainglorious, as that I should desire to live here asGovernor to predominate, or prefer mine owne particular before thegenerall good. " My position in Virginia is most miserable, "chieflythrough the aversions of those from whom I expected assistance". He hadoften tried to bring peace and amity between them, but all to nopurpose, for he was scorned for his efforts. He would be humbly thankfulif his Majesty would be pleased to strengthen his commission, "that theplace of Governor and the duty of Councellors may be knowne anddistinguished". [266]

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

A new cause for complaint against the Governor arose with the foundingof Maryland. In 1623 George Calvert, the first Lord Baltimore, hadreceived 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 in1627 came with his wife and children to take personal control of hislittle settlement. His experience with the severe Newfoundland winterpersuaded him that it would be wise to transfer his colony to a morecongenial clime. "From the middle of October, " he wrote Charles I, "tothe middle of May there is a sad face of winter upon all the land; bothsea and land so frozen for the greater part of the time as they are notpenetrable ... Besides the air so intolerable cold as it is hardly to beendured.... I am determined to commit this place to fishermen that areable to encounter stormes and hard weather, and to remove myself withsome forty persons to your Majesties dominion of Virginia; where, ifyour Majesty will please to grant me a precinct of land, with suchprivileges as the King your father ... Was pleased to grant me here, Ishall endeavour to the utmost of my power, to deserve it. "[268]

In 1629 he sailed for Virginia, with his wife and children, and arrivedat Jamestown the first day of October. His reception by Governor Pottand the Council was by no means cordial. The Virginians were loatheither to receive a band of Catholics into their midst, or to concede tothem a portion of the land that they held under the royal charters. Desiring to be rid of Baltimore as speedily as possible, they tenderedhim the oath of supremacy. This, of course, as a good Catholic he couldnot take, for it recognized the English sovereign as the supremeauthority in all ecclesiastical matters. Baltimore proposed analternative oath of allegiance, but the Governor and Council refused toaccept it, and requested him to leave at once. Knowing that it was hisintention to apply for a tract of land within their borders, theVirginians sent William Claiborne after him to London, to watch him andto thwart his designs. 

Despite Claiborne's efforts a patent was granted Baltimore, making himlord proprietor of a province north of the Potomac river, which receivedthe 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, CeciliusCalvert. The Virginians protested against this grant "within the Limitsof the Colony", claiming that it would interfere with their Indian tradein the Chesapeake, and that the establishment of the Catholics so neartheir settlements would "give a generall disheartening of thePlanters". [269] But their complaints availed nothing. Not only didCharles refuse to revoke the charter, but he wrote the Governor andCouncil commanding them to give Lord Baltimore every possible assistancein making his settlement. You must, he said, "suffer his servants andPlanters to buy and transport such cattle and comodities to theirColonie, as you may conveniently spare ... And give them ... Such lawfulassistance 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 threehundred men to plant the new colony. In February, 1634, the expeditionreached Point Comfort, where it stopped to secure from the Virginiansthe assistance that the King had promised should be given them. 

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

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

Despite the defiant attitude of the Virginians, it is probable thatCalvert would have permitted the Kent Islanders to remain unmolested, had not a report spread abroad that Claiborne was endeavoring topersuade the Indians to attack Saint Mary's. A joint commission ofVirginians and Marylanders declared the charge false, but suspicion andill will had been aroused, and a conflict could not be avoided. InApril, 1635, Governor Calvert, alleging that Claiborne was indulging inillicit trade, fell upon and captured one of his merchantmen. In greatindignation the islanders fitted out a vessel, the _Cockatrice_, toscour the Chesapeake and make reprisals. She was attacked, however, bytwo pinnaces from Saint Mary's and, after a severe conflict in whichseveral men were killed, was forced to surrender. A few weeks laterClaiborne gained revenge by defeating the Marylanders in a fight at themouth of the Potomac. 

In these encounters the Kent Islanders had the sympathy of the Virginiaplanters. Excitement ran high in the colony, and there was danger thatan expedition might be sent to Saint Mary's to overpower the intrudersand banish them from the country. Resentment against Harvey, who stillgave aid and encouragement to Maryland, became more bitter than ever. His espousal of the cause of the enemies of Virginia made the plantersregard him as a traitor. In 1635 Samuel Matthews wrote to Sir JohnWolstenholme, "The Inhabitants also understood with indignation that theMarylanders had taken Capt. Claibournes Pinnaces and men ... Whichaction of theirs Sir John Harvey upheld contrary to his Majestiesexpress commands. "[273] The Councillors held many "meetings andconsultations" to devise plans for the overthrow of the new colony, andan active correspondence was carried on with Baltimore's enemies inEngland in the vain hope that the charter might yet be revoked. [274]

Matters were now moving rapidly to a crisis. Harvey's administrationbecame more and more unpopular. Sir John Wolstenholme, who kept in closetouch with the colony, declared that the Governor's misconduct in hisgovernment 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, thecomplaints against him were so numerous that it became necessary toconvene the Assembly to consider them. [276]

To what extent Harvey usurped the powers of the General Assembly is notclear, but it seems very probable that he frequently made use ofproclamations to enforce his will upon the people. [277] It was quiteproper and necessary for the Governor, when the houses were not insession, to issue ordinances of a temporary character, but this was apower susceptible of great abuse. And for the Governor to repealstatutes by proclamation would be fatal to the liberties of the people. That Harvey was guilty of this usurpation seems probable from the factthat a law was enacted declaring it the duty of the people to disregardall proclamations that conflicted with any act of Assembly. [278]

Also there is reason to believe that Harvey found ways of imposingillegal taxes upon the people. John Burk, in his _History of Virginia_, declares unreservedly that it was Harvey's purpose "to feed his avariceand 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, widenedthe breach between the Governor and the Council, and made it evident toall that Harvey would not hesitate upon occasion to disregard propertyrights and to break the laws of the colony. A certain Captain Young cameto Virginia upon a commission for the King. Wishing to build twoshallops while in the colony and having need of a ship's carpenter, Young, with the consent of Harvey, seized a skilled servant of one ofthe planters. This arbitrary procedure was in direct defiance of astatute of Assembly of March, 1624, that declared that "the Governorshall not withdraw the inhabitants from their private labors to anyservice of his own upon any colour whatsoever". [280]

Upon hearing of the incident Captain Samuel Matthews and other membersof the Council came to Harvey to demand an explanation. The Governorreplied that the man had been taken because Young had need of him "toprosecute with speed the King's service", and "that his Majesty hadgiven him authority to make use of any persons he found there". [281]This answer did not satisfy the Councillors. Matthews declared "that ifthings were done on this fashion it would breed ill bloude in Virginia", and in anger "turning his back, with his truncheon lashed off the headsof certain high weeds that were growing there". [282] Harvey, wishing toappease the Councillors, said, "Come gentlemen, let us goe to supper &for the night leave this discourse", but their resentment was too greatto 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 theimpression that he was uniformly patient with the Council, and courteousin all the disputes that were constantly arising. That he was not alwaysso self restrained is shown by the fact that on one occasion, he becameembroiled with one of the Councillors, Captain Stevens, and knocked outsome of his teeth with a cudgel. [284] Samuel Matthews wrote that he hadheard the Governor "in open court revile all the Councell and tell themthey were to give their attendance as assistants only to advise withhim". The Governor attempted, he declared, to usurp the whole power ofthe courts, without regard to the rights of the Councillors, "wherebyjustice was now done but soe farr as suited with his will, to the greatlosse of many mens estates and a generall feare in all". [285]

In 1634 the King once more made a proposal to the colonists for thepurchase of their tobacco, and demanded their assent through the GeneralAssembly. The Burgesses, who dreaded all contracts, drew up an answerwhich was "in effect a deniall of his Majesties proposition", and, inorder 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 apopular business, by subscribing a multitude of hands thereto, asthinking thereby to give it countenance". [286] The Governor's arbitraryaction aroused great anger throughout the colony. Matthews wrote SirJohn Wolstenholme, "The Consideration of the wrong done by the Governorto the whole Colony in detayning the foresaid letters to his Majesty didexceedingly perplex them whereby they were made sensible of thecondition of the present Government. "[287]

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

When Harvey heard of these proceedings he was greatly enraged. Summoningthe Council to meet without delay, he issued warrants for Dr. Pott andseveral others that had aided in circulating the petition. "After a fewdays Potts was brought up prisoner, having before his apprehending binin the lower parts of the Country there also mustering his names at ameeting called for that purpose. "[288] He does not seem to have fearedthe angry threats of the Governor, for when put in irons and broughtbefore the Council, he readily consented to surrender the offendingpetition. At the same time he asserted "that if he had offended he didappeal to the King, for he was sure of noe justice from Sir JohnHarvey". When some of the other prisoners, in their hearing before theCouncil, asked the cause of their arrest, the Governor told them theyshould be informed at the gallows. 

Shortly after this the Council was summoned to deliberate on the fate ofthe accused. The Governor, fearing that he might not secure convictionfrom a jury, "declared it necessary that Marshall law should be executedupon" them. When the Councillors refused to consent to any other than alegal trial, Harvey flew into a furious passion. For a while he pacedback and forth in the room hardly able to contain himself. At length hesat down in his chair, and with a dark countenance commanded hiscolleagues to be seated. A long pause ensued, and then he announced thathe had a question that they must answer each in his turn, withoutdeliberation or consultation. "What, " he enquired, "doe you think theydeserve that have gone about to persuade the people from their obedienceto his Majesties substitute?" "And I begin with you, " he said, turningto Mr. Minifie. "I am but a young lawyer, " Minifie replied, "and darenot uppon the suddain deliver my opinion. " At this point Mr. Farrarbegan to complain of these strange proceedings, but Harvey commanded himto be silent. Captain Matthews also protested, and the other Councillorssoon joined him in refusing to answer the Governor's question. "Thenfollowed many bitter Languages from him till the sitting ended. "

At the next meeting Harvey asked what the Council thought were thereasons that the petition had been circulated against him, and demandedto know whether they had any knowledge of the matter. Mr. Minifiereplied that the chief grievance of the people was the detaining of theletter of the Assembly to the King. This answer seems to have arousedthe 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 foundthat he could not deal thus arbitrarily with the Councillors. Utie andMatthews rushed up and seizing him cried, "And we you upon suspicion oftreason to his Majestie". Dr. Pott, who was present and had probablybeen waiting for this crisis, held up his hand as a signal toconfederates without, "when straight about 40 musketiers ... Whichbefore that time lay hid, came ... Running with their peeces presented"towards the house. "Stay here, " commanded Pott, "until there be use ofyou. "

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

And there, with the enraged Governor seated before him, he poured outthe recital of the people's wrongs. When he had finished there came anominous pause. Finally Matthews spoke again. "Sir, " he said, "thepeoples fury is up against you and to appease it, is beyond our power, unlesse you please to goe for England, there to answer theircomplaints. " But this Harvey refused to do. He had been made Governor ofVirginia by the King, he said, and without his command he would notleave his charge. 

But before many days the Governor changed his mind. He found himselfdeserted by all and entirely in the power of the Councillors. Assentinals were placed "in all wayes & passages so that noe man couldtravell or come from place to place", he could make no effort to raisetroops. Dr. Pott and the other prisoners were set at liberty. A guardwas placed around Harvey, ostensibly to protect him, but really with thepurpose of restraining him. A letter came from Captain Purifee, aCouncillor then in the "lower parts" of the colony, which spoke ofdesigns of the people to bring Harvey to account for his many wrongs. Inalarm the Governor consented to take the first ship for England. Heendeavored, however, to name his successor, to induce Matthews, Pierce, and Minifie to go with him to England, and to secure a promise from theCouncil not to molest Maryland. But they would consent to none of thesethings. 

In the meantime an Assembly had been called to consider the innumerablegrievances against the Governor. When they met at Jamestown, Harvey sentthem a letter, declaring the session illegal and ordering them todisperse to their homes. "Notwithstanding his threats ... The assemblyproceeded according to their former intentions. " Harvey then dispatcheda letter to the Council, ordering them to send him his royal commissionand instructions, but these documents had been intrusted to the keepingof Mr. Minifie with directions not to surrender them. The Council thenturned themselves to the task of selecting a successor to Harvey. Theirunanimous vote was given to Captain Francis West, the senior member ofthe board and formerly Governor. Feeling that since the expulsion ofHarvey had been primarily a movement to protect the rights of thepeople, the Burgesses should have some voice in the election of the newGovernor, they appealed to the Assembly for the ratification of theirchoice. West was popular in the colony, and "the people's suffrages"were cast for him as willingly as had been those of the Council. TheAssembly then drew up resolutions setting forth the misconduct of Harveyand justifying their course in sending him back to England. Thesedocuments were entrusted to one Thomas Harwood, who was to deliver themto the King. Of what happened after Harvey's departure we have littlerecord, but it is probable that the colonists revenged themselves uponthe deposed Governor by confiscating all his ill gotten possessions. 

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

When Charles I learned that the Virginians had deposed his Governor andsent him back to England, he was surprised and angered. It was, hesaid, an assumption of regal power to oust thus unceremoniously one ofhis officers, and he was resolved to send Harvey back, if for one dayonly. And should the Governor acquit himself of the charges against him, he was to be inflicted upon the colony even longer than had at firstbeen intended. The case came before the Privy Council in December1635. [290] In the charges that were made against Harvey nothing was saidof the illegal and arbitrary measures that had caused the people todepose him. All reference was omitted to the detaining of the Assembly'sletter, to the support given Maryland, to the abuse of the courts, toillegal taxes and proclamations. Possibly the agents of the Virginiansfelt that such accusations as these would have no weight with theministers of a monarch so little in sympathy with liberal government, sothey trumped up other charges to sustain their cause. Despite theassertion of Harwood that Harvey "had so carryed himself in Virginia, that if ever hee retourned back thither hee would be pistolled orShott", he was acquitted and restored to his office. West, Utie, Matthews, Minifie and Pierce, whom Harvey designated as the "chiefactors in the munity", were ordered to come to England, there to answerbefore the Star Chamber the charge of treason. [291]

As the time approached for him to return to Virginia, Harvey began toshow symptoms of nervousness. Feeling possibly that the threats of"pistolling" were not to be taken lightly, he requested the King tofurnish him a royal vessel in which to make the journey. The appearanceof one of the King's own ships in the James, he thought, would "muchabate the bouldness of the offenders". This request was granted, and, after some months of delay, Harvey set forth proudly in the _BlackGeorge_. But Charles had not cared to send a really serviceable vesselto Virginia, and for a while it seemed that the _Black George_ wouldrelieve the colonists of their troubles by taking Sir John to thebottom. The vessel, it would appear, sprang a leakbefore 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 hispurposes, and set sail again, upon a ship of the Isle of Wight. 

He reached Point Comfort in January, 1637. Not wishing to wait until hisship reached Jamestown before asserting his authority, he landed at onceand established a temporary capital at Elizabeth City. He had receivedinstructions to remove from the Council all the members that had takenpart in the "thrusting out", and he brought with him commissions forseveral new members. Orders were issued immediately for thisreconstructed Council to convene in the church at Elizabeth City. There, after the oath had been administered, he published a proclamation ofpardon to all persons implicated in the "mutiny", from which, however, West, Matthews, and the other leaders were excluded. The Governor thenproceeded to displace all officials whom he considered hostile to hisadministration. "Before I removed from Elizabeth City, " he wrote, "Iappointed Commissioners and sheriffs for the lower counties, and for theplantation of Accomack, on the other side of the Bay. "

The "thrusting out" did not cause Harvey to become more prudent in theadministration of the government. His restoration, which Charles hadmeant as a vindication of the royal authority, the Governor seems tohave interpreted as a license for greater tyranny. If the accusations ofhis enemies may be credited, he went to the greatest extremes inoppressing the people and in defying their laws. With the Council nowcompletely under his control, he was master of the courts, and inflictedmany great wrongs by means of "arbitrary and illegal proceedings injudgment". Confiscations and other "most cruel oppressions", it wasdeclared, were used to punish all that showed themselves hostile to hisgovernment. He and his officers did not scruple to impose many unjustfines, which they converted "to their own private use", nor to striketerror into the people with whippings and "cutting of ears". [292]

Nor did Sir John neglect to take revenge upon those old enemies that hadso defied and humiliated him. West, Utie, Matthews and Pierce were sentat once to England, and their goods, cattle and servants seized. Beyonddoubt it was against Samuel Matthews that Harvey bore the most bitteranimosity, and it was his estate that suffered most. The Governor hadbeen heard to say that if one "stood, tother should fall, and if heeswomme, the other should sinke". Matthews was one of the wealthiest menof the colony, his property consisting largely of cattle, but Sir Johnnow swore that he would not leave him "worth a cow taile". At the nextsession of the Quarter Court, suit was entered against Matthews by oneJohn Woodall, for the recovery of certain cattle. The learned judges, upon investigation, found that in the year 1622 Matthews held two cowsrightfully belonging to Woodall. It was their opinion that the increaseof these cows "unto the year 1628 ... Might amount unto the number offifteen". "Computing the increase of the said fifteen head from the year1628 to the time of their inquiry, they did return the number of fiftyehead to the said Woodall. "[293]

When Matthews heard that his estate had been seized and "havoc madethereof", he entered complaint with the Privy Council and secured anorder requiring Harvey to restore all to his agents in Virginia. But theGovernor 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 hadreceived new orders from the Privy Council, expressing satisfaction withwhat had been done and bidding him proceed. [294] Thereupon SecretaryKemp and other friends of the Governor entered Matthews' house, brokeopen the doors of several chambers, ransacked all his trunks and chests, examined his papers, and carried away a part of his goods and eight ofhis servants. [295] Soon after, however, Harvey received positivecommands from the Privy Council to make an immediate restoration of allthat had been taken. In January, 1639, he wrote that he had obeyed theirLordships exactly, by calling a court and turning over to Matthews'agents many of his belongings. [296] But Harvey denied that he had everappropriated the estate to his own use, and claimed that he had beenmisrepresented by "the Cunning texture of Captain Mathews, hiscomplaint". [297]

Among those that felt most keenly the Governor's resentment was acertain clergyman, Anthony Panton. This man had quarrelled with Harvey'sbest friend and chief advisor in the stormy days of the expulsion, Secretary Matthew Kemp. Panton had incurred Kemp's undying resentment bycalling him a "jackanapes", "unfit for the place of secretary", anddeclaring that "his hair-lock was tied up with ribbon as old as St. Paul's". [298] The belligerent parson was now brought to trial, chargedwith "mutinous speeches and disobedience to Sir John Harvey", and withdisrespect to the Archbishop of Canterbury. His judges pronounced himguilty and inflicted a sentence of extreme rigor. A fine of £500 wasimposed, he was forced to make public submission in all the parishes ofthe colony, and was banished "with paynes of death if he returned, andauthority to any man whatsoever to execute him. "[299]

In the meanwhile the Governor's enemies in England had not been idle. Matthews, Utie, West and Pierce, upon landing in 1637, had secured theirliberty under bail, and had joined with Dr. Pott in an attempt toundermine Harvey's influence at Court. Had Sir John sent witnesses toEngland at once to press the charges against them before the StarChamber, while the matter was still fresh in the memory of the King, hemight have brought about their conviction and checked their plots. Buthe neglected the case, and Charles probably forgot about it, so thewhole matter was referred to the Lord Keeper and the Attorney-Generalwhere it seems to have rested. [300] The exiles had no difficulty infinding prominent men willing to join in an attack upon Harvey. Beforemany months had passed they had gained the active support of the"sub-committee" of the Privy Council to which Virginia affairs wereusually referred. [301] Harvey afterwards complained that members of thiscommittee were interested in a plan to establish a new Virginia Companyand for that reason were anxious to bring discredit upon hisgovernment. [302] It was not difficult to find cause enough for removingSir John. Reports of his misconduct were brought to England by everyvessel from the colony. Numerous persons, if we may believe theGovernor, were "imployed in all parts of London to be spyes", and to"invite the meanest of the planters newly come for England intoTaverns", where they made them talkative with wine and invited them tostate their grievances. [303]

The English merchants trading to Virginia also entered complaint beforethe Privy Council against Harvey's administration. They sought relieffrom a duty of two pence per hogshead on all tobacco exported from thecolony, from a fee of six pence a head on immigrants, and a requisitionof powder and shot laid upon vessels entering the James. [304] The PrivyCouncil, always careful of the welfare of British trade, wrote theGovernor and the Council, demanding an explanation of these duties andrequiring an account of the powder and shot. Harvey replied at greatlength, justifying the duties and begging their Lordships not to credit"the malitious untruths of such who by all means do goe about and studieto traduce us". 

But the Privy Council, not waiting to receive all of Harvey's defense, decided to remove him and to appoint in his place Sir FrancisWyatt. [305] The new Governor was directed to retain the old Council andto confirm Kemp as Secretary. [306] But he was authorized to restore toMatthews any part of his estate yet withheld from him, and to reopen inthe Virginia courts the case against Anthony Panton. [307] The day ofreckoning had now arrived. When Wyatt reached Virginia, he lost no timein bringing Harvey to account for his misdeeds. He was arraigned beforethe courts, where he was forced to answer countless complaints ofinjustice and oppression, and to restore to their owners his ill gottengains. Kemp wrote, in March, 1640, that Sir John was being persecutedwith great rigor, that most of his estate had been confiscated, and atthe next court would assuredly be swept away. [308] A few weeks laterHarvey wrote to Secretary Windebank, to relate his misfortunes. "I am sonarrowly watched, " he complained, "that I have scarce time of priviledgefor these few lines, which doe humbly crave of you to acquaint hisMajesty how much I groan under the oppressions of my prevayling enemies, by whom the King's honor hath soe much suffered and who are now advancedto be my judges, and have soe farr already proceeded against me as toteare from me my estate by an unusuall way of inviting my creditors toclamour. " He wished to return to England, there to repair his fortunesand seek revenge upon his enemies, but for some time he was detained inVirginia. The new Governor thought best to keep him in the colony whereit would be difficult for him to plot against the administration. Harveywrote, "I am denyed my passage for England notwithstanding my manyinfirmities and weaknesses of body doe crave advice and help beyond theskill and judgment which this place can give. "[309]

"Sir John being ... Layed flatt, " the Governor next turned his attentionto Kemp. [310] Sir Francis, who had strong reasons for hating theSecretary, summoned him into court to explain his offenses againstAnthony Panton. Realizing that he had little hope of clearing himself, Kemp sought to leave for England, but his enemies restrained him. "I amextremely injured, " he wrote in April, 1640, "and shall suffer withoutguilt, unless my friends now assist me, ... The Governor and Councilhere ... Aim at my ruin. "[311]

But Wyatt feared to retain Harvey and Kemp permanently in Virginia. Bothhad powerful friends who might take the matter before the King or thePrivy Council. So, in the end, both made their way to England, takingwith them the charter and many important letters and records. [312] Itwas now their turn to plot and intrigue to overthrow the party inpower. [313] And so quickly did their efforts meet success that beforeWyatt had been in office two years he was recalled and Sir WilliamBerkeley made Governor in his place. 

FOOTNOTES:

[221] F. R. , p. 556; Osg. , Vol. III, p. 47. 

[222] F. R. , p. 574. 

[223] F. R. , p. 572. 

[224] Osg. , Vol. III, p. 50. 

[225] Osg. , Vol. III, p. 50. 

[226] F. R. , p. 584. 

[227] F. R. , p. 584. 

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

[229] F. R. , p. 584. 

[230] F. R, p. 634. 

[231] Osg. , Vol. III, p. 74. 

[232] F. R. , p. 639. 

[233] F. R. , p. 640. 

[234] F. R. , p. 641. 

[235] F. R. , pp. 641, 642. 

[236] F. R. , p. 647. 

[237] F. R. , p. 648. 

[238] F. R. , p. 573. 

[239] P. R. O. , CO1-3-7. 

[240] P. R. O. , CO1-3-5. 

[241] Hen. , Vol. I, pp. 129, 130. 

[242] F. R. , p. 648; P. R. O. , CO1-4. 

[243] P. R. O. , CO1-20. 

[244] Bruce, Ec. Hist, Vol. I, p. 287. 

[245] P. R. O, CO1-4. 

[246] F. R. , p. 647. 

[247] P. R. O. , CO1-4-18. 

[248] Gen. , p. 1047. 

[249] Neill, Va. Co. , p. 221. 

[250] F. R. , p. 568. 

[251] F. R. , p. 639. 

[252] Fiske, Old Va. , Vol. I, p. 252. 

[253] Bruce, Ec. Hist. , Vol. I, p. 130. 

[254] P. R. O. , CO1-5-29. 

[255] P. R. O. , CO1-5. 

[256] F. R. , p. 644. 

[257] P. R. O. , CO1-5-31. 

[258] P. R. O. , CO1-5-32; Hen. , Vol. I. , p. 145. 

[259] P. R. O. , CO1-5; Hen. , Vol. I, p. 146. 

[260] P. R. O. , CO1-5. 

[261] P. R. O. , CO1-5-32. 

[262] P. R. O. , CO1-5-33. 

[263] P. R. O. , CO1-5-33. 

[264] P. R. O. , CO1-6. 

[265] P. R. O. , CO1-6-34. 

[266] P. R. O. , CO1-6-35, 57. 

[267] P. R. O. , CO1-6-37. 

[268] Fiske, Old Va. , Vol. I, pp. 262, 263. 

[269] P. R. O. , CO1-6-39. 

[270] P. R. O. , CO1-6-39. 

[271] P. R. O. , CO1-6-46. 

[272] P. R. O. , CO1-6-46. 

[273] P. R. O. , CO1-6-52. 

[274] P. R. O. , CO1-6-46. 

[275] P. R. O. , CO1-8-60. 

[276] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 223. 

[277] Bruce, Inst. Hist. , Vol. II, p. 324. 

[278] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 264. 

[279] Burk, Vol. II, pp. 28, 29. 

[280] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 124. 

[281] P. R. O. , CO1-8. 

[282] P. R. O. , CO1-8. 

[283] P. R. O. , CO1-8. 

[284] P. R. O. , CO1-8-63. 

[285] P. R. O. , CO1-8. 

[286] P. R. O. , CO1-8. 

[287] P. R. O. , CO1-8. 

[288] P. R. O. , CO1-8-48. 

[289] P. R. O. , CO1-8-61. 

[290] P. R. O. , CO1-8-62. 

[291] P. R. O. , CO1-8-61. 

[292] Report of Com. On Hist. Mans. 3. 

[293] P. R. O. , CO1-10-14. 

[294] P. R. O. , CO1-9-121. 

[295] P. R. O. , CO1-9-121. 

[296] P. R. O. , CO1-10-6. 

[297] P. R. O. , CO1-10-6. 

[298] Fiske, Old Va. , Vol. I, p. 295. 

[299] P. R. O. , CO1-10-32. 

[300] P. R. O. , CO1-10-73. 

[301] P. R. O. , CO1-10-10. 

[302] P. R. O. , CO1-10-10. 

[303] P. R. O. , CO1-10-15. 

[304] P. R. O. , CO1-10-5. 

[305] P. R. O. , CO1-10-3. 

[306] P. R. O. , CO1-10-43. 

[307] P. R. O. , CO1-10-26, 32. 

[308] P. R. O. , CO1-10-61. 

[309] P. R. O. , CO1-10-67. 

[310] P. R. O. , CO1-10-64. 1. 

[311] P. R. O. , CO1-10-64. 

[312] Report of Com. On Hist. Man. , 3. 

[313] Report of Com. On Hist. Man. , 3. 

CHAPTER IV

GOVERNOR BERKELEY AND THE COMMONWEALTH

Sir William Berkeley, who succeeded Governor Wyatt in 1642, is one ofthe striking figures of American colonial history. Impulsive, brave, dogmatic, unrelenting, his every action is full of interest. He earlydisplayed a passionate devotion to the house of Stuart, which remainedunshaken amid the overthrow of the monarchy and the triumph of itsenemies. When the British Commons had brought the unhappy King to theblock, Berkeley denounced them as lawless tyrants and pledged hisallegiance to Charles II. And when the Commonwealth sent ships and mento subdue the stubborn Governor, they found him ready, with his rawcolonial militia, to fight for the prince that England had repudiated. Throughout his life his chief wish was to win the approbation of theKing, his greatest dread to incur his censure. 

Berkeley did not know fear. When, in 1644, the savages came murderingthrough the colony, it was he that led the planters into the forests toseek revenge. In 1666, when a Dutch fleet sailed into the James andcaptured a number of English vessels, the Governor wished to sally outin person with a few merchantmen to punish their temerity. 

He possessed many of the graces of the courtier, and seems to havecharmed, when he so desired, those with whom he came in contact. Hisfriends are most extravagant in his praises, and their letters refer tohim as the model soldier, statesman and gentleman. 

The overthrow of Sir Francis Wyatt was a severe blow to the enemies ofthe old Harvey faction. Anthony Panton entered a protest against thechange of administration, claiming that it had been brought about bysurreptitious means and that no just complaint could be made againstGovernor Wyatt. [314] At his petition Berkeley was ordered to postponehis departure for Virginia until the matter could be investigatedfurther. Upon signing an agreement, however, to protect the interests ofWyatt and his friends, he was allowed to sail and reached the colony in1642. 

The new Governor soon showed that he had no intention of persecutingHarvey's enemies, or of continuing the bitter quarrels of the precedingadministrations. In his first Council we find Samuel Matthews, WilliamPierce and George Minifie, all of whom had been implicated in the"thrusting out". [315] Whether proceeding under directions from theEnglish government, or actuated by a desire to rule legally and justly, he conferred a priceless blessing upon the colony by refusing to use thejudiciary for political persecution. So far as we can tell there was nocase, during his first administration, in which the courts wereprostituted to personal or party ends. Thomas Ludwell afterwardsdeclared that it was a convincing evidence of Berkeley's prudence andjustice that after the surrender to the Commonwealth, when his enemiesmight easily have hounded him to his ruin, "there was not one man thateither publickly or privately charged him with injustice". [316] InMarch, 1643, he affixed his signature to a law allowing appeals from theQuarter Courts to the Assembly. This right, which seems not to have beenacknowledged by Sir John Harvey, was of the very highest importance. Itgave to the middle class a share in the administration of justice andafforded an effectual check upon the abuse of the courts by the Governorand Council. 

Berkeley greatly endeared himself to the poor planters by securing theabolition of a poll tax that contributed to the payment of his ownsalary. [317] "This, " the Assembly declared, "is a benefit descendingunto us and our posterity which we acknowledge contributed to us by ourpresent Governor. "[318] Berkeley also made an earnest effort to relievethe burden of the poor by substituting for the levy upon tithables"assessments proportioning in some measure payments according to mensabilities and estates" But the colonial legislators soon found a justdistribution of the taxes a matter of great difficulty, and we are toldthat the new measures, "through the strangeness thereof could not butrequire much time of controverting and debating". [319] In 1648 theexperiment was abandoned and the old oppressive tax upon tithablesrevived. [320]

During the first administration of Berkeley numerous other measures wereadopted tending to augment the liberty and prosperity of the people. In1643 a law was passed prohibiting the Governor and Council from imposingtaxes without the consent of the Assembly. [321] At the same sessionBerkeley assented to a statute exempting the Burgesses from arrestduring sessions of Assembly and for ten days after dissolution. [322] Thefees of the Secretary of State were limited and fixed in order toprevent excessive and unjust charges by that officer. [323]

That the colonists were not insensible of the Governor's liberal conductis shown by their generosity to him on more than one occasion. In 1642they presented him with an "orchard with two houses belonging to thecollony ... As a free and voluntary gift in consideration of many worthyfavours manifested towards the collony". [324] In 1643, when the war inEngland caused the suspension of Berkeley's pensions and allowances fromthe King, the Assembly voted a tax of two shillings per poll on alltithable persons as a temporary relief. [325]

When Sir William assumed the government in 1642 he was conscious that aneffort was being made in England to restore the old London Company ofVirginia, and it became his first care to thwart this design. In 1639George Sandys had been sent to England as the agent of the Assembly andhad presented a petition in the name of the Virginia planters, to theHouse of Commons, for the restoration of the old corporation. [326] TheAssembly of April, 1642, called together by Berkeley, repudiatedentirely the action of their agent, declaring that he had misunderstoodhis instructions. The renewal of the Company, they said, was never"desired, sought after or endeavoured to be sought for either directlyor indirectly by the consent of any Grand Assembly or the common consentof the people". They drew up a petition to the King, expressing theirdesire to remain under his immediate care and protection, citing themany blessings of the present order of government, and drawing the mostmelancholy picture of their sufferings before the revocation of thecharter. "The present happiness, " they said, "is exemplified to us bythe freedom of yearly assemblies warranted unto us by his majestiesgratious instructions, and the legal trial per juries in all criminaland civil causes where it shall be demanded. "[327]

This declaration of loyalty and contentment, reaching Charles at a timewhen so many of his subjects were rising in rebellion against hisauthority, was most pleasing to the unfortunate monarch. "Youracknowledgement, " he replied to the Governor and the Assembly, "of ourgrace, bounty, and favour, towards you, and your so earnest desire tocontinue under our immediate protection, is very acceptable to us. ""And, " he continued, "as we had not before the least intention toconsent to the introduction of any company over that our Colony, we areby it much confirmed in our resolution, as thinking it unfit to change aform of government wherein our subjects there ... Receive muchcontentment and satisfaction". [328]

In the early years of Berkeley's administration the colony experiencedanother horrible Indian massacre. As in 1622 the blow came withoutwarning. The cruel and barbarous war that followed the first massacrehad long since come to an end and for many years there had been peacebetween the two races. It is true that the friendly relations thatresulted from the marriage of Rolfe and Pocahontas had not beenrestored, that the Indians were not allowed to frequent the Englishsettlements, that no weapons were sold them, but the peace was fairlywell observed and there was no reason to suspect the savages oftreachery. 

The plot originated in the brain of Opechancanough. This remarkablesavage was long supposed to have been the brother of Powhatan, but newlydiscovered evidence tends to show that this was not the case. It isknown that he belonged to a foreign tribe that came from the farsouthwest. Having, it is supposed, been defeated in a battle with theSpaniards, he had led his people to Virginia and united them with thetribes under the command of Powhatan. This tremendous march must haveconsumed many months, and have been beset with countless dangers, butOpechancanough overcame them, and "conquered all along from Mexico" toVirginia. [329] He was now an extremely aged man. Being unable to walk hewas carried from place to place upon a litter. His eyelids were so heavythat he could not of his own volition move them, and attendants stoodalways ready to raise them whenever it became necessary for him tosee. [330] But his mind was clear, his force of will unshaken, and theIndians paid him the reverent obedience that his able leadershipdemanded. 

Opechancanough planned the massacre for April 18th, 1644, and it wascarried out upon that date with the utmost ferocity. [331] The slaughterwas even greater than in 1622, and no less than five hundred Christiansare said to have been destroyed. [332] But this calamity fell almostentirely upon the frontier counties at the heads of the great rivers, and upon the plantations on the south side of the James. The savagescould not penetrate to the older and more populous communities of thelower peninsula. For this reason the disaster, horrible as it was, didnot overwhelm the entire colony and threaten its destruction as had themassacre of 1622. 

Another deadly war with the savages ensued immediately. Sir WilliamBerkeley several times placed himself at the head of large expeditionsand carried fire and destruction to many Indian villages. [333] As in theformer war, the naked and poorly armed natives could not withstand theEnglish, and, deserting their homes, they usually fled into the woods attheir approach. And again the white men brought famine upon them bygoing out each year in the months of July and August to cut down theirgrowing maize. [334] In order to protect the isolated frontierplantations the Governor ordered the people to draw together infortified camps, strong enough to resist the assaults of a large body ofthe savages. [335] "He strengthened the weak Families, " it was said, "byjoining two or three ... Together and Palizaded the houses about. "[336]

Despite these wise measures the savages would probably have continuedthe war many years had not Opechancanough fallen into the hands of theEnglish. The old king was surprised by Sir William Berkeley, and, because of his decrepitude, was easily captured. [337] He was taken intriumph to Jamestown, where the Governor intended to keep him until hecould be sent to England and brought before Charles I. But a few daysafter the capture, a common soldier, in revenge for the harm done thecolony by Opechancanough, shot the aged and helpless prisoner in theback. [338]

Soon after this event the Indians sued for peace. Discouraged andstarving, they promised to become the friends and allies of the whitesforever, if they would cease their hostility and grant them theirprotection. A treaty was drawn up and ratified by the Assembly and bythe new Indian king Necotowance. [339] It provided that the savagesshould acknowledge the King of England as their sovereign and overlord;that Necotowance and his successors should pay as tribute "the number oftwenty beaver skins at the goeing of the Geese yearly"; that all theland between the York and the James from the falls of both rivers toKecoughtan should be ceded to the English; that all white prisoners andescaped negroes should be returned. In compensation the English agreedto protect the savages from the attacks of their enemies and to resignto them as their hunting ground the territory north of the YorkRiver. [340] This peace, which was most beneficial to the colony, was notbroken until 1676, when the incursions of the wild Susquehannocksinvolved the native Virginia tribes in a new conflict with the whitemen. [341]

During the civil war that was at this time convulsing England most ofthe influential Virginia planters adhered to the party of the King. Theywere, with rare exceptions, members of the established church, and couldhave little sympathy with a movement that was identified withdissenters. If the triumph of Parliament was to bring about thedisestablishment of the Church, or even the toleration of Presbyteriansand Independents, they could not give them their support. Moreover, loyalty to the House of Stuart was strong in Virginia. The veryremoteness of the planters from the King increased their reverence andlove. They could not be present at court to see the monarch in all hishuman weakness, so there was nothing to check their loyal imaginationsfrom depicting him as the embodiment of princely perfection. Nor had thewealthy families of the colony aught to anticipate of economic orpolitical gain in the triumph of Parliament. Possessed of large estates, monopolizing the chief governmental offices, wielding a great influenceover the Assembly and the courts, and looking forward to a future ofprosperity and power, they could not risk their all upon the uncertainwaters of revolution. Some, no doubt, sympathized with the efforts thatwere being made in England to limit the King's power of taxing thepeople, for the colony had always contained its quota of liberals, butthe dictates of self-interest must have lulled them into quiescence. Andthe Governor, in this hour of need, proved a veritable rock of loyaltyfor the King. None that showed leanings towards the cause of Parliamentcould expect favors of any kind from Sir William Berkeley. Moreover, ifthey spoke too loudly of the rights of the people and of the tyranny ofmonarchs, they might find themselves under arrest and charged withtreason. 

But there was another faction in Virginia, composed largely of smallplanters and freedmen, which sympathized with the aims of their fellowcommons of the mother country. Prominent among these must have been asmall number of Virginia Puritans, who had for some years been subjectedto mild persecution. The overwhelming sentiment of the colony had longbeen for strict uniformity in the Church "as neere as may be to thecanons in England", and several statutes had been passed by the Assemblyto suppress the Quakers and Puritans. [342] In 1642, Richard Bennett andothers of strong Calvinistic leanings, sent letters to Boston requestingthat Puritan ministers be sent to Virginia, to minister to theirnon-conformist congregations. [343] The New Englanders responded readily, despatching to their southern friends three ministers ofdistinction--William Thompson, John Knowles and Thomas James. Despitethe laws against non-conformity these men anticipated littleinterference with their work and even brought letters of introductionfrom Governor Winthrop to Sir William Berkeley. [344] Little did theyknow the temper of the new Virginia Governor. So far from welcoming thisPuritan invasion Berkeley determined to meet it with measures of sternrepression. A bill was put through the Assembly requiring all ministerswithin the colony to conform to the "orders and constitutions of thechurch of England", both in public and in private worship, and directingthe Governor and Council to expel all dissenters from the country. [345]Disheartened at this unfriendly reception, James and Knowles soonreturned to New England, leaving Thompson to carry on the work. Thisminister, in defiance of the law, lingered long in Virginia, preachingoften and making many converts. 

Among those that embraced the Calvinistic tenets at this time was ThomasHarrison, formerly Berkeley's chaplain. Harrison seems to have regardedthe massacre of 1644 as a judgment of God upon the colonists for theirpersecution of the Puritans. His desertion of the established Churcharoused both the anger and the alarm of the Governor and in 1648 he wasexpelled from his parish for refusing to use the Book of Common Prayer. Later he left the colony for New England. 

This persecution, although not severe enough to stamp out dissent inVirginia, could but arouse among the Puritans a profound dissatisfactionwith the existing government, and a desire to coöperate with theirbrethren of England in the great contest with the King. Although notstrong enough to raise the Parliamentary standard in the colony and toseek religious freedom at the sword's point, the Puritans formed astrong nucleus for a party of opposition to the King and his Governor. 

Moreover, in addition to the comparatively small class of Puritans, there must have been in the colony hundreds of men, loyal to theestablished church, who yet desired a more liberal government both inEngland and in Virginia. A strong middle class was developing which musthave looked with sympathy upon the cause of the English Commons and withjealousy upon the power of the Virginia Governor and his Council. Thereis positive evidence that many poor men had been coming to Virginia fromvery early times, paying their own passage and establishing themselvesas peasant proprietors. Wills still preserved show the existence at thisperiod of many little farms of five or six hundred acres, scatteredamong the great plantations of the wealthy. They were tilled, not byservants or by slaves, but by the freemen that owned them. Depending forfood upon their own cattle, hogs, corn, fruit and vegetables, and forthe other necessities of life upon their little tobacco crops, the poorfarmers of Virginia were developing into intelligent and usefulcitizens. They constituted the backbone of a distinct and powerfulmiddle class, which even at this early period, had to be reckoned withby aristocracy and Governor and King. 

This section of the population was constantly being recruited from theranks of the indentured servants. The plantations of the rich weretilled chiefly by bonded laborers, brought from the mother country. Solong as land was plentiful in Virginia the chief need of the wealthy wasfor labor. Wage earners could not supply this need, for the poor manwould not till the fields of others when he could have land of his ownalmost for the asking. So the planters surmounted this difficulty bybringing workmen to the colony under indenture, to work upon their farmsfor a certain number of years. Many a poor Englishman, finding thestruggle for existence too severe at home, thus surrendered for a whilehis liberty, that in the end he might acquire a share in the good thingsof the New World. After serving his master five or six years the servantusually was given his liberty and with it fifty acres of land and a fewfarm implements. Thus equipped, he could, with industry and frugality, acquire property and render himself a useful citizen in his adoptedcountry. There can be no doubt that many hundreds of former servants, become prosperous, did unite with the free immigrants of humble means toform a vigorous middle class. 

Nothing could be more natural than that the small farmers should regardParliament as the champion of the poor Englishman at home and in thecolony. They knew full well that if Charles should triumph over theCommons, his victory would mean greater power for their Governor, greater privilege for the wealthy planters. On the other hand, theKing's defeat might bring increased influence to the middle class and tothe Burgesses. 

It is not possible to determine how numerous was the Parliamentary partyin Virginia, but the faction was powerful enough to cause seriousapprehension to the loyalists. So bitter was the feeling that fears ofassassination were entertained for Sir William Berkeley, and a guard often men was granted him. We are "sensible", declared the Assembly, in1648, "of the many disaffections to the government from a schismaticallparty, of whose intentions our native country of England hath had andyet hath too sad experience". [346]

But the commons of Virginia were not prepared to raise the standard ofrevolt. They must have lacked organization and leaders. Most of thearistocracy and wealth of Virginia was arrayed against them, while thegovernment was in the hands of a man noted for his passionate attachmentto the Throne. The Parliamentary party must have felt it best to awaitthe event of the struggle in England, pinning their hopes upon thesuccess of their comrades there. But even after Parliament had won thevictory, after the King had been executed, they were not strong enoughto overthrow Berkeley's government and force Virginia into obedience tothe Commonwealth. 

The news of the death of Charles I filled the royalists of Virginia withgrief and anger. It seemed to them that the cause of law and order andreligion in the unhappy kingdom had fallen with their monarch. Moreover, they could but expect the victorious party, after settling all at home, to extend their arms to the little colony and force upon them areluctant obedience to the new government. But the intrepid Berkeley wasdetermined never to submit until compelled to do so by force of arms. Charles II was proclaimed King. The Assembly was called together and alaw enacted declaring it high treason to question, even by insinuation, the "undoubted & inherent right of his Majesty ... To the Collony ofVirginia, and all other his majesties dominions". [347] The Assemblyreferred to Charles I in terms of reverence and affection, as their lateblessed and sainted King, and, unmindful of consequences, denounced hisexecutioners as lawless tyrants. For any person to cast dishonor orcensure upon the fallen monarch, or to uphold in any way the proceedingsagainst him, or to assert the legality of his dethronement, was declaredby the Assembly high treason. "And it is also enacted, " they continued, "that what person soever, by false reports and malicious rumors shallspread abroad, among the people, any thing tending to change ofgovernment, ... Such persons, not only the authors of ... But thereporters and divulgers thereof, shall be adjudged guilty. "[348]

Even before the news of these events reached England, Sir William hadaroused the anger of Parliament by his persecution of the Puritans. Someof the people of Nansemond county had written, complaining of thebanishment of Mr. Harrison, whom they described as an able minister anda man of splendid character. The English Council wrote Berkeleycommanding him to restore Mr. Harrison to his parish. "Wee know, " theysaid, "you cannot be ignorant that the use of the common prayer book isprohibited by the parliament of England. "[349] And when they learnedthat the colony had refused to acknowledge the Commonwealth, and stilladhered to the House of Stuart, they were determined to punish theVirginians for their temerity. Since it would be exceedinglyinconvenient at this time of uncertainty and change to send anexpedition across the Atlantic, it was decided to bring the colonists totheir senses by cutting off their foreign trade. An act was passed byParliament in October, 1650, declaring that since the colony had beensettled by the English at great cost to the nation, it should rightly beunder the authority of the present government; that divers persons inVirginia had committed open treason, "traytorously by force andSubtilty" usurping the government and defying the Commonwealth; and inorder to repress speedily the rebellious colonists and to inflict uponthem a merited punishment, they were to be forbidden all "Commerce orTraffique with any people Whatsoever". The full force of the Englishnavy was to be used in carrying out this act, and all commanders weredirected to seize and bring in foreign vessels found trading with thecolony. No English ships were to sail for Virginia without speciallicense from the Council of State. [350]

This was a dire threat indeed. To cut off all commerce with England andforeign countries would bring utter ruin upon the planters, for theirtobacco crop would then be without a market. Even now, however, theGovernor did not falter in his loyalty. He felt, no doubt, thatParliament would have difficulty in enforcing this act, and he looked tothe Dutch merchantmen to take off the tobacco. 

Before an Assembly called together in March, 1651, Berkeley delivered anaddress ringing with defiance of Parliament "Gentlemen, " he said, "youperceave by the Declaration that the men of Westminster have set out, ... How they meane to deale with you hereafter.... Indeed me thinks theymight have proposed something to us which might have strengthened us tobeare those heavy chaines they are making ready for us, though it werebut an assurance that we shall eat the bread for which our owne Oxenplow, and with our owne sweat we reape; but this assurance (it seems)were a franchise beyond the Condition they have resolv'd on the Questionwe ought to be in: For the reason why they talk so Magisterially to usis this, we are forsooth their worships slaves, bought with their moneyand by consequence ought not to buy, or sell but with those they shallAuthorize with a few trifles to Coszen us of all for which we toile andlabour.... The strength of their argument runs onely thus: we have laidviolent hands on your Land-lord, possessed his Manner house where youused to pay your rents, therefore now tender your respects to the samehouse you once reverenced.... They talke indeed of money laid out inthis country in its infancy. I will not say how little, nor how Centuplyrepaid, but will onely aske, was it theirs? They who in the beginning ofthis warr were so poore, & indigent, that the wealth and rapines ofthree Kingdomes & their Churches too cannot yet make rich. "

The Governor then began an impassioned appeal to the Assembly to remainfirm in their loyalty to the Crown. "Surely Gentlemen, " he cried, "weare more slaves by nature, than their power can make us if we sufferourselves to be shaken with these paper bulletts, & those on my life arethe heaviest they either can or will send us.... You have heard underwhat heavy burthens the afflicted English Nation now groans, and callsto heaven for relief: how new and formerly unheard of impositions makethe wifes pray for barrenness and their husbands deafnes to exclude thecryes of their succourles, starving children.... Consider your selveshow happy you are and have been, how the Gates of wealth and Honour areshut to no man, and that there is not here an Arbitrary hand that daresto touch the substance of either poore or rich: But that which I woudhave you chiefly consider with thankfullnes is: That God hath separatedyou from the guilt of the crying bloud of our Pious Souveraigne of everblessed memory: But mistake not Gentlemen part of it will yet stain yourgarments if you willingly submit to those murtherers hands that shed it;I tremble to thinke how the oathes they will impose will make thoseguilty of it, that have long abhor'd the traiterousnesse of the act.... Gentlemen by the Grace of God we will not so tamely part with our King, and all these blessings we enjoy under him; and if they oppose us, dobut follow me, I will either lead you to victory, or lose a life which Icannot more gloriously sacrifice then for my loyalty, and yoursecurity. "[351]

When the Governor had completed his appeal the obnoxious act ofParliament was read aloud. The Assembly then passed a series ofresolutions, reiterating their loyalty to the Crown, denouncing theCommons as usurpers and regicides, and defending themselves against thecharge of treachery and rebellion. They had, they declared, adheredalways to the "Lawes of England", which enjoined upon them the oaths ofallegiance and supremacy, and they refused now, at the bidding ofParliament, to break their word by renouncing their King. They could notbe expected to give passive obedience to every party that possessedthemselves of Westminster Hall, where the heads of divers factions hadfollowed each other in quick succession. They had been accused ofusurping the government of the colony, but their records would show thatthey had never swerved from their allegiance. And it ill became theParliament that had overthrown the English constitution to bring suchaccusations. Finally, they declared, "we are resolv'd to Continue ourAllegeance to our most Gratious King, yea as long as his gratious favourpermits us, we will peaceably trade with the Londoners, and all othernations in amity with our Soveraigne: Protect all forraigne Merchantswith our utmost force in our Capes: Allwaies pray for the happyrestoration of our King, and repentance in them, who to the hazard oftheir soules have opposed him. "[352]

As Berkeley had foreseen, the English found it impossible to enforce astrict blockade. The government could not spare war vessels enough toclose the Virginia capes, and foreign merchantmen continued to sailunmolested into the James and the York, bringing goods to the plantersand taking off their tobacco. Indeed the Dutch took advantage of thisquarrel between colony and mother country to extend their Americantrade at the expense of the English merchants. The Council of State wassoon made to realize by the complaints that poured in from the Londonshippers, that the "Blockade Act" was injuring England more than therefractory colony. 

At this moment, several leaders of the Virginia Parliamentary party cameto the Council at Westminster and represented to it the necessity offitting out an expedition to overthrow the Berkeley government. Theycould plead that the blockade had proved ineffective, that the honor ofthe Commonwealth demanded the prompt subjection of the impudentGovernor, that the coöperation of the Virginia commons would make thetask easy. Nor could they omit to remind the Councillors that it wastheir duty to bring relief to their fellow Puritans of Virginia. 

At all events the Council, seeing the necessity of prompt action, sentforth a well armed expedition under the command of Captain Robert Denisto subdue both the Barbadoes and Virginia. But wishing to avoid, ifpossible, open hostilities, at the same time they sent commissioners totreat with the colonists and persuade them to submit peaceably to theCommonwealth. The Council of State evidently expected active assistancefrom the Parliamentary party in the colony in these efforts to establishthe new political order, for they gave directions to the commissionersto raise troops in the plantations, to appoint captains and otherofficers, and to guarantee freedom to all servants that volunteered tofight with the Commonwealth forces. They were given power to grantpardon to all that submitted, making such exceptions as they thoughtproper, and were directed to establish a new government in accord withthe present constitution of England. 

When, in the spring of 1652, the British fleet sailed up the Jamesriver, Captain Denis found the intrepid Berkeley prepared for astrenuous resistance. With the guns of the warships approaching hiscapital, with English soldiers ready for a landing, with a strong partyin the colony in sympathy with the invaders, he might well havedespaired. Resistance would certainly entail enormous misfortunes uponthe colony--bloodshed, devastation, civil strife--and success could bebut temporary. Should he beat off the present expedition, others toopowerful to be resisted would undoubtedly follow, and the punishment ofthe colony would be but the more severe. 

Yet the Governor did not falter. He called around him the full strengthof the colonial militia, posted them to good advantage, and himself tookactive command. Several Dutch vessels that had been trading in the Jameswere pressed into service, filled with men and moored in close toJamestown, with their guns trained upon the approaching enemy. Behindthem were several land batteries. The whole made an imposing appearance, and might well have given apprehension to the invaders. 

Fortunately, however, the threatened conflict was averted by thepersuasion of the Parliamentary commissioners. These men, anxious toavoid civil war, availed themselves of the authority given them by theCouncil of State, to offer very lenient terms of surrender. Some of themseem to have preceded the fleet to Virginia, to consult with theirfriends and to formulate plans to render the Governor's resistanceineffectual. It is not improbable that these efforts were seconded bysome of the most prominent men of the colony. Two members of the Councilitself, it is said, who possessed goods of great value upon vessels inthe fleet, received warning that their property would be at onceconfiscated, if they gave their support to the Governor. They thereforewere constrained to advocate submission. With division in the ranks ofthe colonists and with the invaders ready for action, even Berkeley wasat last forced to give way and consent to a capitulation. 

The terms of surrender were drawn up at Jamestown and agreed to by thecommissioners on the one hand, and by the Governor, Council andBurgesses on the other. It was agreed first, that Virginia shouldacknowledge its due allegiance to the Commonwealth of England, and "tothe lawes there established". This submission, it was declared, was "avoluntary act, not forced nor constrained by a conquest upon thecountry". [353] It was also stipulated "that the people of Virginia havefree trade as the people of England do enjoy to all places and with allnations according to the lawes of that commonwealth". Even moreinteresting was the agreement "that Virginia shall be free from alltaxes, customs and impositions whatsoever, and none to be imposed onthem without consent of the Grand Assembly, and soe that neither ffortsnor castles bee erected or garrisons maintained without their consent". When these terms of surrender were reported to the English government, Parliament thought that the commissioners had been too liberal in theirconcessions, and some of the articles were not ratified. 

The commissioners granted full pardon and indemnity for all "acts, wordsor writeings done or spoken against the parliament" and any personsrefusing to take the oath of allegiance to the new government were given"a yeares time ... To remove themselves and their estates out ofVirginia". The use of the Book of Common Prayer was permitted for oneyear in the parishes that so desired, and no ministers were deprived oftheir charges or their livings. [354]

Separate articles were drawn up between the commissioners and theGovernor and Council. Neither Berkeley nor the Councillors were to becompelled, during the ensuing twelve months, to take the oath ofallegiance. They were not to be censured for speaking well in private ofthe King. They were given leave to sell all their property and to quitthe country without molestation. They were permitted to send a messageto Charles II, giving an account of the surrender. [355]

The commissioners were now confronted with the all-important task ofestablishing a new government. They had been given power by the Councilof State to hold an election of Burgesses granting the franchise to allwho had taken the oath of allegiance. Feeling, doubtless, a reluctanceto assume the entire responsibility of moulding a new constitution, theyresolved to wait until the Burgesses assembled and to consult with themin all their measures. The election was held without delay, and themembers were sworn in on April 26th, 1652. 

The Burgesses and the commissioners then entered upon a long and seriousdebate concerning "the settling and governing of Virginia". [356] TheEnglish Council had not, it would seem, given specific directions inregard to this work, so the members of the little constitutionalconvention were practically at liberty to do what they chose. Realizing, however, that all might be changed if it proved unsatisfactory toParliament, they proceeded cautiously. Their chief concern was toestablish a tentative government that would prevent present confusionand could later be perfected by the Council of State. It so happened, however, that the English, amid the confusion of the times, neglected toattend to this matter, and the work of the convention remainedessentially unaltered throughout the Commonwealth period. 

The House of Burgesses, since it had been officially recognized by theCouncil of State, was made the chief governing body of the colony. Except for the veto of the English government its power was to beunlimited. It was to elect the Governor and to specify his duties. Ifhis administration proved unsatisfactory it might remove him fromoffice. The Burgesses were also to elect the Council, to prescribe itsfunctions and limit its power. This proud body, which had formerly beenso powerful, was now to exist only on the suffrage of the House. It waseven debated whether Councillors should be admitted to membership in theGeneral Assembly. The appointment of all officials was also to"appertain to the Burgesses, the representatives of the people", but itwas agreed that for the present most of the first nominations should beleft to the Governor and the commissioners. [357]

Thus did Virginia become in all but name a republic. In England, thelong cherished hope of the patriots for liberty was to be disappointedby the usurpation of Oliver Cromwell, and the victory of Parliament overthe stubborn Charles was to result only in the substitution of onedespot for another. But the commons of Virginia, although they hadplayed an insignificant role in the great drama of the times, were toreap the reward which was denied their cousins of England. Theirgovernment for the next eight years was to be truly representative ofthe people. Nor did the English government often interfere with theiraffairs. Busy with his numerous wars and with the cares ofadministration, the Protector never found time to acquaint himselfthoroughly with what was happening in Virginia. In 1653, and again in1658, Cromwell promised to make some definite regulations for thegovernment of the colony, but he was interrupted on each occasion beforehe could put his resolutions into effect. That it was his intention, however, to keep the appointment of the Governor in his own hands seemscertain. In 1654 the Assembly received word that his Highness haddecided then to continue Colonel Bennett, of whose good character he hadheard, in the execution of his office, until he could further signifyhis pleasure. In 1657, the Council of State requested Cromwell toappoint some person to go to Virginia as its Governor, but this hefailed to do. [358] With the exception of such spasmodic interruptions asthese, and the partial enforcement of the Navigation Acts, the colonywas left almost to its own devices throughout the Commonwealth period. 

By the unanimous vote of the commissioners and the Burgesses Mr. RichardBennett was made Governor. This choice must have been satisfactory bothto the English government and the Parliamentary party in the colony. Mr. Bennett had been one of the few prominent Virginia Puritans and had leftthe colony during the persecution of dissenters by Sir William Berkeley. As a member of the commission he had been instrumental in bringing aboutthe surrender and saving the colony from civil war. It was agreed thathe should serve for one year, "or untill the next meeting of theAssembly", but as his administration proved most satisfactory he wascontinued in office by Cromwell until March 31st, 1655. [359]

The new government, however, was not to be established entirely withoutdisorder and strife. In the interval between the surrender and theassembling of the Burgesses affairs on the Eastern Shore assumed athreatening aspect. The people of Northampton, many of whom seemformerly to have been favorable to the Commonwealth, became ill affectedto the new régime, even before it was well begun. A number of thingsconspired to bring about this change. Among the inhabitants ofNorthampton were a number of Dutch who had settled there during thepreceding decade. When war broke out between Holland and England in 1652it was rumored that these people were conspiring with the Indians tobring about another massacre in Virginia. Groundless as these suspicionswere, they infuriated the English and caused grave fears for the safetyof the Dutch planters. When the justices of the peace took precautionsto protect the unfortunate foreigners their action caused discontent andbitterness against the new government. Moreover, the Navigation Acts, recently passed by Parliament, restricting foreign trade would, ifenforced, prove especially damaging to the people of the Eastern Shore. Finally, Northampton had not been represented in the Assembly since1647, except for one Burgess in 1651, and the belief had sprung up thatthe county was to become independent of the government at Jamestown. Forvarious reasons, therefore, Northampton was hostile to the government. And when the Parliamentary commissioners imposed upon them a tax offorty-six pounds of tobacco per poll, the people of the county voicedtheir anger in no uncertain terms, and selected a committee of six todraw up a statement of their grievances and present it to the newAssembly. 

"Wee, " they protested, "the Inhabitants of Northampton Countie doecomplanye that from tyme to tyme wee have been submitted & bine obedientunto the paymt of publeq taxacons. Butt after ye yeare 1647, since yttyme wee Conceive & have found that ye taxes were very weightie. But ina more espetiall manner ... The taxacon of fforty sixe pounds of tobaccop. Poll (this present yeare). And desire yt ye same bee taken off yecharge of ye Countie; furthermore wee alledge that after 1647, wee didunderstand & suppose or Countie or Northampton to be disioynted &sequestered from ye rest of Virginia. Therefore that Llawe wch requireth& inioyneth Taxacons from us to bee Arbitrarye & illegall; fforasmuch aswee had neither summons for Ellecon of Burgesses nor voyce in theirAssemblye (during the time aforesd) but only the Singular Burgess inSeptember, Ano. , 1651. Wee conceive that wee may Lawfullie ptest agt thepceedings in the Act of Assemblie for publiq Taxacons wch have relaconto Northmton Countie since ye year 1647. "[360]

Thus early in the history of the colony was enunciated the principlethat taxation without representation is unjust and illegal. The men ofNorthampton do not speak of the doctrine as something new, but as athing understood and recognized. Certain it is that the people ofVirginia, in all periods of their colonial history, realized the vastimportance of confining the power of taxation to their own Assembly. 

But the leaders of the new government did not receive the petition withfavor. They were willing to give Northampton her due quota of Burgesses, but they were angered at the suggestion of separation. Moreover, thedisorders on the Eastern Shore became more pronounced and the justiceswere compelled to seek aid from the Council in protecting the Dutch. InJune, 1653, the turbulent people met and, amid scenes of disorder, denounced the action of the authorities. When a voice from the crowdcried out that the justices were a "company of asses and villyanes", thepeople roared out their approval. The Assembly, at its meeting in June, 1653, was forced to take active steps to suppress the agitation and torestore order upon the peninsula. Mr. Bennett with several members ofthe Assembly, was sent to Northampton, "for the settlement of the peaceof that countie, and punishinge delinquents". In this he seems to havebeen entirely successful, for we hear no more of disorders upon theEastern Shore during this period. [361]

When the commissioners and the Burgesses, in 1652, established anew thegubernatorial office, they were somewhat vague in defining the dutiesbelonging to it. They first declared that Mr. Bennett was to exercise"all the just powers and authorities that may belong to that placelawfully". [362] But that it was not their intention to give the newofficer the prerogatives enjoyed by the royal Governor is shown by theirfurther statement that he was to have such power only as should begranted him from time to time by the Assembly. [363] This lack ofclearness led, quite naturally, to several clashes between thelegislative and executive branches of the government. 

At the session of Assembly of July, 1653, the Burgesses showed that theywould brook no interference from the Governor with their affairs. On theeve of the election of the Speaker, they received a message from Mr. Bennett and the Council advising them not to choose a certainLieutenant-Colonel Chiles. Although it was clearly shown that thisgentleman could not serve with propriety, the Burgesses gave him theelection, merely, it would seem, as a rebuke to the presumption of theGovernor. [364]

Edward Digges, who succeeded Mr. Bennett, seems to have had no clashwith the Assembly, but during the next administration, when SamuelMatthews was Governor, the executive made a determined effort to breakthe power of the Burgesses. At the session of 1658, the Governor and theCouncil sent a message to the Assembly declaring that bodydissolved. [365] This move startled the Burgesses. The royal Governorshad always possessed the right of dissolving the House, but no suchauthority had been delegated to the new executive. Moreover, it wasinconsistent with the theory, upon which everyone had acted since thesurrender in 1652, that all power resided in the representatives of thepeople. "The said disolution, " replied the House, "as the case standethis not presidentall neither legall according to the lawes, now in force, Therefore wee humbly desire a revocation of the said declaration. "[366]

Although the Burgesses replied thus courteously they were deeplyangered. Rightly judging this to be a challenge to their power, theyresolved to show once more that they were supreme in the government. They voted, therefore, to ignore the dissolution. And it was orderedthat if any member left his seat he was to be censured "as a personbetraying the trust reposed in him by his country". [367] An oath ofsecrecy was administered to all present, while the Speaker was directedto "sign nothing without the consent of the major part of the house". 

Staggered by the determined attitude of the Burgesses, the Governor andCouncil at once showed signs of weakening. They were willing, they said, to allow the Assembly to continue its deliberations, provided the workwere brought to a speedy conclusion. The "dispute of the power ofdisolving and the legality thereof" they wished to refer to the LordProtector. But the House resolved unanimously that this answer wasunsatisfactory. The withdrawal of the dissolution was not enough, theGovernor and Council must acknowledge that their act was illegal andtherefore had never taken effect. "The House, unsatisfied with theseanswers, appointed a committee to draw up a report for the manifestationand vindication of the Assembly's power which after presentation to theHouse to be sent to the Governour and Councell. "[368] This committeerecommended the immediate dismissal of the Council, and proposedresolutions declaring the "power of government to reside in such personsas shall be impowered by the Burgesses (the representatives of thepeople) who are not dissolvable by any power now extant in Virginia, butthe House of Burgesses". Upon receiving this report the House proceededto annul "all former election of Governour and Councill". Since theexecutive had presumed to abuse its authority by defying the body thathad appointed it to office, it must be removed to evince to all thesupremacy of the House. The Burgesses seem not to have laid the blamefor this crisis upon the Governor, but upon some of the Councillors, whowere endeavoring to make their own power supreme in the government. Colonel Matthews was, therefore, reëlected, and invested with "all justrights and privileges belonging to the Governour and Captain Generall ofVirginia". [369]

Fearing that the Council might offer resistance to their decrees, theBurgesses commanded the serjeant-at-arms of the Assembly and thesheriffs of James City county not to execute any warrant, precept orcommand from any other person than the Speaker of the House. TheSecretary of State, Colonel William Claiborne, was directed to deliverup the public records. But the Governor and Council seem not to havethought of resistance, and submitted to the recall and to a new electionby the Assembly. Although they had just resolved that "for the futurenone bee admitted a councellor but such who shall be nominated, appointed and confirmed by the house", the Burgesses now allowed theGovernor to propose to them a list of names for the new Council. Itwould seem that Nathaniel Bacon and Francis Willis were regarded as theinstigators of the dissolution, for they were the only members of theCouncil which had signed the offensive order who were not nowreëlected. [370]

When the Assembly met again, in March, 1659, it found that its supremacywas once more threatened. A letter had been received from HenryLawrence, President of the Council of State in the home government, which seemed to imply that the Governor and his Council and not theBurgesses, were to hold the chief power in Virginia. Lawrence declaredthat the "looseness" of affairs in the colony had induced Cromwell totake active steps for the settlement of its constitution, but that thesemeasures had been brought to a sudden halt by the Lord Protector'sdeath. The matter was, however, still before the Council of State, andthe colony might soon expect some definite orders from itsdeliberations. In the meanwhile, he wrote, "their Lordships do will andrequire you the present Governour and Councill there to apply yourselves... To the peaceable and orderly management of the affairs of thatcollony, according to such good lawes and customes as have beenheretofore used and exercised among you". [371]

The Burgesses were deeply agitated by this letter. They at once passedresolutions promising to obey the commands of the Council of State, butthey determined to write the new Lord Protector, Richard Cromwell, asking that the privileges of the Burgesses be confirmed. In this crisisthe Governor gave striking evidence of his liberal inclinations bycoming before the House to promise them his support. "He acknowledgedthe supream power of electing officers to be by the present lawesresident in the Grand Assembly", and offered to "joyne his bestassistance with the countrey in makeing an addresse to his Highnesse forconfirmation of their present priviledges". [372]

In the meanwhile an act was prepared making some important changes inthe constitution, but confirming the power of the Burgesses. It wasproposed, first, that Colonel Matthews "bee the Governour and CaptainGennerall of Virginia for two yeares ensueing, and then the GrandAssembly to elect a Governour as they think fitt, the person elect beingthen one of the Councell". The personnel of the Council was to remainunchanged and for the future its members were to serve for life, "exceptin case of high misdemanors". Lastly the Governor was to have theprivilege of nominating the Councillors, but the Burgesses could confirmor reject at their discretion. [373] The Council at first assented tothese proposals, "till the pleasure of his Highness be furthersignified", but later, it seems, they "expressly declined the said act", and declared the Assembly dissolved. [374] Whether or not the Burgessessubmitted to this dissolution and left the Governor and Council togovern the colony as they chose, does not appear. It is quite probablethat the executive, in the interval between the sessions of Assembly ofMarch 1659 and March 1660, based its right to rule, not upon thecommission of the Burgesses, but upon the authority given it inLawrence's letter. 

In May, 1659, Richard Cromwell resigned the reigns of government, andEngland was left a prey to confusion and uncertainty. The Virginians didnot know to what government to give their allegiance. None could tellwhether military despotism would be established in England, or anotherCromwell would arise, or the House of Stuart be restored. To add totheir troubles, in January, 1660, Colonel Matthews died, leaving themwithout a Governor. March 13th, the Assembly convened. 

The Burgesses at once took steps to reëstablish their questionedprerogatives. An act was passed declaring that "whereas by reason ofthe late frequent distractions there being in England noe residentabsolute and gen'll confessed power; Be it enacted and confirmed, Thatthe supreame power of the government of this country should be residentin the Assembly, And that all writts issue in the name of the GrandAssembly of Virginia, until such a comand and comission come out ofEngland as shall be by the Assembly adjudged lawfull". [375]

Their next care was to elect a new Governor. Strangely enough theirchoice fell upon that staunch advocate of royalty, Sir William Berkeley. When the surrender had been made to the parliamentary commissioners in1652, the Governor had secured for himself the right to quit the colonyany time within the ensuing year. But circumstances had prevented hissailing during this period, and later he resolved to remain in Virginia. During the eight years of the Commonwealth period he had lived inretirement, obedient to the new government, but longing for therestoration of the Stuarts. Why he was now called forth by the Assemblyto take once more the most important office in Virginia, cannot becertainly determined. It seems strange that the Burgesses in one actshould assert their own sovereignty in the most emphatic terms, and inthe next elect as their Governor this ardent servant of the Crown. If ithad been their only aim to choose a leader of executive ability, theydid not lack men of power and experience whose love of populargovernment was unquestioned. Berkeley had in his first administrationruled justly and well, but there is no reason to think that Virginia hadbeen more prosperous and happy under him than under the CommonwealthGovernors. It seems then most probable that the Assembly was actuated inits choice by an apprehension that the monarchy might be restored. Ifthe English should invite Charles to reclaim his lost inheritance, itwould be of much advantage to the colony to have at its head the formerroyal Governor. It would make the restoration in Virginia easy andpeaceful, for the staunchest republican would not dare resist, withCharles II on his throne and Sir William Berkeley ruling at Jamestown. Moreover, it could but please the King and recommend the colony to hisfavor. On the other hand, the Assembly was careful to reserve all realauthority to itself. Sir William was to be its servant, not its master. If, out of the confusion in England, should emerge a real republic, theycould force the Governor either to acknowledge the new power or toresign his commission. In fact the office was at first proffered himonly upon condition that he would submit to any power, whatever it mightbe, that succeeded in fixing itself over the English people. [376]

But to this requirement Berkeley would by no means consent. He waswilling, during the present interregnum, to hold office from the peopleof Virginia, but never from any English power save that of the Crown. Inan address to the Assembly, outlining his conduct during the troubles ofthe past eleven years, he made it quite clear that his sympathies hadundergone no change. "When I came first into this Countrie, " he said, "Ihad the Commicon and Commands of my most gracious master King Charles ofever blessed memory.... When God's wrath lay heavie upon us for the sinsof our nation, my ever honoured Master was put to a violent death, andimmeadiately after his Royall Sonne ... Sent me a Commicon to governehere under him.... But the Parliament, after the defeat at Worcester, (by the instigation of some other intent) sent a small power to force mysubmission to them, which finding me defenceless, was quietly (Godpardon me) effected. But this parliament continued not long after this, but another supream power outed them, whoe remained not long neither, nor his sonne after him.... And now my intelligence is not enough totell me what incorporate, mixt, or individuall power there is.... Underall these mutable governments of divers natures and constitutions, Ihave lived most resigningly submissive: But, Mr. Speaker, it is one dutyto live obedient to a government, and another of a very different natureto Command under it.... You have, Mr. Speaker, with great wisdome andprovidence taken care of my obedient prostrating to the Supreame powerthe authoritie you would entrust me with, for which I give you myhumble thanks; for this wisdome of yours hath animated my caution ofassumeing this burden, which is so volatile, slippery and heavy, that Imay justly feare it will breake my Limbs. " It might be thought by some, he said, that the emergency would excuse his accepting this authority, but the King would judge him, and if his information were prejudiced, his punishment might be severe. He did not fear death, he was too oldfor that, but an imprudent, criminal death he abhorred. In conclusion hedeclared that these and other considerations must dissuade him fromaccepting the proffered office. 

But the Assembly persisted in its determination to make him Governor. Ifhe scrupled to promise to serve under the enemies of the Crown, thatpromise would not be required of him. Let him be Governor of Virginia, by their authority only, and only so long as the confusion in Englandcontinued. If a new Protector, or a new Commonwealth gained theascendency, and demanded Virginia's submission, he might resign. IfEngland returned to its obedience to the Throne, he could petition theKing for a new commission. To this Berkeley assented. "Wee have all, " hesaid, in another short address, "had great and pressing feares ofoffending a Supreame power which neither by present possession is soe, nor has a publiquely confessed politique capacity to be a Supream power. I alsoe, Mr. Speaker, have my pressing feares too, and I am seriouslyafraid to offend him, who by all Englishmen is confessed to be in anaturall politique capacity of being a Supreame power. " He therefore, hesaid, made this declaration in the presence of God, that if anygovernment became fixed in London, he would immediately lay down hiscommission. When this was recorded and they were still of the same mind, he was ready most thankfully to serve them. [377]

Thus did Sir William Berkeley a second time become Governor of Virginia. It must have been with trepidation that this man, who had so oftendenied the right of any officer to serve save by the King's commands, accepted now this commission from the hands of the people. The sternhater of republicanism was becoming the head of an independent littlerepublic. For such Virginia was and must continue to be until thereshould appear in England some fixed government to which it could submit. "I am, " Berkeley wrote Governor Stuyvesant of New Amsterdam, "but aservant of the assembly's; neither do they arrogate any power tothemselves, further than the miserable distractions of England forcethem to. For when God shall be pleased in his mercy to take away anddissipate the unnatural diversions of their native country, they willimmediately return to their own professed obedience. "[378]

The restoration of the monarchy took place May 29th, 1660. When the newsreached Virginia some weeks later, the people accepted the changewithout opposition, and probably with relief, for they were weary ofuncertainty and confusion. Berkeley's unaffected joy was mingled with adeep apprehension that the King might be angered at his accepting officewithout his consent. But Charles was not so unmindful of his staunchsupport at a time when the fortunes of the monarchy were at their lowestebb as to reproach him for this act, which might, and probably did, redound to his advantage. He soon relieved the Governor's fears bysending a new commission. In a passion of joy and gratitude Berkeleywrote his thanks. "I ... Doe most humbly throwe myselfe at your Ma'tiesfeet, " he said, "in a dutifull thankfullness to your Majestie, that youyett think me worthy of your Royall Commands. It is true, ... I didsomething, which if misrepresented to your Majestie, may cause yourMajestie to think me guilty of a weakness I should ever abhor myselffor. But it was noe more ... Than to leape over the fold to save yourMajesties flock, when your Majesties enemies of that fold had barred upthe lawfull entrance into it, and enclosed the Wolves of Scisme andrebellion ready to devour all within it. Nor did I adventure on this, without the advice and impulsion of your Majesties best Subjects inthese parts.... I always in all conditions had more fear of yourMajesties ffrownes than the Swords or Tortures of your Enemies. "[379]

And so the Commonwealth period in Virginia came to an end. The colonyhad benefited greatly by the eight years of semi-independence andself-government. The population had increased rapidly. In 1649, therehad been about 15, 000 people in Virginia, while six years after theRestoration, the Governor estimated their number at 40, 000. This greatgain was due chiefly to accelerated immigration from England. Theoverthrow and execution of the King had sent many of his followers toseek shelter with Sir William Berkeley, others had come to escape theconfusion and horrors of civil war, while the numerous prisoners takenin battle had furnished abundant material for the never-ending stream ofindentured servants. Gentleman and tradesman and laborer alike werewelcome, for land was abundant and the colony's only need was men. Norwas prosperity yet strangled by the strict enforcement of the NavigationActs. Dutch vessels continued to sail through the capes in defiance ofEngland and to carry off the planters' tobacco. Not until the closingyears of the Commonwealth period did the increasing freight rates andthe decreasing price of tobacco indicate that the "Hollanders" werebeing more strictly excluded. [380]

Equally important was the training received by the people inself-government. For eight years they had been their own masters, enacting such laws as they chose, and free from the restraining hand ofthe King. There had been no royal Governor to veto their bills, orthreaten the Burgesses, or intimidate the voters, or overawe theCouncil, or sway the courts of justice. And the experience waspriceless. It schooled them in governmental affairs and taught themself-reliance, patience and stubbornness to oppose oppression. Havingtasted the sweets of freedom, they were ill prepared ever again totolerate injustice and misgovernment. If there had been no Commonwealthperiod in Virginia, possibly there had never been a Bacon's Rebellion. 

FOOTNOTES:

[314] Report of Commission on Hist. Manuscripts. 3. 

[315] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 235. 

[316] P. R. O. , CO1-20. 

[317] Hen. , Vol. I, pp. 236, 237. 

[318] Hen. , Vol. I, pp. 236, 237. 

[319] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 237. 

[320] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 356. 

[321] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 244. 

[322] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 263. 

[323] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 265. 

[324] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 267. 

[325] Hen. , Vol. I, pp. 280, 281. 

[326] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 230. 

[327] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 231. 

[328] Va. Hist. Reg. , Vol. I, p. 160. 

[329] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-6 to 16. 

[330] Beverley. 

[331] The Assembly, in 1645, ordered that the 18th of April becelebrated ever afterwards for the deliverance of the colony from thesavages. Hen. , Vol. I, p. 290. The year is fairly well determined by thefact that mention of an Indian war occurs for the first time, duringthis period, in the statutes of the session of Assembly of October, 1644. Hen. , Vol. I, p. 285. 

[332] Beverley. 

[333] P. R. O. , CO1-30-71; CO1-41-111. 

[334] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-6 to 16. 

[335] CO5-1371-6 to 16. 

[336] CO5-1371-6 to 16. 

[337] P. R. O. , CO1-41-111. 

[338] Beverley. 

[339] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 323. 

[340] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 323. 

[341] P. R. O. , CO1-30-71. 

[342] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 123, 149, 277. 

[343] Bruce, Inst. Hist. , Vol. I, p. 254. 

[344] Bruce, Inst. Hist. , Vol. I, p. 254. 

[345] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 277. 

[346] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 355. 

[347] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 360. 

[348] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 361. 

[349] Sp. Dom. Inter. , 1-94. 

[350] Scobell, Vol. II, p. 132. 

[351] Va. Mag. , Vol. I. , p. 77. 

[352] Va. Mag. , Vol. I, pp. 75 to 81. 

[353] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 363. 

[354] Hen. , Vol. I, pp. 363-365. 

[355] Hen. , Vol. I, pp. 365-367. 

[356] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 371. 

[357] Hen. , Vol. I, pp. 371, 373. 

[358] Sp. Dom. Int. , 1-75; Hen. , Vol. I, p. 510; Bruce, Inst. Hist. , Vol. II, p. 302. 

[359] Hen. , Vol. I, pp. 371, 408. 

[360] Wise, p. 139. 

[361] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 371. 

[362] Wise, pp. 114, 115; Hen. , Vol. I, p. 380. 

[363] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 372. 

[364] Hen. , Vol. I, pp. 377, 378. 

[365] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 499. 

[366] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 499. 

[367] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 500. 

[368] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 501. 

[369] Hen. , Vol. I, pp. 502, 503. 

[370] Hen. , Vol. I, pp. 499, 505. 

[371] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 510. 

[372] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 512. 

[373] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 517. 

[374] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 537. 

[375] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 530. 

[376] Southern Lit. Mess. , Jan. 1845. 

[377] Southern Lit. Mess. , Jan. 1845. 

[378] Campbell, p. 74. 

[379] Southern Lit. Mess. , Jan. , 1845. 

[380] Bruce, Ec. Hist. , Vol. I, pp. 357-360. 

CHAPTER V

THE CAUSES OF BACON'S REBELLION

There were many who hailed the restoration of the monarchy as the dawnof an era of prosperity and happiness for Virginia. The colony, despitethe efforts of some of its people, had remained loyal to the Crown untiloverpowered by force of arms. It might well expect especial favor andcare from its prince, now that he was firmly established upon histhrone. [381] Of the ability and justice of the Governor Virginia had hadample experience during the ten years of his first administration. 

Never was a people doomed to more bitter disappointment. The years whichfollowed the Restoration were crowded with misfortunes greater than anythat had befallen the colony since the ghastly days of the GreatSickness. Charles II, far from showing gratitude to his Old Dominion, overwhelmed it with injustice and oppression. The Virginians werecrushed with tremendous duties on their tobacco and with ruinousrestrictions upon their trade. The titles to their plantations werethreatened by a grant of the entire colony to two unworthy favorites ofthe King. Governor Berkeley, embittered by the humiliation of theCommonwealth period, and growing avaricious and crabbed with advancingyears, soon forfeited that respect and love which his former goodconduct had gained him. His second administration was marred bypartiality, oppression and inefficiency. The people were deprived oftheir right of suffrage by continued prorogation of the Assembly. Localgovernment fell into the hands of small aristocratic cliques, while thepoor were ground down with unequal and excessive taxes. Two wars withHolland added to the misfortunes of the colonists. Even the Heavensseemed to join with their enemies, for the country was visited by aterrific hurricane which swept over the plantations, destroying cropsand wrecking houses. These accumulated misfortunes brought such deepsuffering upon the colony that hundreds of families were reduced topoverty and many were forced into debt and ruin. No wonder that thecommons, finally driven to desperation, should have risen ininsurrection against the Governor and the King. 

First among the causes of distress during this unhappy period must beplaced the Navigation Acts. England, in the middle of the 17th century, was engaged in an unsuccessful contest with Holland for the carryingtrade of the world. The merchantmen of Amsterdam and Flushing foundtheir way even to Maryland and Virginia, where their low freight ratesand the liberal prices they gave for tobacco, assured them a heartywelcome. The exports of the colonies to England itself were notinfrequently carried in Dutch bottoms. This was a source of much anxietyand annoyance to the British government. It seemed unjust that theAmerican colonies, which had been founded at such tremendous cost, should now prove as great a source of wealth to Holland as to the mothercountry. And it could not but anger the English shippers to findthemselves elbowed by these foreigners in the ports of the Bermudas orthe rivers of Virginia. 

In 1651, the British Parliament, thinking it necessary to give theirmerchants some protection from this lively competition, passed the firstof the Navigation Acts. Under its provisions no goods of the growth ormanufacture of Asia, America or Africa should be introduced into Englandin any but English ships, of which the owner, master and three-fourthsof the sailors were English subjects; and all foreign commoditiesimported to England should be conveyed directly thither from the placeof growth or manufacture. [382] This law injured the Virginians byexcluding the Dutch carriers from the tobacco trade with England andthus causing a sharp rise in freight rates. During the early years ofthe Commonwealth period it was frequently avoided, but before 1660 theEnglish government began to enforce it more strictly. 

Nor did the people get relief with the restoration of the monarchy. Charles II proved more solicitous that Parliament for the welfare of theEnglish merchants; even more indifferent to the complaints of thecolonists. A new Navigation Act was passed in 1660 which struck a deadlyblow at the prosperity of Virginia. Under its provisions all goods sentto the colonies, even though of foreign growth or manufacture, were tobe exported from England, and all tobacco, sugar, wool, etc. , producedin the colonies, must be shipped only to England or to herdominions. [383]

Thus were the colonies sacrificed upon the altar of greed. The new actinjured the Virginia planters in several ways. Since all their tobaccomust now be brought to English ports, they could no longer seek the mostadvantageous markets. Had the demand for the commodity in England beenmore elastic, the consequences of this provision might not have beendisastrous. Declining prices would have so stimulated the demand thatthe English could have consumed the entire crop. But the King's customskept up the price to the consumer, and made it impossible for themerchants to dispose of the vast quantities of the leaf that hadformerly gone to Holland and other countries. [384] Moreover, thevarieties sold to the Dutch were not popular in England, and could notbe disposed of at any price. Soon the market became so glutted that themerchants refused to take more than half the crop, leaving the remainderto rot upon the hands of the planters. 

There followed in Virginia a sharp decline in prices. The Dutch hadgiven the colonists three pence a pound for their tobacco. [385] A fewyears after the Restoration the planters considered themselves fortunateif they could dispose of their crops at a half penny a pound. Much wassold at a farthing. [386] Now since tobacco was the staple product ofVirginia and the main support of the people, this rapid decline in itsvalue was disastrous. Frequent complaints were sent to England that thecolonists could not maintain themselves and their families upon themeagre returns from their tobacco. "Twelve hundred pounds is the mediumof men's yearly crops, " wrote Secretary Ludwell in 1667, "and a halfpenny per pound is certainly the full medium of the price given for it. "This made an average income for each planter of but fifty shillings. When the poor man had paid his taxes for the necessary support of thegovernment, very little remained to him to clothe his wife and children. "So much too little, " he adds, "that I can attribute it to nothing butthe mercy of God, that he has not fallen into mutiny andconfusion. "[387] In 1673 the Governor and the Council declared that thecolony was full of indigent persons, who could barely support themselveswith their utmost exertions. [388]

Not only did the act of 1660 depress the price of tobacco, but itincreased the already excessive freight rates. Since the bulk of thecolonial exports had now to be brought directly to England, in Englishships, the masters of Plymouth or London could double or triple theircharges. Simultaneously there occurred a pronounced rise in the cost ofmanufactured goods. The far-famed skill of the Dutch workmen had made itpossible for them to produce many articles more cheaply than theEnglish, and to underbid them in their own colonies. But now that allforeign goods were excluded, the planters were forced to purchase themore expensive product of the English workshops. 

Thus were the Virginians cut with a two-edged sword. At the very timethat their incomes were being diminished, they were confronted by anincrease in the cost of living. Nor could they, as Lord Baltimoredeclared they might, alleviate these evils by industry and thrift. Forthe more strenuous were their efforts to increase the tobacco crop, thegreater would be the glut in the English market and the more disastrousthe drop in prices. 

The poor colonists found an able, but an unsuccessful advocate, in aLondon merchant named John Bland. "If the Hollanders, " he wrote in apaper addressed to the King, "must not trade to Virginia how shall thePlanters dispose of their Tobacco? The English will not buy it, for whatthe Hollander carried thence was a sort of Tobacco, not desired by anyother people, ... The Tobacco will not vend in England, the Hollanderswill not fetch it from England; what must become thereof?" But CharlesII, who knew little of economic matters, and cared nothing for thewelfare of the colonists, ignored Bland's convincing appeal. Noalleviation was given Virginia, and she was allowed to drift on throughpoverty and desperation to rebellion. 

In a vain attempt to make the colony independent of the Englishmanufacturers and to turn the people from the excessive planting oftobacco, the Assembly passed a series of acts designed to encouragelocal industrial establishments. It was especially desired that Virginiashould make her own cloth, for the cost of the English fabrics wasexcessive. [389] To stimulate the art of spinning and weaving theAssembly offered rewards for the best pieces of linen and woollen goodsproduced in the country. A bounty was placed on the manufacture ofsilk. [390] In 1666, the establishment of cloth works in each county wasmade compulsory by act of Assembly. [391] "Whereas, " it was declared, "the present obstruction of trade and the nakedness of the country doesuffitiently evidence the necessity of provideing supply of our wants byimproveing all meanes of raysing and promoteing manufactures amongeourselves, ... Be it enacted ... That within two yeares at furthest ... The commissioners of each county court shall provide and sett up a loomeand weaver in each of the respective counties. "[392] Nor were otherindustries neglected. Tan-houses were erected in various places "totanne, curry and make the hides of the country into leather andshoes". [393] Bounties were offered for the construction of vessels, inthe hope that Virginia might rival the prosperous ship-builders of NewEngland. [394]

These experiments added a heavy burden to the poor taxpayer, while theyaccomplished little for the relief of the colony. Virginia, with itsscattered plantations and its lack of skilled artisans, could not hopeto compete with the workshops of England. The commissioners, whetherfrom corruption or from lack of ability, proved poor business managers, and their ill success occasioned loud and bitter complaints. 

In May, 1661, Governor Berkeley sailed for England to combat a newdesign to revive the Virginia Company. It is quite probable that he tookoccasion during his stay at court to protest against the NavigationActs. [395] But he found it impossible to turn the King and Parliamentfrom what had become their settled colonial policy. Ten years later, when the Lords of Trade and Plantations asked him what impediments therewere to the improvement of trade in the colony, the Governor blurted outthe truth with his accustomed vigor. "Mighty and destructive by thatsevere act of Parliament which excludes us from haveing any Commercewith any Nacon in Europe but our owne, Soe that wee cannot add to ourplantacon any Comodity that growes out of itt ... Ffor it is not lawfullfor us to carry a pipe-staff or a Bushel of Corne to any place in Europeout of the King's dominions. If this were for his Majesty's Service orthe good of his Subjects wee should not repine what ever our Sufferingsare for it. But on my Soule it is the Contrary for both. "[396]

In seeking relief from the evil consequences of the Navigation Acts theVirginians turned to their cousins of New England. [397] And the hardysailors of Massachusetts and Connecticut, tempted by the high prices ofmanufactured goods in the southern colonies, brought their wares intothe James, the York and the Potomac, where they entered into livelycompetition with the English merchants. Nor did they hesitate, whenoccasion offered, to defy the law by transporting the Virginia tobaccoto foreign markets. [398] But England was unwilling to leave thecolonists even this small loophole. Parliament decided, in 1672, toplace a duty of one penny a pound upon tobacco shipped from one colonyto another, and the payment of this duty did not give liberty to theowners to transport it to a foreign country. This act completelycrippled the intercolonial trade. A few years later, after Bacon'sRebellion, when the Virginia counties were presenting their grievancesto the King's commissioners, the people of Lower Norfolk requested thatthe act of 1672 might be repealed. The only notice taken of theirpetition was the contemptuous comment of the commissioners that it waswholly mutinous for them "to desire a thing contrary to his Majesty'sRoyall pleasure & benefitt and also against an Act of Parliament". [399]

It had been suggested, when the price of tobacco began to fall, that theevil might be remedied by governmental restraint upon the annual crop. The diminution of the demand for the leaf, brought about by the loss ofthe foreign market, was to be met by a corresponding limitation upon thesupply. Prices would thus be restored and the planter would receive agreater return for a much smaller output. But for this remedy to beeffective, it would be necessary to secure the coöperation of Marylandand perhaps North Carolina, as a cessation in Virginia would accomplishlittle, if no restraint were put upon the planters of the othercolonies. Moreover, since the proposed step might diminish the revenuefrom the customs, it would be necessary to obtain the consent of theKing. 

In 1662 many of the planters and merchants petitioned Charles II toforbid the planting of tobacco in Maryland and Virginia for oneyear. [400] At first this appeal was rejected and the colonists werecommanded to refrain from presenting similar petitions in the future. Later, however, the Privy Council secured a reversal of this decisionand an order was issued authorizing the Assembly to appointcommissioners to confer with the Marylanders upon the best means oflessening the excessive crops. [401] Accordingly a meeting was held atWiccocomico, May 12, 1664, which recommended that the planting oftobacco after the twentieth of June each year should be prohibited. Thereport met with the approval of the Virginians and was promptly ratifiedby the Assembly, but the Marylanders believed that a partial cessationwould be detrimental to their interests and their legislature refused togive its consent. 

But as prices sank lower and lower, and poverty became more general, theVirginians once more appealed to Maryland, this time for a totalcessation for one year. Numerous letters were exchanged upon thesubject, but at first nothing was accomplished. After many months hadbeen consumed in useless negotiations Governor Berkeley, in the dead ofwinter, himself journeyed to Maryland and at last succeeded inconvincing the leading men of that colony of the necessity of themeasure. As a result, the Maryland Assembly passed an act prohibitingall tobacco planting in their province from February 1666 to February1667, provided Virginia and North Carolina should do likewise. [402] TheAssembly at Jamestown promptly passed a similar law, but the NorthCarolinians, owing to Indian troubles, delayed their action so long thatthe Marylanders repudiated the entire agreement. 

Somewhat discouraged the colonists again sent commissioners, this timeto Saint Mary's, to resume the broken thread of negotiations. Here atlast success seemed to crown their efforts, for all differences wereadjusted, and the cessation was agreed upon by the three colonies. [403]But the joy of Virginia at this happy outcome was soon turned to griefand indignation, for the Marylanders received a letter from LordBaltimore, "in absolute and princely terms prohibiting the execution ofthe ... Articles of cessation". 

"This overtook us, " wrote Governor Berkeley, "like a storm and enforcedus like distressed marriners to throw our dear bought commodities intothe sea, when we were in sight of our harbour, & with them so drown'dnot only our present reliefs but all future hopes of being able to doourselves good, whilst we are thus divided and enforced to steere byanothers compasse, whose needle is too often touched with particularinterest. This unlimited and independent power ... Of the Lord Baltimoredoth like an impetuous wind blow from us all those seasonable showers ofyour Majesty's Royall cares and favours, and leaves us, and his ownprovince withering and decaying in distress and poverty.... Thisunreasonable and unfortunate prohibition ... Hath not only increased thediscontent of many of the inhabitants of his province, but hath raisedthe grief and anger of allmost all your ... Subjects of this colony tosuch a height as required great care to prevent those disturbances whichwere like to arise from their eluded hopes and vain expences. "[404]

Can there be any doubt that the Navigation Acts and the futility of allattempts to escape their baleful effects, were largely instrumental inbringing on Bacon's Rebellion? As prosperity and contentment are thegreatest safeguards of the public peace, so poverty, nakedness anddistress are breeders of sedition. Philip Ludwell spoke of Bacon's armyas "a Rabble of the basest sort of People; whose Condicion was such asby a chaunge could not admitt of worse". [405] Had England been lessselfish in her treatment of Virginia, there would not have been so manyindigent men in the colony eager to join in this wild uprising againstthe government. Berkeley himself admitted, in 1673, that at least onethird of the freemen had been rendered so desperate by poverty and debtthat in times of foreign war their loyalty to England could not berelied upon. [406]

But Charles II was indifferent to the welfare of these distant subjectsand blind to their growing dissatisfaction. Just when the situation wasmost critical, he aroused their anger and grief to the highest pitch, bymaking a gift of the entire colony to Lord Culpeper and the Earl ofArlington. Previously he had granted that portion of Virginia whichlies between the Potomac and the Rappahannock rivers, known as theNorthern Neck, to Lord Hopton and several other noblemen. Thesepatentees were to receive fees, remainders, reversions and escheats, andwere given power to grant patents for all land that had not been takenup. This had caused the people of Virginia, and especially thoseresiding in the Northern Neck, great uneasiness, and had proved aserious hindrance to the settling of that region. The Assembly, dreadingthe clash of jurisdiction which this grant made almost inevitable, hadsent agents to England to persuade the King to annul the patent, orpermit the purchase of the tract by the colony. While they were workingto this end, there came the unexpected news that Arlington and Culpeperhad received a grant of the entire colony. Without consulting in theleast the desires of the people, Charles had given them over to twounscrupulous favorites, with the indifference he might have shown inpresenting a necklace to his mistress. The colonists, "to theirunspeakable griefe and Astonishment", felt now that they were "reducedto a far worse condition than that wherein they had adventured theirlives and fortunes for the planting that Country under theCompany". [407]

The privileges and powers granted in this patent, had they ever beenexercised by Arlington and Culpeper, would have rendered the governmentat Jamestown almost a nullity. The two lords were to receive allescheats, quit-rents, duties and reservations belonging to the Crown;they were given power to divide the territory into counties, hundredsand parishes; to erect churches and present ministers to them; to makemanors, fairs, and markets; to appoint sheriffs, surveyors, and otherimportant officers; to issue patents for land; to appropriate to theirown use all arrears of "rents and other profits", accruing since theyear 1669. 

In great alarm the Virginia Assembly directed the agents in England touse their utmost endeavors to have this grant recalled. At the same timethey drew up a statement of their objections to the patent, showing howunjust and ruinous were its provisions. It was in direct conflict withnumerous royal concessions and patents, given them from time to timeunder the Great Seal. There was good reason to fear that the lords, bytheir deputies, might impose upon them new rents and services. Theymight demand new surveys and new patents for land which had long beenoccupied. They might, in fact, completely devastate the government ofall its "just powers and authorities". 

The agents, upon receiving these instructions, went to the LordsPatentees to request them to resign the most obnoxious of their newpowers. [408] In case they refused, the agents threatened to appeal atonce to the King. Arlington and Culpeper received them courteously, and, after numerous delays, consented to relinquish the patent, providedVirginia would offer no objection to the passing of a new grant, assuring them the quit-rents and escheated property. The agents werewell satisfied with this settlement, for it would relieve the colony ofits fear of proprietary government, while the grant of the rents andescheats would impose little additional burden. [409]

In order, however, to prevent the giving away of such disturbing powersin the future, they petitioned the King to grant "Letters Pattents forthe incorporacon" of the colony. [410] In this new charter they desiredfirst that permission be given Virginia to purchase the Northern Neck. They next requested the King to promise that Virginia should have noother dependence than upon the Crown of England, "nor in the future becantonized into parcells by grants made to particular persons". "And forthe prevention of surreptitious grants" they desired his Majesty topromise in the charter that nothing should again pass concerningVirginia until a hearing had been given to some person impowered by thecolony to represent their interests. Of even greater importance wastheir desire, "That there shall bee no Taxe or Imposition layd on thepeople of Virginia, but by their owne Consente, and that Express'd bythe Representatives in Assembly. "[411]

The whole matter came before the King in Council, June 23, 1675, and wasreferred to the judgment of Attorney-General William Jones andSolicitor-General Francis Winnington. [412] In October these officersreported that in their opinion the patent of incorporation would bebeneficial both to the colony and the King's service, and ought to begranted. Charles thereupon gave directions that the papers be drawn upfor his signature. But here, for some unknown reason, the matter came toa halt. Several months passed and the patent had not been issued. [413]At last, April 19, 1676, at the urgent request of the agents, hisMajesty directed that the Lord Chancellor cause the papers to pass theGreat Seal at once. But before this could be done, news came to Englandof Bacon's Rebellion, and the King immediately reversed his order. Later, other Letters Patent were granted, but they were very differentfrom those sought by the agents, and contained little more than a baredeclaration of the colony's direct dependence upon the Crown ofEngland. [414]

This unsatisfactory business caused great irritation among thecolonists. The heavy expense of carrying on the negotiations in England"made them desperately uneasie, especially when, after a whole Year'sPatience ... They had no Encouragement from their Agents". [415] A tax offifty pounds of tobacco per poll, imposed for the purchase of theNorthern Neck, aroused widespread dissatisfaction. In April, 1676, Governor Berkeley, fully conscious of the mutterings of revolution, wasawaiting with anxiety the arrival of favorable news from the agents. "There are divers, " he wrote, "that would fain persuade the people thatal their high taxes will bring them no benefit, so that if the mostadvantageous terms had been proposed to us it would have been impossibleto have persuaded the people to have parted with more tobacco til amore certain demonstration had been given them of what is already done. I appeased two mutinies this last year raysed by some secret villainesthat whispered amongst the people that there was nothing intended by thefifty pounds levy but the enriching of some few people. "[416] In 1677, after Bacon's Rebellion, the King's commissioners heard from all sidesthat the imposition of this tax was one of the main causes ofdiscontent. [417]

The wars of 1664 and 1672 with Holland added much to the distress inVirginia. The bold Dutch mariners, angered at the injury done them bythe Navigation Acts, preyed upon the English merchantmen in every sea. Woe to the tobacco ship that encountered a hostile privateer, in itsjourney across the Atlantic! The English vessels were not safe even inthe Virginia rivers, under the guns of their forts. Twice the daringDutch came through the capes and into the James River itself, where theywrought great damage to the shipping. 

It was the custom, during these times of danger, for the merchantvessels of Virginia and Maryland to cross the Atlantic in large fleets, under the protection of English men-of-war. In May 1667, some twentyvessels were anchored in the mouth of James River, near Newport News, awaiting the remainder of their fleet before sailing. Three leaguesabove them lay the _Elizabeth_, a frigate of forty-six guns, sent by theKing for the protection of the colony. She was undergoing repairs, however, having become "soe disabled in her Maste and Leaky in her Hullas that she could not keep at sea", and for the moment afforded littleproctection to the merchantmen riding below. [418]

At this juncture, a fleet of five Dutch warships, under the command ofAbraham Crimson, appeared off the coast, bent on mischief to the Englishshipping. The Hollanders, learning of the exposed position of thetobacco fleet from the crew of a shallop which fell into their hands, determined upon a bold attack. On their way to the capes theyencountered a ship of London bound from Tangier to Virginia. TheEnglish master, Captain Conway, "fought them very well for two hours, but at last being wounded himself and over powered with men, was takenby them". [419]

The Dutchmen came into Chesapeake Bay June 4, and anchored there overnight. The next morning, taking advantage of a fair easterly breeze, they sailed boldly into the mouth of the James. In order to take theirprey entirely by surprise they flew the English colors, and as theypassed the merchantmen, hailed them in English and sang out theirsoundings in English. Proceeding directly up to the unsuspectingfrigate, they threw aside their disguise with the roar of three volleys. The captain of the _Elizabeth_ had gone ashore, to attend a wedding itwas said, and had left but thirty men on board. [420] Without officers, and surprised by superior numbers, the sailors could make no effectiveresistance. Several rushed to their guns, but they fired only one pieceof ordnance before they were forced to surrender. While some of theDutchmen were securing the _Elizabeth_, the others turned upon thehelpless merchantmen and succeeded in capturing the entire fleet. Several of the ships might have saved themselves by running into theElizabeth River, where the enemy would not have dared to follow them, but they seemed paralyzed with surprise and fell an unresistingprey. [421]

Great was the grief and rage of Sir William Berkeley when news of thisdisaster reached him. How could he answer to the King for the loss ofthe royal frigate and twenty English merchantmen? With great promptnessand resolution he decided to fit out all available vessels in the colonyfor a sally upon the enemy. In the upper James were three merchantmenand in the York nine. If these could be supplied quickly with guns andmen, there might yet be time to defeat the Dutch and rescue the capturedships. The Governor, who was ever reckless in exposing his person, resolved to direct the attack himself in the good ship _Admirall_. Butsome of the masters by no means relished the thought of risking theirvessels and their cargoes in a battle with the Dutch. When the Governorimpressed them into the King's service by putting the broad arrow upontheir masts, they pretended obedience, but used such delays that thefleet could not be prepared in time. Captain Lightfoot, of the_Elizabeth_, grieved by the loss of his ship, "very passionatelyresolved to hazard himself in the _Admirall_", while several members ofthe Council and forty other gentlemen volunteered their services. Uponthe shore were assembled four regiments of militia, ready to embarkshould they be needed. Yet the masters continued their procrastinationday after day until the Dutch escaped. 

Nor had Admiral Crimson shown any haste to be off. Soon after the battlehe had burned five or six of the merchantmen, "for want of men to manthem". It had also been necessary for him to destroy the frigate, whichwas still out of repair and far from seaworthy. He had sent partiesashore several times to secure water, which he greatly needed, but theyhad been driven back with ease. After a stay of five or six days inJames River, he sailed away with his prizes, leaving the Governor todismiss his militia and write home his accusations against themasters. [422]

Warned by this experience, the English government, upon the outbreak ofthe war of 1672, sent two men-of-war to Virginia. These vessels, in July1673, were stationed at the mouth of the James guarding a large fleet ofmerchantmen, when news came that nine Dutch warships were approachingthe capes. Instantly preparations were made to fight them. Several ofthe tobacco ships were forced into service and fitted with guns. Sailorswere taken from the smaller vessels to help man the larger. But beforeall could be put in readiness the enemy came through the capes andanchored at Lynhaven Bay. [423]

The English had as yet little apprehension for the safety of theirmerchantmen, for they could at any time run under the guns of a fort atNansemond, or could retreat up the James while their men-of-war heldback the enemy. At this moment, however, there appeared across thewaters of the Chesapeake eight sail of the Maryland fleet, unconsciousof their danger and bearing down upon the Dutch. The English commandersrealized that only instant action could save them. Taking with them sixof the tobacco ships they sailed out to give battle. 

"But before they came within reach of gun shot 4 of the merchant shipscame on ground. " One turned back to the James. But the other three shipswent on, and unaided fought six of the largest Dutchmen. For three hoursthe battle continued with great fury. At last Captain Gardner, one ofthe English commanders, "judging that the enemy (if he checkt them not)would be in with (the) merchant ships riding in James river ... Tackedalone upon them with Extra ordinary courage, and for at least one hourefought them all.... But, having all his greate maste and his foretopmast desperately wounded, and most of his rigging shot", he was atlast forced to retire. "With as much courage as conduct (and beyond thehopes or expectation of those who saw that brave action) (he) disengagedhimselfe ... And brought off all the Marylanders but one. " The Virginiafleet, "which were neere 40 sail", secured "almost a tides way beforethe enemy, which undoubtedly saved many which otherwise would have binlost". Some of the merchantmen took refuge at Fort Nansemond, where theenemy dared not attack them, others retreated up the river towardsJamestown. Unfortunately five of them, in the confusion of the flight, ran aground and were afterwards captured. The four ships which hadgrounded before the battle also fell into the hands of the Dutch. Thus, despite the gallant conduct of the English, the enemy succeeded incapturing a large part of the tobacco fleet. [424]

Great as was the distress caused by the depredations of the Dutch, theplanters suffered even more during these wars by the stagnation oftrade. The great risk incurred in crossing the ocean necessarily broughtan increase both in freight rates and in the cost of manufacturedgoods. In 1667 the Governor and Council declared that the planters were"inforced to pay 12 pounds to £17 per ton freight" on their tobacco, "which usually was but at seven pounds". [425] Conditions were even worseduring the second war. In 1673 Berkeley complained that the number ofvessels that dared come to Virginia was so small, that they had "notbrought goods and tools enough for one part of five of the people to goon with their necessary labor". "And those few goods that are brought, "he added "have Soe few (and these hard Dealing) Sellers and Soe manyIndigent and necessitous buyors that the Poore Planter gets not thefourth part ... For his tobacco which he usually has had in othertimes. "[426]

In this period, so full of suffering and misfortune, the year 1667 wasespecially noteworthy for its long series of disasters. In NovemberSecretary Thomas Ludwell wrote Lord Berkeley, "This poore Country ... Isnow reduced to a very miserable Condicon by a continuall course ofmisfortune. In Aprill ... We had a most prodigeous Storme of haile, manyof them as bigg as Turkey Eggs, which destroyed most of our younge Mastand Cattell. On the fifth of June following came the Dutch upon us, anddid soe much mischiefe that we shall never recover our reputations.... They were not gone before it fell to raineing and continued for 40 dayestogether, which Spoiled much of what the haile had left of our EnglishGraine. But on the 27th of August followed the most Dreadful Hurry Canethat ever the colony groaned under. It lasted 24 hours, began at NorthEast and went round northerly till it came to west and soe on till itcame to South East where it ceased. It was accompanied with a mostviolent raine, but no Thunder. The night of it was the most Dismall tymethat ever I knew or heard off, for the wind and rain raised soe Confuseda noise, mixt with the continuall Cracks of falling houses.... The waves(were) impetuously beaten against the Shoares and by that violenceforced and as it were crowded up into all Creeks, Rivers and bayes tothat prodigeous height that it hazarded the drownding many people wholived not in sight of the Rivers, yet were then forced to climbe to thetopp of their houses to keep them selves above water. (The waves)carryed all the foundation of the fort at point Comfort into the Riverand most of our Timber which was very chargably brought thither toperfect it. Had it been finished and a garison in it, they had beenStormed by such an enemy as noe power but Gods can restraine.... Had theLightning accompanied it we could have beleeved nothing else from such aconfusion but that all the elements were at Strife, which of them shoulddoe most towards the reduction of the creation into a Second Chaos. Itwas wonderful to consider the contrary effects of that Storme, for itblew some shipps from their Anchors and carryed them safe over shelvesof Sand where a wherry could Difficultly passe, and yet knockt out thebottome of a ship ... In eight foot water more than she drew. But whenthe morning came and the Sun risen it would have comforted us after sucha night, had it not lighted us to ye Ruines of our plantations, of whichI thinke not one escaped. The nearest computation is at least 10, 000houses blowne downe, all the Indian Graine laid flatt upon the ground, all the Tobacco in the fields torne to pieces and most of that which wasin the houses perished with them. The fences about the Corne fields(were) either blown down or beaten to the ground by trees which fellupon them & before the owners could repaire them the hoggs & Cattellgott in and in most places devoured much of what the Storme hadleft. "[427]

In the midst of the second Dutch war came another scourge no lessdistressing than the great hurricane. Throughout the 17th century cattleraising was one of the most important industries of the small Virginiaproprietors. No planter, however insignificant his holdings, was withouthis cow and his calf. [428] They constituted a most important portion ofhis wealth, and an indispensable source of support. In the winter of1672-3 occurred an epidemic which destroyed more than half the cattleof Virginia. The mortality was increased by the cold, which wasunusually severe. Many men, in an effort to preserve the poor beasts, gave them all their corn and thus brought hunger upon themselves. Beforerelief came with the spring, fifty thousand cattle had perished. [429]

Perhaps the people of Virginia might have borne patiently all thesemisfortunes, had their Governor ruled them with wisdom and justice. Certain it is they would never have turned in wild anger to strike downhis government, had that government not done much to make theircondition intolerable. Sir William Berkeley was accused of destroyingthe representative character of the Assembly, of initiating a notoriousspoils system, of intimidating Burgesses, of winking at embezzlement ofpublic funds. And, although most of these charges were brought by theGovernor's bitter enemies, some of them were undoubtedly true. 

In Virginia, during this period, the commons could guard their interestsonly by means of the House of Burgesses. All other organs of governmentwere controlled by Berkeley and his friends. The people had no voice inthe selection of vestrymen, or sheriffs, or justices of the peace, andno control over their actions. The Council was entirely submissive tothe Governor's will. Its members not only held their seats at SirWilliam's pleasure, but were the recipients of numerous other favorsthat bound them closely to his interest. Thus in the executive, in allbranches of the judiciary, and in the upper house of Assembly theGovernor was all-powerful. 

If then he could control the Burgesses and make them subservient to hisdesires, he would remove the only obstacle to almost complete despotism. Nor was it a matter of very great difficulty for him to gain a masteryof the House. In every county he could nominate government candidates, and exert tremendous pressure to secure their election. If necessary, they might be seated by fraud at the polls or false returns by thesheriff. [430] "It is true, " Bacon declared, "that the people's hopes ofredemption did ly in the Assembly, as their Trusts, and Sanctuary to flyto, but I would have all men consider first how poore people aredebarred of their fair election, the great men in many places haveingthe Country in their debte and consequently in their aw. Secondly howmeanly we are provided of men of Learning, ability and courage, nayindeed of honesty, to stand up in the people's behalf and oppose theoppressing party. "[431]

And if ever, despite these difficulties, the candidates of the peoplewere elected, the Governor might still win their support in the House, by a judicious use of the patronage. He controlled enough offices ofhonor and profit to reward richly his friends in the Assembly. If theBurgess was careful never to thwart the wishes of the Governor, or tovote against his measures, he might reasonably expect a collectorship, asheriff's place, a commission in the militia, or possibly a seat in theCouncil. A large percentage of the members of the House wereoffice-holders. [432]

If half the charges brought against Berkeley are to be believed, he wasguilty of instituting a system of political corruption as effective asthat maintained in France by Guizot during the reign of Louis Philippe. He has assumed to himself, it was declared, "the sole nominating, appointing and commissionating of all ... Officers both civil andmilitary amongst us ... (they) being ... (the better to increase ... Hisparty) multiplied to a greate number.... All which offices he bestowedon such persons (how unfitt or unskillfull soever) as he conceived wouldbe most for his designs. And that the more firmely to binde and obligethem thereunto and allure others to his party, he ... Permitted orconnived at the persons soe commissionated by him ... Unwarrantably ... To lay and impose what levies and imposicons upon us they should or didplease, which they would often extort from us by force and violence, andwhich for the most part they converted to their owne private lucre andgaine. And ... Sir William Berkeley, haveing by these wayes and meanes, and by takeing upon him contrary to law the granting collectors places, sherifs, and other offices of profitt to whome he best pleased, he soegained uppon and obliged all the greatest number of the men of partsand estates in the whole country (out of which it was necessary ourrepresentatives and Burgesses should be elected) hath there by soefortifyed his power over us, as of himselfe without respect to our laws, to doe what soever he best pleased, and from time to time ... To gaineand procure great quantities of Tobacco and mony from us to his properuse over and besides the Thousand pounds yearly salary ... And over andbesides the fees, profitts and per quisites to the place of Governourbelonging. "[433]

Bacon himself declared, in justification of his rebellion, thatoppression and injustice were rife in the colony, and that it wasuseless to appeal to the Assembly for redress. "The poverty of theCountry is such, " he said, "that all the power and sway is got into thehands of the rich, who by extortious advantages, having the commonpeople in their debt, have always curbed and oppressed them in allmanner of wayes. " The poor, he declared, were kept in such perpetualbondage that it was not possible for labor or industry to extricatethem. The great men of the colony had brought misery and ruin upon thecommon people by perverting all equity and right. The perpetual breachof laws, remiss prosecutions, excuses and evasions, but too plainlyattested that things were carried by the men at the helm, "as if it werebut to play a booty, game or divide a spoile". "Now consider, " he adds, "what hope there is of redress in appealing to the very persons ourcomplaints do accuse. "[434]

And when once the Governor had obtained a House that was subservient tohis will, he might, by his power of prorogation, continue itindefinitely. During the years from the Restoration to Bacon'sRebellion, there were not more than two general elections, and probablyonly one--that of 1661. [435] Under these circumstances the Assemblycould no longer be said to represent the voters of the colony. TheBurgesses might defy or betray the people as they chose, they could notbe made to answer at the polls for their misconduct. And their is ampleproof that this Long Assembly attended more to the commands of theGovernor than to the wishes of electors that could no longer elect. EvenSir William's best friends admitted that his authority in Virginia wasalmost despotic. Secretary Thomas Ludwell, writing in 1666, declaredthat the Governor was "the sole author of the most substantial part" ofthe government, "either for Lawes or other inferior institutions". [436]"Our representatives, " complained the Charles City commons eleven yearslater "(of which for this county in nine yeares time last past therehath been a verry doubtful election as we conceive) have been overswayedby the power and prevalency of ... Sir Wm. Berkeley and his councell, divers instances of which wee conceive might be given, and haveneglected our grievances made knowne to them. "[437]

That this overthrow of representative government in the colony and thesubstitution of the Governor's despotic sway contributed greatly to theanger and desperation of the people, there can be no doubt. The evidencecomes not only from the rebels and from the county grievances, but fromdisinterested persons, and even Berkeley's friends. "Whateverpalliations, " wrote Governor Thomas Notley, of Maryland, in 1677, "thegrate men of Virginia may use at the Councell board in England, ... Yettyou may be sure ... Much ... If not every tittle" of the accusationsagainst them are true. "If the ould Course be taken and Coll: Jeoffreysbuild his proceedings upon the ould ffoundation, its neither him nor allhis Majesties Souldiers in Virginia, will either satisfye or Rule thosepeople. They have been strangely dealt with by their formerMagistracy. "[438] William Sherwood, if we may believe his own statement, forfeited Sir William's favor by reporting in England that "the generalcry of the country was against ye Governour". And "it is most true", headded, "that the great oppressions & abuse of ye people by ye Governoursarbitrary will hath been ye cause of the late troubles here". [439]

The illegitimate influence of Berkeley over the Assembly was the moregalling to the people inasmuch as they had no voice in local government. The justices of the peace, who exercised the most important powers inthe counties, received their commissions, not by popular election, butby executive appointment. And the Governor, although often influenced inhis selections by the advice of the Council, gave little heed to thewishes of the commons. His appointees were invariably men of means andinfluence, and could be relied upon to uphold the interests of thearistocracy and the Governor. 

The justices were members of the county courts, and as such exercisedjudicial, executive and legislative functions in local affairs. Thecourts met every second month, and were empowered to settle casesinvolving not more than ten pounds sterling. [440] Individual justicescould "try and determine any cause to the value of twenty shillings ortwo hundred pounds of tobacco". [441] Far more important was the power ofthe courts to impose direct taxes. The county levy was usually veryheavy. In fact, during the Restoration period, it often exceeded thepublic levy voted by the Assembly. In Lower Norfolk county, during theyears from 1666 to 1683, the local assessment amounted to 188, 809 poundsof tobacco. [442] This sum seems to us now almost insignificant, but itproved a very real burden to the indigent freemen of that unhappyperiod. Yet perhaps the people would not have complained had theassessments been voted by a body elected by themselves or representativeof their interests. They were bitterly angered, however, that theyshould be taxed without their own consent and against their wishes, byappointees of the Governor; and the sense of wrong was aggravated by thefact that the taxes were often voted by the courts in secret session, not without grave suspicions of abuses and fraud. [443] "It has been thecustome, " it was declared in the Surry grievances, "of the County Courtsatt the laying of the levy to withdraw into a private Roome by which thepoor people not knowing for what they paid their levy did allways admirehow their taxes could be so high. "[444] "Wee desire, " declared thepeople of the Isle of Wight, "to know for what wee doe pay our Leavieseverie year and that it may noe more be layd in private. "[445] FromCharles City came the most startling charges of fraud and oppression. "The Commisoners or Justices of peace of this county, " it was declared, "heretofore have illegally and unwarrantably taken upon them without ourconsent from time to time to impose, rayse, assess and levy what taxes, levies and imposicons upon us they have at any time thought good or bestliked, great part of which they have converted to theire own use, as inbearing their expense at the ordinary, allowing themselves wages forseverall businesses which ex officio they ought to do, and other wayes, as by account of the same on the booke for levies may appeare. "[446] Thepeople were even deprived, during Berkeley's second administration, ofthe right of electing the vestries. These bodies had always beencomposed of the foremost men in each parish. At this period theysucceeded in shaking off entirely the control of the commons bythemselves filling all vacancies in their ranks. [447] Since theyexercised the power of imposing a tax to pay the ministers' salaries andmeet other obligations of the parishes, this attempt to make themselvesself-perpetuating was a matter of no little importance. [448] The peopleexpressed their disapproval in the most emphatic terms, and afterBacon's Rebellion requests came from many counties that the vestrymenmight be chosen, as formerly, by the whole body of parishioners. [449]

The unjust poll-tax, which was then used in the public, county andparish levies, was an unending source of discontent. There can be nodoubt that it bore with too great weight upon the poor people. "Theycomplain, " wrote Gyles Bland, on the eve of the Rebellion, "that greatTaxes are imposed upon them every yeare, by wayes very unequall, Layingthem very heavily, by the Poll, whereby the Poorer sort are in thehardest Condition. "[450] It must be remembered, however, that many ofthe servants and slaves were listed as tithables, or persons subject tothe poll tax. This of course tended to increase the share of thewealthy. Yet the inequality was very real and the burden upon the poorvery heavy. The number of tithables assessed of a man was by no means anaccurate gage of his wealth. Later in the century, with the great influxof negro slaves, the burden upon the rich planters increased and becamemore nearly proportionate to their ability to pay. 

Bland suggested that all inequality might be eliminated by adopting aland-tax. "Which, " he said, "seems to be the most equal imposition andwill generally take off the complaint of the people, although perhapssome of the richest sort will not like it, who hold greater proportionsof land than they actually plant. "[451] The King's commissioners alsothought the land tax just, but considered it "impracticable there". When the people of Warwick county asked, "That all persons may be ratedand taxed according to their Estates", the commissioners reported thatthis was "a thing to be wish'd but never to be granted them". If theKing should command it, they knew not how it would be relished by thelanded men, since the common usage had been always taxing by poll. [452]

The universal discontent was still further increased by the wasteful andlax use of public funds. The money which was wrung from the poor peopleby these unequal taxes, was seldom wisely or economically expended. Muchwas squandered upon foolish projects, costly in the extreme, andimpossible of accomplishment. Such was the attempt to build a city atJamestown. For many years it had been a matter of regret to the Englishgovernment that Virginia should remain so entirely a rural country. Notrealizing that this was but the result of exceptional economicconditions and not a sign of weakness or decay, they sought more thanonce to force the building of towns by legislative enactments. Thus, in1662, in accordance with the King's wishes, the Assembly passed an actproviding for the erection of thirty-two brick houses at Jamestown. [453]Each county was required to build one of these houses, a levy of thirtypounds of tobacco per poll being laid for that purpose. This attempt wasforedoomed to failure, for if economic conditions could not developcities in the colony, the mere erection of houses upon the unhealthfulJamestown peninsula could accomplish nothing. We learn from Bacon'sProceedings that the town at the time of the Rebellion consisted of "som16 or 18 howses, ... And in them about a dozen families (for all thehowses are not inhabited) getting their liveings by keeping ordnaries, at extraordnary rates". That there was corruption or inefficiency incarrying out the orders of the Assembly seems certain. The people ofIsle of Wight county complained of "the great Quantities of Tobaccolevyed for Building Houses of publick use and reception at Jamestown, which were not habitable, but fell downe before the Finishing ofthem". [454]

There were also accusations of laxness and fraud in the erecting andmanagement of the public industrial plants. Very grievous taxes havebeen laid on the poor people, it was claimed, "for building work housesand stoare houses and other houses for the propogating & encouragem't ofhandicraft and manufactury, which were by our Burgesses to our greatcharge and burthen by their long and frequent sitting invented andproposed. Yet for want of due care the said houses were never finishedor made useful, and the propagating & manufactury wholy in a short timeneglected, and noe good ever effected ... Save the particular profitt ofthe Undertakers, who (as is usually in such cases) were largely rewardedfor thus defrauding us. "[455]

Even more frequent and bitter complaints originated with theconstruction of forts upon the various rivers to protect the colony andthe merchant ships from foreign foes. At the outbreak of the war of 1664it was resolved to build a fortress at Jamestown. The ships' masterswere not satisfied with the selection of this site, for obviously itafforded no protection to vessels trading upon the Potomac, York orRappahannock, and very little to those upon the lower James. After onehundred pounds sterling had been expended at Jamestown, the structurepartly completed and fourteen guns brought up, the merchants procuredorders from the English government that the fort be transferred to OldPoint. The Governor and Council were most reluctant to make this change, but the commands were so positive they dared not disobey. So the gunswere conveyed back down the river and the work begun again. But manyserious difficulties were encountered. "We have been at 70, 000lb tobaccocharge, " wrote Thomas Ludwell in 1667, "and have lost several men in theworke and many of the materials by storms breaking our rafts whereon wefloat the timber to that place.... After all (we) were forced to quitthe work as of impossible manage, for great were the difficulties, andso insupportable would the charge have been. "[456] A few months after, when the Dutch captured the tobacco fleet in the mouth of the James, this fort seems to have been deserted. It was utterly destroyed by thegreat hurricane of the following August. 

Thereupon it was decided to build five new forts, two on the James andone upon each of the other great rivers. The charges for thesestructures were to be borne entirely by the counties upon the riversthey were to defend. Whether from mismanagement or dishonesty large sumsof money were expended in this undertaking with but little good effect. Berkeley wrote that the colony lacked the skill either to construct ormaintain the forts, "We are at continuall charge, " he declared, "torepaire unskilfull & inartificall buildings. " The King's commissionersin 1677, testified that the forts were made of "mudd and dirt", andcould be of little service against the enemy. [457] At the beginning ofthe Dutch war of 1672 the Assembly found them in poor condition andincapable of offering resistance to the enemy. "For as much, " it wasdeclared, "as the materials ... Were not substantial or lasting, somehave suffered an utter demolition, some very ruinous and some capable ofrepair. " It was thereupon ordered that the forts be at once restored andauthority was given for new taxes to cover the cost. [458]

One at least of the reconstructed forts proved of service in the hour ofneed, for it was under the guns of Nansemond that many of themerchantmen ran in July 1673, from the pursuing Dutch men-of-war. Butthe people could see in them only a pretext for increasing their taxes. And it was quite impossible to make them believe that such sums could beexpended to so little purpose save by fraud or embezzlement. The CharlesCity commons declared that great quantities of tobacco had been raisedfor building forts "which were never finished but suffered to goe toruine, the artillery buried in sand and spoyled with rust for want ofcare". [459] From James City county came the complaint that althoughheavy taxes had been paid for fortifications, there was in 1677 "noePlace of defence in ye Country sufficient to secure his MajestysSubjects against any Forreign Invasion". The King's commissionerssubstantiated this statement. "We are well assured, " they said, "of theTruth of this Complaint, and doe know that the Forts erected could be ofnoe use, Endurance or defence.... Yet were they of great Expence to thePeople who paid Excessively for Building them. "[460]

The Assembly had from time to time sought to make the merchants tradingto Virginia aid in the defense of the colony, by imposing upon themCastle Duties, in the form of a toll of powder and shot. The masters hadmore than once complained of this duty, but as it was not veryburdensome it was allowed to remain. Had all the ammunition thusreceived been used as intended by law, the people would have been savedgreat expense, and the forts made more serviceable. But thecontributions, if we may believe the complaints of the people, wereoften stolen by the collectors. "Notwithstanding, " said the Isle ofWight commons, "the great quantities of ammunition payd by ships forfort duties for the countries service ... Wee are forced to providepowder and shott at our proper charges. "[461] The Nansemond grievanceswere more explicit in their accusations of fraud. "They Complayne thatthe Castle duties, accustomed to be paid by the Masters of Shipps inPowder & Shott for the service and security of the Country, is nowconverted into Shoes and stockings &c as best liketh the Collectors ofit and disposed to their own private advantage. "[462]

It would not be just to give credence to all the accusations madeagainst Berkeley. The King's commissioners who conducted theinvestigation into his conduct, were his enemies; while many of thecharges were brought by those who had taken part in the Rebellion. Thusthe testimony against him is in most cases distinctly partisan. Moreoverthose that were closely associated with Sir William often expressedextravagant admiration for his ability and energy, and love for hischaracter. [463] "He hath, " wrote the Council in 1673, "for neare 30years governed this colony with that prudence and justice which hathgained him both love and reverence from all the Inhabitants here. "[464]

Singularly enough Berkeley seems to have prided himself upon his abilityas a ruler. He never forgot the compliment paid him by the people in1660, when they insisted, even against his will, upon making him theirGovernor. And long after he had forfeited their confidence and esteem heimagined himself as popular as in his first administration. It was abitter blow to his pride when the commons rose against his government in1676. His proclamations bear testimony to his pain that the youthfulBacon should have usurped his place in the affections of thepeople. [465] His letter to the King asking to be recalled from hisgovernment was undoubtedly dictated by wounded pride. Upon the eve ofhis final departure for England he did not scruple to write ColonelJeffreys, "I will confesse to you that I beleeve that the Inhabitants ofthis Colony wil quickly find a difference betweene your management andmine. "[466]

It would be difficult to reconcile this attitude of mind with Berkeley'soppressive administration, did we not know his views upon governmentalmatters. He had never been in sympathy with republican institutions. Itwas the height of folly, he thought, to allow the people to participateeither in administrative or legislative affairs. The King alone shouldrule; the people's duty was to obey. It was but five years before theRebellion that he wrote to the Lords of Trade and Plantations, "I thankeGod there is noe ffree schooles nor printing (in Virginia)[467] and Ihope wee shall not have these hundred yeares, for learning has broughtdisobedience & heresaye and sects into the world and printing hasdivulged them, and libells against the best Government: God keepe usfrom both. "[468] A man that could utter such sentiments as these wouldnot scruple to throttle, if he could, all representative institutions inhis government. If he intimidated voters and corrupted the Burgesses, itwas perhaps because he thought himself justified in any measures thatwould render the Governor, the King's substitute, supreme in thegovernment. 

But whatever is the verdict of posterity upon the conduct and motives ofSir William Berkeley, the causes of the Rebellion stand out with greatclearness:--England's selfish commercial policy, the Culpeper-Arlingtongrant, the Dutch wars, storms and pestilence, inefficient if not corruptgovernment, excessive taxes. The only wonder is that the insurrectiondid not occur earlier. In fact two mutinies did break out in 1674, whenthe excessively heavy taxes of that year were announced, but the rebelslacked leaders and were suppressed without great difficulty. [469] Asearly as 1673 the defection of the planters was so great that it wasfeared many might attempt to deliver the colony into the hands of theDutch. Berkeley wrote that a large part of the people were sodesperately poor that they might reasonably be expected upon any smalladvantage of the enemy to "revolt to them in hopes of bettering theirCondition by Shareing the Plunder of the Country with them". [470] Acertain John Knight reported "that the planters there doe generallydesire a trade with the Dutch and all other nations and would not besingly bound to the trade of England, and speake openly there that theyare in the nature of slaves, soe that the hearts of the greatest part ofthem are taken away from his Majesty". [471] Thus the downtroddenplanters, alienated from England, angered at the Governor, evendistrusting their own Assembly, waited but an occasion and a leader torise in open rebellion. A new Indian war offered the occasion, and theyfound their leader in young Nathaniel Bacon. 

FOOTNOTES:

[381] P. R. O. , CO1-34-95. 

[382] Scobell, Vol. II, p. 132. 

[383] Bruce, Ec. Hist. , Vol. I, p. 357. 

[384] Governor Berkeley wrote in 1666 that the King's customs from theVirginia and Maryland tobacco would amount "unto about £100, 000". 

[385] Bruce, Ec. Hist. , Vol. I, p. 354. 

[386] P. R. O. , CO1-21. 

[387] P. R. O. , CO1-21. 

[388] P. R. O. , CO1-30-51. Compare Petition of Governor Berkeley, Aug. 22, 1662, CO1-16. 

[389] Hen. , Vol. II, pp. 120, 121. 

[390] P. R. O. , CO1-19; Hen. , Vol. II, p. 272. 

[391] Hen. , Vol. II, p. 238. 

[392] Ibid. 

[393] Hen. , Vol. II, p. 123. 

[394] P. R. O. , CO1-19; Hen. , Vol. II, p. 178. 

[395] P. R. O. , CO1-16; Hen. , Vol. II, p. 17. 

[396] P. R. O. , CO1-26-77; Hen. , Vol. II, p. 315. 

[397] P. R. O. , CO1-24. 

[398] P. R, O. , CO1-30; Bruce, Ec. Hist. , Vol. I, p. 357. 

[399] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-328; Va. Mag. , Vol. III, p. 38. 

[400] Bruce, Ec. Hist. , Vol. I, p. 389. 

[401] Bruce, Ec. Hist. , Vol. I, p. 390. 

[402] P. R. O. , CO1-20. 

[403] P. R. O. , CO1-20. Ludwell to Arlington. 

[404] P. R. O. , CO1-21. Governor and Council to the King. 

[405] P. R. O. , CO1-37-16. 

[406] P. R. O. , CO1-80-51. 

[407] P. R. O. , CO1-34-101. 

[408] P. R. O. , CO1-28-20; Burk, Vol. II, Appendix XXXVI. 

[409] Hen. , Vol. II, pp. 518-543; Burk, Vol. II, Appendix XXXIII-LXII. 

[410] P. R. O. , CO1-34-95. 

[411] P. R. O. , CO1-34-96; CO1-34-100; CO1-33-108; CO1-34-95; Hen. , Vol. II, p. 529. 

[412] P. R. O. , CO1-34-100. 

[413] P. R. O. , CO1-36-48; Hen. Vol. II, p. 534. 

[414] P. R. O. , CO389. 6-133 to 137; Burk, Vol. II, Appendix LXI. 

[415] Beverley. 

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

[417] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-292, 331. 

[418] P. R. O. , CO1-21-61. 

[419] P. R. O. , CO1-21-61. 

[420] P. R. O. , CO1-21-63. 

[421] P. R. O. , CO1-21-61, 62. 

[422] P. R. O. , CO1-21-61, 62, 63. 

[423] P. R. O. , CO1-30-51, 53, 71. 

[424] P. R. O. , CO1-30-51, 53. 

[425] P. R. O. , CO1-21-61. 

[426] P. R. O. , CO1-30-17. 

[427] P. R. O. , CO1-21. 

[428] This is shown by the wills of this period, many of which have beenpublished in the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. 

[429] P. R. O. , CO1-30-17; CO1-30-51. 

[430] Hen. , II, p. 356. 

[431] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-241, 246. 

[432] Bruce, Inst. Hist. , Vol. I, p. 489. 

[433] Va. Mag. , Vol. III, pp. 135, 136. 

[434] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-241. 

[435] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-316, 319. The Assembly which met in March, 1661, was continued by successive prorogations until October, 1665. Thisfact is placed beyond question by the copies of the Acts of Assembly nowpreserved in the British Public Record Office. But there is no statementin these copies that the session of June 5, 1666, had been proroguedfrom an earlier date. Nor is there any indication given in Hening'sStatutes that this was not a new Assembly. (Hen. , Vol. II, p. 224. )These two omissions, then, might lead us to infer that there was ageneral election in 1666. But there is other evidence tending to showthat the Assembly of 1661 was not dissolved until 1676. Thus WilliamSherwood wrote during Bacon's Rebellion that the rabble had risenagainst the Assembly and seemed weary of it, "in that itt was of 14years continuance". (P. R. O. , CO1-37-17; Va. Mag. , Vol. I, p. 170. ) Theaccount of the Rebellion given in the Collections of the MassachusettsHistorical Society also declares that the session had "continuedfowerteene yeares". (Mass. S. IV, Vol. IX, p. 169. ) The Isle of Wightgrievances state that the people of that county had not had an electionof Burgesses for twelve years. (Va. Mag. , Vol. II, p. 380. ) Lists of themembers at the sessions of September, 1663, and of October, 1666, havebeen preserved by Hening. Nineteen Burgesses of the Assembly of 1663appear also in 1666; eleven have lost their seats and in their placesare fifteen new members. But this settles nothing, for it is quitepossible that if an election was held in 1666, the Governor's influencemight have secured the return of many old Burgesses. There was noelection from June 1666 to June 1676. It must remain, then, undeterminedwhether the Long Assembly continued for ten or for fifteen years. 

[436] P. R. O. , CO1-20. 

[437] Va. Mag. , Vol. III, pp. 141, 142. 

[438] P. R. O. , CO1-40-88. 

[439] P. R. O. , CO1-40-43. 

[440] Bruce, Inst. Hist. , Vol. I, p. 542. 

[441] P. R. O. , CO1-20. 

[442] Bruce, Inst. Hist. , Vol. II, 566. 

[443] Hen. , Vol. II, 357. 

[444] Va. Mag. , Vol. II, p. 172. 

[445] Va. Mag. , Vol. II, p. 389. 

[446] Va. Mag. , Vol. III, p. 142. 

[447] Bruce, Inst. Hist. , Vol. I, p. 67. 

[448] Bruce, Inst. Hist. , Vol. I, p. 77; Hen. Vol. II, p. 356. 

[449] Va. Mag. , Vol. II, pp. 172, 289, 388. 

[450] P. R. O. , CO1-36-54. 

[451] P. R. O. , CO1-36-54. 

[452] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-315. 

[453] Hen. , Vol. II, p. 172. 

[454] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-316-19, 304-5. 

[455] Va. Mag. , Vol. III, p. 142; P. R. O. , CO1-37-41. 

[456] P. R. O. , CO1-21. 

[457] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-292, 7. 

[458] P. R. O. , CO1-29-31. 

[459] Va. Mag. , Vol. III, p. 142. 

[460] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-292, 7; CO1-21. 

[461] Va. Mag. , Vol. II, p. 387. 

[462] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-330, 331. 

[463] P. R. O. , CO1-20, 21. 

[464] P. R. O. , CO1-30-71. 

[465] P. R. O. , CO1-37-1. 

[466] P. R. O. , CO1-40-54. 

[467] Mr. P. A. Bruce, in his Institutional History of Virginia in theSeventeenth Century, has shown that this statement is incorrect. 

[468] P. R. O. , CO1-26-77. 

[469] P. R. O. , CO1-36-37; CO1-36-54. 

[470] P. R. O. , CO1-30-51. 

[471] P. R. O. , CO1-30-78. 

CHAPTER VI

BACON'S REBELLION

For many years Virginia had been at peace with the neighboringIndians. [472] The long series of wars which had filled most of the firsthalf of the seventeenth century had broken the spirit and power of thePamunkeys, the Nansemonds and the Nottoways. [473] The remnants of thesenations had become dependent upon the English, paying them tribute andlooking to them for protection from their enemies. [474] In 1675, however, these friendly relations were disturbed by a southward movementof some of the northern Indians. Large bodies of the warlike Senecas, pressing upon the Susquehannocks at the head of the Chesapeake Bay, weredriving them down into Maryland and Virginia. Here their indigence andtheir restlessness became a menace to the whites and an element ofdisturbance to their relations with the other tribes. [475]

In the summer of 1675 a party of savages rowed across the Potomac river, committed several murders and made good their escape into Maryland. [476]In anger and alarm the planters of Stafford county seized their arms toprotect their homes and to avenge their neighbors. A band of thirty ormore, led by Colonel Mason and Captain Brent, pursued the savages up thePotomac into the Maryland woods. [477] Coming in the early dawn upon twodiverging trails, "each leader with his party took a separate path". "Inless than a furlong either found a cabin", one crowded with DoegIndians, the other with Susquehannocks. The king of the Doegs, when hesaw his hut surrounded by Brent's men, "came trembling forth, and wou'dhave fled". But Captain Brent, "catching hold of his twisted lock, whichwas all the hair he wore", commanded him to deliver up the men guilty ofthe recent murders. "The king pleaded ignorance and slipt loos", whereupon Brent shot him dead. At this the savages in the cabin openedfire, and the Virginians answered with a deadly volley. "Th' Indiansthrong'd out at the door and fled. " "The English shot as many as theycou'd, so that they killed ten ... And brought away the kings son. " "Thenoise of this shooting awaken'd th' Indians in the cabin which Coll. Mason had encompassed, who likewise rush'd out and fled, of whom hiscompany shot ffourteen. "[478]

This unfortunate affair was the beginning of a deadly war between theEnglish and the Indians, which brought untold suffering upon the peopleof Maryland and Virginia. The Susquehannocks, enraged at the slaughterof their warriors, became the most implacable enemies of the white men. Joining with the other tribes in a league against the English, theybegan a series of outrages and murders which continued many months, andcost the lives of hundreds of men, women and children. During the year1676 alone, more people were butchered in Virginia by the savages thanfell in the massacre of 1644. [479] This fearful mortality was due to thefact that the Indians were now supplied with firearms. Governor Berkeleyand his friends, in their greed to secure the valuable beaver and otterskins, had not hesitated to purchase them with powder, shot andguns. [480] The savages had now almost entirely discarded the bow andarrow, and were so skilful with their new weapons that the English oftenhired them "to kill Deare". [481] So that when the war cry was once moreheard upon the frontier, the savages, although less numerous than in thedays of Powhatan or Opechancanough, were far more to be feared. 

It was Maryland that first felt the resentment of the savages. 

[Illustration: MAP OF

VIRGINIA

DURING BACON'S REBELLION]

The people of this province had taken no part in the attack of Mason andBrent, but the Susquehannocks were not in the humor to make nicedistinctions. In seeking revenge for the murder of their braves theyheld all whites equally guilty, and fell immediately upon the nearestplantations. Thus were the Marylanders made to suffer for the rashnessof the Virginia frontiersmen. 

Feeling that it was his duty to aid the neighboring province in this warbrought on by the hasty action of two of his own officers, and fearingthat depredations upon the Virginia frontiers could not long beprevented, Sir William Berkeley decided to join Governor Calvert in avigorous attack upon the savages. Colonel John Washington, great-grandfather of George Washington, at the head of several hundredmen, was despatched across the Potomac to effect a junction with theMaryland troops. [482] The combined forces of the two colonies are saidto have numbered "neer a thousand men". [483]

Unable to withstand this army in the open field, the Indians fell backupon a fort which they had erected upon the north bank of the Potomac, and here awaited the approach of the English. Their fortress had beenconstructed with such care and skill that the white men were unable tocarry it by storm. The outer works consisted of lines of tree trunks, from five to eight inches in diameter, "watled 6 inches apart to shootthrough", their tops firmly twisted together. Behind this was a ditch, and within all a square citadel, with high walls and "fflankers havingmany loop-holes". The fire of the red-skins from behind these worksproved so deadly that hopes of a successful assault had to be abandoned. Nor could breaches be effected, for the allies were not provided withheavy guns. The moist and swampy ground surrounding the fort made itimpossible to approach by means of trenches. [484]

So the English cast their camp before the fort hoping to starve out theenemy. Lines were drawn about the place, as closely as the nature of theground would permit, while boats patrolled the river to cut off escapeto the Virginia shore. Fearing, no doubt, that lack of provisions wouldsoon make it necessary for them to come to terms with the besiegers, theIndians sent out several of their leaders to treat for peace. But sodeep was the animosity aroused by the recent murders, that the white menviolated the flag of truce by detaining these envoys, and finallybeating out their brains. [485] This flagrant act aroused the Indians toa desperate defense. In numerous sallies they inflicted severe loss uponthe besiegers, and captured enough horses to supply themselves withfood. At last, after six or seven weeks of fighting, they resolved toeffect their escape. On a dark night, when the English were leastexpecting it, they sallied forth, bringing with them their women andchildren. Awakening the white men with their savage yells, they burst inamong them, killing and wounding many, and before resistance could bemade, were through the lines and gone. [486]

And now the Virginians were made to pay dearly for their part in thisill-managed affair. Early in January, 1676, the Susquehannocks crossedthe Potomac and came plundering and murdering through the frontiercounties. [487] Separating into small bands, the Indians fell upon themore isolated plantations, and in a few days had killed no less thanthirty-six persons. Those whose wretched fate it was to be captured, were put to death with all the tortures that devilish ingenuity coulddevise. Some were roasted, others flayed alive. The sufferings of thevictims were long and protracted, while the savages knocked out theirteeth or tore off their nails or stuck feathers and lighted wood intotheir flesh. [488]

In terror the people of the frontier began to desert their homes, seeking shelter in the more populous settlements. [489] In a few weeksone parish, upon the upper waters of the Rappahannock, was reduced fromseventy-one plantations to eleven. [490] Those that remained wereconcentrated upon the largest farms, which they fortified with palisadesand redoubts. [491]

When the news of these atrocities reached Sir William Berkeley, hastypreparations were made for an expedition against the invaders. Sir HenryChicheley was put at the head of forces of horse and foot, with ordersto give immediate pursuit to the savages. But just as all was inreadiness and the command to march hourly expected, the Governor decidedthat the expedition should be abandoned. Chicheley's commission wasannulled, his forces disbanded and the soldiers sent to theirhomes. [492]

What induced Berkeley to take this strange step none could tell. Themurders of the savages were continuing. The frontier was defenseless. Messages were coming from the exposed plantations imploring aid. Whyshould he desert the people and expose them to the fury of the Indians?It is possible that he detected symptoms of mutiny among the troops andthought it better to abandon the expedition than to run the risk of arebellion. He was well aware of the discontent of the people, and hisletters to England show that he dreaded an insurrection. [493] Theunhappy planters ascribed the Governor's strange conduct to avarice. Heand his friends had a monopoly of the Indian trade, and it was hintedthat he preferred to allow the atrocities to continue rather thandestroy his source of revenue. He was determined, was the cry, "that nobullits would pierce beaver skins". [494] More probable seems theexplanation that Berkeley hoped to prevent further depredations by thehelp of the Pamunkeys and other friendly tribes, and feared that aninvasion of the Indian lands might defeat this purpose. [495]

But an Assembly was summoned in March and instructed by the Governor totake immediate measures to secure the frontier. [496] Acting, no doubt, under Berkeley's influence, the Assembly resolved not to carry theconflict into the enemy's territory, but to wage a defensive war. Fortswere to be erected upon the upper waters of the great rivers, and mannedwith regular troops as a protection to the outer plantations. To defraythe cost, new and heavy taxes were put upon the people. [497]

This last act of the Long Assembly caused bitter dissatisfaction. Theborder counties had hoped that provision would be made for an expeditionagainst the Indians. No headway could be made unless the whites took theoffensive and hunted down the savages in their own villages. Theerection of forts was useless. [498] The Indians would experience nodifficulty in avoiding them in their murderous raids. They couldapproach the remote plantations, or even those far within the frontiers, without fear of detection by the soldiers, for the numerous swamps anddense woods afforded them ample covert. It was not intended that theforts should be used as bases for expeditions into the enemy's country;nor could the soldiers leave them to pursue and punish the plunderingsavages. What then, it was asked, could be the value of fortresses, ifthey were to defend only the ground upon which they stood?[499]

The event proved the people right. The forts, when built, were butslight obstacles to the invasions of the Indians. The murders becamemore frequent than before. The impotency of the defenses of the colonyseems to have inspired them to more terrible and vigorous attacks. Thecry against the forts became more bitter. "It was a design, " the peoplethought, "of the grandees to engross all their tobacco into their ownhands". [500] As the cries of their women and children grew more piteousand distressing, the men of the frontier spoke openly of disobedience. Rather than pay the taxes for the accursed forts they would plant nomore tobacco. If the Governor would not send an expedition against theIndians, they themselves would march out to avenge their wrongs. Theforts must be dismantled, the garrisons dismissed. [501]

From all parts of the colony came the insistent demand that theAssembly, which had so long been but a mockery of representativegovernment, should be dissolved and the people given a freeelection. [502] But Berkeley was not the man to yield readily to thisclamor. Never, in all the long years that he had ruled over Virginia, had he allowed the rabble to dictate his policies. He would not do sonow. When petitions came from the frontiersmen, asking leave to go outagainst the Indians, he returned a brusk and angry refusal. [503] Adelegation from Charles City county met with a typical reception fromthe irritable old man. As they stood humbly before him, presenting theirrequest for a commission, they spoke of themselves as the Governor'ssubjects. Upon this Berkeley blurted out that they were all "fools andloggerheads". They were subjects of the King, and so was he. He wouldgrant them no commission, and bade them be gone, and a pox takethem. [504] Later he issued a proclamation forbidding under heavypenalties all such petitions. [505]

Unfortunately, at this juncture came news that large bodies of Indianswere descending upon the upper waters of the James, and that anotherbloody assault might soon be expected. [506] In terror and anger thepeople of Charles City county seized their arms, determined to repelthis threatened storm, with or without the Governor's permission. Parties went about from place to place beating up volunteers with thedrum. The magistrates were either in sympathy with the movement, or wereunable to prevent it. [507] Soon a considerable body of rough, determinedmen were assembled, awaiting only a leader to march out against theenemy. 

This leader they found in one of the most interesting and picturesquecharacters in Virginia history. Nathaniel Bacon is depicted astwenty-nine years of age, black-haired, of medium height and slender, melancholy, pensive, and taciturn. In conversation he was logical andconvincing; in oratory magnetic and masterful. [508] His successfulexpeditions against the Indians and the swift blows he directed againstthe loyal forces mark him as a military commander of no meanability. [509]

Bacon was almost a stranger in Virginia, for he had left England lessthan two years before. [510] He was fortunate, however, in having acousin, also named Nathaniel Bacon, high in the favor of Sir WilliamBerkeley. [511] It was doubtless through the influence of this relativethat the young man attained a position of great influence, and wasappointed to the Council itself. [512] But submission to the will of theimperious Governor was the price paid by all that wished to remain longin favor in Virginia. Bacon did not approve of Berkeley's arbitrarygovernment; he disliked the long continuation of the Assembly, theunjust discriminations, the unusual taxes, the incapacity of officials;and it was not in his fiery temper to conceal his opinions. Soon, itwould seem, the frowns of the Governor began to fall upon him, and hegrew weary of coming to Council. [513]

Bacon had made his home in Henrico, at that time one of the extremefrontier counties. His marked ability, his liberal education, his placein the Council soon gave him a position of great influence among hisrough but hardy neighbors. None could be better suited to assume commandover the desperate volunteers that had gathered in Charles City county. 

But it was a very serious step to accept the leadership of this bandwhich had taken arms in defiance of the Governor's commands. It wouldexpose him to the charge not only of disobedience, but of openrebellion. Bacon, however, like all that dwelt upon the frontiers, wasangered at the inadequate protection given by the government. When newscame to him that depredations had been committed upon one of his ownplantations, and that his overseer had been killed, he was eager to takerevenge. [514]

Now some of Bacon's friends, as anxious as he for an Indian expedition, and thinking him most proper to conduct it, suggested his name to thevolunteers. The men were quite willing to accept so influential acommander, but it was not so easy to persuade Bacon to take thedangerous place. He consented, however, to row across the river, andvisit the soldiers in their camp. Here the men gathered around him, andwith joyous shouts of, "A Bacon! A Bacon!" proclaimed him their leader. His friends pressed him to accept. They would, they said, accompany himon his expedition. If the Governor ordered them to disband, they woulddefy him. "They drank damnation to their souls", if they should proveuntrue to him. Touched by these proofs of confidence, and fired perhapswith ambition, the young man yielded, and Bacon's Rebellion hadbegun. [515]

From the very first the movement assumed the character of aninsurrection. [516] Amid the hearty applause of his rough followers, Bacon spoke of the negligence, the incapacity and wickedness of thegovernment. Their betrayal into the hands of the savages was but one ofmany grievances. The laws were unjust, the taxes oppressive. Somethingmust be done to redress these wrongs and to end misgovernment. [517] Andas the poor people flocked in to him, he listed their names in a hugeround-robin and bound them to him by an oath of fidelity. [518]

A message was dispatched to the Governor to request a commissionauthorizing the expedition against the Indians. [519] But Bacon promisedhis men that if Sir William withheld his assent, he would lead themforth without it; and in the meanwhile, without waiting for theGovernor's reply, he crossed over into New Kent, "a county ripe forrebellion", where he expected to strengthen his position and perhapsattack the Pamunkeys. [520] This nation had for many years been friendlyto the English, and had more than once given them invaluable assistanceagainst other Indian tribes. Their present queen was the widow ofTottopottomoi, who had been killed while fighting as the ally of thewhite men against the Richahecrians. [521] They now occupied landallotted them by the Assembly, upon the frontier of New Kent, where, itwas supposed, they would act as a protection to the colony against theraids of hostile tribes. [522] When the Susquehannocks began theirdepredations Governor Berkeley expected valuable assistance from theseallies, whom he termed his "spyes and intelligence" to search out "thebloody enimies". [523] But the Pamunkeys not only failed to check theinvasion of the Susquehannocks, but seem to have joined with them in thework of bloodshed and pillage. The people of the frontier believed thatalmost all the Indians were leagued together for their ruin. ThePamunkeys, they were sure, had taken part in the recent atrocities. Andas they were their close neighbors, knowing all their customs and alltheir habitations, they were especially fitted for the work ofdestruction. The New Kent planters were now impatient to march outagainst them to take revenge for the recent horrible murders. But thePamunkeys, upon hearing of Bacon's approach, deserted their reservationand took refuge in the wilderness. [524]

It is not hard to imagine the Governor's anger when he heard of theseproceedings. Despite the testimony of the frontiersmen, he had refusedto believe the Pamunkeys guilty, and he still relied upon them forassistance against the Susquehannocks. Bacon's proceedings, infrightening them from their lands, upset all his plans of defense. Yethad the volunteers contented themselves with attacking the Indians, itis conceivable that Berkeley would have yielded. But when they took uparms without his permission, put themselves under the command of adiscontented Councillor, and demanded redress of grievances from thegovernment, it was necessary for him to resort to repression. Thecommission was refused and a proclamation issued denouncing Bacon'sconduct as illegal and rebellious. He and his men were offered pardon, but only on condition that they lay down their arms, and returnimmediately to their obedience. [525]

But the mutineers would not obey. Are we, they complained, to returnpassively to our homes, there to be slaughtered by the savage foe? TheGovernor has given us no protection. The Indians are coming. Already theblood of our butchered relatives cries aloud to Heaven. We hope we havestill enough English blood in our veins to think it more honorable todie in fair battle with the enemy, than to be sneakingly murdered in ourbeds. If we lie still, we are destroyed by the heathen; if we defendourselves, we are accounted rebels and traitors. But we will fight. Andif we must be hanged for killing those that will destroy us, let themhang us, we will venture that rather than lie at the mercy of ourbarbarous enemies. So, turning their backs upon the plantations, theystruck out into the dense woods. [526]

When Berkeley heard that his authority was still defied, and his pardonrejected, he was resolved at all hazards to compel obedience. Gatheringaround him a party of three hundred gentlemen, "well armed and mounted", he set out, on the third of May, to intercept the rebels. [527] Butlearning, upon his arrival at the falls of the James, that Bacon hadcrossed the river and was already far away, he decided to encamp in thefrontier counties and await his return. [528]

But he sent out a party under Colonel Claiborne to pursue the Pamunkeys, and induce them, if possible, to return to their reservation. Thesavages were found entrenched in a strong; position, "encompassed withtrees which they had fallen in the branch of an Impassable swamp". [529]Their queen refused to abandon this retreat, declaring that since theGovernor had not been able to command the obedience of Bacon, he couldnot save her people from his violence. But she promised that thePamunkeys should remain peaceable and should take no part in the raidsof the Susquehannocks. "Of this the Governor was informed, who resolvednot to be soe answered but to reduce her and the other Indians, soesoone as Bacon could be brought to submit. "[530]

On May the tenth Berkeley issued a new proclamation. The taking of armsby Bacon, he said, against his wishes and commands, was an act ofdisloyalty and rebellion. If permitted to go unpunished, it would tendto the ruin and overthrow of all government in the colony. It was hisduty to use all the forces at his command to suppress so dangerous amutiny. Should the misguided people desert their leader, and return totheir allegiance, he would grant a free and full pardon. And asNathaniel Bacon had shown himself by his rash proceedings utterlyunworthy of public trust, he suspended him from the Council and from allother offices held by him. It was amazing, he said, that after he hadbeen Governor of Virginia so many years, and had done always equaljustice to all men, the people should be seduced and carried away by soyoung and turbulent a person as Bacon. [531]

But although Berkeley was determined to suppress the rebels by force ofarms, the attitude of the commons in other parts of the colony became sothreatening that he was forced to make some concessions. To the greatjoy of the people he dissolved the unpopular Long Assembly, and ordereda new election. It was with sorrow, he declared, that he departed withthe present Burgesses, who had given frequent proof of ability andwisdom. But the complaints of many inhabitants of the long continuanceof the old Assembly had induced him to grant a free election. And if anyman had grievances against his government, or could accuse him ofinjustice or bribery, he was to present his complaint by his Burgessesto the Assembly, where it would be examined. [532]

It was indeed time for the Governor to act, for the rebellion wasspreading to the older and more populous counties. [533] The people theretoo were denouncing the forts, and demanding redress of grievances. Somebegan to arm, and it seemed not improbable that the entire colony mightsoon be ablaze. Hastening back to his residence at Green Spring, hesought to appease the people by dismantling the obnoxious forts anddismissing their garrisons. [534]

In the meanwhile Bacon was making his way through the woods southwardfrom the falls of the James in pursuit of the Susquehannocks that hadcommitted the recent murders upon the frontier. [535] These savages hadnot attempted to return to their homes north of the Potomac, but hadretired to the country of the Occaneechees, where they had entrenchedthemselves in two forts. [536] The Occaneechees dwelt in the southernmostpart of Virginia, near the site of Clarksville. [537] They are describedas a stout people, and the most enterprising of traders. Their chieftown, situated upon an island in the Roanoke River and defended by threestrong forts, was "the Mart for all the Indians for att least 500 miles"around. [538] The beaver skins stored in this place at the time ofBacon's expedition are said to have valued no less than £1, 000. [539]Persicles, their king, was reported to be an enlightened ruler, "a verybrave man & ever true to ye English". [540]

It was toward this island that Bacon led his men. But a quest for Indianallies took him far out of his route. Everywhere he found the savagesreluctant to aid him, even those nations that had formerly been mostfriendly to the English now holding aloof from them. This embarrassedhim greatly for he had relied upon receiving aid from several tribes, and his food was not sufficient for a long march. As the little armywent further and further into the wilderness, they began to face thepossibility of starvation. When at last they approached the Occaneecheecountry and received promises of aid from Persicles, their provisionswere nearly exhausted. [541]

Upon reaching the Roanoke the English crossed the north branch of theriver and encamped upon the Occaneechee island. [542] To his deepsatisfaction, Bacon found Persicles embroiled with the Susquehannocks, and already preparing for their destruction. When these wanderers fromthe north first came to him, Persicles had received them with kindnessand had relieved their needs. But they, "being exercised in warr formany years with the Senecaes, and living on rapin, endeavoured to beatthe Ockinagees of their own Island". [543] Persicles had defeated them, however, and forced them to take refuge in their two forts. [544]

Now the Susquehannocks, in their southward march, had subdued andbrought with them some members of the Mannakin and Annelectontribes. [545] These savages, although they lived with their conquerors, had no love for them, and were quite willing to join in any plan fortheir destruction. Persicles, it would seem, was plotting with them tosurprise and cut off the Susquehannocks, when Bacon appeared with hismen. Fearing, no doubt, that the participation of the English in theattack would render secrecy impossible, Persicles left them on theisland, and went out alone against the enemy. [546] The Mannakins andAnnelectons proved true to their allies and the Susquehannocks wereeasily defeated. Persicles returned in triumph, bringing with himseveral prisoners. These he wished the English to execute, but they"refused to take that office". [547] Thereupon he himself put them todeath with all the usual Indian tortures, "running fyer brands up theirbodys & the like". [548]

But now the friendship of Persicles and the English came abruptly to anend. The Berkeley party afterwards claimed that Bacon deliberatelypicked a quarrel with his allies, and attacked them withoutprovocation. [549] It would be unjust, however, to place too muchconfidence in these charges. Bacon's men found themselves in a mostcritical situation. They were many miles from the plantations, surrounded by the savages, their provisions exhausted. Persicles, theyasserted, had failed to keep his promise to supply them with food. Hewas assuming a threatening posture, manning his forts, and lining theriver bank with his warriors. For Bacon to retreat from the island underthese circumstances, would have exposed his company to destruction. Toremain passive was to starve. [550]

As the English became more insistent in their demands for food, Persicles retired to one of his forts, and refused further conference. Many of the savages, seeing hostilities imminent, deserted their cabinsand began to rush in through the entrances of their fortresses. ButBacon interposed his men, and succeeded in shutting out many ofthem. [551] Now from the Indians across the river came a shot, and one ofthe English fell dead. [552] Instantly Bacon ordered a general attack. The defenseless men, women and children left in the cabins weremercilessly butchered. At the same time fire was opened upon the forts. The soldiers rushed up to the portholes, and poured their volleysdirectly in upon the wretched savages. [553] A hideous din arose. Thesinging and howling of the warriors was mingled with the moans of thedying. Fire was set to one of the forts, in which were the king's wifeand children. As the flames arose, three or four braves made a dash forsafety through the line of the English. All others in this fort, including the king's family, perished amid the burning timbers. [554]

The next day the fight was continued from morn till night. Several timesthe savages sallied forth from their remaining forts, and placingthemselves behind trees, opened fire upon the English. But Bacon'sfrontiersmen were accustomed to this method of warfare. So well werethey posted and so cleverly concealed, that most of the enemy werepicked off as they stood. At last Persicles himself led forth a party ofabout twenty men in a desperate attack upon his enemy. With greatbravery they rushed around the English in a wide circle, howling andfiring. But they too were unsuccessful. Persicles was killed. Several ofhis men were shot on the bank of the river, and fell into the water. Ofall this party seven only were seen to escape. [555]

It now seemed hopeless for the Indians to fight further. With their kingand many of their warriors dead, and with one of their forts in ruins, their ultimate destruction was certain if they remained upon the island. So, with their women and children, they deserted the remaining forts andescaped. How they managed to slip past the victorious white men and maketheir way across the river is not explained. Thinking it best not tofollow, Bacon secured his plunder, and turned his face back towards theplantations. [556]

The news of the victory over the savages was received with enthusiasm inthe frontier counties. Bacon had been popular with the people before; henow became their idol. [557] He and his men, upon their return, found theentire colony deeply interested in the election of a new House ofBurgesses. In various places popular candidates, men in sympathy withBacon, were being nominated. [558] In Henrico county the people showedtheir contempt for the Governor's proclamations by electing Baconhimself. [559]

But it would be a matter of no little risk for him to go to Jamestown totake his seat in the Assembly. While surrounded by his loyalfrontiersmen in his own county he might well ignore the proclamationsagainst him, but if he put himself in the Governor's power, that fieryold man might not hesitate to hang him as a rebel. His friends would notallow him to go unprotected, and insisted upon sending with him a guardof forty or fifty armed men. [560] Embarking with this company in asloop, Bacon wended his way down the crooked James to the capital. Hecast anchor a short distance above the town and sent to the Governor toknow whether he would be allowed to take his seat in the Assemblywithout molestation. [561] For reply Sir William opened fire upon thesloop with the guns of the fort. [562] Whereupon Bacon sailed further upthe river out of danger. [563] But that night he landed with twenty ofhis men, and unobserved by any, slipped silently into town. [564]

In the place resided Richard Lawrence and William Drummond, both deeplyimpressed with the need of reform in Virginia, and both in sympathy withBacon's movement. Repairing to Lawrence's house, Bacon conferred withthese two friends for several hours. [565] Upon reëmbarking he wasdiscovered. Alarm was immediately given in the town and several boatsfilled with armed men pursued him up the river. At the same time CaptainGardner, commanding the ship _Adam and Eve_, was ordered to follow thefugitives, and capture or sink the sloop. For some hours Bacon eludedthem all. Finally, however, about three the next afternoon, he wasdriven by the small boats under the guns of the _Adam and Eve_, andforced to surrender. [566] Coming on board he was entrusted to CaptainGardner and Captain Hubert Farrill, and by them conducted to theGovernor. [567]

As the prisoner was led before him, the old man lifted his eyes andarms to Heaven, exclaiming, "Now I behold the greatest Rebell that everwas in Virginia!"[568] After some moments he added, "Mr. Bacon, doe youcontinue to be a gentleman? And may I take your word? If so you are atliberty upon your parol. "[569] Later, when the rebel expressed gratitudeat this mild treatment and repentance for his disobedience, Berkeleypromised to grant him a free pardon. And should he offer a humblesubmission, he was to be restored to his seat in the Council, and evenreceive the long desired commission. [570]

In this unexpected leniency the Governor was probably actuated not bymagnanimity, but by policy, or perhaps necessity. When the rebel was outupon his Indian expedition, Sir William had not scrupled to tell Mrs. Bacon that he would most certainly hang her husband, if ever he got himin his power. [571] But now he dared not do so. Bacon was regarded by alarge part of the people as their leader in a struggle for justice andliberty; to treat him too harshly might set the entire colony ablaze. Infact, many frontiersmen, when they heard of the capture of their hero, did hasten down to Jamestown with dreadful threats of revenge should ahair of his head be touched. [572] And throughout the colony themutterings of impending insurrection were too loud to be mistaken orignored. [573]

A few days after the capture, at a meeting of Council and Assembly, theGovernor arose from his chair, saying, "If there be joy in the presenceof the angels over one sinner that repenteth, there is joy now, for wehave a penitent sinner come before us. Call Mr. Bacon. " Whereupon therebel entered, and dropping upon his knee, presented his submission. "God forgive you, " said the Governor, "I forgive you. " "And all thatwere with him?" asked one of the Council. "Yea, " said Sir William, "allthat were with him. "[574] That very day Bacon was restored to his seatin the Council. [575] The soldiers that had been captured with him werefreed from their chains and permitted to return to their homes. [576]And, to the great joy of the people, it was publicly announced by one ofthe Burgesses, that Bacon had been granted a commission as general inthe Indian war. [577] Feeling that all was now well, and that theirpresence in Jamestown was no longer necessary, the sturdy frontiersmenshouldered their fusils, and returned to their plantations. [578]

But the reconciliation could be but temporary. Bacon's repentance andsubmission had been forced from him while helpless in the Governor'spower. He did not consider it morally binding. And so long as thepeople's grievances were not righted, and the Indian war was neglected, he could not be content to remain inactive and submissive. On the otherhand, Sir William probably felt that his promise of a commission hadbeen exacted by the unlawful threats of Bacon's friends, and might bebroken without dishonor. [579]

After waiting several days for his papers, Bacon became suspicious ofthe Governor's intentions, and set out for his home in Henrico. [580]Berkeley consented to his departure, and he took "civill leave", butimmediately afterwards he repented bitterly that he had let his enemythus slip through his fingers. It is probable that information came tohim just too late, that Bacon was again meditating resistance. Partiesof men were sent out upon the roads and up the river to intercept hisflight. The very beds of his lodging house were searched in desperatehaste, in the hope that he had not yet left Jamestown. But all in vain. Bacon had ridden quietly out of town, without servants or friends, andwas now far on his way towards the frontier. [581]

On his arrival at Henrico, his old comrades flocked around him, eager tobe led out against the Indians, and confident in the belief that Baconwas authorized to command them. And when they learned that he had notsecured a commission, and was once more a fugitive, they "sett theirthroats in one common key of Oathes and curses, and cried out aloud, that they would either have a Commission ... Or else they would pulldowne the Towne". [582] And as the news spread from place to place, rough, angry men came flocking in to Bacon, promising that if he wouldbut lead them to the Governor, they would soon get him what he pleased. "Thus the raging tumult came downe to Towne. "[583]

Vague rumors began to reach the Assembly that Bacon was marching onJamestown at the head of five hundred men. [584] By June thetwenty-second, it became definitely known that the rebels wereapproaching. [585] Berkeley sent out several messengers to demand theirintentions, but could get no satisfactory reply. Hasty preparations weremade to defend the town. [586] The neighboring militia was summoned. Fourguns were dragged to Sandy Bay to command the narrow neck of land thatconnected the peninsula with the left bank of the river. [587] It wasproposed to construct palisades across the isthmus. Early on the morningof the 23d, Berkeley went out himself to direct the mounting of theguns. [588] But it was too late. On all sides the people were crying, "Toarms! To arms! Bacon is within two miles of the town. " The rebels werethreatening, it was reported, that if a gun was fired against them, theywould kill and destroy all. [589] Seeing that resistance would beuseless, and might be fatal, the Governor ordered the guns to bedismounted, withdrew his soldiers, and retired to the state house. [590]

And so the rebels streamed unresisted into the town, a motley crew ofmany sorts and conditions: Rough, weather-beaten, determinedfrontiersmen, bent on having the commission for their leader; poorplanters, sunk deep in debt, denouncing the government and demandingrelief from their taxes; freedmen whose release from bondage had broughtthem little but hunger and nakedness. Moderation and reason were not tobe expected of such a band, and it is not strange that many of themtalked openly of overthrowing the government and sharing the property ofthe rich among themselves. Sixteen years of oppression and injusticewere bearing their natural fruit--rebellion. [591]

"Now tagg, ragg & bobtayle carry a high hand. "[592] Bacon leaves a forceto guard Sandy Bay, stations parties at the ferry and the fort, anddraws up his little army before the state-house. [593] Two Councillorscome out from Berkeley to demand what he wants. Bacon replies that hehas come for a commission as general of volunteers enrolled against theIndians. And he protests that if the Assembly intends a levy for newforces, his men will refuse to pay it. The ragged troops shout theirapproval with cries of "Noe Levies! Noe Levies!"[594]

It is easy to imagine with what anger the Governor drew up and signedthe commission. But he dared not refuse it. He was in the power of therebels, who were already muttering threats of bloodshed and pillage. Todefy them might bring instant ruin. [595] When the commission was broughtout, and Bacon had read it to his soldiers, he refused to accept it, declaring the powers granted insufficient. Thereupon he drew up theheads of a new paper, in which his loyalty to the king and the legalityof his past actions were attested, and an appointment given him asgeneral of all the forces in Virginia used in the Indian war. [596]

These new demands throw the old Governor into an uncontrollable rage. Herushes out to Bacon, gesticulating wildly, and declaring that ratherthan sign such a paper he will have his hands cut off. [597] In hisexcitement he opens his bosom, crying out, "Here, shoot me, fore Godfair mark. "[598] Then he offers to measure swords with the rebel beforeall his men, shouting, "Let us settle this difference singly betweenourselves. "[599] But Bacon ignores these ravings. "Sir, " he says, "Icome not nor intend to hurt a haire of your Honors head. And for yoursword, your Honor may please to put it up, it will rust in the scabbardbefore ever I shall desire you to draw it. I come for a commissionagainst the Heathen who daily inhumanly murder us and spill ourbretherens blood. "[600]

In the general distraction somebody takes the proposals to theBurgesses, now sitting in an upper chamber of the state house. Baconstruts impatiently below, muttering threats and "new coynedoathes". [601] At a window of the Assembly room are a number of faces, looking out on the exciting scenes below. Bacon calls up to them, "YouBurgesses, I expect your speedy result. " His soldiers shout, "We willhave it, we will have it. " At a command from Bacon the rebels cock theirfusils, and take aim at the crowded window. "For God's sake hold yourhands, " cry the Burgesses, "forbear a little and you shall have what youplease. "[602] And now there is wild excitement, confusion and hurryingto and fro. From all sides the Governor is pressed to grant thecommission in Bacon's own terms. At last he yields, and the paper issigned. 

But new humiliation awaited him. The next morning Bacon entered theHouse of Burgesses with an armed guard, demanding that certain personsactive in obeying the Governor's orders should be deprived of alloffices, and that recent letters to the King denouncing him as a rebelshould be publicly contradicted. When Berkeley heard of these demands, he swore he would rather suffer death than submit to them. But theBurgesses, who thought it not unlikely that they might soon have theirthroats cut, advised him to grant whatever was demanded. [603] So aletter was written to the King, and signed by the Governor, the Counciland the Burgesses, expressing confidence in Bacon's loyalty andjustifying his past actions. [604] Several of Berkeley's friends werecommitted to prison. Blank commissions for officers to command underBacon in the Indian war were presented for signature. The Governorgranted all, "as long as they concerned not life and limb", being"willing to be ridd of him". The Assembly finished its session, andthinking to appease the rebels, sent their laws out to be read beforethem. But they rose up like a swarm of bees, and swore they would haveno laws. [605] Yet the legislation of this session was exceedinglyliberal. The elections had been held at a time when the people werebitterly angry with the Governor and disgusted with the old régime. Inseveral counties popular candidates, men bent upon reform, had beenelected over Berkeley's friends. [606] These men, aided by the menacingattitude of the people, had initiated a series of bills designed torestrict the Governor's power and to restore to the commons theirrightful share in local government. But it was probably the presence ofBacon with his ragged troops at Jamestown that brought about the finalpassage of the bills. The Governor and the Council would hardly havegiven their consent, had they not been forced to do so at the sword'spoint. 

Indeed these laws aimed a telling blow at the aristocratic cliques thathad so long controlled all local government. It was to be illegal in thefuture, for any man to serve as sheriff for two consecutive terms. [607]Surveyors, escheators, clerks of the court and sheriffs should hold onlyone office at a time. [608] The self-perpetuating vestries which had longcontrolled the parishes and levied church taxes, were to give place tobodies elected tri-annually by the freemen. [609] An act was passedrestricting the power of the county courts. For the future the peoplewere to elect representatives, equal in number with the justices, to sitwith them, and have a voice "in laying the countie assessments, and ofmaking wholesome lawes". [610] Councillors were no longer to be exemptfrom taxation. The act of 1670, restricting the right to vote forBurgesses to freeholders was abolished, and the franchise extended toall freemen. [611] And since "the frequent false returns" of electionshad "caused great disturbances", it was enacted that any sheriff foundguilty of this crime should be fined twenty thousand pounds oftobacco. [612]

Hardly had the Assembly closed its session when the news was receivedthat the Indians were again on the war-path, having killed eight personsin the upper counties. This caused great alarm in the rebel army, andBacon found it necessary the next day to lead them back to the frontierthat they might guard their homes and families. [613]

Here active preparations were made for a new expedition against thesavages. Now that Bacon had a commission signed by the Governor andconfirmed with the public seal, men were quite eager to follow him. Onall sides volunteers flocked in to offer their services against thebrutal enemy. Even Councillors and Burgesses encouraged their neighborsto enlist, declaring that no exception could be taken to the legality ofthe commission. [614] Thus hundreds swallowed "down so fair a Bait, notseeing Rebellion at the end of it". [615]

In the meanwhile, the Governor, angered at the great indignities putupon him, was planning to regain his lost authority. A petition wasdrawn up in Gloucester county by Sir William's friends, denouncingBacon, and asking that forces be raised to suppress him. [616] Althoughmost of the Gloucestermen, it would seem, had no part in this request, Berkeley crossed over the York River to their county and began to enlistvolunteers. [617] But he met with little success. Even in this part ofthe colony Bacon was the popular hero, and men refused to serve againsthim. It seemed outrageous to many that while he was out to fight thecommon enemy, the Governor should attack him in the rear. All hisdesperate efforts were in vain. Sick at heart and exhausted fromexertions too great for his age, he is said to have fainted away in thesaddle. [618]

The news that Berkeley was raising forces reached Bacon at the falls ofJames River, just as he was going to strike out into the woods. "Immediately he causes the Drums to Beat and Trumpets to sound forcalling his men to-gether. "[619]. "Gentlemen and Fellow Soldiers, " hesays, when they are assembled, "the news just now brought me, may not alittle startle you as well as myselfe. But seeing it is not altogetherunexpected, wee may the better beare it and provide our remedies. TheGovernour is now in Gloster County endeavouring to raise forces againstus, having declared us Rebells and Traytors.... It is Revenge thathurries them on without regard to the Peoples safety. (They) had ratherwee should be Murder'd and our Ghosts sent to our slaughter'd Countrymenby their actings, then wee live to hinder them of their Interest withthe Heathen.... Now then wee must be forced to turne our Swords to ourown Defence, or expose ourselves to their Mercyes.... Let us descend toknow the reasons why such a proceedings are used against us ... (why)those whome they have raised for their Defence, to preserve them againstthe Fury of the Heathen, they should thus seek to Destroy. (Was there)ever such a Theachery ... Heard of, such Wickednesse and inhumanity? Butthey are damned Cowards, and you shall see they will not dare to meet usin the field to try the Justnesse of our Cause. "[620]

Whereupon the soldiers all cried, "Amen. Amen. " They were ready tofollow him. They would rather die fighting than be hanged like rogues. It would be better to attack the Governor at once than have him comeupon their rear while they were engaged in the woods with thesavages. [621] And so, with universal acclaim, they gathered up theirarms, and set out to give battle to the Governor. 

But Berkeley had fled. Upon finding that the militia of Gloucester andMiddlesex would not support him, he had taken ship for the EasternShore. Here, for the time being, he was safe from the angry rebels. Itwould be difficult for Bacon to secure vessels enough to transport hismen over to Accomac; to march them hundreds of miles around the head ofChesapeake Bay was out of the question. 

The flight of the Governor left Bacon undisputed master of all themainland of Virginia. Everywhere he was hailed by the people as theirhero and deliverer. Those that still remained loyal to Sir Williameither fled with him or rendered their submission to the rebel. For awhile, at least, he could prosecute the Indian war and redress thepublic grievances without fear of interruption. [622]

But now Bacon was confronted with the question of what attitude heshould assume to the English government. Berkeley had written homedenouncing him as a rebel and traitor. The King assuredly would nottolerate his conduct. No doubt preparations were already being made tosend British troops to the colony. Should he defy the King and resisthis soldiers in the field of battle?

Bacon made up his mind to fight. The dense woods, the many swamps andcreeks, the vast distances of the colony would all be favorable to him. He would resort to the Indian method of fighting. His men were as braveas the British; were better marksmen. Five hundred Virginians, he wassure, would be a match for two thousand red coats. If England sought tobring him to his knees, by blockading the coast and cutting off allforeign trade, he would appeal to the Dutch or even to the French forassistance. Assuredly these nations would not neglect so favorable anopportunity of injuring their old rival and enemy. He even cherished awild dream of leading his rebels back into the woods, to establish acolony upon an island in the Roanoke river. [623]

But Bacon knew that the people would hesitate to follow him into openresistance to England. Ties of blood, of religion, of interest were toostrong. All the injustice done them by the King, all the oppression ofthe Navigation Acts, could not make them forget that they wereEnglishmen. So he found it necessary to deceive them with a pretence ofloyalty. He himself took the oath of allegiance and supremacy, and heimposed it upon all his followers. His commands were issued in theKing's name. He even went to the absurd extremity of declaring it forthe service of the Crown to disobey the King's commands, to arrest theKing's Governor, to fight the King's troops. [624]

Realizing that resistance to his plans would come almost entirely fromthe upper classes, Bacon made especial efforts to seduce the wealthyplanters. On August the third, a number of influential gentlemenassembled upon his summons at Middle Plantation, to discuss the means ofprotecting the people from the Indians, and preventing civil war. Afterdelivering a long harangue, justifying his own actions and denouncingthe Governor, Bacon requested the entire company to take three oathswhich he had prepared. First, they were to promise to assist him inprosecuting the Indian war. Secondly, they must combat all attempts ofthe Governor and his friends to raise troops against him. Thirdly, theywere asked to declare it consistent with their allegiance to the King toresist the royal troops until his Majesty could be informed by letterfrom Bacon of the justice of his cause. [625] This last article causedprolonged and bitter controversy. But Bacon locked the doors, it issaid, and by persuasion and threats induced them all to sign. The threeoaths were taken by no less than sixty-nine prominent men, among themThomas Swann, Thomas Milner, Philip Lightfoot and Thomas Ballard. [626]

Bacon now felt himself strong enough to take active control of theadministration of the government. He did not assume, however, the titleof Governor, but styled himself "General by the consent of thepeople". [627] Nor did he venture to proceed in the alteration of laws orthe redress of grievances without the advice and support of therepresentatives of the people. In conjunction with four members of theCouncil, he issued orders for an immediate election of a new Assembly, to meet on the fourth of September, at Jamestown. [628]

Having settled these matters, Bacon turned his attention to two militaryexpeditions--one against the Indians, the other against the Governor. The continued activity of the savages and the exposed condition of thefrontier demanded his personal attention, but he was resolved not toleave the lower counties exposed during his absence to attack from theEastern Shore. Seizing an English ship, commanded by a CaptainLarrimore, which was lying in James River, he impressed her, with allher crew, into his service against the Governor. In this vessel, with asloop and a bark of four guns, he embarked a force of two hundred ormore men. [629] The expedition was placed under the command of CaptainWilliam Carver, "a valiant, stout Seaman", and Gyles Bland, both devotedto Bacon's cause and high in his favor. They were ordered to patrol thecoast to prevent raids upon the Western Shore, and, if possible, toattack and capture the Governor. 

Bacon himself hastens to Henrico, "where he bestirs himself lustily inorder to a Speedy March against the Indians". It was his intention torenew his attack upon the Occaneechees and the Susquehannocks, but forsome reason he gave up this design to turn against the Pamunkeys. Hastening across from the James to the York, Bacon met Colonel GylesBrent, who brought with him reinforcements from the plantations upon theupper waters of the Rappahannock and Potomac. Their united forcesmarched to the extreme frontier and plunged into the wilderness. Discovering a narrow path running through the forest, the Englishfollowed it to a small Pamunkey village situated upon a neck of landbetween two swamps. As Bacon's Indian scouts advanced upon the placethey were fired upon by the enemy. Whereupon the English came running upto assault the village. But the Pamunkeys deserted their cabins and fledinto the adjacent swamps, where the white men found it impossible topursue them. All made good their escape except one woman and one littlechild. [630]

Continuing his march, Bacon stumbled upon an old squaw, the nurse of thePamunkey queen, whom he ordered to act as his guide. But the woman, unwilling to betray her people, led him far astray, many miles from theIndian settlements. The English followed her "the remainder of that day& almost another day" before they discovered that they were beingdeceived. When sure of her treachery, "Bacon gave command to hissoldiers to knock her on the head, which they did, and left her dead onthe way". [631] The army now wandered around at random in the woods, following first one path and then another, but could not discover theenemy. The appointed time for the new Assembly was approaching, and itwas imperative for Bacon to be at Jamestown to open the session. He wasresolved, however, not to return to the colony until he had struck adecisive blow at the Indians. Sending a message to the people "that hewould be with them with all possible speed", he resumed his discouragingquest. [632]

But the Indians still eluded him. It seemed a hopeless task to discovertheir villages amid the dense woods and treacherous swamps. His menbecame discouraged. "Tyred, murmuring, impatient, hunger-starv'd", manybegged him to lead them back to the plantations. But Bacon would notabandon the expedition. He would rather die in the woods, he said, thandisappoint the confidence reposed in him by the people. Those that feltit necessary to return home, he would permit to depart unmolested. Butfor himself, he was resolved to continue the march even though it becamenecessary to exist upon chincapins and horse flesh. [633] Whereupon thearmy was divided, one part setting out for the colony, the otherresuming the search for the savages. 

That very day Bacon runs upon the main camp of the Pamunkeys andimmediately attacks them. The savages are encamped upon a "piece ofChampion land", protected on three sides by swamps, and covered with adense growth of "small oke, saplings, Chinkapin-Bushes and grape vines". As the English charge in among them they offer little resistance, butdesert their habitations and flee. Some are shot down, many arecaptured. Bacon takes possession of all their goods--"Indian matts, Basketts, Match cotes, parcells of Wampameag and Roanoke, Baggs, Skins, ffurs", etc. 

The poor queen fled for her life with one little boy, and wanderedfourteen days in the woods, separated from her people. "She was oncecoming back with designe to throw herself upon the mercy of theEnglish", but "happened to meet with a deade Indian woman lying in theway, ... Which struck such terror in the Queen that fearing theircruelty by that ghastly example, shee went on ... Into the wild woodes". Here she was preserved from starvation by eating part of a terrapin, found by the little boy. [634] After this victory, Bacon secured hisplunder and his captives, and hastened back to the plantations. 

In the meanwhile the expedition against Accomac had ended in disastrousfailure. [635] Carver and Bland had been given instructions to capturethe Governor, and Bacon proposed, if ever he got him in his power, tosend him to England, there to stand trial for his misgovernment and hisbetrayal of the people to the barbarous Indians. [636] Even though it wasquite probable that the King would send him back, the colony would for atime be rid of his troublesome presence. 

Upon the arrival of the little fleet off the coast of Accomac, it wasdecided to send Carver ashore under a flag of truce, to treat with theGovernor. [637] Leaving Bland to guard the fleet with a force notsuperior in number to the English sailors, Carver set out in the sloop"with the most trusty of his men". [638] In the meanwhile CaptainLarrimore and his sailors, who resented their enforced service with therebels, were plotting to betray them to the enemy. In some way Larrimorecontrived to get a message to Berkeley, requesting him to send out aparty of loyal gentlemen in boats, and promising to deliver his shipinto their hands. [639] The Governor at first was loath to venture uponsuch a hazardous undertaking. [640] The whole thing might be a snare toentrap his men. Yet his situation was desperate; he must take desperatechances. 

Placing a party of twenty-six men in two small boats, he sent them outunder the command of Colonel Philip Ludwell, to surprise the ship. [641]Fearing that Carver might return before the capture could be effected, Berkeley "caressed him with wine", and detained him with prolongednegotiations. Upon reaching the ship, Ludwell and his men rowed up closeunder her side, and clambered in at "the gun room ports". "Onecourageous gentleman ran up to the deck, and clapt a pistoll to Bland'sbreast, saying you are my prisoner. "[642] The rest of the companyfollowed upon his heels, brandishing their pistols and swords. CaptainLarrimore and his crew caught up spikes, which they had ready at hand, and rushed to Ludwell's assistance. The rebels, taken utterly bysurprise, many no doubt without arms, "were amazed and yielded". [643]

A short while after, Carver was seen returning in the sloop from hisinterview with the Governor. "They permit the boat to come soe neere asthey might ffire directly downe upon her, and soe they alsoe commandedCarver on Board & secured him. When hee saw this surprize he stormed, tore his haire off, and curst, and exclaimed at the Cowardize of Blandthat had betrayed and lost all their designe. "[644] Not long after hewas tried for treason by court martial, condemned, and hanged. [645]

Elated by this unexpected success, the Governor determined to make onemore effort to regain his lost authority. The rebels were now without anavy; they could not oppose him upon the water, or prevent his landingupon the Western Shore. With the gentlemen that had remained loyal tohim, the troops of Accomac, many runaway servants and English sailors hewas able to raise a force of several hundred men. [646] Embarking them inCaptain Larrimore's ship, in the _Adam and Eve_, and sixteen orseventeen sloops, he set sail for Jamestown. [647]

In the meanwhile the appointed date for the convening of the Assemblyhad come. It is probable that the members were arriving to take theirseats when the news of the Governor's approach reached the town. [648]Bacon was still absent upon the Pamunkey expedition. There seems to havebeen no one present capable of inspiring the rebels with confidence, orof leading them in a vigorous defense. When the sails of the Governor'sfleet were seen, on the seventh of September, wending their way up theriver, the place was thrown into the wildest confusion. Sir William senta message ashore, offering a pardon to all, with the exception ofLawrence and Drummond, that would lay down their arms and return totheir allegiance. [649] But few seem to have trusted him, "feareing tomeet with some afterclaps of revenge". [650] That night, before the placecould be fully invested, the rebels fled, "every one shifting forhimselfe with no ordnary feare". [651] "Collonell Larence ... Forsookehis owne howse with all his wealth and a faire cupbord of plate entirestanding, which fell into the Governour's hands the next morning. "[652]

This was the unwelcome news which greeted Bacon upon his return from theIndian expedition. So many of his soldiers had left for their homesbefore the final defeat of the Pamunkeys, that he now had with him lessthan one hundred and fifty men. [653] Yet he resolved to march at onceupon Jamestown to attack the Governor. His little band gave himenthusiastic assurance of loyal support. He knew that he had the wellwishes and prayers of the people, while his opponents were "loaded withtheir curses". Berkeley's men, although so much more numerous than hisown, he believed to be cowards that would not dare appear against him inthe field. Victory would be easy and decisive. [654]

So, after delaying a short while to gather reinforcements from New Kentand Henrico, he marched with extraordinary swiftness down upon theenemy. [655] Everywhere along the route he was hailed by the people astheir deliverer. The sight of the sullen Indian captives that he ledalong with him "as in a Shew of Triumph", caused enthusiastic rejoicing. Many brought forth fruit and other food to refresh his weary soldiers. The women swore that if he had not men enough to defeat the Governor, they themselves would take arms and follow him. All prayed for hissuccess and happiness, and exclaimed against the injustice of hisenemies. [656]

Before Berkeley had been in possession of Jamestown one week, Bacon wasupon him. On the evening of September the thirteenth, the little rebelband arrived at Sandy Bay, driving before them a party of the Governor'shorse. [657] With singular bravado, Bacon himself rode up to the enemy, fired his carbine at them, and commanded his trumpets to sound theirdefiance. [658] Few thought, however, he would attempt to capture thetown, for the Governor's position was very strong. The narrow isthmus, by which alone the place could be approached, was defended by threeheavy guns planted behind strong palisades. [659] Upon the left, "almostclose aborde the shore, lay the ships, with their broadesides tothunder" upon any that dared to assault the works. The loyal forces hadrecently been augmented to a thousand men, and now outnumbered therebels three to one. Yet Bacon seems to have meditated from the first anattack upon the place, and was confident of success. [660]

Although his men had marched many miles that day he set them immediatelyto work within gun-shot of the enemy, building an entrenched camp. [661]All night long, by the light of the moon, the soldiers toiled, cuttingbushes, felling trees and throwing up earthworks. But it soon becameapparent that their utmost efforts would not suffice to complete thetrenches before dawn, when the enemy's guns would be sure to open uponthem. In this dilemma, Bacon hit upon a most unmanly expedient toprotect his men at their work. Sending out several small parties ofhorse, he captured a number of ladies, the wives of some of Berkeley'smost prominent supporters. "Which the next morning he presents to theview of there husbands and ffriends in towne, upon the top of the smalleworke hee had cast up in the night, where he caused them to tarey tillhee had finished his defence. "[662] The husbands were enraged that therebels should thus hide behind the "white aprons" of their innocentwives, but they dared not make an assault. 

When, however, the ladies were removed, "upon a Signall given from yeTowne the Shipps fire their Great Guns and at the same tyme they let flytheir small-Shott from the Palaisadoes. But that small Sconse that Baconhad caused to be made in the night, of Trees, Bruch, and Earth soedefended them that the Shott did them noe damage at all, and wasreturned back as fast from the little Fortresse. "[663]

Fearing that this cannonade will be followed by an assault upon hisworks, Bacon places a lookout on the top of a near-by brick chimney, which commands a view of the peninsula. On the sixteenth, the watchmanannounces that the enemy are preparing for an assault, and the rebelsmake ready to give them a warm reception. The Governor's forces, six orseven hundred strong, dash across the Sandy Bay, in an attempt to stormBacon's redoubts. [664] Horse and foot "come up with a narrow front, pressing very close upon one another's shoulders". But many of themfight only from compulsion, and have no heart for their task. At thefirst volleys of shot that pour in upon them from the rebel army, theythrow down their arms and flee. They marched out, as one chroniclersays, "like scholars going to school ... With heavy hearts, but returnedhom with light heels". [665] Their officers were powerless to stem therout, until they were safe under the protection of the palisades. [666]

The Governor's losses in dead and wounded were very small, but the moraleffect of his defeat was great. The rebels were so elated at their easyvictory, and so scornful of their cowardly opponents, "that Bacon couldscarce keep them from immediately falling to storm and enter theTowne". [667] On the other hand, the loyal troops were utterlydiscouraged. Many of them, that had been "compelled or hired into theService", and "were intent only on plunder", clamored for the desertionof the place, fearing that the victorious rebels would soon burst inupon them. [668]

"The next day Bacon orders 3 grate guns to be brought into the camp, twowhereof he plants upon his trench. The one he sets to worke against theShips, the other against the entrance into the towne, for to open apasage to his intended storm. "[669] Had the rebels delayed no longer tomake an assault it seems certain they could have carried the palisadeswith ease, taken many of the enemy, and perhaps captured the Governorhimself. The loyal soldiers were thinking only of flight. "Soe great wasthe Cowardize and Basenesse of the generality of Sir William Berkeley'sparty that of all at last there were only some 20 Gentlemen willing tostand by him. " So that the Governor, "who undoubtedly would rather havedyed on the Place than thus deserted it, what with (the) importunate andresistless solicitations of all was at last over persuaded, nay hurriedaway against his will". [670] "Takeing along with him all the townepeople, and their goods, leaveing all the grate guns naled up, and thehowses emty", he left the place a prey to the rebels. [671] "So fearfulof discovery they are, that for Secrecy they imbarque and weigh anchorin the Night and silently fall down the river. "[672]

Early the next morning Bacon marched across the Sandy Bay and tookpossession of the deserted town. [673] Here he learned that the Governorhad not continued his flight, but had cast anchor twenty miles below, where he was awaiting a favorable opportunity to recapture theplace. [674] At the same time, news came from the north that ColonelBrent, Bacon's former ally, was collecting troops in the countiesbordering upon the Potomac River, and would soon be on the march to theGovernor's assistance, with no less than a thousand men. [675] Shouldthis new army, by acting in concert with the fleet, succeed in blockingBacon up at Jamestown, the rebels would be caught in a fatal trap. Thepeninsula could hardly be defended successfully against superior forcesby land and water, and they would be crushed between the upper andnether millstones. On the other hand, should they desert the town, inorder to go out against Brent, Berkeley would undoubtedly return to takepossession of it, and all the fruits of their victory would be lost. 

After long consultation with his chief advisors, Bacon decided todestroy the town. [676] That very night he set fire to the place, whichin a few hours was reduced to ashes. Not even the state-house, or theold church were spared. Drummond and Lawrence, it is said, showed theirunselfish zeal for the cause by applying the torch to their homes withtheir own hands. [677] As the Governor, from his ships, saw in thedistance the glare of the burning buildings, he cursed the cowardice ofhis soldiers that had forced him to yield the place to the rebels. Butas it could now serve him no longer as a base, he weighed anchor, andset sail for Accomac. [678]

Deserting the ruined town, Bacon led his men north to Green Spring, andthence across York River into Gloucester county. Here there came to hima messenger riding "post haste from Rapahanock, with news that Coll:Brent was advancing fast upon him". [679] At once he summons his soldiersaround him, tells them the alarming news, and asks if they are ready tofight. The soldiers answer "with showtes and acclamations while thedrums thunder a march to meet the promised conflict". [680]

Bacon had advanced not "above 2 or 3 days jurney, but he meets newes ... That Brents men were all run away, and left him to shift forhimselfe". [681] Like the troops that had so signally failed of theirduty in the battle of Sandy Bay, these northern forces had no desire tomeet Bacon. Many of them were undoubtedly pressed into service; manywere in sympathy with the rebellion. At all events they deserted theirleaders before the hostile army came in sight, and fled back to theirhomes. 

Thus Bacon once more found himself master of all the mainland ofVirginia. But his situation was more critical than it had been in Julyand August. Many of the prominent gentlemen that had then given himtheir support, and had taken his three oaths, were now fighting on theside of the Governor. It was quite certain that royal forces were beingequipped for an expedition to Virginia, and might make their appearancewithin the capes before many more weeks. Moreover, the disastrousfailure of Carver and Bland had left him without a navy and exposed allthe Western Shore to attack from the loyal forces in Accomac. 

Realizing his danger, Bacon felt it necessary to bind the people to himmore closely. Summoning the militia of Gloucester to meet him at theircounty court-house, he delivered a long harangue before them andtendered them an oath of fidelity. They were asked to swear that if theKing's troops attempted to land by force, they would "fly to-gether asin a common calamity, and jointly with the present Army ... Stand orfall in the defense of ... The Country". And "in Case of utmostExtremity rather then submitt to so miserable a Slavery (when none canlonger defend ourselves, our Lives and Liberty's) to acquit theColony". [682]

The Gloucestermen were most reluctant to take this oath. A Mr. Cole, speaking for them all, told Bacon that it was their desire to remainneutral in this unhappy civil war. But the rebel replied that if theywould not be his friends, they must be his enemies. They should not beidle and reap the benefit of liberty earned by the blood of others. Aminister, named Wading, who was active in persuading the men to refusethe oath, was committed to prison by Bacon, with the warning that thechurch was the proper place for him to preach, not the camp. Later, itseems, fearing the consequences of further refusal, the Gloucestertroops yielded and took the binding engagement. [683]

Bacon now turned his thoughts, it is said, to an expedition againstAccomac. But his preparations were never completed. For some time he hadbeen ill of dysentery and now was "not able to hould out anylonger". [684] He was cared for at the house of a Mr. Pate, in Gloucestercounty, but his condition soon became worse. [685] His mind, probablywandering in delirium, dwelt upon the perils of his situation. Often hewould enquire if the guard around the house was strong, or whether theKing's troops had arrived. Death came before the end of October. [686]Bacon's place of burial has never been discovered. It is supposed thatLawrence, to save the body of his friend from mutilation by thevindictive old Governor, weighted the coffin with stones and sunk it inthe deep waters of the York. [687]

The death of Bacon proved an irreparable loss to the rebels. It wasimpossible for them to find another leader of his undaunted resolution, his executive ability, his power of command. No one could replace him inthe affections of the common people. It would not be correct toattribute the failure of the rebellion entirely to the death of this oneman, yet it undoubtedly hastened the end. Had he continued at the headof his faithful army, he might have kept the Governor indefinitely inexile upon the Eastern Shore, or even have driven him to take refugeupon the water. In the end Bacon would have been conquered, for he couldnot have held out against the English fleet and the English troops. Buthe would have made a desperate and heroic resistance. 

The chief command fell to Lieutenant-General Ingram. The selectionseems to have been popular with the soldiers, for when it was announced, they "threw up their caps, crying out as loud as they could bellow, Godsave our new Generall". [688] Ingram is depicted by some of thechroniclers as a man of low birth, a dandy and a fool, but there isreason to believe their impeachment too harsh. Although he lackedBacon's force of character and had no executive ability, as a general heshowed considerable talent, and more than held his own against theGovernor. 

The mastery of the water was an advantage to Berkeley of the verygreatest importance. The numerous deep rivers running far up into thecountry made it easy for him to deliver swift, telling blows at anypoint in the enemy's position. In order to guard the James, the York andthe Rappahannock it became necessary for the rebels to divide theirforces into several small bands. On the other hand, the entire strengthof the loyalists could be concentrated at any time for an unexpectedattack. 

Ingram made his chief base at West Point, where the Mattapony and thePamunkey unite to form the broad and stately York. [689] Here he couldwatch both banks of the river, and could concentrate his men quicklyeither upon the Peninsula, or in Gloucester or Middlesex. At this placewere gathered several hundred rebels under Ingram himself. But it wasdeemed wise to leave other detachments at various places lower down inthe country, to prevent the enemy from landing, and to suppress anyrising of the people in favor of the Governor. At the house of ColonelBacon, in York county, a force of thirty or forty men were posted underthe command of Major Whaly. [690] "The next Parcell, considerable, was atGreen Spring, the Governours howse, into which was put about 100 men andboys. " Their leader, a Colonel Drew, fortified the place strongly, barricading all approaches, and planting three large guns "to beate ofthe Assailants". Another small detachment, under Colonel Hansford, wasposted "at the Howse where Coll: Reade did once live", the site offamous old Yorktown. [691]

This last post, situated near the mouth of the river, was especiallyexposed to attack from the Eastern Shore. A few days after the death ofBacon, Major Robert Beverley, with a small force, sailed across the bayto effect its capture. [692] The rebels "kep a negligent Gard", and werecaught completely by surprise. Hansford was taken prisoner, with twentyof his men, and brought in triumph to Accomac. 

Here he was at once charged with treason, tried by court martial, andcondemned to die. He pleaded passionately to "be shot like a soldier andnot to be hanged like a Dog. But it was tould him ... That he was notcondemned as he was merely a soldier, but as a Rebell, taken inArms. "[693] To the last he refused to admit that he was guilty oftreason. To the crowd that gathered around the scaffold to witness hisexecution he protested "that he dyed a loyal subject and a lover of hiscountry". 

"This business being so well accomplish'd by those who had takenHansford, ... They had no sooner deliver'd there Fraight at Accomack, but they hoyse up there sayles, and back againe to Yorke River, wherewith a Marvellous celerity they surprise one Major Cheise-Man, and somothers, amongst whom one Capt. Wilford, who (it is saide) in thebickering lost one of his eyes, which he seemed little concern'd at, asknowing that when he came to Accomack, that though he had bin starkeblinde, yet the Governour would take care for to afford him a guide, that should show him the way to the Gallows. "[694]

The Governor was resolved to make the rebel leaders pay dearly for theindignities they had put upon him. Those that were so luckless as tofall into his hands, were hastened away to their execution with but themockery of a trial. Doubtless Berkeley felt himself justified in thisseverity. To him rebellion against the King was not merely a crime, itwas a hideous sacrilege. Those guilty of such an enormity should receiveno mercy. But this cannot explain or excuse the coarse brutality andsavage joy with which he sent his victims to the scaffold. It isimpossible not to feel that many of these executions were dictated, notby motives of policy or loyalty, but by vindictiveness. 

Nothing can make this more evident that the pathetic story of MadamCheesman. "When ... The Major was brought in to the Governor's presence, and by him demanded, what made him to ingage in Bacon's designes? Beforethat the Major could frame an Answer ... His Wife steps in and tould hishonr: that it was her provocations that made her Husband joyne in theCause that Bacon contended for; ading, that if he had not bin influencedby her instigations, he had never don that which he had don. Therefore(upon her bended knees) she desires of his hour ... That shee might behang'd, and he pardon'd. Though the Governour did know, that that whatshe had saide, was neare to the truth, " he refused her request andspurned her with a vile insult. It is with a sense of relief that welearn that her husband died in prison and was thus saved the ignominy ofthe gallows. [695]

Encouraged by his successes, Berkeley now planned a more formidableinvasion of the Western Shore. Public sentiment, he hoped, was beginningto turn in his favor. The death of Bacon had deprived the rebellion ofall coherency and definiteness of purpose. The country was getting wearyof the struggle, and was anxious for the reëstablishment of law andorder. In Gloucester and Middlesex especially there were many prominentplanters that awaited an opportunity to take up arms against the rebels. And although the common people were indifferent to the Governor's cause, they would be forced to enlist under him could he but get a firmfoothold in those counties. [696]

So he sailed into York River with a fleet of four ships and severalsloops, and a force of one hundred soldiers. [697] Landing a party, undercommand of Major Robert Beverley, upon the north bank, he surprised andcaptured a number of the enemy at the residence of a Mr. Howard. [698] Hethen set up his standard at the very house in which Bacon had died, andsent out summons to all loyal citizens to come to his support. Herethere soon "appeared men enough to have beaten all the Rebells in thecountrey, onely with their Axes and Hoes". [699] They were quicklyorganized into an army and placed under the command of Major LawrenceSmith. [700] Almost simultaneously the people of Middlesex began to takeup arms in support of the Governor, and for a while it seemed that therebels would be overwhelmed and driven back upon the frontiers. 

But Ingram acted with vigor and promptness. He dispatched a body ofhorse, under Lientenant-General Walkelett, to attack and disperse theMiddlesex troops before their numbers become formidable. With the mainbody of the rebels he himself remained at West Point, to watch themovements of the enemy in Gloucester. When Major Smith heard ofWalkelett's advance, he at once hastened north to intercept him, leavinga garrison at Mr. Pate's house, to guard that post and maintain intacthis communication with the fleet in York River. But he was not quickenough. Before he could complete his march, news came to him thatWalkelett had dispersed the Middlesex troops and was preparing to givebattle to him. [701]

In the meanwhile, Ingram, hearing that Smith had marched north, "by theadvice of his officers strikes in betweene him and his new madeGarrisson at M. Pates. He very nimbly invests the Howse", and forces itsdefenders to surrender. Hardly had he accomplished this task, "but M. L. Smith, having retracted his march out of Middlesex ... Was upon the backof Ingram before he was aware". This new move placed the rebels in nolittle peril, for the Gloucester forces were between them and their baseat West Point. Defeat at this juncture would have meant utterdestruction for Ingram's army. 

As the two bands faced each other, "one Major Bristow (on Smith's side)made a Motion to try the equity, and justness of the quarrill, by singlecombett ... Proffering himselfe against any one (being a Gent. ) on theother side.... This motion was as redely accepted by Ingram, asproffered by Bristow; Ingram swaring, the newest oath in fashion, thathe would be the Man; and so advanceth on foot, with sword and Pistell, against Bristow; but was fetched back by his owne men", who had nodesire to risk their leader in this duel. [702]

But the Gloucester troops were not inspired to deeds of courage by theintrepidity of their champion. They had no desire to encounter theveterans that had defeated the Governor before Jamestown and twicehunted the savages out of their hidden lairs. Despite all the efforts oftheir officers they opened negotiations with Ingram and agreed to laydown their arms. No less than six hundred men, it is said, thus tamelysurrendered to the rebels. Major Smith and some of his officers, whenthey found themselves betrayed by their men, fled and made good theirescape. Other "chiefe men" fell into the enemy's hands and were held asprisoners of war. Ingram "dismist the rest to their own abodes". [703]

It was a part of the Governor's plan to secure a foothold also upon theright bank of the river and to drive the rebels out of York county. Withthis in view, he sent out one hundred and twenty men, under CaptainHubert Farrill, to surprise and capture the rebels commanded by MajorWhaly, at Colonel Bacon's house. To advise and assist Farrill, ColonelLudwell and Colonel Bacon himself accompanied the expedition. Theydecided to steal silently up to the place in the early hours of themorning before dawn, drive in the sentries and "enter pell mell withthem into the howse". But their plans miscarried woefully. "The Centreyhad no sooner made the challenge ... Who comes there? ... But the otheranswer with their Musquits (which seldom speakes the language offriends) and that in so loud a maner, that it alarmed those in the howseto a defence, and then to a posture to salley out. " The attacking partytook refuge "behinde som out buildings, ... Giving the Bullits leave togrope their owne way in the dark". Here they stood their ground for ashort while and then fled back to their boats. Several were takenprisoners, but none were killed save Farrill himself, "whose commissionwas found droping-wett with blood, in his pockett". [704]

The failure of these operations in the York were partly offset bysuccesses in the southern counties. Late in December a loyal force, consisting in part of English sailors, landed on the right bank of theJames and defeated a party of the rebels, killing their leader andtaking thirteen prisoners. Four days later, they captured one of theenemy's forts. Soon large parts of Isle of Wight and Surry had beenoverrun and the people reduced to their allegiance. During the firstweek of January several hundred rebels gathered upon the upper James toretrieve their waning cause, but they seem to have melted away withoutaccomplishing anything, and at once all the south bank of the riversubmitted. [705]

Almost simultaneously in all other parts of the colony the rebellioncollapsed. The defeats of the Governor in Gloucester, Middlesex and Yorkhad not long postponed the end. The failure of the movement was due, notto military successes by Berkeley, but to hopeless internal weakness. Since the death of Bacon the insurgent leaders had been unable tomaintain law and order in the colony. Ingram, although he showed someability as a general, proved utterly unfitted to assume control of civilaffairs. Bacon, when Sir William fled to Accomac, had grasped firmly thereins of government, calling a part of the Council to his assistance, summoning a new Assembly, and retaining sheriffs and justices in theiroffices. Like Cromwell, he had shown himself not only a soldier, but acivil ruler of force and ability. But Ingram could not command therespect and obedience of the people. Under him the machinery ofgovernment seems to have broken down. The unhappy colony was given overto disorder and anarchy. We are inclined to wonder why Drummond orLawrence did not assume the chief command in the government afterBacon's death. Both were men of intelligence and ability, both esteemedby the people, and both devoted heart and soul to the rebellion. Forsome reason, neither could take the leadership, and affairs fell intohopeless confusion. 

Without a government to supply their needs, or to direct theirmovements, the rebel bands found it necessary to maintain themselves byplundering the estates of the Governor's friends. Many wealthy planterspaid for their loyalty with the loss of their cattle, their sheep, theircorn and wheat, and often the very furniture of their houses. At timesthe rebel officers could not restrain their rough soldiers from wantonwaste and destruction. Crops were ruined, fences thrown down, housesburned. [706] Disgusted with this anarchy, and seeing that Ingram couldnot preserve order, many of the people began to long for the end of therebellion. Even the misgoverment of Berkeley was better than lawlessnessand confusion. 

Ingram himself seems to have perceived that the end was at hand. Intelligence came to him that some of his own party, dissatisfied withhis conduct, were awaiting an opportunity to deprive him of the chiefcommand. The long expected arrival of the English troops would bringswift and complete ruin, for under the present conditions, he could nothope for success against them. So he soon became quite willing "todismount from the back of that horse which he wanted skill, and strengthto Manidge". Could he but secure a pardon from the Governor, he wouldgladly desert the failing cause of the people, and return to hisallegiance. [707]

Nor was Sir William less anxious to come to terms with Ingram. It hadbeen a bitter humiliation to him to be thrust headlong out of hisgovernment by the rebellious people. It would add to his shame to berestored by English troops. Could he but reduce the colony before thearrival of the red coats, his position would appear in a much betterlight, both in Virginia and in England. So he sent a Captain Grantham tonegotiate with Ingram and to offer him immunity and pardon in return forprompt submission. The rebel leader willingly accepted these terms andreturned to his allegiance. [708]

More delicate was the task of inducing the troops at West Point tofollow the example of their general. It was a question whether Ingram, "or any in the countrye could command them to lay down their arms". Anattempt to betray them, or to wring the sword out their hands byviolence would probably end in failure. It was thought more prudent tosubdue "these mad fellows" with "smoothe words", rather than by "roughdeeds". So Grantham presented himself to them, told of Ingram'ssubmission and offered them very liberal terms of surrender. They wereto be paid for the full time of their service since the granting ofBacon's commission; those that so desired were to be retained in arms tofight the Indians; all servants among them were to secure immediaterelease from their indentures. Deserted by their leader and tempted bythese fair promises, the men were at last persuaded to yield. Granthamembarked them on the fleet and took them down to Tindall's Point, thereto make their submission and "kiss the Governour's hand". [709]

Almost at the same time overtures were made by the Governor to GeneralWalkelett. Could this man be induced to surrender himself and histroops, the last great obstacle to peace would be removed. So anxiouswas Sir William to seduce him from the cause of the rebels, that heoffered him not only his pardon, but part of the plunder taken by Baconfrom the Indians. [710] Walkelett assented, and agreed to lead his troopsto Tindall's Point, and "declare for ye King's Majesty, the Governour &Country". He was to find there "a considerable Company of resolved men", to assist him in case his own party offered resistance. [711] Thisarrangement seems to have been carried out successfully and Walkelett'sentire command was taken. [712]

The collapse of the rebellion sounded the death knell of those "chiefeIncendiaries" Drummond and Lawrence. These men had long protestedagainst Berkeley's arbitrary government, and had been largelyinstrumental in bringing on the insurrection. Bacon had considered themhis chief advisors and friends. So deep was the Governor's hatred ofthem that in his recent proclamations he had excepted them from thegeneral pardon. [713]

When Ingram and Walkelett surrendered, these "arch rebels" werestationed on the south side of the York River, at a place called BrickHouse. When they heard of Ingram's intended desertion, they madedesperate but futile efforts to prevent his designs. Failing in this, they determined to gather around them the remnants of the rebel forcesand march towards the frontier, in hopes of kindling anew the waningspirit of resistance. "They sent downe to Coll: Bacons to fetch of theGard there, under ... Whaly, to reinforce their own strength. " Whaly, whose position was more exposed than their own, promptly obeyed, andsucceeded in bringing off his force with "the last remains of Coll:Bacon's Estate". The rebel leaders now mustered about three hundred men, and with these they retreated through New Kent, "thinking (like the snowball) to increase by their rouleing". "But finding that in stead ofincreasing there number decreast; and that the Moone of there fortunewas now past the full, they broke up howse-keeping, every one shiftingfor him selfe. "[714]

And now the chief rebels were hunted down like wild beasts by theGovernor's troops. Thomas Hall, formerly clerk of the New Kent countycourt, Thomas Young, Major Henry Page, and a man named Harris werecaptured and led before Sir William. They were all tried by courtmartial, on shipboard off Tindall's Point, convicted of treason, and atonce sent to their execution. [715]

A few days later Drummond was found, exhausted and half starved, hidingin Chickahominy swamp. [716] When he was brought before the Governor, that resentful old man could not restrain his joy. He is said to have"complimented him with the ironicall sarcasm of a low bend", declaringthat he was more welcome than any other man in Virginia, or even his ownbrother. [717] The next day Berkeley went to Colonel Bray's house andhere Drummond was conducted on foot to stand his trial. "In his waythither he complained very much that his Irons hurt him, and ... Expressed abundance of thankes for being permitted to rest himselfe uponthe Roade, while he tooke a pipe of Tobacco. "[718] But he refused theoffer of a horse, saying he would come soon enough to his death on foot. 

At his trial he was treated with brutal harshness, his clothes strippedfrom his back and his ring torn from his finger. Although the rebellionwas now over, he was denied jury trial, and was condemned by courtmartial after a hearing of but half an hour. Some months later, whenthis matter came to the attention of the English Privy Council, the LordChancellor exclaimed that "he knew not whether it were lawful to wish aperson alive, otherwise he could wish Sir William Berkeley so, to seewhat could be answered to such barbarity". [719]

Thus ended the rebellion. Apparently it had accomplished nothing for thecause of liberty or the relief of the oppressed commons. Few of theabuses that had caused the people to take arms had been rectified. Thetaxes were heavier than ever, the Governor was more severe andarbitrary. English troops were on their way to the colony to enforcesubmission and obedience. Charles II, irritated at the independentspirit of the Virginians, was meditating the curtailment of theirprivileges and the suppression of their representative institutions. Yetthis attack of an outraged people upon an arbitrary and corruptgovernment, was not without its benefits. It gave to future Governors awholesome dread of the commons, and made them careful not to drive thepeople again into the fury of rebellion. It created a feeling offellowship among the poor planters, a consciousness of like intereststhat tended to mould them into a compact class, ready for concertedaction in defense of their rights. It gave birth in the breasts of manybrave men to the desire to resist by all means possible the oppressionof the Stuart kings. It stirred the people to win, in their legislativehalls, victories for the cause of liberty, as real as those which Baconand his followers had failed to secure on the field of battle. 

FOOTNOTES:

[472] Mass. S. IV, Vol. IX, p. 165; P. R. O. , CO1-30-71. 

[473] Hen. , Vol. I, pp. 323, 380. 

[474] Hen. , Vol. II, p. 141. 

[475] T. M. , p. 9; Mass. S. IV, Vol. IX, pp. 165, 167. 

[476] T. M. , p. 9; P. R. O. , CO5-1371-370; CO1-36-36; CO1-36-37. 

[477] T. M. , p. 8; Mass. S. IV, Vol. IX, p. 165. 

[478] T. M. , pp. 8-9; P. R. O. , CO5-1371-370; Mass. S. IV, Vol. IX, p. 165. 

[479] P. R. O. , CO1-39-10; CO1-36-78; W. & M. Q. , Vol. IX, p. 10. 

[480] W. & M. Q. , Vol. IX, p. 6; T. M. , p. 11. 

[481] W. & M. Q. , Vol. IX, p. 6. 

[482] Mass. S. IV, Vol. IX, p. 165; P. R. O. , CO1-36-78. 

[483] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-369; T. M. , p. 9. 

[484] T. M. , p. 10. 

[485] T. M. , p. 9; P. R. O. , CO392. 1-173, 178; Cotton, p. 3; Inds'Pros. , p. 5; P. R. O. , CO5-1371-370. 

[486] P. R. O. , CO1-36-78; CO5-1371-369; T. M. , pp. 9-10; Inds' Pros. , pp. 7-8; Mass. S. IV, Vol. IX, p. 165. 

[487] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-370. 

[488] Inds' Pros. , p. 7; P. R. O. , CO-1371-370; CO1-36-66; Mass. S. IV, Vol. IX, p. 176. 

[489] W. & M. Q. , Vol. IX, p. 7. 

[490] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-372; Va. Mag. , Vol. III, p. 35. 

[491] T. M. , p. 10. 

[492] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-373, 411. 

[493] P. R. O. , CO1-30-51; CO1-36-37. 

[494] T. M. , p. 11; W. & M. Q. , Vol. IX, p. 7; P. R. O. , CO5-1371-375. 

[495] P. R. O. , CO1-36-36. 

[496] Mass. S. IV, Vol. IX, p 165; Hen. , Vol. II, p. 326. 

[497] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-373; Hen. , Vol. II, pp. 327-329. 

[498] Inds' Pros. , pp. 8, 9. 

[499] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-378. 

[500] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-374. 

[501] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-378; Inds' Pros. , p. 8. 

[502] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-379; CO1-37-17. 

[503] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-375. 

[504] P. R. O. , CO1-40-106. 

[505] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-375. 

[506] Ibid. 

[507] Ibid. 

[508] Bac's Pros. , p. 9. 

[509] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-376. 

[510] Cotton, p. 4; Mass. S. IV, Vol. IX, p, 180; P. R. O. , CO1-37-1. 

[511] Va. Mag. , Vol. II, pp. 125-129. 

[512] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-375. 

[513] Va. Mag. , Vol. III, pp. 134-135. 

[514] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-376; W. & M. Q. , Vol. IX, pp. 4, 7. 

[515] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-376. 

[516] P. R. O. , CO1-36-54; CO1-36-37; CO1-37-1. 

[517] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-376, 7; CO1-36-54: CO1-37-1; Mass. S. IV, Vol. IX, p. 166. 

[518] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-376, 7. 

[519] W. & M. Q. , Vol. IX, p. 7; Mass. S. IV, Vol. IX, p. 166. 

[520] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-377; W. & M. Q. , Vol. IX, p. 4. 

[521] Hen. , Vol. I, p 422; Burk, Vol. II, pp. 104-106; Force, Vol. I, Tract VIII, p. 14. 

[522] Hen. , Vol. I, p. 380. 

[523] Mass. S. IV, Vol. IX, pp. 166, 180. 

[524] Mass. S. IV, p. 166. 

[525] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-377; CO1-36-55; CO1-37-1. 

[526] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-377; CO1-36-66; CO1-37-14. 

[527] Mass. S. IV, Vol. IX, p. 167. 

[528] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-377. 

[529] Mass. S. IV, Vol. IX, p. 168. 

[530] Ibid. 

[531] P. R. O. , CO1-37-1. 

[532] P. R. O. , CO1-36-64. Berkeley's proclamation, addressed to thesheriff of Rappahannock county, dissolving the Assembly, and theproclamation denouncing Bacon as a traitor were both issued in Henrico, on May 10, 1676. 

[533] P. R. O, CO5-1371-379. 

[534] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-379, 411. 

[535] W. & M. Q. , Vol. IX, p. 1; Va. Mag. , Vol. I, p. 180; P. R. O. , CO1-36-77; CO1-37-16. 

[536] Va. Mag. , Vol. I, p. 180. 

[537] W. & M. Q. , Vol. XI, p. 121. 

[538] Mass. S. IV, Vol. IX, p. 167. 

[539] Ibid. 

[540] P. R. O. , CO1-37-16; Va. Mag. , Vol. I, p. 182. 

[541] P. R. O. , CO1-36-77. 

[542] Va. Mag. , Vol. I, p. 181. 

[543] Mass. S. IV, Vol. I, p. 167. 

[544] Ibid. 

[545] Va. Mag. , Vol. I, p. 181; P. R. O. , CO1-37-16; W. & M. Q. , Vol. IX, p. 2. 

[546] P. R. O. , CO1-37-16. 

[547] P. R. O. , CO1-36-77. 

[548] Mass. S. IV, Vol. IX, p. 167; P. R. O. , CO1-37-16; CO1-36-77. 

[549] Mass. S. IV, Vol. IX, p. 167. 

[550] P. R. O. , CO1-36-77. 

[551] Mass. S. IV, Vol. IX, p. 168. 

[552] P. R. O. , CO1-37-16. 

[553] W. & M. Q. , Vol. IX, p. 7. 

[554] P. R. O. , CO1-36-77. 

[555] W. & M. Q. , Vol. IX, p. 7. 

[556] P. R. O. , CO1-36-77; CO1-36-16; T. M. , p. 11. 

[557] W. & M. Q. , Vol. IX, p. 5. 

[558] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-379. 

[559] Bac's Pros. , p. 11; T. M. , p. 12. 

[560] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-369; CO1-37-16, 17; Bac's Pros. , p. 11; Mass. S. IV, Vol. IX, p. 170. 

[561] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-379. 

[562] Ibid. 

[563] Ibid. 

[564] Ibid. 

[565] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-380; CO1-37-16; Mass. S. IV, Vol. IX, p. 170. 

[566] Ibid. 

[567] Ibid. 

[568] CO5-1371-380. 

[569] Ibid. 

[570] Va. Mag. , Vol. I, p. 171; Hen. , Vol. II, p. 543. 

[571] W. & M. Q. , Vol. IX, p. 5. 

[572] T. M. , p. 15. 

[573] W. & M. Q. , Vol. IX, p. 8. 

[574] T. M. , pp. 12-13. 

[575] P. R. O. , CO1-37-16. 

[576] Mass. S. IV, Vol. IX, p. 170; P. R. O. , CO1-37-16. 

[577] W. & M. Q. , Vol. IX, p. 8. 

[578] Ibid. 

[579] Ibid. 

[580] W. & M. Q. , Vol. IX, p. 9. 

[581] Va. Mag. , Vol. I, p. 171. 

[582] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-381. 

[583] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-382. 

[584] Mass. S. IV, Vol. IX, p. 171. 

[585] P. R. O. , CO1-37-17. 

[586] P. R. O. , CO1-37-16. 

[587] P. R. O. , CO1-37-17. 

[588] Ibid. 

[589] Ibid. 

[590] Ibid. 

[591] P. R. O. , CO1-37-16. 

[592] P. R. O. , CO1-37-17. 

[593] P. R. O. , CO1-37-16, 17; T. M. , p. 16. 

[594] P. R. O. , CO1-37-17. 

[595] P. R. O. , CO1-37-16. 

[596] Ibid. 

[597] P. R. O. , CO1-37-16. 

[598] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-382. 

[599] P. R. O. , CO1-37-16. 

[600] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-382. 

[601] P. R. O. , CO1-37-16. 

[602] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-382. In the various accounts left us of thesescenes there is usually agreement upon the essential points. But indetails and the sequence of events there is much discrepancy. The authorhas endeavored to present the facts in accordance with the greatestweight of evidence. 

[603] P. R. O. , CO1-37-16, 17. 

[604] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-383; CO1-37-15. 1. 

[605] P. R. O. , CO1-37-16. 

[606] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-379. 

[607] Hen. , Vol. II, p. 353. 

[608] Hen. , Vol. II, p. 354. 

[609] Hen. , Vol. II, p. 359. 

[610] Hen. , Vol. II, p. 357. 

[611] Hen. , Vol. II, p. 356. 

[612] Ibid. 

[613] P. R. O, CO1-37-16. 

[614] CO5-1371-384, 385. 

[615] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-383. 

[616] Mass. S. IV, Vol. IX, p. 181. 

[617] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-385. 

[618] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-387; T. M. , p. 20. 

[619] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-385. 

[620] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-385. 

[621] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-386. 

[622] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-387. 

[623] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-232-240; CO1-39-38. 

[624] P. R. O. , CO1-37-41. 

[625] P. R. O. , CO1-37-42. 

[626] Ibid. 

[627] P. R. O. , CO1-37-41. 

[628] P. R. O. , CO1-37-43. 

[629] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-388; Burk, Vol. II, p. 271. 

[630] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-390. 

[631] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-391. 

[632] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-392. 

[633] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-392. 

[634] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-393. 

[635] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-393. 

[636] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-394. 

[637] Ibid. 

[638] T. M. , p. 22. 

[639] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-394; Burk, Vol. II, p. 271. 

[640] Burk, Vol. II, p. 271. 

[641] Ibid. 

[642] T. M. , p. 22. 

[643] T. M. , p. 22. 

[644] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-394. 

[645] T. M. , p. 23; P. R. O. , CO5-1371-52, 54. 

[646] The account of the King's commissioners places the number at sixhundred; in Bacon's Proceedings it is given as one thousand. 

[647] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-394; Bac's Pros. , p. 21. 

[648] Bac's Pros. , p. 22. 

[649] Bac's Pros. , p. 22. 

[650] Bac's Pros. , p. 22. 

[651] Bac's Pros. , p. 22. 

[652] Bac's Pros. , p. 22. 

[653] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-394. 

[654] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-395. 

[655] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-395. 

[656] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-395. 

[657] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-396. 

[658] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-397, 400. 

[659] Bac's Pros. , p. 24. 

[660] Bac's Pros. , p. 24. 

[661] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-396. 

[662] Cotton, p. 8; Bac's Pros. , p. 24. The report of the commissionersplaces this incident some days later, after the assault of the 15th. Theauthor has followed the account given in Bacon's Proceedings, whichseems to him probably more correct. Bacon could have no object inexposing the ladies after his trenches were completed, his heavy gunsmounted and the enemy defeated. 

[663] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-397. 

[664] Bac's Pros. , p. 25. 

[665] Bac's Pros. , p. 25. 

[666] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-398, 400. 

[667] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-400. 

[668] Ibid. 

[669] Bac's Pros. , p. 25. 

[670] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-400. 

[671] Bac's Pros. , p. 26. 

[672] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-400. 

[673] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-401; Bac's Pros. , p. 26. 

[674] Bac's Pros. , p. 26. 

[675] Bac's Pros. , p. 26. 

[676] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-401. 

[677] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-405. 

[678] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-401; CO1-39-22; Bac's Pros. , p. 26. 

[679] Bac's Pros. , p. 26. 

[680] Bac's Pros. , p. 26. 

[681] Bac's Pros. , p. 26. 

[682] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-402. 

[683] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-401; Bac's Pros. , p. 27. 

[684] Bac's Pros. , p. 28. 

[685] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-404. 

[686] Bacon's Proceedings places the death of Bacon on Oct. 18; theCommissioners give the date as Oct. 26. 

[687] T. M. , p. 24. 

[688] Ing's Pros. , p. 32. 

[689] Ing's Pros. , p. 39. 

[690] Ing's Pros. , p. 40. 

[691] Ing's Pros. , p. 39. 

[692] The news of Hansford's capture reached Captain Morris nearNansemond Nov. 12th. 

[693] Ing's Pros. , p. 33. 

[694] Ing's Pros. , p. 35. 

[695] Ing's Pros. , p. 36. 

[696] Ing's Pros. , p. 38. 

[697] Ing's Pros. , p. 38. 

[698] Ing's Pros. , p. 38. 

[699] Ing's Pros. , p. 40. 

[700] Ing's Pros. , p. 40. 

[701] Ing's Pros. , p. 40. 

[702] Ing's Pros. , p. 42. 

[703] Ing's Pros. , p. 42. 

[704] Ing's Pros. , p. 43. 

[705] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-416; CO1-37-52; CO1-39-10. 

[706] P. R. O. , CO1-40-45. 

[707] Ing's Pros. , p. 45. 

[708] Ing's Pros. , p. 45; P. R. O. , CO5-1371-416. 

[709] Ing's Pros. , p. 46; P. R. O. , CO5-1371-416. 

[710] P. R. O. , CO1-39-13. 

[711] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-501. 

[712] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-416. 

[713] P. R. O. , CO1-39-10; Ing's Pros. , p. 47. 

[714] Ing's Pros. , p. 48. 

[715] Ing's Pros. , p. 49. 

[716] Drummond was captured Jan. 14, 1677. 

[717] T. M. , p. 23; Ing's Pros. , p. 49. 

[718] Ing's Pros. , p. 50. 

[719] Burk, Vol. II, p. 266; P. R. O. , CO1-41-74, 75; CO389. 6. Lawrenceand Whaly made good their escape into the forest. They probablyperished, however, from exposure, or at the hands of the Indians. 

CHAPTER VII

THE PERIOD OF CONFUSION

When the news reached England that the common people of Virginia were inopen revolt against their Governor, and had driven him from his capital, the King was not a little surprised and alarmed. The recollection of thecivil war in England was still fresh enough in his memory to make himtremble at the mutterings of rebellion, even though they came fromacross the Atlantic. Moreover, since the customs from the Virginiatobacco yielded many thousand pounds annually, he could but be concernedfor the royal revenue. If the tumults in the colony resulted in anappreciable diminution in the tobacco crop, the Exchequer would be thechief loser. Nor did the King relish the expense of fitting out an armyand a fleet for the reduction of the insurgents. 

His anxiety was increased by lack of intelligence from the colonialgovernment. Several letters telling of Bacon's coercion of the JuneAssembly had reached him, but after that months passed without word fromthe Governor or the Council. From private sources, however, came reportsof "uproars so stupendous" that they could hardly find belief. [720] Itwas rumored in England that Sir William had been defeated, driven out ofthe colony, and "forced to lie at sea". [721]

Charles seems to have perceived at once that Berkeley must have beenresponsible for the Rebellion. He probably cared very little whether theold Governor oppressed the people or not, so long as he kept them quiet, but it was an inexcusable blunder for him to drive them intoinsurrection. Charles himself, it is said, had resolved long before, never to resume his travels; he now wondered why Sir William had broughtupon himself this forced journey to Accomac. He decided to institute aninvestigation to find out what the Governor had been doing so toinfuriate the people. A commission, consisting of Colonel HerbertJeffreys, Sir John Berry and Colonel Francis Moryson, was appointed togo to Virginia to enquire into and report all grievances andpressures. [722]

Early in June, 1676, Berkeley had written the King, complaining that hisage and infirmities were such that he could no longer perform properlyhis office in Virginia, and requesting that he be allowed to retire fromactive service. [723] The Council had protested against this resignation, but Charles thought it best to take Sir William at his word and torecall him from the government he had not been able to preserve in peaceand quiet. In honor of his long service, and his well known loyalty, hewas, however, to retain "the title and dignity of Governor". [724] He wasordered to return to England "with all possible speed", to report uponhis administration and to give an account of the extraordinary tumultsin the colony. [725] During his absence the duties of his office were tobe entrusted to Colonel Herbert Jeffreys, who was to bear the title ofLieutenant-Governor. [726] He was not, however, to be the deputy orassistant of Sir William, and "to all intents and purposes" was madeGovernor-in-chief. Berkeley was to be "no wayes accountable" for hisactions good or bad. [727]

The King instructed Colonel Jeffreys, before attempting to subdue therebels by force of arms, to exhaust all peaceable means of securingtheir submission. In order to make this task more easy, he drew up andhad printed a proclamation of pardon, which he directed him to publishthroughout the colony. All, it declared, with the sole exception ofBacon, that should surrender themselves, and take the oath of allegianceand supremacy, were to receive free and full forgiveness. Charles feltthat most of the colonists were at heart still loyal, and would, iftheir grievances were redressed, be glad to accept his royal offer ofgrace. 

But he did not rely entirely upon gentle measures, for, after all, thestubborn Virginians might distrust his promises and reject the pardon. So he resolved to send to the colony a strong body of troops to bringthem to their senses, if necessary, at the point of the bayonet. Athousand men, thoroughly equipped for active service, were put under thecommand of Colonel Jeffreys and embarked for the colony. [728]

In the meanwhile, Governor Berkeley, having regained his authority, wasbusily engaged in reimbursing himself and his friends for their lossesin the Rebellion. There can be no doubt that many of the loyalists hadsuffered severely by the depredations of the insurgents. [729] Those thatfollowed the Governor into exile upon the Eastern Shore, had beencompelled to leave their estates to the mercy of the enemy. And thedesperate rebels, especially after death had removed the strong arm ofBacon, had subjected many plantations to thorough and ruthless pillage. Crops had been destroyed, cattle driven off, farm houses burned, servants liberated. Almost every member of the Council had suffered, while Berkeley himself claimed to have lost no less than £10, 000. [730]

Thus, it was with a spirit of bitterness and hatred that the loyalists, in January and February, returned to their ruined homes. Quitenaturally, they set up a clamor for compensation from the estates ofthose that had plundered them. Now that the King's authority had beenrestored, and the cause they had contended for had triumphed, theydemanded that the vanquished should be made to disgorge their plunderand pay for their wanton destruction. Surely the Governor's followerscould not be expected to accept readily all these great losses as areward for their loyalty. 

But restoration upon a large scale would almost certainly entailinjustice, and would fan again the flames of bitterness and hatred. Itmight be possible to restore many articles yet remaining in the hands ofthe rebels, but most of the plundered goods had long since beenconsumed. It was often impossible to determine what persons had beenguilty of specific acts of pillage, while many of the most activerebels were very poor men, from whom no adequate compensation could beobtained. 

There ensued an undignified and pernicious scramble by the loyalists toseize for their own use the property of the few well-to-do insurgents. On all sides confiscation, unauthorized seizures, and violence markedthe collapse of the Rebellion. In these proceedings Sir William took thelead. His servants went out, under pretence of searching for his stolenproperty, to take for his use the sheep, the cattle, and other goods ofthe neighboring rebels. [731] He showed, it was declared, "a greedydetermination thoroughly to heale himselfe before hee car'd to staunchthe bleeding gashes of the woefully lacerated country.... Making andtreating men as delinquents, before any due conviction or attainder, byseizing their estates, cattle, servants and carrying off their tobacco, marking hogsheads and calling this securing it to the King'sservice. "[732]

Even more unjustifiable was the conduct of Sir William in resorting toarbitrary compositions with his prisoners to fill his exhaustedpurse. [733] Men were arrested, thrown into jail, terrified with threatsof hanging, and released only upon resigning to the Governor most or allof their estates. [734] One James Barrow was locked up at Green Springand refused permission to plead his case before the Governor. He wastold that his release could be secured only upon the payment of aruinous composition. "By reason, " he said, "of the extremity of Cold, hunger, lothsomnesse of Vermin, and other sad occasions, I was forct tocomply. "[735] Edward Loyd was held for twenty-one days, while hisplantation was invaded, and his wife so frightened that she fell intolabor and died. 

It was proposed by the loyalists to share among themselves the estatesof all that had been executed for treason, had died in arms against theKing, or had fled from the colony to escape the Governor'svengeance. [736] It did not matter to them that the wretched widows andorphans of these men would be left destitute. Nor did they stop toconsider that these estates, if forfeited at all, could not be seizedlegally for private use, but should revert to the Crown. They thoughtonly of repairing their own ruined fortunes. [737]

In the midst of this confusion and lawlessness Berry and Moryson, with apart of the fleet and seventy of the English soldiers, arrived in theJames River. [738] They had left Portsmouth November the nineteenth, butit was January the twenty-ninth before they reached Virginia. [739]Without waiting for Jeffreys and the main body of the fleet, theynotified the Governor of their arrival and requested an immediateconference. Berkeley came aboard their flag-ship, the _Bristol_, February the first, where he was notified of their mission and intrustedwith official letters. [740] He poured into the ears of the commissionersthe recital of the exciting events of the past months--the destructionof Jamestown, Bacon's death, the surrender of Ingram and Walkelett, theexecution of the leading rebels, the return of "the poore ScatteredLoyal party to their ruined homes". [741] Although peace had beenrestored not three weeks before, he pretended astonishment that the Kinghad thought it necessary to send soldiers to his aid. 

Nor could he conceal his irritation at the mission of Berry and Moryson. That Charles should think it necessary to make an investigation ofaffairs in Virginia betokened a lack of confidence in the Governor. Berkeley's friends claimed, no doubt truly, that he was the author ofevery measure of importance adopted by the government of Virginia. Aninquiry into conditions in the colony could but be an inquiry into hisconduct. And the Governor, perhaps, knew himself to be guilty of muchthat he did not wish to have exposed before his royal master. 

Moreover, Berkeley was not in the humor to brook interference at thisjuncture. He was inexorably resolved that the chief rebels should bebrought to the gallows and that his own followers should be rewarded fortheir faithfulness. If the commissioners intended to block thesemeasures, or protest against his actions when in violation of law, theymight expect his bitter hostility. 

Before the commissioners had been in Virginia two weeks their relationswith the Governor became strained. The disposing of the "delinquentsEstates", they announced, must be referred to the King. Loyal sufferersshould not secure restitution except by due process of law. Seizures oftobacco and other goods must stop. Soon the meetings in the cabin of the_Bristol_ became so stormy that the commissioners decided to hold allfuture communication with Sir William in writing. This they thoughtnecessary because his "defect of hearing" not only made privacyimpossible, but looked "angrily, by loud and fierce speaking". [742]

A few days later Colonel Jeffreys arrived with the remainder of thefleet. He and his fellow commissioners found the whole country so ruinedand desolate that they experienced considerable difficulty in securing aplace of residence. [743] As the Governor disobeyed flatly the King'scommands to entertain them at Green Spring, [744] they were compelled toaccept the hospitality of Colonel Thomas Swann and make their home athis seat on the James River. [745] On the twelfth of February, Jeffreys, Berry and Moryson went to Green Spring, where they held a longconference with Berkeley and the Council. [746] Jeffreys produced hiscommission, and read the clauses which instructed Berkeley to returnimmediately to England, and to resign the government into hishands. [747]

It is easy to imagine with what anger Berkeley and his Council receivedthis command. If Sir William must embark for England and give up hisgovernment to this stranger, they would be foiled in their revenge inthe very moment of triumph. Jeffreys would probably put an end to thewholesale plundering of the rebels: the illegal distribution ofconfiscated estates, the seizure of goods, the unjust compositions. Itwas true that Sir William had written the King in June asking hisrecall, but many things had happened in Virginia since he penned thatletter. He was passionately opposed to leaving his government at thisjuncture. 

And the old man's quick wit found an excuse for remaining in Virginia. The word "conveniency" in his orders gave him a loophole. [748] It wasevident to all that the King wished him to return without delay, butBerkeley pretended to believe that this word had been inserted in orderto permit him to use his own convenience in selecting the date ofdeparture. The question was put to the Council and this body gave aready and joyous support to the Governor's interpretation. Jeffreys andthe commissioners begged them to consider that the word referred not toSir William's "conveniency", but to that of the King's service, yet theywould not heed them. [749] So Jeffreys went back to Swann's Point indiscomfiture and the old Governor remained in Virginia for three monthsmore to carry to completion his plans of restitution and revenge. [750]That he should have dared thus to trifle with his royal master'scommands, which all his life he had considered sacred, reveals to usvividly his furious temper at this juncture. The humiliation andindignities he had experienced during the Rebellion had deprived him ofall prudence. 

Had Colonel Jeffreys been a man of force he would not have submitted tothis juggling with the King's commands. With a thousand British troopsat his back, he could easily have arrested Sir William and forced him totake ship for England. Although this would have been harsh treatment forone that had so long served the King, it was fully justified by theGovernor's flagrant disobedience. And it would have relieved the colonyof the presence of a man whose inhuman cruelty had rendered him odiousto the people. But Jeffreys knew that the Governor's brother, Lord JohnBerkeley, was high in the King's favor, and might take revenge should heresort to violent measures. So he contented himself with writing homehis complaints, and sat quietly by, while Berkeley carried to completionhis principal designs. 

The Governor was deeply displeased with the King's proclamation ofpardon. Should he publish it at once, as he was ordered to do, it wouldgreatly hinder him in his work of revenge and render more difficult hisillegal seizures and confiscations. Since the pardon excepted onlyBacon, under its terms such notorious rebels as Robert Jones, or Whaly, or even Lawrence, might come in out of the wilderness and demandimmunity. This Berkeley was determined should not be. He thought atfirst of suppressing the pardon entirely, and of setting out one of hisown based upon it, excepting the most notorious rebels. [751] Thecommissioners urged him to publish the papers unchanged, as the Kingwould undoubtedly resent any attempt to frustrate his intentions. [752]And they insisted that there should be no delay. "Observing thegenerality of the people to look very amazedly one upon another", at thearrival of the English soldiers, as though dreading a terrible revengeby the King, they thought it highly desirable to "put them out of theirpaine". [753] It was, they declared, by no means unlikely that a newrebellion would break out, for the people were still deeply dissatisfiedand "murmured extremely". 

After several days of hesitation, Berkeley decided to issue the King'sproclamation unchanged. Accordingly, on the tenth of February, to thegreat relief of "the trembling people", the printed copies brought overby the commissioners were made public. [754] But with them the Governorpublished a proclamation of his own, which limited and modified that ofhis Majesty. [755] Gyles Bland, Thomas Goodrich, Anthony Arnold, and allother rebels then in prison were to be denied the benefit of the pardon. The King's mercy was not to extend to Lawrence and Whaly; or to JohnSturdivant, Thomas Blayton, Robert Jones, John Jennings, Robert Holden, John Phelps, Thomas Mathews, [756] Robert Spring, Stephen Earleton andPeter Adams; or "to John West and John Turner, who being legallycondemned for rebellion made their escapes by breaking prison"; or toSara Grindon, "who by her lying and scandalous Reports was the firstgreat encourager and Setter on of the ignorant" people; or even toColonel Thomas Swann, Colonel Thomas Bcale or Thomas Bowler, formermembers of the Council. [757] The commissioners thought it highlypresumptuous in Berkeley thus to frustrate the King's wishes, and theywere careful to let his Majesty know the Governor's disobedience, butthe Council of Virginia endorsed all his actions and the people darednot disobey. 

And so the trials and executions of the wretched rebels continued. As aresult, no doubt, of the protests of the commissioners, the proceedingsof the court martial were closed, and the accused were now examinedbefore the court of oyer and terminer. [758] Gyles Bland, who for somemonths had been a prisoner aboard the _Adam and Eve_, was now made toanswer for his participation in the Rebellion. [759] He possessed manypowerful friends in England, but their influence could not save him. Itwas rumored that the Duke of York had blocked all efforts in his behalf, vowing "by God Bacon and Bland shoud dye". [760] Accordingly, on theeighth of March, he was condemned, and seven days later wasexecuted. [761] Other trials followed. In quick succession RobertStoakes, John Isles, Richard Pomfoy, John Whitson and William Scarburghwere sent to the scaffold. [762] Some of the Governor's friends expressedfear that the rabble might attempt to rescue these men, and "Counsell'dthe not sending them to dye without a strong Guard", but the peopledared not rise in their behalf. [763]

Robert Jones was condemned, but was saved from the gallows by theintercession of Colonel Moryson. Jones had fought with Charles I in theEnglish civil wars, and now exhibited the wounds received in the serviceof the father as a plea for pardon for his rebellion against the son. Moryson was moved to pity at the plight of the old veteran and wrote toMadam Berkeley requesting her to intercede for him with theGovernor. [764] "If I am at all acquainted with my heart, " wrote the Ladyin reply, "I should with more easinesse of mind have worne the CanvasLynnen the Rebells said they would make me be glad off, than have hadthis fatal occasion of interceding for mercy. "[765] None the lessBerkeley consented to reprieve Jones, and many months later the Kingpardoned him. [766]

Anthony Arnold, who had been one of the most active of the rebelleaders, boldly defended the right of peoples to resist the oppressionsof their rulers. He declared that kings "had no rights but what theygott by Conquest and the Sword, and he that could by force of the Sworddeprive them thereof, had as good and just a Title to it as the Kinghimselfe.... If the King should deny to doe him right he would make noemore to sheathe his sword in his heart or Bowells then of his ownmortall Enemyes. "[767] For these and other treasonable words this"horrible resolved Rebell and Traytor" was condemned to be "hang'd inChaines in his own County, to bee a more remarkable Example than therest". [768]

The Governor, even now, showed no inclination to put an end to thetrials and executions. No sooner would the courts empty the jails ofprisoners than he would fill them up again. The unhappy rebels, findingthat the King's pardon gave them little protection, and that Berkeleyexcepted from it whom he wished, could not know where next the axe wouldfall. [769] None can say how far Sir William would have carried hisrevenge had not the Assembly requested him "to hold his hand from allother Sanguinary punishment". [770] This brought him to his senses and heconsented, though with extreme reluctance, to dismiss his witnesses andjuries, and put an end to the executions. And even then "he found out anew way" to punish his victims, "ffyning some of their Treasons andRebellions and condemning others to banishment to England". [771]

The Governor's extreme severity and the insatiable greed of the loyalparty brought the colony to the verge of another rebellion. The peoplewere deeply angered. Had there appeared any person to lead them, "bouldand courageous ... That durst venture his neck", the commons were ready"to Emmire themselves as deepe in Rebellion as ever they did in Bacon'stime". [772] For many months it was feared that Lawrence, "that Stubborndesperate and resolved Rebell", would emerge from seclusion to puthimself at the head of a new swarm of mutineers. [773] Were he to appearat this juncture, not even the presence of the English troops couldprevent Bacon's veterans from flocking to his standard. "Soe sullen andobstinate" were the people that it was feared they would "abandon theirPlantacons, putt off their Servants & dispose of their Stock and away toother parts". Had England at this juncture become involved in a foreignwar, the Virginians would undoubtedly have sought aid from the enemiesof the mother country. [774]

Nor could the people expect relief or justice from the General Assemblywhich met at Green Spring, February the twentieth, 1677. [775] Theelections had been held soon after the final collapse of the Rebellion, amid the general terror inspired by the numerous executions, and hadresulted in an overwhelming victory for the loyalists. In many counties, staunch friends of the Governor had been put in nomination, and thecommons given an opportunity of showing the sincerity of theirrepentance by electing them to the Assembly. William Sherwood declaredthat most of the Burgesses were Berkeley's "owne Creatures & choase byhis appointments before the arrivall of the Commissioners". [776] Inseveral places fraud as well as intimidation seems to have been used tosecure the election of loyalists. The commons of Charles City complainedthat there had been illegal voting in their county and seventy of themsigned a petition, demanding a new election, which they posted upon thecourt house door. [777] That the Assembly was in no sense representativeof the people seems to have been recognized even in England, for some ofthe King's ministers declared that it had been "called when ye Countrywas yet remaining under great distractions, and uncapable of makingtheir Elections after ye usual manner". [778]

Certain it is, that the House of Burgesses as well as the Council, wasfilled with ardent loyalists and friends of the Governor. They passedseveral acts confirming all Berkeley's recent measures, and inflictingfurther punishment upon the luckless rebels. [779] Some that had escapedthe gallows were forced to pay heavy fines, others were banished. [780]Many were compelled to make humble submission, with ropes around theirnecks, upon their knees before the Governor or the county magistrates. Large sums of money were voted to reward the most active of Berkeley'ssupporters. All that had held command among the rebels, even Ingram andWalkelett, were made forever "incapable of any office civil or militaryin Virginia". To speak ill of the Governor and Council or of thejustices of the peace, was declared a high crime, punishable bywhipping. If the people, to the number of six, assembled in arms, theywere to be considered mutineers and rebels. And the Burgesses showedgreat reluctance to reduce their own salaries, which the peopleconsidered so excessive. The Governor feared to insist upon it, "leastperhaps he might thereby disoblige and thwart his own ends and interestin the Assembly", and only the positive commands of the King, deliveredto them by the commissioners, could induce them to make any reduction atall. [781]

They passed resolutions praising the wisdom, the bravery, the justiceand integrity of the Governor, and exonerating him for all blame for theoutbreak of the Rebellion. [782] "The distempered humor predominant inthe Common people", which had occasioned the insurrection, they declaredthe result of false rumors "inspired by ill affected persons, provokingan itching desire in them to pry into the secrets of the grandassembly". [783] They snubbed the King's commissioners, replying to theirrequest for assistance in discovering the common grievances that theAssembly alone was the proper body to correct the people's wrongs. [784]Yet when the commons did come to the Burgesses with their complaintsthey were repulsed with harsh reproofs and even severe punishment. Certain grievances from Isle of Wight county were denounced as"libellous, Scandalous and rebellious" and "the chiefe persons in theSubscriptions" were to be punished "to the merits of their Crymes". [785]A petition from Gloucester county was declared to savor so strongly ofthe "old leaven of rebellion" that it must be expunged from the records. When the people of Nansemond appealed for a more just method oftaxation, they were answered briefly, "It is conceived the pole is theequallest way. "[786]

One is inclined to wonder why the people, thus finding the Assembly butan instrument of oppression in the Governor's hands, did not turneagerly for support and relief to the King's commissioners. These menhad invited them to bring in all their pressures, without restraint orfear of punishment. His Majesty, they announced, was anxious to knowwhat had caused them to rise against his authority. All just complaintswould be carefully considered and all grievances redressed. [787] Butdread of Sir William's anger held the people back. Their chief grievancewas the old Governor himself, but there were few that dared say so, evenwith the promise of the King's protection. The commissioners wroteSecretary Coventry that until "the awe of his stay" was removed, theycould "never thoroughly search and penetrate into the bottome of theBusinesse". [788] Berkeley, they said, continually impeded theirinvestigations and prevented the people from testifying. It might benecessary for Colonel Jeffreys to send him home, before the mists hecast before them could be dispelled. [789] When he was gone, a short timewould show boldly those things that as yet only cautiously peepedforth. [790]

The violent opposition which the commissioners encountered from theGovernor and the loyalists soon forced them to become the leaders of thedefeated party. The poor people looked forward with hope to the day whenSir William would leave and Colonel Jeffreys assume control of theexecutive. Then, they were sure, the persecutions would end and justicebe done them. 

The hatred and contempt of the Governor's friends for Colonel Jeffreysand his colleagues is shown by an interesting and unique incident. Having heard that Sir William was at last preparing to sail for England, they went to Green Spring, on the twenty-second of April, to bid himfarewell. [791] This they thought due his dignity and rank, even thoughtheir relations with him had been far from cordial. [792] As they leftthe house, after paying their respects to the Governor and his lady, they found Sir William's coach waiting at the door to convey them totheir landing. [793] But before they rode away a strange man cameforward, boldly putting aside the "Postillion that used to Ryde" and gotup himself in his place. The Governor, several Councillors, and otherssaw what occurred, but did not offer to interfere. Lady Berkeley went"into her Chamber, and peep'd through a broken quarrell of the Glass, toobserve how the Show look'd". [794] After reaching their boat, thecommissioners found to their horror that the strange postilion was noneother than the "Common Hangman that ... Put the Halters about thePrisoner's Necks in Court when they were to make their submission". Thisseemed to them so gross an insult, not only to the "Great Seal", but totheir "persons as Gentlemen", that they were resolved to make hisMajesty himself acquainted with it. [795] "The whole country rings of ... The public Odium and disgrace cast upon us, " they said, "as the Exchangeitselfe shortly may. "[796]

It is probable that Lady Berkeley alone was responsible for thisincident, which, as the commissioners themselves said, looked "more likea woman's than a man's malice". [797] The Governor denied withpassionate vehemence that he was in any way guilty. "I have sent theNegro[798] to be Rebuked, Tortur'd or whipt, till he confesse how thisdire misfortune happen'd, " he wrote the commissioners, "but I am soedistracted that I scarce know what I doe. "[799]

Even before Berkeley left the colony Colonel Jeffreys issued aproclamation, formally taking possession of the government. [800] Forsome time it had been apparent that the Lieutenant-Governor's long delayin entering upon his duties was greatly weakening him in the estimationof the people. Since he had been forced to sit idly by for severalmonths while Sir William carried to completion matters of the utmostimportance, and had not dared to take his office so long as it pleasedthe old man to linger in the colony, many thought, quite naturally, thathe could not have been entrusted with full authority to act as Governor. And this opinion had been industriously furthered by the loyal party. The departure of Sir William, they declared, did not mean a permanentchange of administration. Jeffreys was to act only as his deputy duringhis absence and would retire upon his return. [801] Feeling that theseviews, if universally accepted, would undermine his influence andauthority, Jeffreys entered a vigorous denial in his proclamation. Hehad been appointed, he declared, to exercise the power of Governor, asfully as Berkeley or any of his predecessors had done. No man shoulddare to belittle his office or authority. Berkeley was going home at hisown request because his great age and infirmities rendered him unfit tosustain further the burdens of his position. The new executive hadrefrained from assuming his duties earlier, "because an Assembly being... Ready to convene, the issueing forth a new Summons ... Must needshave greatly retarded the publique Weale". [802] Nor did he scruple toclaim the full title of "Governour and Captain Generall of Virginia". 

This proclamation aroused Berkeley's deepest ire. "Your ejecting me, " hewrote Jeffreys, "from having any share in the Government whilst yet Iam in the Countrey ... I beleeve can neither be justified by yourComision nor mine. " "You say that his Majesty out of the knowledge of myinability to govern did surrogate so able a man as Coll: Jeffreys tosupply my defects. I wish from my heart Coll: Jeffreys were as wellknown to the King and Counsel as Sir William Berkeley is, for then thedifference would be quickly decided. " The letter was addressed to the"Right honorable Coll: Herbert Jeffreys, his Majesty's LieutenantGovernor of Virginia", and was signed "William Berkeley, Governor ofVirginia till his most Sacred Majesty shall please to determineotherwise". [803]

In the meanwhile the letters of the commissioners, reporting Berkeley'sdisobedience to the King's commands, had arrived in England. Charles wasangered, not only at his delay in surrendering the government, but alsoat his presumption in disregarding the royal proclamation of pardon. "You may well think, " he wrote Berkeley, "we are not a little surprisedto understand that you make difficulty to yield obedience to ourcommands, being so clear and plain that we thought no man could haveraised any dispute about them. Therefore ... We do ... Command youforthwith ... Without further delay or excuse (to) repair unto ourPresence as We formerly required you. "[804]

Secretary Coventry wrote even more severely. We understand, he said, that to the King's clear and positive orders for you to resign thegovernment to Colonel Jeffreys, "upon certain pretences which are nowayes understood here, you have delayed at least if not refusedobedience.... His Majesty ... Seemeth not a little surprised as well astroubled to find a person that had for so many years served his RoyalFather and himself through ye worst of times with so unshaken a loyalty, and so absolute obedience and resignation, should now at one time fallinto two such great errors as to affront his Proclamation by putting outone of his owne at ye same time with his, and in that to exempt severalpersons from pardon, which were by the King's owne Proclamation madecapable of Pardon; then after positive orders given for your immediatereturn ... You yet stay there ... And continually dispute with hisMajesty's commissioners. I will assure you, Sir, his Majesty is verysensible of these miscarriages, and hath very little hopes that yepeople of Virginia shall be brought to a right sense of their duty toobey their Governours when the Governours themselves will not obey theKing. I pray you, Sir, ... Take not councell from your owne nor anyother body's passion or resentment, to take upon you to judge eitherconveniency or not conveniency of the King's orders, but obey them, andcome over; and whatever you have to say ... You will be heard atlarge. "[805]

Even before these letters were written Sir William had left the colony. He had embarked for England, May the fifth, in Captain Larrimore'ssturdy ship which had stood him in such good stead in the hour ofneed. [806] But the old man, worn out by his violent passions and unusualexertions, was physically unfit for the long voyage across the Atlantic. He became very ill on shipboard, and reached England a dying man. "Hecame here alive, " wrote Secretary Coventry, "but so unlike to live thatit had been very inhumane to have troubled him with anyinterrogacons. "[807] The news of the King's displeasure at his conductadded much to his suffering. He pleaded for an opportunity "to clear hisInnocency" even though the "tedious passage & griefe of mind" hadreduced him "to extreame weaknesse". [808] That Charles did not refusehim this privilege is attested by a letter written to Berkeley bySecretary Coventry. "I am commanded by his Majesty, " he said, "to letyou know that his Majesty would speake with you as soone as you can, because there are some ships now going to Virginia, and his Majestywould see what further Instructions may be necessary to be sent bythem. "[809] But Berkeley could not attend the King, either to giveinformation or to plead his own cause. His condition rapidly becamecritical, and a few days later he died. [810]

Hardly had Sir William breathed his last than Thomas Lord Culpeper"kissed the King's hand as Governour". [811] This nobleman had received acommission, July 8, 1675, which was to take effect immediately upon thedeath, surrender or forfeiture of the office by Berkeley. [812] It hadnever been Charles' intention that Colonel Jeffreys should remainpermanently at the head of the government of Virginia, and he nownotified him to prepare to surrender his office to the newGovernor. [813] The King, who felt that the unsettled condition ofVirginia required Culpeper's immediate presence, ordered him to depart"with all speed", and told the colonists they might expect him byChristmas "without fayle". [814] But this pampered lord, accustomed tothe luxury of the court, had no desire to be exiled in the wilderness ofthe New World. By various excuses he succeeded in postponing hisdeparture for over two years, and it was not until the spring of 1680that he landed in Virginia. [815] Thus, for a while, Colonel Jeffreys wasleft as the chief executive of the colony. 

In the meanwhile the commissioners, freed from the baleful presence ofthe old Governor, were continuing their investigation into the causes ofthe Rebellion. Berkeley had advised them, when they first announcedtheir mission, to carry out their work through the county courts. [816]But they had refused to accept this plan. The justices were almost allhenchmen of Sir William, many were hated by the people and some were theobjects of their chief accusations. Had the investigation been intrustedto their hands, they would most certainly have suppressed the principalcomplaints. [817] The commissioners, therefore, appointed especialofficers in the counties to hear the people's grievances, draw them upin writing and bring them in for presentation to the King. [818] Eventhen the loyal party attempted, by intimidation, to prevent the commonsfrom explaining without reserve what had caused them to take up armsagainst the government. Sir William, they were careful to report, wouldmost certainly return, and any that dared charge him or his friends withcorruption might expect the severest punishment. [819] But theannouncement by the commissioners that his Majesty himself had promisedhis protection to all informants relieved the fears of the people andmany came forward with the story of their wrongs. [820] These seem tohave been faithfully drawn up by the officers and in time presented tothe King. 

The loyal party complained loudly that the commissioners used in thismatter none but the enemies of the Governor. [821] Lord John Berkeleydeclared that they had sought information from such only as were known"to be notorious actors in the rebellion". [822] But the commissionerswere undoubtedly right in insisting that all grievances should come fromthose that had been aggrieved. They themselves, they declared, were notresponsible for the truth of the charges; their function was only toreceive and report them. The King had sent them to Virginia to make theroyal ear accessible to the humblest citizen. This could be done only bybrushing aside the usual channels of information and going directly tothe commons themselves. That some of the accusations were exaggerated oreven entirely false seems not improbable; many were undoubtedly true. Posterity must accept them, not as the relation of established truth, but as the charges of a defeated and exasperated party. 

In their work of investigation the commissioners found that they hadneed of the records of the House of Burgesses. In April, 1677, after theadjournment of the session at Green Spring, they came to Major RobertBeverley, the clerk of the Assembly, and demanded "all the OriginallJournals, Orders, Acts", etc. , then in his custody. [823] Beverleyrequired them to show their authority, and this they did, by giving hima sight of that part of their commission which concerned his deliveryof the records. [824] He then offered to allow them to examine any of thepapers necessary to the investigation, but he refused absolutely torelinquish their custody. [825] The commissioners, who distrustedBeverley and perhaps feared that he might conceal the records, "tookthem from him by violence". [826]

When the Assembly met in October, 1677, the House of Burgesses sent avigorous protest to Colonel Jeffreys against these proceedings of thecommissioners. Their action, they declared, "we take to be a greatviolation of our privileges". The power to command the records which thecommissioners claim to have received from the King, "this House humblysuppose His Majesty would not grant or Comand, for that they find notthe same to have been practiced by any of the Kings of England in thelikewise.... The House do humbly pray your Honour ... Will please togive the House such satisfaction, that they may be assured no suchviolation of their privileges shall be offered for the future. "[827]

When Charles II heard of this bold protest he was surprised and angered. It seemed to him a "great presumption of ye said Assembly ... To call inQuestion" his authority. [828] Referring their representation to theLords of Trade and Plantations, he directed them "to examine ye same, &to Report" what they thought "fitt to be done in Vindication of ... (the) Royall Authority, & for bringing the said Assembly to a due sence& acknowledgement of their Duty & Submission". [829] The Lords gave it astheir opinion that the declaration was so "Seditious, even tending toRebellion", that the new Governor should be directed to rebuke theAssembly and punish the "authors and abettors of this presumption". [830]The King commanded Lord Culpeper to carry these recommendations intoeffect. On the third of July, 1680, Culpeper brought the matter beforethe Virginia Council, preparatory to delivering the rebuke. But theCouncillors made a vigorous defense of the action of the Assembly, andunanimously advised the Governor to suspend the execution of the King'scommand. [831] After some hesitation, Culpeper yielded, and the matterwas referred back to the Privy Council. Charles was finally induced torescind the order, but he insisted that all reference to the declaration"be taken off the file and razed out of the books of Virginia". [832]

The work of the commission being completed, Berry and Moryson, in July, 1677, sailed with the royal squadron for England. [833] Their report, which was so damaging to the Virginia loyalists, was not allowed to gounchallenged. Sir William Berkeley, upon his death bed, had told hisbrother, Lord John Berkeley, of the hostility of the commissioners, andcharged him to defend his conduct and character. And Lord Berkeley, whowas a member of the Privy Council and a man of great influence, did hisbest to refute their evidence and to discredit them before theKing. [834] Their entire report, he declared, was "a scandalous lible andinvective of Sir William ... And the royal party in Virginia". [835] Hisbrother's conduct had been always prudent and just, and it wasnoticeable that not one private grievance had ever been brought againsthim before this rebellion. [836] The meetings of Lord Berkeley with thecommissioners in the Council chamber were sometimes stormy. On oneoccasion he told Berry, "with an angry voice and a Berklean look, ... That he and Morryson had murdered his brother". "Sir John as sharplyreturned again" that they had done nothing but what they "durstjustify". [837]

As the other members of the Privy Council protected the commissioners, and upheld their report, the attacks of the angry nobleman availednothing. Secretary Coventry averred that Berry and Moryson had been mostfaithful in carrying out the King's directions, and he showed hisconfidence in their honesty and their judgment by consulting them uponall important matters relating to the colony. [838] And for a while, their influence in shaping the policy of the Privy Council in regard toVirginia was almost unlimited. 

Nor did they scruple to use this great power to avenge themselves uponthose men that had so antagonized them and hindered their investigation. Robert Beverley they represented to the Privy Council as a man of loweducation and mean parts, bred a vulgar seaman and utterly unfit forhigh office. [839] Colonel Edward Hill was the most hated man in CharlesCity county. [840] Ballard, Bray and some of the other Councillors wererash and fiery, active in opposing the King's orders and unjust to thepoor people. [841] The Privy Council was so greatly influenced by theserepresentations that they determined to reconstruct the VirginiaCouncil, upon lines suggested by Berry and Moryson. Colonel PhilipLudwell, Colonel Ballard and Colonel Bray were expressly excluded fromthe Council, while Colonel Hill and Major Beverley as "men of evil fameand behavior" were deprived of all governmental employment whatsoever, and "declared unfit to serve His Majesty". [842] On the other hand, Colonel Thomas Swann, who had been excluded from the Council by GovernorBerkeley, was now, for his kindness to the commissioners, restored tohis seat. [843]

The departure of Sir William Berkeley by no means ended the oppositionto Colonel Jeffreys. A part of the Council, realizing that continuedhostility could result only in harm to themselves, made their peace withthe new administration, and were received into favor, but the moreviolent of the loyal party remained defiant and abusive. Philip Ludwell, Beverley, Hill, Ballard and others openly denounced Jeffreys as aweakling, entirely unsuited for the important office he now occupied, and did their best to render him unpopular with the people. [844] TheLieutenant-Governor retaliated with considerable spirit, depriving someof their lucrative offices, and suspending others from the Council. Ludwell, whose conduct had been especially obnoxious, was ousted fromthe collectorship of York River. [845] Ballard was expelled from asimilar office. [846] And many months before the changes in the Councilordered by the English government became known in Virginia, no less thansix of the most active loyalists had been suspended by theLieutenant-Governor. [847]

But events soon took a more favorable turn for the Berkeley party. Thedeparture of Berry and Moryson deprived Jeffreys of his staunchestfriends and advisors. And, before the end of the summer, he wasprostrated by the Virginia sickness, which was still deadly to thoseunaccustomed to the climate of the colony. For several months he was tooill to attend properly to his duties or to resist the machinations ofhis enemies, and the government fell into the hands of the Council. [848]And since this body, despite its pretended support of theLieutenant-Governor, was at heart in full sympathy with Beverley andLudwell and the other loyalists, the policy of the administration wasonce more changed. The work of extortion was actively resumed and thecourts again busied themselves with suits against the formerrebels. [849]

But consternation seized the Green Spring faction, as the loyalists werenow called, upon the arrival of the King's order, annulling Berkeley'sproclamation of February 10, 1677, and reaffirming the generalpardon. [850] If this command were put into effect, most of theconfiscations secured since the Rebellion, would become illegal, andrestitution would have to be made. So desperately opposed to this werethe loyalists that they resolved to suppress the King's letter. Theybelieved that it had been obtained by the influence of thecommissioners, and this, they hoped, would soon be rendered nugatory bythe presence at court of Sir William Berkeley. If they could keep theorder secret for a few weeks, new instructions, dictated by theGovernor, might arrive to render its execution unnecessary. ColonelJeffreys protested against their disobedience, but he was too weak tooppose the will of the Council. [851] So, for six weeks, his Majesty'sgrace "was unknown to ye poore Inhabitants", while the innumerable suitsand prosecutions were pushed vigorously. Not until October thetwenty-sixth, when all hope of its revocation had been dispelled byfresh information from England, did the Council consent to thepublication of the letter. [852]

In September, 1677, writs were issued for an election of Burgesses. [853]Had Jeffreys not been ill, he would perhaps have refused to allow a newsession of the Assembly. The contest at the polls could but result in avictory for the Green Spring faction, as the electoral machinery was intheir hands. The Lieutenant-Governor, although he had removed some ofthe higher colonial officials, had made few changes in the personnel ofthe county courts. [854] The sheriffs, by resorting to the old methods, made sure of the election of most of the nominees of the loyal party. Complaints came from James City county, New Kent county and other placesthat intimidation and fraud had been used to deprive the people of afair election. [855] If we may believe the testimony of William Sherwood, the Berkeley faction carried things with a high hand. "The Inhabitantsof James City County, " he wrote, "did unanimously elect me a Burgess ... But several of my professed enemies ... Procured another writt for a newelection, with a positive command not to choose me. The people thenbeing under amazement consented to whome soever the Sheriffe wouldreturne, & so my enemies to make their party the stronger in ye house... Causd three Burgesses to serve for James City County. "[856]

"By this means, " wrote Colonel Daniel Parke, "and by persuading theburgesses that Sir William Berkeley was coming in Governour again, (theloyal party) got all confirmed that was done at the Assembly before heldat Greene Spring. "[857] In order to compensate themselves for theirgreat losses and to fulfil the promises made by Berkeley to hisfollowers during the Rebellion, they levied a tax upon the people ofone hundred and ten pounds of tobacco per poll. "This with the countytax and parish tax, " said Parke, "is in some counties 250lbs, in some300, and in some 400lbs, which falls very heavie upon the poorerpeople. " The county grievances were again rejected by the Burgesses asfalse and scandalous, and the persons presenting them were severelypunished. [858] But the Assembly expressed an earnest desire to bringabout a reconciliation between the hostile factions in the colony, andprescribed a heavy penalty for the use of such opprobrious epithets as"traytor, Rebell Rougue, Rebell", etc. [859]

The news of Berkeley's death was a severe blow to the Green Springparty. All the hope they had entertained that he would accomplish theoverthrow of the work of the commissioners, at once fell to the ground. But they were somewhat consoled by the appointment of Lord Culpeper. This nobleman was related to Lady Berkeley, and they had good reason tobelieve he would reverse the policy of the present administration andally himself with the loyalists. [860]

In the meanwhile the Lieutenant-Governor was regaining his health andspirits, and was taking a more active part in public affairs. He hadbeen deeply angered with Colonel Philip Ludwell for his many insults, and he now determined to prosecute him "for scandalizing the Governor, and abusing the Authority of his Majesty". [861] Ludwell's unpardonablecrime, it would seem, consisted in calling Jeffreys "a pitiful littleFellow with a perriwig". [862] He had also been heard to say that theLieutenant-Governor was "a worse Rebel than Bacon", that he had brokenthe laws of Virginia, that he had perjured himself, that he "was notworth a Groat in England". Nor was it considered a sufficient excusethat Ludwell had made those remarks immediately after consuming "part ofa Flaggon of Syder". [863] The jury found him guilty of "scandalizing theGovernor", but acquitted him of any intention of abusing his Majesty'sauthority. The General Court, upon the motion of Colonel Jeffreys, referred the case to the King and Privy Council, that they might "advisea punishment proportionable to the offence". [864] Against this decisionthe defendant, as he had an undoubted right to do, appealed to theGeneral Assembly. Ludwell felt, no doubt, that should the appeal beallowed, his great influence in the House of Burgesses would secure hima light sentence. But the court declared the case so unprecedented thatthe whole matter, including the question of appeal, must be decided bythe King. 

With the return of hot weather, Colonel Jeffreys, not yet beingacclimated, or "seasoned", as the Virginians expressed it, again becameseriously ill. [865] The Council elected a president to act in his placeand once more assumed control of the administration. [866] The GreenSpring faction, whom only the Lieutenant-Governor could restrain, againlifted its head and endeavored "to continue their old exactions &abuses". [867] Feeling, perhaps, a sense of security in their remotenessfrom the King, which made it impossible for him to watch their actionsclosely, or to mete out to them prompt punishment, they stilldisregarded his pardon and his reiterated commands. [868] "The colonywould be as peaceful as could be wished, " wrote William Sherwood inAugust, 1678, "except for the malice of some discontented persons of thelate Governor's party, who endeavour by all ye cunning contrivances thatby their artifice can be brought about, to bring a Contempt of ColonelJeffreys, our present good Governor.... Those persons who are thetroublers of the peace ... Are ... Lady Berkeley, Colonel PhilipLudwell, Colonel Thomas Ballard, Colonel Edward Hill, Major RobertBeverley, all of which are cherished by Mr. Secretary Ludwell (who actsseverely. ) It is to be feared, unless these fiery Spiritts are allayedor removed home, there will not be that settled, happy peace and unitywhich otherwise might be, for they are entered into a faction, which isupheld by the expectation of my Lord Culpeper's doing mighty things forthem & their interest. "[869]

Colonel Jeffreys died in November, 1678. [870] It was the fortune of thisGovernor to come to the colony in one of the greatest crises of itshistory. Had he been a man of ability and firmness he could haverendered the people services of great value. He might have put an end tothe reign of terror inaugurated by Berkeley, prevented the unending lawsuits, confiscations and compositions, reorganized the county courts andassured to the people a fair election of Burgesses. He seems to havewished to rule justly and well, but he was too weak to quell the strifebetween the rival factions and bring quiet to the distracted colony. 

So bitter was the loyal party against Colonel Jeffreys, that after hisdeath they sought to revenge themselves upon his widow. TheLieutenant-Governor had received no part of his salary from March, 1678, to the day of his death, and had, as a result, incurred considerabledebt. As Mrs. Jeffreys was unable to meet all her husband's obligations, she was detained in Virginia, and, according to one account, thrown intoprison. [871] "'Tis plain, " she wrote Secretary Coventry, "they seek my Life in malice to my husband, though none of them can taxhim with any injustice.... I cannot hope to outlive this persecution, but I most humbly beseech you to intercede for me to his Majesty, thatmy child may not be ruined. "[872] Mrs. Jeffreys later received thearrears due her husband, and was thus enabled to free herself from thepower of her enemies. [873]

Upon the death of Colonel Jeffreys, Sir Henry Chicheley, by virtue of acommission granted in 1674, assumed control of the government. [874] Thenew Governor had long served with distinction in the Council, and seemsto have been a "most loyal, worthy person and deservedly beloved by thewhole country". [875] But he was now too "old, sickly and crazy" togovern the colony with the vigor and firmness that were so greatlyneeded. [876] During the eighteen months of his administration the peoplewere "not reconciled to one another", and "ill blood" only too often wasmanifested by both factions. [877]

Sir Henry had himself been a severe sufferer by the Rebellion. He hadfallen into Bacon's hands and had even, it would seem, been threatenedwith death, in retaliation for Berkeley's execution of Captain Carver. Yet he attempted to rule impartially and well. Writs were issued in thespring of 1679 for an election of Burgesses, and the people wereprotected from intimidation at the polls. The Assembly, as a result, showed itself more sane, more sensitive to the wishes of the commons, than had been either of the sessions of 1677. [878] Several laws wereenacted redressing some of the most flagrant evils of the oldgovernmental system of Berkeley. The voters of each parish wereempowered to elect two men "to sitt in the severall county courts andhave their equall votes with the severall justices for the makeing of bylawes". [879] An act was passed putting a limit upon the excessive feescharged by the collectors of the customs. [880] And the clamor of theloyalists for the payment of their claims upon the treasury wereunheeded, and all public debts were referred for settlement to the nextsession. [881]

Chicheley's administration came temporarily to an end with the arrivalof Lord Culpeper. The period from the close of the Rebellion to May, 1680, when the new Governor-General took the oath of office, seems, atfirst sight, characterized only by confusion and disaster. The violentanimosities, the uncertainty of property rights, the lack of a firm andsettled government kept the people in constant uneasiness anddiscontent. The numerous banishments and executions had deprived thecolony of some of its most intelligent and useful citizens, while theplundering of both parties during the Rebellion, and the numberlessforfeitures that followed the establishment of peace, had reduced manymen to poverty. Nor had the most pressing of the grievances that hadcaused the people to rise against the government been redressed. TheNavigation Acts were still in force, the commons were yet excluded fromtheir rightful share in the government, the taxes were more oppressivethan ever. 

Yet amid the melancholy confusion of the times, important changes forthe better were taking place. Never again was an English Governor toexercise the despotic power that had been Sir William Berkeley's. Thiswas not due to the greater leniency of the British government, or tolack of ambition in the later Governors. But the Rebellion and theevents following it, had weakened the loyalty of the people and shownthem the possibility of resisting the King's commands. The commons, angered at the severity of the punishment inflicted upon the rebelleaders, and disappointed in the royal promise that their grievancesshould be redressed, regarded the government with sullen hostility. Thewealthy planters resented what they considered Charles' ingratitude fortheir loyal support in the hour of need, and complained bitterly of hisinterference with their attempts to restore their ruined fortunes. Throughout Berkeley's administration their interests had seemed to beidentical with those of the Governor, and they had ever worked inharmony with him. With the advent of Colonel Jeffreys, however, they hadbeen thrown into violent opposition to the executive. Their success inthwarting the policies of the Lieutenant-Governor, and in evading anddisobeying the King's commands gave them a keen appreciation of theirown influence and power. They were to become more and more impatient ofthe control of the Governors, more and more prone to defy the commandsof the English government. 

The awakened spirit of resistance bore rich fruit for the cause ofliberty. The chief difficulty heretofore experienced by the commons indefending their rights was the lack of intelligent and forceful leaders. These they now secured through the frequent quarrels of the wealthyplanters with the Governors. More than once Councillors, suspended fromtheir seats for disobedience, came forward as leaders in the struggle topreserve the rights of the people. In this capacity they renderedservices of the highest importance. Strangely enough some of the leadingspirits of the old Berkeley party became, by their continued oppositionto the executive, champions of representative government in the colony. Had it not been for the active leadership of Robert Beverley and PhilipLudwell the cause of liberty might well have perished under theassaults of Charles II and James II. 

The House of Burgesses was gradually becoming more representative of thepeople. The intimidation of voters practiced by the loyal partyimmediately after the Rebellion could not be continued indefinitely. Asthe terror inspired by Berkeley's revenge upon the rebels began to wane, the commons insisted more upon following their own inclinations at thepolls. Moreover, the incessant quarrels of the Governors with themembers of the aristocracy made it impossible for any clique to controlagain the electoral machinery. As the sheriffs and justices were nolonger so closely allied with the executive as they had been in theRestoration period, false returns of Burgesses and other electoralfrauds were apt to be of less frequent occurrence. 

Thus, during the years immediately following the Rebellion, forces wereshaping themselves which were to make it possible for the colony toresist those encroachments of the Crown upon its liberties that markedthe last decade of the rule of the Stuart kings, and to pass safelythrough what may well be called the Critical Period of Virginiahistory. 

FOOTNOTES:

[720] P. R. O. , CO389. 6-177. 

[721] Ibid. 

[722] The commission had consisted at first of Sir John Berry, ColonelFrancis Moryson and Thomas Fairfax. P. R. O. , CO1-37-53. 

[723] P. R. O. , CO389. 6-113, 174. 

[724] P. R. O. , CO389. 6-113. 

[725] P. R. O. , CO389. 6-121, 174, 175. 

[726] P. R. O. , CO389. 6-113. 

[727] P. R. O. , CO389. 6-137, 139, 140, 144; CO1-38-7. 

[728] P. R. O. , CO389. 6-116. 

[729] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-149, 154. 

[730] P. R. O. , CO1-40-110; CO5-1371-27, 33, 62, 63, 64. 

[731] P. R. O. , CO1-39-11, 17; CO5-1371-68, 69, 62, 63, 64, 78, 79, 81, 82, 132. 

[732] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-152. 

[733] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-132. 

[734] CO1-40-1 to 37; CO1-40-43; CO5-1371-81, 82. 

[735] P. R. O. , CO1-40-23. 

[736] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-27, 33. 

[737] P. R. O. , CO1-39-38. 

[738] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-17, 20. 

[739] Ibid. 

[740] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-27, 33. 

[741] Ibid. 

[742] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-55, 60. 

[743] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-90, 94. 

[744] P. R. O. , CO391. 2-173, 178. 

[745] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-90, 94. 

[746] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-83, 85, 90, 94. 

[747] P. R. O. , CO289. 6-121. 

[748] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-50, 83. 

[749] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-93, 94. 

[750] P. R. O. , CO1-40-88. 

[751] P. R. O. , CO1-39-24. 

[752] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-32. 

[753] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-55, 60. 

[754] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-32, 38. 

[755] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-276, 286. 

[756] This Thomas Mathews was probably the author of the T. M. Accountof Bacon's Rebellion. 

[757] P. R. O. , CO2-39-31; CO5-1371-276, 286. 

[758] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-125, 127. 

[759] P. R. O. , CO1-39-38; CO1-41-79. 

[760] T. M. , p. 24. 

[761] P. R. O. , CO1-39-35; Hen. , Vol. II, p. 550. 

[762] P. R. O. , CO1-39-35; Hen. , Vol. II, p. 553. 

[763] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-152. 

[764] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-178, 179. 

[765] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-180, 181. 

[766] P. R. O. , CO1-45-3. 

[767] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-152. 

[768] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-152; Hen. , Vol. II, p. 550. 

[769] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-32, 152. 

[770] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-152. 

[771] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-152. 

[772] P. R. O. , CO1-40-88. 

[773] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-132. 

[774] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-32. 

[775] P. R. O. , CO1-39-35. 

[776] P. R. O. , CO1-40-43. 

[777] P. R. O. , CO1-40-73, 106. 

[778] P. R. O. , CO1-40-114. 

[779] P. R. O. , CO1-39-35. 

[780] P. R. O. , CO1-39-35. 

[781] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-168 to 175; CO1-39-35. 

[782] P. R. O. , CO1-39-38. 

[783] P. R. O. , CO1-39-38. 

[784] P. R. O. , CO1-39-39. 

[785] P. R. O. , CO1-39-38. 

[786] P. R. O. , CO1-39-38. 

[787] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-39 to 44. 

[788] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-132. 

[789] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-182, 187

[790] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-193 to 198. 

[791] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-208 to 211

[792] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-212, 213. 

[793] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-220, 231. 

[794] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-220, 231. 

[795] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-212, 213. 

[796] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-220, 231. 

[797] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-220, 231. 

[798] Probably the real postilion. 

[799] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-214 to 217. 

[800] This proclamation was issued April 27, 1677. P. R. O. , CO1-40-53. 

[801] P. R. O. , CO1-41-121; CO1-42-23. 

[802] P. R. O. , CO1-40-53. 

[803] P. R. O. , CO1-40-54. 

[804] This letter was written May 13, 1677. 

[805] P. R. O. , CO389. 6-195 to 198. 

[806] P. R. O. , CO1-40-88. 

[807] P. R. O. , CO389. 6. 

[808] P. R. O. , CO1-40-110. 

[809] P. R. O. , CO389. 6-207. 

[810] P. R. O. , CO389. 6-210. 

[811] P. R. O. , CO389. 6-212. 

[812] P. R. O. , CO5-1355-299; CO389. 6-271 to 273. 

[813] P. R. O. , CO389. 6-210, 215. 

[814] P. R. O. , CO389. 6-210. 

[815] P. R. O. , CO5-1355-377. 

[816] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-45. 

[817] Nothing can show this more clearly than the reception in theAssembly, which was largely composed of justices of the peace, of thecounty grievances. 

[818] P. R. O. , CO391. 2-180. 

[819] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-132. 

[820] P. R. O. , CO5-1371-132. 

[821] P. R. O. , CO391. 2-180; Burk, Vol. II, pp. 259, 260. 

[822] P. R. O. , CO391. 2-173 to 178; Burk, Vol. II, p. 260. 

[823] P. R. O. , CO1-41-87. 

[824] P. R. O. , CO1-42-138. 

[825] P. R. O. , CO5-1376-273. 

[826] P. R. O. , CO5-1376-273. 

[827] P. R. O. , CO1-41-87. 

[828] P. R. O. , CO1-42-141. 

[829] P. R. O. , CO1-42-141. 

[830] P. R. O. , CO391. 2-300, 301. 

[831] P. R. O. , CO5-1355-354. 

[832] Sains. , Vol. XVIII, p. 129. 

[833] P. R. O. , CO1-41-17. 

[834] Burk, Vol. II, p. 263. 

[835] Burk, Vol. II, p. 259; P. R. O. , CO391. 2-180. 

[836] Burk, Vol. II, p. 264. 

[837] Burk, Vol. II, p. 266. 

[838] P. R. O. , CO391. 2-180. 

[839] P. R. O. , CO1-41-121. Major Beverley was of good family. Hismilitary leadership in Bacon's Rebellion, and his services as clerk ofthe Assembly, testify to his ability. Va. Mag. , Vol. II, p. 405. 

[840] P. R. O. , CO1-41-121. 

[841] P. R. O. , CO391. 2-173 to 178. 

[842] P. R. O. , C039I. 2-305. 

[843] P. R. O. , CO391. 2-173 to 178. 

[844] P. R. O. , CO1-41-138; CO1-42-117. 

[845] Va. Mag. , Vol. XVIII, p. 18; P. R. O. , CO1-42-55. 

[846] Sains. , Vol. XVII, p. 19. 

[847] P. R. O. , CO1-41-121. 

[848] P. R. O. , CO1-42-17. 1, 23. 

[849] P. R. O. , CO1-42-23. 

[850] P. R. O. , CO1-42-17. 1, 23. 

[851] P. R. O. , CO1-42-17. 1, 23. 

[852] P. R. O. , CO1-42-17. 1. 

[853] P. R. O. , CO1-42-23. 

[854] P. R. O. , CO1-42-23. 

[855] P. R. O. , CO1-42-17. 1. 

[856] P. R. O. , CO1-42-23. 

[857] P. R. O. , CO1-42-17. 1. 

[858] P. R. O. , CO5-1376. 

[859] P. R. O. , CO5-1376. 

[860] P. R. O. , CO1-42-55; Va. Mag. , Vol. II, p. 408. 

[861] Va. Mag. , Vol. XVIII, p. 20. 

[862] Va. Mag. , Vol. XVIII, p. 12. 

[863] Va. Mag. , Vol. XVIII, p. 11. 

[864] Va. Mag. , Vol. XVIII, p. 23. 

[865] P. R. O. , CO1-42-103. 

[866] Va. Mag. , Vol. IX, p. 307. 

[867] P. R. O. , CO1-42-103. 

[868] P. R. O. , CO1-42-107. 

[869] P. R. O. , CO1-42-117. 

[870] Va. Mag. , Vol. IX, p. 307. 

[871] P. R. O. , CO5-1355-304, 305, 309. 

[872] P. R. O. , CO5-1355-305. 

[873] P. R. O. , CO5-1355-370. 

[874] Va. Mag. , Vol. IX, p. 307. 

[875] P. R. O. , CO1-41-121. 

[876] Sains. , Vol. XVII, p. 230. 

[877] Sains. , Vol. XVII, p. 230. 

[878] Hen. , Vol. II, p. 433. 

[879] Hen. , Vol. II, p. 441. 

[880] Hen. , Vol. II, p. 443. 

[881] Hen. , Vol. II, p. 456. 

CHAPTER VIII

THE CRITICAL PERIOD

For some years after the Restoration the administration of Englishcolonial affairs had been very lax. The Council of Plantations, whichhad served as a Colonial Office during the period from 1660 to 1672, haddone little to control the Governors or to supervise and direct theirpolicies. With the exception of one list of questions sent to Virginiain 1670, they had left Sir William Berkeley almost entirely to his owndevices. September 27, 1672, the Council of Plantations was united withthe Board of Domestic Trade to form the Council of Trade andPlantations. This new arrangement seems not to have been productive ofgood results, for in December, 1674, after the fall of the Cabalministry, it was discontinued and the direction of colonial affairsentrusted to the King's Privy Council. This important body, finding itsnew duties very onerous, created a committee of twenty-one members, towhom the supervision of trade and plantations was assigned. In this waythe King's most trusted ministers were brought into close touch withcolonial affairs. We find now such prominent statesmen as SecretaryCoventry, Secretary Williamson and Sir Lionel Jenkins carrying onextensive correspondence with the Governors, becoming interested in alltheir problems and needs, and demanding copies of all journals ofAssembly and other state papers. [882]

This closer intimacy with the colonial governments led inevitably to afeeling of intolerance for local autonomy and for representativeinstitutions, and to a determination to force upon the colonists aconformity with the policies and desires of the English government. Charles II and James II, instituted, in the decade preceding the EnglishRevolution, a series of measures designed to curb the independence ofthe colonists. Some of the Assembly's long-established and mostimportant rights were attacked. Many of its statutes were annulled byproclamation; its judicial powers were forever abolished; its controlover taxation and expenditure was threatened; the privilege of selectingthe Assembly clerk was taken from it; while even the right to initiatelegislation was assailed. 

The intolerant mood of the King and Privy Council is reflected in theinstructions given Lord Culpeper upon his departure for Virginia. Theyincluded orders depriving him of the power, exercised freely by allformer Governors, of calling sessions of the Assembly. "It is Our Willand pleasure, " Charles declared, "that for the future noe GeneralAssembly be called without Our special directions, but that, uponoccasion, you doe acquaint us by letter, with the necessity of callingsuch an Assembly, and pray Our consent, and directions for theirmeeting. "[883]

Even more dangerous to the liberties of the people was the attempt todeprive the Assembly of the right to initiate legislation. "You shalltransmit unto us, " Culpeper was commanded, "with the advice and consentof the Council, a draught of such Acts, as you shall think fit andnecessary to bee passed, that wee may take the same into Ourconsideration, and return them in the forme wee shall think fit they beeenacted in. And, upon receipt of Our commands, you shall then summon anAssembly, and propose the said Laws for their consent. "[884]

Most fortunately neither of these instructions could be enforced. Thegreat distance of England from Virginia, and the time required tocommunicate with the King, made the summoning of the Assembly and theinitiation of legislation without the royal assent a matter of absolutenecessity. Lord Culpeper, with his Majesty's especial permission, disregarded these orders during his first visit to the colony, andlater, to his great satisfaction, the Committee of Trade and Plantations"altered their measures therein". [885]

Culpeper was directed to secure in the colony a permanent revenue forthe King. It was rightly judged that the representatives of royalauthority could never be entirely masters of the government while theywere dependent for their salaries upon the votes of the Assembly. SirWilliam Berkeley, it is true, had rendered his position secure byobliging all "the men of parts and estates", but similar methods mightbe impossible for other Governors. The King and Privy Council did not, however, attempt to raise the desired revenue by imposing a tax upon thepeople without their own consent. An act levying a duty of two shillingsa hogshead upon all tobacco exported from Virginia was drawn up by theAttorney-General for ratification by the Assembly. [886] The consent ofthe King in Council was duly received and the bill, with an actconcerning naturalization and another for a general pardon, were sent toVirginia by Lord Culpeper. "These bills, " the King told him, "we havecaused to be under the Greate Seale of England, and our will is that thesame ... You shall cause to be considered and treated upon in ourAssembly of Virginia. "[887]

The revenue bill was quite similar to an act of Assembly still in force, which had imposed a duty upon exported tobacco, but an all-importantdifference lay in the disposal of the funds thus raised. The formerstatute had given the proceeds of this tax to the Assembly, "for thedefraying the publique necessary charges", [888] but the new act was togrant the money "to the King's most excellent Majesty his heires andSuccessors for ever to and for the better support of theGovernment". [889]

In order to carry out these new designs for the government of thecolony, the King ordered Lord Culpeper to prepare to sail at once. TheGovernor, however, was most reluctant to leave the pleasures of thecourt for a life in the American wilderness. His departure had alreadybeen long delayed, more than two years having elapsed since Charles hadtold the colonists to expect his speedy arrival. Yet he still delayedand procrastinated. On the third of December, 1679, an order was issuedgiving his Lordship "liberty to stay in Towne about his affaires untilMonday next, and noe longer, and then to proceed forthwith" to theDowns, where "the Oxford frigat" was waiting to convey him toVirginia. [890] But as he still lingered in London, the Captain of thefrigate was ordered to sail up the Thames to take him on board. [891] Nosooner had he left his moorings, however, than Culpeper, probably inorder to gain time, hastened away to the Downs. This so aroused theKing's anger that he was pleased to direct one of his principalsecretaries to signify by letter to Lord Culpeper his high displeasureat his delay and neglect of duty, and that his intentions were toappoint another Governor of Virginia unless he embarked as soon as thefrigate returned to the Downs. [892] But now adverse winds set in, andCulpeper, with the tobacco fleet which had waited for him, was unable tosail until February 13, 1680. [893]

He arrived off the capes May the second, and eight days later tookformal possession of his government. Immediately the Councillors andother leading planters flocked around him, eager to secure his supportagainst the old rebellious party. Nor was their presentation of theircause ineffectual in winning the Governor's sympathy. "All things, " hewrote Secretary Coventry, "are ... Far otherwise than I supposed inEngland, and I beleeve ye Council, at least I have seen through amist. "[894] It was to be expected then, that in settling the disputethat had so long troubled the colony he would favor the Berkeleyfaction. And this, so far as the King's commands would permit, he seemsto have done. The wealthy planters expressed their satisfaction with hismeasures, and the commons, if they disapproved, feared to reveal theirresentment. "His Excellency, " wrote Colonel Spencer, "has with soe greatprudence settled all the Affairs of the Country that our late differentInterests are perfectly united to the general satisfaction of all hisMajesty's Subjects in this colony. "[895]

The Berkeley party was deeply displeased at the King's command toexclude Colonel Philip Ludwell from the Council. Recognizing in theorder the influence of Colonel Jeffreys and the other commissioners, they assured the Governor that it had been secured by falserepresentations. The Councillors declared "that they were very sencibleof ye want of that Assistance they for many Years" had had from ColonelLudwell, "whose good abilities, Knowne Integrity and approved Loyalty"rendered him most necessary to his Majesty's service. They thereforeearnestly requested "his Excellency to Readmitt & Receive him to be oneof ye Councill". [896] Culpeper yielded readily, and Ludwell was restoredto his seat. 

The Burgesses were chagrined at the order to oust Major Robert Beverleyfrom all public employment. He was again the clerk of Assembly, forwhich office he was "their Unanimous Choyce", and his disgrace wasregarded as a rebuke to the House. [897] Upon their earnest petitionCulpeper consented that he should retain that important post in which hewas soon to render signal service to the people and to incur again theanger of the King and his ministers. [898]

When the Assembly convened the Governor at once laid before it the Actof General Pardon, the Act of Naturalization and the Act for a PublicRevenue. To the first and the second he obtained a prompt assent, butthe third was strenuously resisted. The House of Burgesses was filledwith gentlemen of the best families, men closely allied with the Councilin position and interest, yet they were unwilling to permit any part ofthe public revenue to pass out of the control of the people. [899] "TheHouse, " they declared, "doe most humbly desire to be Excused if they doenot give their approbacon of his Majesties bill. "[900] And so determinedwere they, that when the matter was again brought before them by theGovernor they refused even to resume the debate. [901]

But Culpeper, fearful of the King's displeasure, and uneasy for thepayment of his own salary, made strenuous efforts to secure the passageof the bill. He did not scruple to resort to bribery and intimidation toforce obedience from the stubborn Burgesses. We have the testimony ofthe Governor himself to one notorious case of the misuse of thepatronage. Among the leaders of the House of Burgesses was IsaacAllerton, a man of wealth and education, and an excellent speaker. [902]"He did assure me, " Culpeper reported to the Privy Council, "of hisutmost services in whatsoever the King should command him by hisGovernor, particularly as to a further Bill of Revenue for the supportof ye Government, And I did engage to move his Majesty that hee shouldbee of the Council ... Though not to be declared till after the Sessionof next Assembly, when I am sure he can bee as serviceable if not morethan any other person whatsoever. "[903] This bargain was faithfully keptand in time Allerton, for thus betraying his trust, received his seat inthe Council. [904]

Nor did Lord Culpeper hesitate to intimidate the Burgesses bythreatening to demand the payment of all arrears of quit-rents. Thistax, although belonging to the King from the first settlement of thecolony, had not, for many years, been duly collected. It was nowrumored, however, that the Privy Council intended, not only to enforcefor the future a strict payment, but to demand a settlement for theaccumulated arrears. In 1679 Sir Henry Chicheley had forwarded to hisMajesty a petition from the Assembly asking relief from this greatburden. If this be not granted, he wrote, the payments which have beenso long due and amount to so vast a sum, will fall heavily upon all, butespecially upon the poor. [905] Culpeper, knowing well the anxiety of theBurgesses upon this point, told them that if they expected the King togrant their petition, they must yield to his desire for a royal revenuein the colony. 

Calling the Assembly before him, he urged them to resume their debate. "It looks, " he said, "as if you could give noe reasons or as if you wereaffraid to be convinced.... I desire you to lay aside that irregularproceeding ... And resume the debate. " The Council, he added, had giventheir unanimous consent to the bill. "Consider the affaires of the QuittRents, Consider the King's favour in every thing you may aske even to acessacon ... And reflect if it be tante for you not to concurr in athing that, I am assured, ye King ... Judges his owne and will soe useit and the more fully then if this Act pass. "[906]

Thus threatened, the Burgesses finally yielded, and the bill became law. But they insisted upon adding to it two provisos: that the former exportduty upon tobacco be repealed, and that the exemption of Virginia shipowners from the payment of the tax, which had been a provision of theformer law, should be continued. [907] When some months later the mattercame before the Committee of Trade and Plantations, their Lordshipsexpressed much dissatisfaction at these amendments, declaring that thebill should have passed "in Terminis". Since, however, the first provisoin no way changed the sense of the act, and had been added only toprevent a double imposition, they recommended that it should becontinued. But the second was declared null and void by order of theKing, as "irregular and unfit to be allowed of". [908]

Lord Culpeper, immediately after the dismissal of the Assembly madeready to return to England. August 3, 1680, he read to the Council anorder from the King granting him permission to leave the colony, and afew days later he set sail in _The James_. [909] The government was againleft in the hands of the infirm Chicheley. [910]

Culpeper, upon his arrival in England, told the King that all was wellin the colony, that the old contentions had been forgotten, and thepeople were happy and prosperous. But this favorable report, which wasmade by the Governor to palliate his desertion of his post, was far frombeing true. There was, as he well knew, a deep-seated cause ofdiscontent in Virginia, that threatened constantly to drive the peopleagain into mutiny and disorder. This was the continued low price oftobacco. In the years which had elapsed since Bacon's Rebellion, thepeople, despite their bitter quarrels, had produced several large crops, and the English market was again glutted. "What doth quite overwhelmboth us and Maryland, " complained the colonists, "is the extreme lowprice of our only commodity ... And consequently our vast poverty andinfinite necessity. "[911] The Burgesses, in 1682, spoke of theworthlessness of tobacco as an "ineffable Calamity". "Wee are, " theysaid, "noe wayes able to force a miserable subsistance from the same.... If force of penne, witt, or words Could truely represent (our condition)as it is, the sad resentments would force blood from any ChristianLoyall Subjects heart. "[912] Some months later the Council wrote, "Thepeople of Virginia are generally, some few excepted, extremely poor, ... Not being able to provide against the pressing necessities of theirfamilies. "[913] That the Privy Council was aware, as early as October, 1681, that these conditions might lead to another insurrection, isattested by a letter of the Committee of Trade and Plantations to LordCulpeper. "We are informed, " they wrote, "that Virginia is in greatdanger of disturbance ... By reason of the extreme poverty of thePeople, occasioned by the low price of tobacco which, tis feared mayinduce the servants to plunder the Stores of the Planters and the Shipsarriving there and to commit other outrages and disorders as in the lateRebellion. "[914]

This universal distress created a strong sentiment throughout the colonyin favor of governmental restriction upon the planting of tobacco. Unless something were done to limit the annual crop, prices wouldcontinue to decline. Many merchants, who had bought up large quantitiesof tobacco in England with the expectation that its value wouldeventually rise, "fell to insinuate with the easiest sort People howadvantageous it would bee ... If an Act of Assembly could be procured tocease planting tobacco for one whole year". [915] When, in the spring of1682, it became apparent that another large crop must be expected, analmost universal demand arose for the immediate convening of theAssembly for the passage of a law of cessation. 

The Councillors, although themselves in favor of some restraint upon thehuge output, advised the aged Deputy-Governor not to consent to asession at this juncture. [916] But Chicheley, persuaded, it was claimed, by the insistent arguments of Major Beverley, yielded to the desires ofthe people, and upon his own responsibility, issued writs summoning theBurgesses to convene at Jamestown, April 18, 1682. [917] Five days beforethe date of meeting, however, a letter arrived from the King, expresslyforbidding an Assembly until November the tenth, when, it was hoped, Lord Culpeper would have returned to his government. [918] The letteralso informed the Deputy-Governor that two companies of troops that hadremained in Virginia ever since the Rebellion, could no longer bemaintained at the expense of the royal Exchequer. Since many of theBurgesses were already on their way to Jamestown, Sir Henry decided tohold a brief session, in order to permit them, if they so desired, tocontinue the companies at the charge of the colony. [919] But heexpressed his determination, in obedience to the King's commands, toforbid the consideration of any other matter whatsoever. 

The Burgesses met "big with expectation to enact a Cessation". [920] Theappeals of their constituents and the smart of their own purses madethem desperately resolute to give the country relief from the presentdepressing conditions. When they learned that after all their sessionwas to be in vain, and that they were to be allowed to vote only on thematter of continuing the companies, they were deeply concerned andangered. Addressing the Deputy Governor, they declared themselvesoverwhelmed with grief at the expectation of adjournment. They had, fromall parts of the drooping country, passionately wended their way toJamestown, to attend this Assembly, upon which the "last expiringhopes" of the "miserably indigent poor Country" were reposed. Shouldthey be compelled to return to their homes, having accomplished nothing, the people would be struck with amazement, "like an unexpected deathwound". [921]

The Deputy Governor, not daring to disobey the King, ignored theirappeal, and bade them decide without delay whether or not they wouldcontinue the two companies. But the Burgesses would give no definiteanswer upon this matter, hoping by a policy of delay to win, in the end, Chicheley's consent to the cessation. After seven days of fruitlessbickering Sir Henry, in anger at their obstinacy, prorogued the Assemblyto November the tenth. [922] Before their dismissal, however, theBurgesses, in order to show that they had not been remiss in endeavoringto secure relief for the people, voted that the journal of theirproceedings should be read publicly in every county. 

Nor had they misjudged the desperate humor of the people. When it becameknown throughout the colony that the Assembly had done nothing torestrict the planting of tobacco, the anger of the poor planters couldnot be restrained. Some bold spirits proposed that the people shouldassemble in various parts of the country, and, in defiance of law andorder, cut to pieces the tobacco then in the fields. If the King wouldnot permit a cessation by law, they would bring about a cessation byforce. A few days after the close of the Assembly, parties of men inGloucester began the work of destruction. It required but littleexertion to ruin the tender plants, and the rioters, passing fromplantation to plantation, in an incredibly short time accomplishedenormous havoc. Many men, filled with the contagion, cut up their owntobacco, and then joined the mob in the destruction of the crops oftheir neighbors. [923]

As soon as the news of this strange insurrection reached Jamestown, Chicheley dispatched Colonel Kemp to Gloucester with directions tomuster the militia and to restore order by force of arms. This officer, with a troop of horse, fell upon one party of plant-cutters, andcaptured twenty-two of their number. "Two of the principal andincorrigible rogues" he held for trial, but "the rest submitting andgiving assurances of their quiet and peacable behavior wereremitted". [924] Other parties, intimidated by these vigorous measures, dispersed, and soon peace was restored throughout all Gloucester. Butnow news reached the Deputy-Governor "that the next adjacent county, being new Kent, was lately broke forth, committing the like spoyles onplants". And no sooner had the troops suppressed the rioters here thanthe disorders spread to Middlesex and other counties. It becamenecessary to issue orders to the commanders of the militia in eachcounty to keep parties of horse in continual motion, to prevent thedesigns of the plant-cutters and arrest their leaders. [925] And then therioters, who had at first carried on their work in the open day, "wentin great companys by night, destroying and pulling up whole fields oftobacco after it was well grown". [926] Not until August were thedisorders finally suppressed. 

These troubles, coming so soon after Bacon's Rebellion, caused greatapprehension, both to the colonial government and to the Privy Council. "I know, " wrote Secretary Spencer, "the necessities of the inhabitantsto be such ... Their low estate makes them desperate.... If they goeforward the only destroying Tobacco plants will not satiate theirrebellious appatites who, if they increase and find the strength oftheir own arms, will not bound themselves. "[927] And, although theactual rioters were "inconsiderable people", yet it was thought they hadbeen instigated by men of position and wealth. [928]

Grave suspicion rested upon Major Robert Beverley. [929] It had been theimportunities of "the over-active Clerk" that had persuaded Chicheley, against the advice of the Council, to convene the Assembly. It was hethat had been the most industrious advocate of a cessation, that hadfomented the disputes in the Assembly, that had most strenuouslyopposed adjournment. And it was he, the Council believed, that had"instilled into the multitude ... The right of making a Cessation bycutting up Plants". [930] Moreover, they thought it not improbable thathe would lead the people into a new insurrection. The rabble regardedhim with veneration and love. His activity in suppressing the Rebellionand his opposition to the county grievances of 1677 had been forgotten, and they saw in him now only the defender of the poor and helpless. Werehe to assume the rôle of a Bacon and place himself at the head of thecommons, he might easily make himself master of the colony. Althoughthere was no evidence against him, "but only rudeness and sauciness", itwas thought advisable to render him powerless to accomplish harm, byplacing him under arrest. [931] He was taken without resistance byMajor-General Smith, "though to his own great loss of 2 or 300 pounds, by the Rabbles cutting up his Tobacco plants within two days after outof Spight". [932]

Beverley was kept in strict confinement on board an English ship, the_Duke of York_, where for the time, he was safe from rescue by thepeople. But so fearful was the Council that he might plot for a generalinsurrection, that they issued orders forbidding him to send or toreceive letters, and permitting him to speak only in the presence of thecaptain of the ship. [933] Even these harsh measures did not reassurethem, and it was decided to send him to the Eastern Shore, where thepeople were most loyal to the government, and where rescue would beimpossible. [934] As preparations were being made to effect his transfer, he escaped from the custody of the sheriff, and returned to his home inMiddlesex. But he was soon recaptured, and conveyed to Northampton. Here, despite all the efforts of his friends and his own violentprotests, he was kept in confinement for months. In the fall he appliedfor a writ of habeas corpus, but this was denied him under the pretextthat the whole matter had been referred to the King, and was no longerwithin the jurisdiction of the Deputy-Governor and Council. [935] Since, however, all fear of a rebellion was now passed, he was permitted, upongiving bail to the sum of £2, 000, to return to his home. But he wasstill restricted to the counties of Middlesex and Gloucester, wasdeclared ineligible to public office and was forbidden to plead as anattorney in any colonial court. [936]

When the Privy Council learned of the plant-cutting in Virginia, theyordered Lord Culpeper "to repair to the Government with all possiblespeed, in order to find out, by the strictest enquiry, the abbetors andinstruments of this commotion". And since they too were fearful of a newinsurrection, they gave directions "that some person who shall be foundmost faulty may be forthwith punished". [937] "After which, " the PrivyCouncil advised, "and not before the Governor may be directed toconsider of and propose, with the advice of the Council and theAssembly, ... Some temperament in relation to the Planting of Tobaccoand raising the price of that commodity. "[938]

Culpeper left England in October, 1682, upon "the Mermaid frigat", and, after a tedious and dangerous voyage of eleven weeks, arrived safely inVirginia. He was resolved that the persons responsible for theplant-cutting should be brought immediately to trial, and punished withthe utmost rigor of the law. The strictest inquiry was made into theconduct of Major Beverley, and had there been evidence sufficient toconvict him, the unfortunate Clerk would undoubtedly have suffered deathupon the gallows. But since only the most trivial offenses could beadduced against him, Culpeper was forced to turn elsewhere for thevictims demanded by the English government. 

So the prosecution was now directed against some of the actualplant-cutters. In this, however, Culpeper found himself greatlyembarrassed by Chicheley's previous treatment of the matter. TheDeputy-Governor had, some months before, issued pardons to many of thechief offenders, and had permitted the others to give bail, thustreating their crime as "Ryot and noe more", and making the affair seem"as slight as possible to the people". [939] But Culpeper, despite thisaction of Sir Henry, ordered the arrest of four of the most notoriousplant-cutters and charged them with high treason. Their trial createdgreat excitement throughout the colony, but "despite the high words andthreats" of the rabble, three of them were convicted. Two wereexecuted--Somerset Davies at Jamestown, and Black Austin "before theCourt-house in Glocester county, where the Insurrection first brokeout". [940] The third was pardoned by the Governor. "Hee was extremelyyoung, " Culpeper wrote, "not past 19, meerely drawn in and verypenitent, and therefore ... I thought fit to mingle mercy with Justiceand Repreeved him ... To the end the whole country might be convincedthat there was no other motive in the thing but purely to maintainGovernment. "[941]

But although Culpeper was thus vigorous in punishing the disorders ofthe poor people, he did nothing to remove the cause of theirturbulence--the low price of tobacco. By an order in Council of June 17, 1682, he had been directed to grant a cessation, should it seemexpedient, and had been given a letter from Secretary Jenkins to LordBaltimore, requiring the coöperation of Maryland. [942] But, uponfinding the colony in peace and quiet, and the Assembly busy with otherconcerns, he "took advantage thereof", and kept secret this unexpectedconcession. Culpeper pretended to believe that the desired cessationwould be of no real benefit to the planters, but it is clear that he wasconsciously betraying the colony to the greed of the royalExchequer. [943] "I soe encouraged the planting of tobacco, " he reportedto the Privy Council, "that if the season continue to be favorable ... There will bee a greater cropp by far than ever grew since its firstseating. And I am confident that Customs next year from thence will be£50, 000 more than ever heretofore in any one year. "[944] Immediatelyafter, he declared that he well knew "that the great Cropp then in handwould most certainly bring that place into the utmost exigenciesagain", and he promised to be prepared to quell the disturbances thatwould result. [945]

Before Lord Culpeper left England an order had been delivered to him"commanding that noe Governour of his Majesty's Plantations, doe comeinto England from his Government", without first obtaining leave fromthe King. [946] But so loath was he to remain long in Virginia, that assoon as he had dispatched the business of the April court, he once moreset sail for England. "I judged it a proper time, " he said, "to make astep home this easy quiet year, not out of any fondness to bee inEngland, ... But for the King's service only. "[947]

But Charles and the Privy Council were weary of Culpeper's neglect ofduty. They decided to rid themselves of so untrustworthy an officer andto appoint in his place a man that would remain in the colony and carryout their wishes and policies. An inquisition was held upon his conduct, and his letters patent as Governor-General were declared void. [948] Onthe 28th of September, 1683, a commission as Lieutenant- andGovernor-General of Virginia was granted to Lord Howard ofEffingham. [949]

Few British colonial Governors are less deserving of respect than ThomasLord Culpeper. He was insensible of any obligation to guard the welfareof the people of Virginia, and was negligent in executing the commandsof the King. He seems to have regarded his office only as an easy meansof securing a large income, and he was untiring in his efforts to extortmoney from the exhausted and impoverished colony. Sir William Berkeley'ssalary as Governor had been £1, 000, but Culpeper demanded and receivedno less than £2, 000. [950] In addition, he was allowed £150 a year inlieu of a residence, received pay as captain of infantry and claimedlarge sums under the provisions of the Arlington-Culpeper grant. 

Nor did he scruple to resort to open fraud in satisfying his greed. There were, in 1680, two companies remaining in Virginia of the troopssent over to suppress Bacon's Rebellion. Having received no pay for manymonths, the soldiers were discontented and mutinous. [951] The PrivyCouncil entrusted to Culpeper, upon his first departure for the colony, money to satisfy them, and to compensate the householders with whom theyhad been quartered. [952] At this period, as always in the seventeenthcentury, there was a great scarcity of specie in Virginia. But therecirculated, usually by weight, various foreign coins, the most common ofwhich was the Spanish piece of eight, about equal in value to fiveshillings in English money. My Lord, upon his arrival, industriouslybought up all the worn coins he could secure, arbitrarily proclaimedthem legal tender at the ratio of six shillings to one piece of eight, and then paid the soldiers and the landlords. This ingenious trickprobably netted him over £1, 000. Later he restored the ratio to five toone, so that he would lose nothing when his own salary became due. Ofsuch stuff were some of the Virginia colonial governors. [953]

But Culpeper's many defects were not wholly unfortunate for the colony, for they rendered him unfit to carry out the designs of the King. Hisfrequent absences from his government made it impossible for him tobecome thoroughly acquainted with conditions in the colony, or to bindthe wealthy to him by a judicious use of the patronage. He was too weak, too careless to pursue a long continued attack upon the establishedprivileges of the people. 

It boded ill, therefore, for Virginia, when he was removed, and acommission granted to Lord Howard. The new Governor was well fitted forthe task of oppression and coercion. Unscrupulous, deceitful, overbearing, resentful, persistent, he proved a dangerous foeto the representative institutions of the colony, and an able defenderof royal prerogative. Had he not encountered throughout his entireadministration, the united and determined resistance of the Burgesses, he might have overthrown all constitutional government. Well it was forVirginia that at this moment of imminent danger, the Burgesses shouldhave been so conscious of their duty and so resolute in executing it. They were still, as in most periods of colonial history, men of highsocial position, but they represented, not their own class, but theentire colony. And they were ever watchful to guard the interests of thecommons. 

Effingham took the oath of office in England, October 24, 1683, [954] anda few months later sailed for the colony. [955] No sooner had he set footin Virginia than the struggle with the Burgesses began. The session ofAssembly of April, 1684, was filled with their bitter disputes. 

Consternation reigned in the House when Lord Howard produced aninstruction from the King forbidding appeals from the inferior courts tothe Assembly. [956] As early as October, 1678, Colonel Francis Morysonhad advised the Privy Council to abolish the judicial powers of theAssembly, claiming that they were the source of the great influence and"arrogancy" of that body. [957] Their Lordships did not awaken at once tothe importance of this matter, but before long they became convincedthat Moryson was right. Accordingly Lord Culpeper, in his commission of1682, was directed to procure the immediate repeal of all laws "allowingappeals to the Assembly". [958] But Culpeper, interested only in securingmoney from the Burgesses, failed to put this instruction into operation. "As to what concerns Appeals, " he declared, "I have never once permittedany one to come to the Assembly, soe that the thing is in effect done. But having some thoughts of getting a Revenue Bill to pass, I wasunwilling actually to repeal ye Laws relating thereunto till the nextsession of Assembly should be over, well knowing how infinitely it wouldtrouble them. "[959]

But Effingham had no such scruples, and told the Burgesses plainly thecommands he bore from the King. [960] The House, in great dismay, requested the Governor and the Council to join them in an address to hisMajesty, imploring him to restore a privilege which had so long beenenjoyed "according to ye Laws and antient Practice of theCountry". [961] But Lord Howard replied coldly, "It is what I can in noeparte admitt of, his Majesty haveing been pleased by his Royalinstruccons to direct & command that noe appeales be open to the GeneralAssembly. "[962]

Nor did the Assembly ever regain this important power. As late as 1691we find the agent of the Burgesses in England asking in vain for therestoration of the right of appeals. [963] The change threw into thehands of the Governor and Council extraordinary power over the judiciaryof the colony. The county justices, who sat in the lower courts, werethe appointees of the Governor, and could not effectually resist hiswill. Moreover, as appeals lay from them to the General Court, they werepowerless before the decisions of the superior tribunal. Thus thejudiciary of the colony lost its only democratic feature. 

The Burgesses, undismayed by their defeat in this matter, at this samesession entered a vigorous protest against the King's right to annulacts of Assembly. During Berkeley's administration his Majesty hadseldom exercised this power, but of late many acts had been repealed byproclamation without the consent or knowledge of the Assembly. This, theBurgesses claimed, was an unwarranted infringement upon the privilegesgranted them "by sundry Comissions, Letters and Instructions", that wasmost destructive of their cherished liberties and rights. And theydemanded that henceforth their statutes should have the force of lawuntil they had been "Repealed by the same Authority of GenerallAssembly". [964] But they received no encouragement from the Governor. What you ask, he told them, "is soe great an entrenchment upon ye Royallauthority that I cannot but wonder you would offer at it". [965]

Thereupon the House determined to appeal directly to the King, petitioning him not only to give up the right of repealing laws byproclamation, but to permit the continuation of appeals to the Assembly. Since the Governor refused to transmit their address to his Majesty, they forwarded copies to Secretary Jenkins by two of their ownmembers--Thomas Milner and William Sherwood. [966]

This address received scant consideration from the King and the PrivyCouncil. "Whereas, " James II wrote Effingham in October, 1685, "it hathbeen represented unto us by our Committee for Trade and Plantations, that they have received from some unknown persons a paper entitled anaddress and supplication of the General Assembly of Virginia ... Whichyou had refused to recommend as being unfit to be presented.... Weecannot but approve of your proceedings.... And wee doe further directyou to discountenance such undue practices for the future as alsoe theContrivers and Promoters thereof. "[967] For their activity in thismatter Sherwood and Milner "in ye following year were both turned out ofall imployments to their great damage and disgrace". [968]

In the spring of 1685 Effingham received notification from the PrivyCouncil of the death of Charles II and the accession of the Duke of Yorkas James II. [969] He replied a few days later, "I have, with thegreatest solemnity this place is capable of proclaimed his Majesty KingJames II in all the considerable places of this colony, where the greatAcclamations and Prayers of the People gave a universal Testimony oftheir Obedience. "[970] Despite these outward manifestations of joy, thepeople were by no means pleased to have a Roman Catholic monarch uponthe English throne. When news reached Virginia that the Duke of Monmouthwas in open rebellion, and had gained important successes over hisMajesty's forces, there was grave danger that the commons of the colonymight espouse his cause. [971] Many were so emboldened, wrote Effingham, "that their tongues ran at large and demonstrated the wickedness oftheir hearts, till I secured some and deterred others from spreadingsuch false reports by my Proclamation". [972] The defeat and executionof the Duke of Monmouth for a time ended all thought of resistance tothe King. 

But Effingham found the people sullen and discontented and the Burgessesmore stubborn than ever. The session of Assembly of 1685 was, perhaps, the most stormy ever held in Virginia. The House made a strenuous andsuccessful resistance to a vigorous attempt to deprive it of its controlover taxation. In 1662, when the Assembly was dominated by Sir WilliamBerkeley, an act had been passed empowering the Governor and Council tolevy annually for three years a tax of not more than twenty pounds oftobacco per poll. [973] In 1680 the Council had requested Lord Culpeperto represent to the King the disadvantages of leaving taxation entirelyin the hands of the Assembly, hoping that his Majesty would byproclamation revive the law of 1662. [974] The greatest item of expenseto the government, they argued, arose from the Assembly itself, "yecharge of which hath been too often found to be twice as much as wouldhave satisfied all publiq dues". [975] The matter was presented to theconsideration of the Burgesses in 1680, but was lost in the committeeroom. [976]

The King and Privy Council, although they approved of the levy by theGovernor and the Council, did not venture to grant them that power byroyal proclamation. They instructed Lord Howard, however, in hiscommission of 1683, to propose for passage in the Assembly a law similarto that of 1662. [977] Accordingly, in 1684, Effingham placed the matterbefore the Burgesses and told them that it was the King's desire thatthey give their consent. But they ignored his message, and the Governorcould not press the matter at that time. In the next session, however, he became more insistent. "I must remind you, " he told the Burgesses, "of what was omitted in ye last Assembly ... That a Law may passewhereby His Majesty's Governor with ye advice of ye Council may beempowered to lay a levy. "[978] But the Burgesses would not yield. "TheHouse, " they replied, "... Do humbly signifye to your Excellency, thatthey can noe waies concede to or comply with that proposition, withoutapparent and signal violation of ye great trust with them reposed. "[979]And when Effingham urged them to reconsider their action, they passed aresolution unanimously refusing to relinquish this their greatestprivilege. 

After the prorogation of the Assembly, Lord Howard wrote home hiscomplaints against the stubborn Burgesses. "Your Lordships, " he said, "will ... Find their total denyal that the Governor and Council shouldhave any power to lay the least Levy to ease the necessity of soefrequent Assemblys.... This was propounded by mee to them before hisMajesty's Instructions came to my hand that I should, ... But nothingwould prevail nor I beleeve will, unless his Majesty's special commandtherein. "[980]

A long and acrimonious quarrel occurred over the quit-rents. Because ofthe lack of specie in the colony, it had always been necessary tocollect this tax, when it was collected at all, in tobacco. In March, 1662, the Assembly had passed a law fixing the rate of payment at twopence a pound, which was then not far from the current price. But thedecline in value of the commodity which had occurred since 1662, hadresulted in a great diminution in the tax. 

In July, 1684, the King wrote Effingham that he had taken over all therights of Arlington and Culpeper to the quit-rents, and announced it hisintention to use them for the support of the Virginia government. Hedirected the Governor to secure the repeal of the law of 1662 and toforbid all payments in tobacco. "You must ... Impower, " he wrote, "theOfficers of our Revenue to collect (them) ... According to yereservation of 2s per every hundred acres ... To be paid in specie, thatis in Mony. "[981]

As tobacco sold, in 1684, at a half penny a pound, this order, had itbeen put into operation, would have quadrupled the value of thequit-rents, and increased materially the burdens of the planters. TheBurgesses, in alarm, petitioned the Governor to allow the oldarrangement to continue, declaring that the lack of specie made itimpossible to comply with the King's order. And they refused to repealthe law of March, 1662. 

Displeased at their obstinacy, the King, in August, 1686, nullified thelaw by proclamation. "Being now informed, " he declared, "that severalpersons goe about to impede our Service ... By imposing bad tobacco uponour collectors at the rate of 2d per llb, under pretence of an Act ofAssembly of March 30, 1662, ... Wee have thought fit to Repeal the saidAct. "[982]

Even then the Burgesses resisted. At the session of 1686 they petitionedon behalf of all the freeholders of the colony that the quit-rentsshould be paid as formerly. To make payment in specie, they declared, would not only be ruinous, but utterly impossible. [983] So angered werethey and so determined not to obey, that Effingham found it expedient toconsent to a compromise. It was agreed that the tax should be collectedin tobacco as before, but at the rate of one penny per pound, which, asEffingham said, was not ad valorum. Thus the only result of this longquarrel was to double the value of the quit-rents, and to add greatly tothe burdens of the impoverished and discontented people. [984]

Even more bitter was the contest over the so-called Bill of Ports. Thismeasure was designed to remedy the scattered mode of living in Virginia, by appointing certain places as ports of landing and shipment, andconfining to them all foreign trade. Throughout the seventeenth centuryalmost all shipping was done from private wharves. The country was sointerspersed with rivers, inlets and creeks, deep enough to float thelargest vessels, that ports were entirely unnecessary. Each planterdealt directly with the merchants, receiving English manufactured goodsalmost at his front door, and lading the ships with tobacco from his ownwarehouse. This system, so natural and advantageous, seemed to theEnglish Kings, and even to the colonists, a sign of unhealthfulconditions. More than once attempts had been made to force the peopleto build towns and to discontinue the desultory plantation trade. 

In 1679, Culpeper was ordered to propose a law in the Assembly requiringthe erection of towns on each great river, to which all foreign tradeshould be confined. Accordingly, in 1680, a Bill of Ports was passed. "Wee are now grown sensible, " wrote Secretary Spencer, "that our presentnecessities, and too much to be doubted future miseries, are muchheightened by our wild and rambling way of living, therefore aredesirous of cohabitation, in order whereunto in ye late Assembly an Actwas made appointing a town in every County, where all Goods imported areto be landed, and all Goods exported to be shipt off. And if this takeseffect, as its hoped it may, Virginia will then go forward which of lateyears hath made a retrograde motion. "[985]

But this attempt ended in dismal failure. In 1681, when the shipmasterscame to the appointed ports, they found that no shelter had beenconstructed for their goods. Thinking the law nullified, or not yet inoperation, they traded as usual from private wharves. For this breach ofthe law, some of them were prosecuted in the colonial courts, to theirown great loss and to the inconvenience of many of the planters. [986]Loud wrangling and bitter animosities resulted throughout the colony, and at length the King was compelled to suspend the law. [987]

In the Assembly of 1685 it was proposed to enact another Bill of Ports. Accordingly an act was drafted in the House of Burgesses and, in duetime, sent up for the approval of the Council. The upper house, aftermaking several alterations, consented to the bill and returned it to theBurgesses. The latter agreed to most of the changes, but struck out aclause restricting the towns to two upon each river, and added anamendment permitting one port to a county. [988] The Council in turnyielded, but inserted a new clause, "That there should bee ffeesascertained on Goods exported and imported for the support of thoseOfficers which should bee obliged to reside in those Ports". [989] As"there was noe room in ye margint to write ye alteration ... It waswrote in a piece of paper and affixt to ye Act". [990] When the bill cameback to the House, Major Robert Beverley, who was again the clerk of theAssembly, acting it would seem upon his own initiative, tore off thepaper containing this amendment. The bill then came before the Houseapparently assented to without change and was returned by them for thesignature of the Governor and the Councillors. Neither Effingham nor anyof the Council noticed the omission, and thinking their amendment hadbeen accepted, signed the bill. [991] Thereupon it was engrossed, andsent up for the final signature of the Governor. But Effingham inreading the engrossed copy, discovered the omission, and refused toaffix his name to the bill, claiming that it "was not engrost asassented to" by him and the Council. [992] "To which, " wrote theGovernor, "they sent mee word that the Bill could admit of noealteration or amendment after it was attested by the Clerk of theGeneral Assembly as assented to, and that it had by that the force of aLaw.... I sent them word again that though any bill was assented to bymee and the Council, yet if I should afterwards perseive it would proveprejudicial ... I had power to refuse the signing of it by vertue of HisMajesty's negative voice.... But all would not persuade them out oftheir obstinacy, nay tho' I offered to lay that Bill aside till HisMajesty's pleasure should bee known therein; And to sign all theothers.... But nothing would please them but Invading, if notdestroying, His Majesty's Prerogative. " The Burgesses declared that theydid not contest the Governor's right to the veto, but contended thatwhen once he signed a bill, "it could not faile of having ye force of aLaw". [993] Effingham, they complained, was claiming a "double negativeVoice". So angry did they become that they refused to apportion the levyfor defraying the public charges, and after many days of bittercontention the Governor was forced to prorogue them. 

"I did not disolve them, " he wrote the Privy Council, "for thesereasons. Because if his Majesty shall think fitt to have them dissolved, it will bee soe great a rebuke to them, when done by his Majesty'sspecial command, that I hope it will deter them for the future to beesoe obstinate and peevish. "[994] Accordingly, in August, 1686, the Kingwrote the Governor, "Whereas, we have been informed of ye irregular andtumultuous proceedings of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, at theirlate meeting, the members thereof having ... Presumed so far as to raisecontests touching ye power of ye Negative Voice ... Which wee cannotattribute to any other Cause then the disaffected & unquiet Dispositionsof those Members.... Wee have thought fitt hereby as a mark of ourdispleasure ... To Charge ... You forthwith to Dissolve the presentAssembly. "[995]

When this order reached Virginia the Assembly was again in session. "After I had passed the Acts, " wrote Effingham, "I ordered His Majesty'sLetter to bee publickly read to them, and then Dissolved them ... Andtold them they were the first Assembly which had been soe dissolved andI hoped they would bee the last that should deserve it. I ordered copiesof his Majesty's Letter to bee sent to the several County-Courts, thatall the Inhabitants might know how displeasing such proceedings were tohis Majesty. "[996] "And now, " he added, "the public debts being paid, ... I shall not for the future have soe frequent Assemblys. "[997]

More damaging to the Burgesses than this rebuke was the loss of theright to elect their own clerk. "I was severely angry with their Clerk, "declared Effingham, "that he durst omit ye least clause, especially soematerial an one ... I sent to the Assembly to make him an example forit, But they rather maintained him. "[998] Some months later the Kingsent orders that Beverley be tried for defacing the records and that hebe once more deprived of all offices. Probably because of his greatpopularity, Beverley was never brought to trial, but he was forced torelinquish his lucrative governmental posts. [999] In May, 1686, NicholasSpencer wrote the Committee of Trade and Plantations, advocating theappointment of the clerk by the Governor. "I ... Beg leave to present, "he said, "how necessary it is ... That the clerk of the House ... Beecommissionated by his Majesty's Governour ... And that his salary beappointed unto him out of his Majesty's revenue. This will take off hisdependency on his great masters the House of Burgesses, and leave noeroom for designed omissions. "[1000] Nothing loath, the King, in August, 1686, wrote Lord Howard, "Wee ... Require you ... Upon the Convening ofthe Assembly to appoint a fit person to execute the Office of Clerk ofthe House of Burgesses, & not to permit upon any pretense whatsoever anyother person to execute ye said Office but such as shall bee soe chosenby you. "[1001]

Accordingly, at the session of April, 1688, the Governor, with theapprobation of the Council, appointed Captain Francis Page as clerk ofthe House. [1002] The Burgesses could but yield, but they told Effinghamthat the clerk was still their servant and ought to take the usual oathof secrecy. "I do declare, " replied the Governor, "it was never myintention nor my desire that the Clerk should be as a spy upon yourActions and to declare to me your private Debates. " It was thereforeagreed that he should take the following oath: "You shall keep secretall private Debates of the said House of Burgesses. "[1003] Despite this, it was quite evident that the House was no longer to be master of itsown clerk, and that he was to be in the future, to some extent at least, an emissary of the enemy seated in their midst. 

The resolute and vigilant defense of the constitutional rights ofVirginia made by the House in this the critical period of her history isdeserving of the highest praise, because it was made in the face ofvigorous personal attacks by Effingham upon the most active of themembers. Every Burgess that voted against the measures proposed by theKing or advocated by his Governor, exposed himself not only to removalfrom office, but to active persecution. As we have seen, Mr. WilliamSherwood and Colonel Thomas Milner, for forwarding to the Privy Councilthe address of the Burgesses in 1684, had been dismissed fromoffice. [1004] "In ye year 1686 Mr. Arthur Allen & Mr. John Smith, whowere Burgesses in ye year 1685, were turned out of all imployment Civill& Military to Mr. Allen's great damage, he being a surveyor of land atthat tyme. "[1005] I have displaced Allen, wrote Effingham, because hewas "a great promoter of those differences between mee and the Assemblyconcerning the King's negative Voice ... As not thinking it fitt thatthose who are peevishly opposite to his Majesty's interest should haveany advantage by his favor". [1006] "In the year 1688 Mr. WilliamAnderson, a member of ye Assembly in that year was soon after theAssembly by the Governor's order and Command put in ye Common goale andthere detained 7 months, without Tryal, though often prayed for, andseveral courts past in ye time of his imprisonment. Nor could he obtainye benefit of habeas corpus upon his humble petition.... Mr. CharlesScarburgh, a member of that Assembly, alsoe was, soon after ye Assembly, turned out of all imployment and as a mark of his Lordship'sdispleasure, a command was sent to ye clerk of ye county to raze hisname out of ye records as a Justice of Peace. "[1007] "From whence, " itwas declared, "the people conclude these severities are inflicted ratheras a terrour to others than for any personall crimes of their owne, andis of such ruinous consequence that either the public or particularinterests must fall, for if none oppose, the country must languish underthe severity of the government, or fly into a mutiny to save themselvesfrom starving. If any do appear more zealous in prosecuting thecountries complaints they know what to expect. It being observable thatnone has been thus punisht but those who were forward in the assembly tooppose the encroachments on the people, and promote the complaint toEngland, being out of hope of relief on the place. "[1008]

One is inclined to ask, when considering the incessant quarrels of theGovernor and the Burgesses, why Lord Howard was less successful thanGovernor Berkeley had been in gaining an ascendency over the Assembly. During the Restoration Period the Burgesses had worked in entire harmonywith Sir William, even when he advocated the oppressive measures thatwere so instrumental in bringing on Bacon's Rebellion. Effingham, on theother hand, found himself continually embroiled with the Assemblymen, and unable to force them into submission even with rebukes andpersecution. 

The explanation must be sought partly in the different characters of thetwo Governors. Berkeley was an abler man than Lord Howard, more tactful, more capable of utilizing the weapons at hand. His method ofoverwhelming the legislators with favors was more effective in winningtheir support than intimidation and threats. Moreover, Sir William, himself a Virginian by his long residence in the colony, carried outonly his own policies, and by methods that did not openly assail thecharter rights of the people. Effingham, on the other hand, was theinstrument of the English King and his Councillors in an assault uponrepresentative government in the colony. It was but natural that allclasses, even the wealthy planters, should resist him with stubbornresolution. Nor was it possible for Effingham to control, as Sir Williamhad done, the elections of Burgesses. The opposition of many sheriffs, whose duty it was to preside at the polls, to the administration, thegreater vigilance of the House, and the independent spirit of thecommons conspired to render the returns more accurate and the House moreresponsive to the will of the people. Finally, the poor planters foundnow, what they had lacked during the Restoration Period, cultured andable men to represent them in the Assembly. Without the aggressiveleadership of Major Robert Beverley, Thomas Milner, Colonel Ballard, andother prominent planters, the cause of the people might have been lost. 

Even in the Council the commons had one staunch friend--Colonel PhilipLudwell. This restless man, who was unable to work in harmony with anyGovernor save Sir William Berkeley, sympathized with his old friends ofthe Green Spring faction in their resistance to Effingham. As early as1684 he had aroused the Governor's suspicion by arguing in Council "forthe undutiful Address which was sent to his Majesty", [1009] and duringthe sessions of 1685 and 1686 it was thought that he was "an Instrumentin Abbetting and formenting those Disputes & Exceptions the Assembly soeinsisted on". [1010]

Soon after, the Governor's distrust was heightened by two acts of favorshown by Ludwell to leaders of the opposition in the House of Burgesses. When ordered to oust Major Allen from his surveyor's place, he gave itto "Major Swan, one altogether as troublesom as the other & that onlyfor the use of Allen". Upon receiving information that the King haddeclared Major Beverley "uncapable of any public imployment ... Heepresently gives his Surveyor's place, the best in the Country to hisSon". [1011] In the spring of 1686 the Governor made one last attempt towin Ludwell over from the people's cause. "I did, " he wrote, "on thedeath of Colonel Bridger ... Give him a collector's place, in hopes tohave gained him by it. "[1012] But Ludwell, unaffected by this attemptedbribery, continued his active opposition to the arbitrary and illegalconduct of the Governor. At last, during the session of Assembly of1686, there occurred an open breach. "His Lordship flew into a greatrage and told ... Ludwell he had formerly made remarks upon him, andthat if he did not look the better to himself he should shortly suspendhim from the Council. "[1013] Early in 1687 this threat was put intoeffect, [1014] and the troublesome Councillor was for the second timedeprived of his seat. But this persecution, which the people believed tobe directed against Ludwell for his support of their cause, brought himinto great popularity throughout the colony and made him theacknowledged leader of the opposition to the administration. In theelections for the Assembly of 1688 he was chosen by the freeholders ofJames City county to represent them in the House of Burgesses. [1015]Effingham, however, would not allow him to take his seat, producing aclause from his commission which forbade suspended Councillors to becomemembers of the Assembly. [1016] Despite this exclusion, Ludwell could anddid, by conferences with individual members, influence the actions ofthe House and lead them in their fight against the Governor. 

The most important task that confronted the Burgesses when theyassembled in 1688 was to call the Governor to account for manyburdensome fees which he had imposed upon the people by executive order. First in importance was "a fee of 200 pounds of tobacco for the Sealaffixed to Patents & other public instruments". [1017] This the Burgessesconsidered a tax imposed without the authority or consent of theAssembly, and consequently destructive of the most cherished rights ofthe people. Moreover, it had, they claimed, deterred many from using theseal and had greatly impeded the taking up of land. They also protestedagainst a fee demanded by the "Master of the Escheat Office of £5 or1000lbs tobacco", and to one of thirty pounds of tobacco required by theSecretary for recording surveys of land. [1018] "This House, " theydeclared, "upon Examination of the many grievous Complaints ... (have)been fully convinced and made sensible that many unlawful andunwarrantable fees and other dutyes have been, under colour of hisMajesty's Royal authority, unjustly imposed ... & that divers newunlawful, unpresidented & very burthensom and grievous wayes & deviseshave been of late made use of to the great impoverishing Vexing andutter undoeing of many of his Majesties Subjects of this hisDominion. "[1019]

The Burgesses were also deeply concerned at an instance of theunwarrantable use of the royal prerogative. In 1680 an act had beenpassed concerning attorneys. Two years later, before the act hadreceived the royal assent, it had been repealed by the Assembly. Laterthe King, by proclamation, had made void the act of 1682, and theGovernor had insisted that this revived the law of 1680. Against this, the Burgesses in 1688 entered a vigorous protest. "A Law, " theydeclared, "may as well Receive its beginning by proclamation as suchrevivall.... Some Governor may be sent to Govern us who under thepretense of the liberty he hath to construe prerogative and stretch itas far as he pleaseth may by proclamation Revive all the Lawes that fortheir great Inconveniences to the Country have been Repeal'd throughforty years since. "[1020]

The Burgesses drew up a long paper, setting forth their many grievances, with the intention of presenting it to the Governor. They first, however, requested the Council to join them in their demand for redress. This the Council with some sharpness, refused to do. We areapprehensive, they replied, that the grievances "proceed from petulenttempers of private persons and that which inclines us the rather so totake them is from the bitterness of the Expressions". [1021] Judging theGovernor's temper from this reply of the Councillors, the Burgessesrelinquished hope of redress from the executive and determined topetition the King himself. An humble address was drawn up, entrusted toColonel Philip Ludwell and delivered by him at Windsor, in September, 1688, into the hands of James II. Before it could be considered, however, William of Orange had landed in England and King James had beenoverthrown. [1022]

In the meanwhile a crisis in Virginia had been approaching rapidly. Thepeople felt that their religion, as well as their liberties, was menacedby the rule of James II. In 1685, the King had directed Effingham "topermit a Liberty of Conscience to all persons", that would "beecontented with a quiet and peaceable enjoyment of it, not giving offenceor scandal". [1023] The people of Virginia understood well enough thatthis order was dictated, not by considerations of liberality, but byJames' determination to favor the Catholic church. The feeling ofuneasiness was increased when, in 1688, Effingham, declaring it nolonger necessary for the Burgesses to take the oaths of allegiance andsupremacy, admitted a Catholic to the Assembly. [1024]

In October, 1688, James sent word to the Governor of the impendinginvasion of the Prince of Orange and commanded him to place Virginia ina posture of defense. [1025] Immediately the colony was thrown into thewildest excitement, and, for a time, it seemed probable that the peoplewould attempt the expulsion of Effingham. "Unruly and unorderlyspiritts, " the Governor afterwards testified, "laying hold of the motionof affairs, and that under the pretext of religion, ... Betook themselvesto arms. "[1026] Wild rumors spread through the colony that the Papistsof Maryland were conspiring with the Senecas to fall upon Virginia andcut off all Protestants in a new Saint Bartholomew's Eve. [1027] Thefrontiersmen along the upper courses of the Rappahannock and the Potomac"drawing themselves into parties upon their defense", were "ready to flyin the face of ye government. Soe that matters were ... Tending to aRebellion. " However, the news of William's easy victory and the flightof James restored quiet to the colony. On February the nineteenth, 1689, the Privy Council wrote the Governor that William and Mary had ascendedthe throne of England, [1028] and a few weeks later their Majesties wereproclaimed at Jamestown with solemnity and thanksgiving. [1029]

The Glorious Revolution was a victory for liberty even more important toVirginia than to England. It brought to an end those attacks of theEnglish government upon the representative institutions of the colonythat had marked the past ten years. It confirmed to the people therights that had been guaranteed them, through a long series of patentsdating back as far as 1606, and rendered impossible for all time theillegal oppressions of such men as Harvey, Berkeley, Culpeper andEffingham. Other Governors of despotic disposition were yet to ruleVirginia--Nicholson, Andros, Dunmore--but it was impossible for them toresort to the tyrannical methods of some of their predecessors. TheEnglish Revolution had weakened permanently the control of the Britishgovernment over the colony, and consequently the power of the Governor. 

The advance of liberalism which was so greatly accelerated both inEngland and in America by the events of 1688 was halted in the mothercountry in the middle of the eighteenth century. But Virginia and theother colonies were not greatly affected by the reaction upon the otherside of the Atlantic. Here the power of the people grew apace, encountering no serious check, until it came into conflict with thesullen Toryism of George III. Then it was that England sought to stiflethe liberalism of the colonies, and revolution and independenceresulted. 

The changed attitude of the Privy Council towards Virginia was madeimmediately apparent by the careful consideration given the petition ofthe Burgesses. Had James remained upon the throne it is probable thatit, like the address of 1684, would have been treated with neglect andscorn. But William received Ludwell graciously, listened to his plea "onbehalf of the Commons of Virginia", and directed the Committee of Tradeand Plantations to investigate the matter and to see justice done. [1030]

Effingham, who had been called to England upon private business, appeared before the Committee to defend his administration and to refuteLudwell's charges. Despite his efforts, several articles of the petitionwere decided against him, and the most pressing grievances of the peopleredressed. The "Complaint touching the fee of 200lbs of tobacco andcask", it was reported, "imposed by my Lord Howard for affixing theGreat Seal to Patents ... In regard it was not regularly imposed ... Thecommittee agree to move his Majesty the same be discontinued". [1031]Similarly their Lordships declared in favor of abolishing the fee ofthirty pounds of tobacco required for registering surveys. The articletouching the revival of repealed laws by proclamation was referred tothe consideration of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. These officers gave it as their opinion that his Majesty did have theright, by repealing acts of repeal, to revive laws, but the committeeagreed to move the King that the Act of Attorneys should be made void byproclamation. [1032]

This was a signal victory for the Burgesses, but Ludwell, who hadpersonal scores to settle with the Governor, did not let matters drophere. After the lapse of several months he appeared once more before theCommittee with charges against Effingham of misgovernment andoppression. [1033] Referring to the quarrel over the Bill of Ports, in1685, he accused him of exercising "two negative voices". He complainedbitterly of his attacks upon those Burgesses that had opposed him in theAssembly, and of his abuse of the power of suspending Councillors. Themoney arising from fort duties, he said, which had formerly beenaccounted for to the Assembly, had, during Effingham's administration, "been diverted to other uses". The Governor had established new courtsof judicature contrary to the wishes of the people. 

These persistent attacks of Ludwell resulted in another victory, for theCommittee decided that Effingham should no longer rule the colony. Hewas not displaced as Governor-General, but he was commanded to remain inEngland, and to leave the control of the administration to aLieutenant-Governor. This, doubtless, was not unsatisfactory to LordHoward, for he retained a part of his salary and was relieved of all thework and responsibility of his office. The Lieutenant-Governorship wasgiven to Captain Francis Nicholson. [1034]

Thus the colony emerged triumphant from the Critical Period. It is truethe House of Burgesses had lost many privileges--the right to elect itsown clerk, the right to receive judicial appeals, the right to controlall revenues, --but they had retained within their grasp thatall-important power--the levying of general taxes. And they had gainedgreatly in political experience. Long years of watchfulness, ofresistance to encroachments upon their rights, had moulded them into abody that the most cunning executive could neither cajole norintimidate. Unmindful of the anger of Governors, the rebukes of Kings, of personal loss, even of imprisonment, they had upheld the people'srights. And their descendants were to reap the reward of theirfaithfulness. The traditions of ability, probity and heroism establishedby the men of the Critical Period made possible that long and honorablecareer of the House of Burgesses and the important rôle it was to playin winning independence for America. 

FOOTNOTES:

[882] Osg. , Vol. III, pp. 280, 281. 

[883] P. R. O. , CO5-1355-334; McD. , Vol. V, p. 302. 

[884] P. R. O. , CO5-1355-313, 334. 

[885] P. R. O. , CO5-1355-334; McD. , Vol. V, p. 302. 

[886] P. R. O. , CO5-1356; CO391. 2-276, 325, 283 to 285. 

[887] P. R. O. , CO1-43-165. 

[888] Hen. , II, p. 133. 

[889] P. R. O. , CO5-1376; Hen. , Vol. II, p. 466. 

[890] P. R. O. , CO5-1355-372. 

[891] P. R. O. , CO5-1355-375. 

[892] P. R. O. , CO5-1355-375, 376. 

[893] P. R. O. , CO5-1355-378. 

[894] P. R. O. , CO5-1355-385. 

[895] P. R. O. , CO5-1355-384. 

[896] P. R. O. , CO5-1376-265. 

[897] Jour. H. Of B. , 1680, p. 1. 

[898] Jour. H. Of B. , 1680, p. 7. 

[899] Among the Burgesses were Captain William Byrd, Major Swann, Benjamin Harrison, Colonel Ballard, Colonel Mason, Colonel John Page, Colonel Matthew Kemp, William Fitzhugh, Isaac Allerton, John Carter andCaptain Fox. P. R. O. , CO5-1376-321. 

[900] Jour. H. Of B. , 1680, pp. 13, 14. 

[901] Jour. H. Of B. , 1680, p. 27. 

[902] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-125. 

[903] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-125, 126. 

[904] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-265. 

[905] P. R. O. , CO5-1355-361. 

[906] Jour. H. Of B. , 1680, p. 32. 

[907] Jour. H. Of B. , 1680, p. 36. 

[908] P. R. O. , CO5-1355-388 to 394. 

[909] P. R. O. , CO5-1355-380; CO5-1376-286. 

[910] P. R. O. , CO5-1355-396. 

[911] P. R. O. , CO5-1355-408. 

[912] Jour. II. Of B. , April 1682, p. 4. 

[913] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-179. 

[914] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-1, 2. 

[915] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-177. 

[916] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-73. 

[917] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-73, 156; Jour, H. Of B. , April 1682. 

[918] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-11, 12, 68, 72. 

[919] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-8. 

[920] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-68. 

[921] Jour. H. Of B. , April 1682, pp. 4, 5. 

[922] Jour. H. Of B. , April 1682; P. R. O. , CO5-1356-68. 

[923] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-65, 66, 67. 

[924] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-70. 

[925] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-71. 

[926] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-178. 

[927] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-71. 

[928] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-178. 

[929] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-74. 

[930] P. R. O, CO5-1356-74. 

[931] Hen. , Vol. III, p. 543. 

[932] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-156. 

[933] Hen. , Vol. III, p. 544. 

[934] Hen. , Vol. III, p. 546. 

[935] Hen. , Vol. III, pp. 546, 547. 

[936] Hen. , Vol. III, p. 547. 

[937] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-76. 

[938] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-76, 77. 

[939] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-157. 

[940] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-158. 

[941] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-159. 

[942] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-76, 77, 163. 

[943] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-164. 

[944] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-164. 

[945] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-164, 169. 

[946] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-87. 

[947] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-168, 169. 

[948] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-188, 239, 244, 114. 

[949] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-188. 

[950] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-56, 145, 146. 

[951] P. R. O. , CO5-1376-287. 

[952] P. R. O. , CO1-42-152; CO391. 2-276. 

[953] Beverley. 

[954] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-244, 245. 

[955] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-248. 

[956] Jour. H. Of B. , 1684, pp. 23, 24. 

[957] P. R. O. , CO1-42-138, 139. 

[958] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-53. 

[959] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-142. 

[960] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-22. 

[961] Jour. H. Of B. , 1684, p. 37. 

[962] Jour, H. Of B. , 1684, p. 42. 

[963] Justice in Va. , p. 25. 

[964] Jour. H. Of B. , 1684, p. 114. 

[965] Jour. H. Of B. , 1684, p. 159. 

[966] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-299, 301. 

[967] P. R. O. , CO5-1357-58. 

[968] McD. , Vol. VII, p. 88. 

[969] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-316. 

[970] P. R. O, CO5-1356-328. 

[971] P. R. O. , CO5-1357-79, 80, 95, 96; Jour. H. Of B. , 1685, p. 49. 

[972] P. R. O. , CO5-1357-80. 

[973] Hen. , Vol. II, p. 24; P. R. O. , CO5-1376-281. 

[974] P. R. O. , CO5-1376-281. 

[975] P. R. O. , CO5-1376-281; CO5-1356-101. 

[976] P. R. O. , CO5-1376-362. 

[977] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-267. 

[978] Jour. H. Of B. , 1685. 

[979] Jour. H. Of B. , 1685. 

[980] P. R. O. , CO5-1357-85. 

[981] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-282. 

[982] P. R. O. , CO5-1357-113. 

[983] Jour. H. Of B. , 1686, p. 17. 

[984] Jour. H. Of B. , 1686, p. 37. 

[985] P. R. O. , CO5-1355-383. 

[986] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-177. 

[987] P. R. O. , CO5-1356-4. 

[988] P. R. O. , CO5-1407-310, 282. 

[989] P. R. O. , CO5-1357-89. 

[990] P. R. O. , CO5-1407-310. 

[991] P. R. O. , CO5-1357-89. 

[992] P. R. O. , CO5-1357-89. 

[993] Jour. H. Of B. , 1685. 

[994] P. R. O. , CO5-1357-93. 

[995] P. R. O. , CO5-1357-119. 

[996] P. R. O. , CO5-1357-127. 

[997] P. R. O. , CO5-1357-133. 

[998] P. R. O. , CO5-1357-92; McD. , Vol. VII, p. 222. 

[999] Sains. , Vol. XV, p. 30. 

[1000] McD. , Vol. VII, p. 229. 

[1001] P. R. O. , CO5-1357-119. 

[1002] Jour. H. Of B. , 1688, p. 1. 

[1003] Jour. H. Of B. , 1688, p. 17. 

[1004] Sains. , Vol. IV, p. 254. 

[1005] McD. , Vol. VII, p. 26. 

[1006] McD. , Vol. VII, p. 257. Some years later Effingham contradictedthis statement. "They were not dismissed, " he said, "from theirimployments upon account of their proceedings in ye Assembly, but beingJustices of Peace they oppenly opposed the King's authority in namingsheriffs by his Governour alledging that office ought to go bysuccession. "

[1007] McD. , Vol. VII, pp. 437-441. 

[1008] McD. , Vol. VII, pp. 437-441. 

[1009] P. R. O. , CO5-1357-130. 

[1010] CO5-1357-127. 

[1011] P. R. O. , CO5-1357-129. 

[1012] P. R. O. , CO5-1357-130. 

[1013] McD. , Vol. VII, pp. 437-441. 

[1014] Sains. , Vol. IV, p. 226; P. R. O. , CO5-1357-127. 

[1015] McD. , Vol. VII, pp. 437-441; Jour. H. Of B. , 1688, p. 13. 

[1016] P. R. O. , CO5-1355-313; Jour. H. Of B. , 1688, p. 29. 

[1017] P. R. O. , CO5-1357-218. 

[1018] Jour. H. Of B. , 1688, pp. 82, 83. 

[1019] Jour. H. Of B. , 1688, pp. 82, 83. 

[1020] Jour, H. Of B. , 1688, p. 50. 

[1021] Jour. H. Of B. , 1688, p. 116. 

[1022] P. R. O. , CO5-1357-248. 

[1023] P. R. O. , CO5-1357-38, 39. 

[1024] Jour. H. Of B. , 1688, p. 8; McD. , Vol. VII, pp. 437-441. 

[1025] P. R. O. , CO5-1357-229. 

[1026] McD. , Vol. VII, p. 316. 

[1027] McD. , Vol. VII, p. 316. 

[1028] P. R. O. , CO5-1357-236. 

[1029] Sains. , Vol. IV, p. 215. 

[1030] P. R. O. , CO5-1357-247, 248. 

[1031] Sains. , Vol. IV, pp. 233, 234. 

[1032] Sains. , Vol. IV, p. 243. 

[1033] Sains. , Vol. IV, p. 246. 

[1034] Sains. , Vol. IV, p. 254. 

INDEX

_Abigall_, brings contagion, 46. 

Accomac, see also Eastern Shore, 80; Berkeley flees to, 171; expedition against, 176, 177; 182; 184; 186; 195; 197. 

_Adam and Eve_, ship, captures Bacon, 163; 177; 203. 

Adams, Peter, excepted from pardon, 202. 

_Admirall_, ship, 128, 129. 

Allen, Arthur, 251, 253. 

Allerton, Isaac, 229; corrupt bargain of, 230. 

Anderson, William, 257. 

Annelectons, aid in Susquehannock defeat, 160. 

Apachisco, negotiates peace, 26. 

Appomatocks, expedition against, 52. 

Appomattox, river, 21. 

Archer, Gabriel, admitted to Council, tries to establish a parliament, 6; 8; helps depose Smith, 10. 

Argoll, Samuel, 19; enforces laws, 23; captures Pocahontas, 25. 

Arlington, Earl of, grant to of Virginia, 123, 124; yields his rights, 125; 145; 245. 

Arnold, Anthony, excepted from pardon, 202; hanged, 204. 

Assembly, General, attempt to establish, 6; early desire for, 8; describes tyranny of Governors, 24; established, 1619, 36; convenes, 37; legislative powers of, 38; control over taxation, 39; judicial functions of, 40; Council the upper house of, 41; 42; describes Indian war, 51; supports Company, 60; 61; saved, 62; restored, 63; 64; Harvey usurps powers of, 72; 73; refuses tobacco contract, 74; 76; Council summons, 1636, 77; elects West Governor, 78; 79; 86; opposes revival of Company, 88; 91; persecutes Puritans, 92; acknowledges Charles II, 95; defies Parliament, 98; surrenders, 100; 102; Northampton petitions, 104; 105; 106; 107; 108; contest in, 109; elects Berkeley Governor, 110; Berkeley addresses, 111; 112; 115; encourages manufacture, 119; 122; protests to King, 124; 125; 133; 134; Long Assembly, 135; 136; 137; 138; 140; 143; erects forts, 151, 152; hatred of, 153; Berkeley dissolves, 1676, 158, 159; Bacon elected to, 162; 163; Bacon threatens, 168; liberal laws of, 169, 170; Bacon summons, 173; interrupted, 178; 204; supports Berkeley, 206, 207; protest of, 1677, 214; session of October, 1677, 218, 219; session of 1679, 222; rights of attacked, 226; session of 1682, 233; appeals to forbidden, 241, 242; petition of 242, 243; quarrels with Effingham over, taxation, 244, 245; quit-rents, 245, 246; veto power, 246, 247, 248, 249; the clerk, 249, 250. 

Austin, Black, executed, 238. 

Bacon, Nathaniel, the rebel, 123; accuses Burgesses, 133, 134; describes abuses of the rich, 135; Berkeley jealous of, 144; 145; character of, 154; becomes leader of rebels, 155; prepares to attack Indians, 156; attacks Indians, 157; proclaimed a rebel, 158; pursues Susquehannocks, 159; visits Occaneeches, 160; battle with Occaneechees, 161, 162; elected Burgess, 162; captured, 163; pardoned, 164; flees from Jamestown, 165; seizes Jamestown, 166; demands commission, 167; new demands of, 168; secures liberal laws, 169, 170; prepares new Indian expedition, 171; marches against Berkeley, 171; resolves to defy King, 172; forces oaths on prominent men, 173; attacks Pamunkeys, 174, 175; marches on Jamestown, 178, 179; repulses Berkeley's attack, 180; enters Jamestown, 181; burns Jamestown, 182; binds Gloucestermen, 183, 184; death of in October, 1676, 184; 186; 187; executive ability of, 190; 195; 196; 202; 222. 

Bacon, Colonel Nathaniel, 108; cousin of the Rebel, 154; rebels at house of, 185; 189. 

Bacon's Rebellion, see Bacon, 114; 121; interrupts Virginia charter, 126; 127; 135; 136; 139; 144; outbreak of, 155; events of, 155 to 194; collapses, 190; anarchy of, 191; results of, 223. 

Bahama, Gulf of, fleet wrecked in, 9. 

Ballard, Thomas, takes Bacon's oaths, 173; excluded from Council, 216; 229; 252. 

Baltimore, Lord, (Cecilius Calvert) sends colonists to Maryland, 70; 71; 72; 118; prohibits cessation in Maryland, 122; 123; 238. 

Baltimore, Lord, (George Calvert) colony of in Newfoundland, 68; secures Maryland patent, death of, 69. 

Barrow, James, injustice to, 198. 

Beale, Thomas, excepted from pardon, 203. 

Bennett, Richard, invites Puritan preachers, 92; Governor, 103; appeases Northampton, 105; Burgesses rebuke, 106. 

Berkeley, Lord John, 131; 201; 213; attacks King's commissioners, 215. 

Berkeley, Sir William, 12; Governor, 84; character of, 85; just rule of, 86; equalizes taxes, 87; opposes Company, 88; conquers Indians, 90; loyalty of to King, 91; persecutes Puritans, 92; fears assassination, 94; speech of defying Parliament, 96, 97, 98; expedition against, 99; surrenders, 100; terms with Parliament, 101; 103; elected Governor, 1660, 110; speech of, 111; accepts office, 112; letter of to Charles II, 113; 114; becomes changed, 115; opposes Navigation Acts, 120; efforts for cessation, 122; Baltimore angers, 123; fears mutiny, 126, 127; prepares to attack Dutch, 1667, 128, 129; complains of freight rates, 131; controls elections, 133; corrupts Burgesses, 134; retains Long Assembly, 135, 136; controls local government, 137, 138, 139; evidence against partizan, 143; views upon government, 144, 145; sells arms to Indians, 147; recalls army, 151; wants defensive war, 152; quarrels with Bacon, 154; refuses Bacon a commission, 156; pursues Bacon, 157; proclaims Bacon a rebel, 158; dissolves Long Assembly, 158, 159; captures Bacon, 163; pardons Bacon, 164; Bacon escapes from, 165; Bacon seizes, 166; grants commission, 167; yields to Bacon, 168; tries to raise forces, 170; flees to Accomac, 171; rebels attack, 174; captures rebel fleet, 176, 177; captures Jamestown, 178; Bacon marches on, 179; repulsed, 180; flees, 181; sails for Accomac, 182; controls navy, 185; raids of on Western Shore, 186; expedition of to York River, 187, 188, 189, 190; offers Ingram pardon, 191; rebels surrender to, 191, 192; Charles II blames, 195; recalled, 196; illegal seizures of, 197, 198; angry at commissioners, 199, 200; refuses to leave, 201; proclamation of, 202, 203; continues executions, 203, 204; controls Assembly, 205, 206; dread of, 207; Jeffreys' proclamation angers, 209, 210; death of, 211; compared with Effingham, 252. 

Berkeley, Lady, letter of to Moryson, 204; 208; 210; 220. 

Bermuda Hundred, Dale founds, 21; 116. 

Bermudas, _Sea Adventure_ wrecked in, 9. 

Berry, John, King's commissioner, 196; arrives, 199; 200; insulted, 208; returns to England, 215; influence of, 215, 216, 217. 

Beverley, Robert, captures Hansford, 156; invades Gloucester, 187, 188; journals taken from, 213, 214; dismissed from office, 216; 217; 220; continued as Clerk of Assembly, 221; prosecution of, 235, 236, 237; alters bill, 248; Effingham censures, 249; 252; 253. 

_Black George_, Harveys sails in, 79. 

Bland, Gyles, complains of poll tax, 139; leads rebel fleet, 174; 176; captured, 177; 183; excepted from pardon, 202; executed, 203. 

Bland, John, attacks Navigation Acts, 119. 

Blayton, Thomas, excepted from pardon, 202. 

Bowler, Thomas, excepted from pardon, 203. 

Bray, Colonel, excluded from Council, 216; 220. 

Brent, Gyles, pursues Indians, 146, 147; 149; joins Pamunkey expedition, 174; marches against Bacon, 182; his forces flee, 183. 

Brick House, rebel forces at, 193. 

_Bristol_, conferences on board of, 200. 

Bristow, Major, 188, 189. 

Buck, Rev. , preaches at Jamestown, 17; prayer of, 37. 

Burgesses, in first Assembly, 36; how distributed in 1619, 37; 39; 40; 41; coerced by Governor, 42; sympathize with Company, 60; defy Charles I, 63; 64; 74; exempted from arrest, 87; 100; supreame power in Virginia, 1652, 102; 103; 104; 105; contest with Council, 106; dismiss Governor, 107; 108; 109; reassert power, 1660, 110; 114; Berkeley controls elections of, 133; Berkeley corrupts, 134, 135; 136; 137; 145; Bacon elected to, 162; Bacon threatens, 168; frauds in elections of, 205, 206; records of seized, 213, 214; protest of, 214; electoral frauds, 218; elections of in 1679, 222; become more representative of the people, 224; oppose revenue bill, 229, 230, 231; struggle of with Effingham over, taxation, 244, 245; quit-rents, 245, 246; veto power, 246 to 249; clerk, 249, 250. 

Butler, Nathaniel, describes mortality in Virginia, 12; attacks London Company, 56. 

Byrd, William, 229. 

Calvert, Cecilius, see Lord Baltimore. 

Calvert, George, see Lord Baltimore. 

Calvert, Leonard, Governor of Maryland, 70; war with Claiborne, 71. 

Carter, John, 229. 

Carver, William, commands rebel fleet, 174; visits Berkeley, 176; captured and hanged, 177; 183; 222. 

Causie, beats off Indians, 49. 

Cessation, of tobacco planting, attempts to secure, 121, 122, 123; asked, 1682, 232; Burgesses eager for, 233; 238; 239. 

Chanco, reveals Indian plot, 48. 

Charles I, 42; his plans for Virginia, 62; calls Assembly, 1627, 63; 65; 66; grants Maryland charter, 69; 70; asks tobacco contract, 74; angered at Virginians, 78; restores Harvey, 79; 80; forgets Harvey case, 82; 85; Virginians' loyalty pleases, 88; 90; 94; executed, 95; 97; 102; 111. 

Charles II, 40; 85; proclaimed King, 1649, 89; Virginians cling to, 98; 101; 110; reappoints Berkeley, 113; oppresses Virginia, 115; approves Navigation Acts, 117; 119; 120; forbids cessation, 121; blind to disaffection in Virginia, 123; makes Arlington-Culpeper grant, 124; grants new Virginia patent, 126; 140; Bacon's Rebellion alarms, 195; sends commission to Virginia, 196; 199; 200; anger of at Berkeley, 210; 211; angry at Assembly, 214, 215; 224; 225; 226; 227; death of, 243. 

Charles City, county, complains of Berkeley, 136; charges of corruption in, 138; 142; petition from, 153; people of take arms, 154; electoral frauds in, 205; 216. 

Charters:--the royal charter of 1606, 2; 31; provisions of, 34; 57; the royal charter of 1609, Sandys draws up, 8; Governors disregard, 24; 31; gives Company control of colony, 35; the popular charter of 1612, 35; 54; James I attacks, 56, 57; revoked, 59, 60; the proposed charter of 1621, 54; Maryland charter, Baltimore secures, 69: new Virginia charter, 124, 125. 

Cheesman, Major, captured, 186; death of, 187. 

Chesapeake Bay, first fleet enters, 1; 3; Capt. Smith explores, 7; 70; naval war in, 71; Dutch fleet enters, 1667, 128; battle with Dutch in, 1672, 129, 130; 146; 171. 

Chicheley, Sir Henry, commands Indian forces, 1676, 151; acting Governor, 1678, 221; holds fair election, 222; 230; defies Burgesses, 233; 234; 235; 236; 237; 238. 

Chickahominies, peace with, 26; expedition against, 52. 

Chiles, Colonel, 106. 

Claiborne, William, in England, 69; makes war on Maryland, 71; 107. 

Clovell, killed by Indians, 14. 

_Cockatrice_, Marylanders capture, 71. 

Commissions:--commission to investigate Company, 56; unfavorable report, 57: commission in Virginia, 1624, 60; 61; 64; Mandeville commission, for Virginia affairs, 61; abolished, 62; Parliamentary commission, to reduce Virginia, 99; secures surrender, 100; grants favorable terms, 101; establishes new government, 102; taxes Northampton, 104; 105: King's commission of 1676-1677, to receive Virginia grievances, 121, 122; 127; thinks poll tax unjust, 139; 142; hostile to Berkeley, 143; 144; 177; 184; appointment of, 196; Berkeley angry at, 199, 200; conference of with Berkeley, 200, 201; wants King's pardon published, 202; Assembly snubs, 206; leads opposition party, 207; insulted, 208; reports Berkeley's disobedience, 210; receives grievances, 212, 213; seizes journals, 213, 214; report of, 215; Virginia commission to Maryland, to secure cessation, 122. 

Commonwealth of England, 85; 86; defied by Berkeley, 96; sends expedition to Virginia, 99; Virginia surrenders to, 100; 103. 

Commonwealth Period, 42; government of Virginia during, 102; 110; ended, 114; 115; 116. 

Commons of Virginia, see Middle Class. 

Conway, Captain, Dutch take shallop of, 127, 128. 

Council, resident in England, King appoints, 2; warning of, 10; determination of, 31; 34. 

Council of State, of Commonwealth, 95; warns Berkeley, 96; sends expedition to Virginia, 99; 100; 102; 103; letter from, 108. 

Council of Virginia; 1606-1610, great powers of, 2; selections for, 3; discord in, 3, 4; disruption of, 4; deposes Wingfield, 4, 5; tyranny of, 5; reduced to two, 7; abolished, 8; acts to depose Smith, 10; 34; 1610-1619, an advisory body, 17; 1619-1689, part of Assembly, 36; 37; 39; powers of, 41; Indians kill six of, 50; sympathizes with Company, 60; punishes Sharpless, 61; 62; 63; 64; Harvey wishes to restrain, 65; quarrels with Harvey, 67, 68; gets rid of Baltimore, 69; 70; hostile to Maryland, 71; 72; threatens Harvey, 73; 74; 75; arrests Harvey, 76; expels Harvey, 77; revised, 80; 86; 87; 93; 100; agreement of with Commonwealth, 101; elected by Burgesses, 1652, 102; 105; contest with Burgesses, 106; Burgesses dismiss, 107; seeks lost power, 108; assumes authority, 109; 129; submission of to Berkeley, 133; 137; praises Berkeley, 143, 144; Bacon appointed to, 164; Bacon coerces, 168; 169; 200; 201; 217; 220; 228; 229; prosecutes Beverley, 235, 236, 237; quarrel of over Bill of Ports, 247, 248, 249;

Courts, Council sits as a court, 34; 35; Assembly acts as a court, 40; 41; Governor's misuse of, 66; 78; 79; Harvey master of, 80; 81; Berkeley does not abuse, 86; 133; local courts, 137; Berkeley controls, 138; judicial functions of Assembly abolished, 241, 242. 

Coventry, Secretary, 207; letter of to Berkeley, 210, 211; protects King's commissioners, 215; 221; 225. 

Crimson, Abraham, captures tobacco fleet, 127, 128, 129. 

Cromwell, Oliver, 102; neglects Virginia, 103; 107; death of, 108. 

Cromwell, Richard, Lord Protector, 108; resigns, 109. 

Culpeper, Thomas Lord, grant to of Virginia, 123, 124; yields his rights, 125; 145; Governor, 1677, 212; 219; 220; 222; instructions to, 226, 227; arrives in Virginia, 228; insists on revenue bill, 229, 230, 231; warned, 232; hastens to Virginia, 237; prosecutes plant-cutters, 237, 238; deposed, 239; character of, 239, 240; 241; 244; 245; 247. 

Curls of the River, 24. 

Dale, Sir Thomas, Deputy-Governor, 1611, 19; founds Henrico, 19, 21; secures corn crop, 22; educates Pocahontas, 25; returns to England, 27; 35; 36. 

Davies, Somerset, 238. 

De la Warr, Thomas Lord, first Governor, 8; 11; prevents desertion of Virginia, 16; assumes government, 17; restores prosperity, 17, 18; becomes ill, 18, 19; 22; 23; brings new constitution, dies at sea, 1618, 35; 64. 

Denis, Robert, commands fleet to Virginia, 99. 

Devil's Island, colonists wrecked on, 10; 16; 22. 

DeVries, describes sickness, 12. 

Digges, Edward, Governor, 106. 

_Discovery_, sails for Virginia, 1, 11. 

Doeg, Indians, 146, 147. 

Drew, Colonel, rebel leader, 185. 

Drummond, William, Bacon visits, 163; Berkeley excepts from pardon, 178; 182; 190; captured, 193; executed, 194. 

_Duke of York_, ship, 236. 

Dutch, 85; take Virginia tobacco, 96, 98; 100; on the Eastern Shore, 104; 105; 114; 115; contest carrying trade, 116; cut off from tobacco trade, 117; 118; 119; capture tobacco fleet, 1667, 127, 128, 129; battle with in Chesapeake Bay, 1672, 129, 130; 131; 132; 142; 145; 172. 

Dysentery, epidemic of in Virginia, 11; 15; De la Warr suffers from 19; Bacon dies of, 184. 

Earleton, Stephen, excepted from pardon, 202. 

Eastern Shore, see also Accomac, ill affected, 103; grievances of, 104; disorders of suppressed, 105; Berkeley flees to, 171; expedition against, 174, 176, 177; Berkeley returns to, 182; 184; 186; 197; 236. 

Effingham, Lord Howard, Governor, 239; character of, 240; forbids appeals to Assembly, 241, 242; proclaims James II, 243; quarrels with Burgesses over, taxation, 244, 245, quit-rents, 245, 246, veto power, 246, 247, 248, 249, their clerk, 249, 250; oppressions of, 251, 252; quarrels with Ludwell, 253, 254; Burgesses complain of, 254, 255; prevents riots, 256; 257; overthrow of, 258. 

_Elizabeth_, frigate, captured by Dutch, 127, 128, 129. 

Elizabeth, river, merchantmen escape into, 1667, 128. 

Elizabeth City, 66; 67; temporary capital, 80. 

English Church, desire to extend, 31; to convert Indians, 44; 48; large planters adhere to, 91. 

English Revolution, 40; 42; a victory for Virginia, 256, 257. 

Epidemics, see Sickness. 

Fairfax, Thomas, 196. 

Famines, frequent, 2; Indians and epidemics cause, 14; misery of described, 15; eliminated on upper James, 23; English bring on Indians, 51, 52. 

Farrar, William, 76. 

Farrar's Island, see Henrico. 

Farrill, Hubert, Bacon entrusted to, 163; attacks Bacon's House, 189; killed, 190. 

Fees, limited, 87. 

First Supply, Newport brings, 6. 

Fitzhugh, William, 229. [** missing page?]

Gardner, Captain, fights Dutch, 130; captures Bacon, 163. 

Gates, Sir Thomas, first Lieutenant-Governor, 8; wrecked in Bermudas, 9; 10; ends first royal government, 10; to abandon Virginia, 16; returns, Councillor, 17; 19; again in Virginia, 21; posts laws, 1610, 22; 27; 35. 

_George_, takes tobacco to England, 28. 

Gloucester, county, Berkeley active in, 170; 171; Bacon in, 182; Bacon coerces, 183, 184; Bacon dies in, 184; 185; military movements in, 187, 188, 189; 190; 207; plant-cutting in, 234, 235; 237; 238. 

Goodrich, Thomas, excepted from pardon, 202. 

_Goodspeed_, sails for Virginia, 1; 11. 

Gosnold, Bartholomew, made Councillor, 3; death of, 4. 

Grantham, Captain, envoy to Ingram, 191; secures surrender of rebels, 192. 

Green Spring, 159; 182; rebels at, 185; 200; Assembly at, 205; 208; 213; 218. 

Green Spring faction, 217; controls elections, 218; 219; activity of, 220; Culpeper supports, 228; pleads for Ludwell, 229; 253. 

Grindon, Sara, excepted from pardon, 203. 

Hamor, Ralph, 26; 49. 

Hamor, Thomas, 49. 

Hansford, Colonel, rebel leader, 185; captured and hanged, 186. 

Harrison, Benjamin, 229. 

Harrison, Thomas, becomes a Puritan, 92; expelled from his parish, 93; 95; 96. 

Harvey, John, describes Indian war, 52; commissioner to Virginia, 60; Governor, 64; attacks Pott, 65; 66; quarrels with Council, 67; wants greater power, 68; aids Marylanders, 70; arbitrary rule of, 72; 73; seizes a servant, 73; detains letter to King, 74; arrests rioters, 75; Council arrests, 76; expelled from Virginia, 77; in England, 78; reinstated, 79; tyranny of, 80; seizes Matthews' estate, 81; attacked in England, 82; removed, 83; prosecuted, 84; 85; 86. 

Harwood, Thomas, envoy to England, 1636, 78; 79. 

Henrico, county, Bacon resides in, 154; Berkeley in, 159; Bacon Burgess from, 162; Bacon flees to, 165; 174; 178. 

Henrico, plantation, Dale founds, 19, 21; 22; 24; 43; college of, 44. 

Hill, Edward, deprived of office, 216; 220. 

Holden, Robert, excepted from pardon, 202. 

Holland, see Dutch. 

Hopton, Lord, 124. 

Indians, a menace, 2; attack Jamestown, 13; destroy corn, 14; 15; 16; war with continues, 18; Dale seeks stronghold against, 19; driven from Bermuda Hundred, 21; peace with, 25; 26; 27; destroy iron works, 43; college for, 44; friendship of, 47; plan massacre, 48; massacre of 1622, 49; 50; war with, 50 to 54; 56; long peace with, 88; massacre of 1644, 89; make peace, 90; 91; conspiracy of rumored, 104; 122; raid of, 1675, 146; war with, 147, 149, 150, 152; kill Bacon's overseer, 155; Bacon prepares to attack, 156; war with, 157 to 162; 167; again on war path, 170; Bacon again attacks, 175 to 176; 178. 

Ingram, General, election of, 184; disposes rebel forces, 185; captures Pate's House, 188; rebel army surrenders to, 189; his lack of executive ability, 190; his surrender, 191; 193; 206. 

Isle of Wight, county, 136; complaints from, 138; 140; 143; subdued, 190; 207. 

Isles, John, executed, 203. 

_James_, ship, 231. 

James I, 2; 6; grants charter of 1609; 8; wants American empire, 29; interest in Virginia, 30; opposes liberal government, 32; grants charters, 34; restricts tobacco, 45; angry at Company, 54; ultimatum, 55; investigates Company, 56; offers new compromise, 57, 58; overthrows Company, 59; death of, 61; 64; 65. 

James II, 40; 42; 224; accession of, 243; 244; 246; rebukes Assembly, 249; deposed, 255; 256. 

James City, county, 107; complains of forts, 142; 218; 254. 

James, river, first fleet enters, 1; 7; 21; 43; 47; 79; 85; 89; 90; 98; 99; 100; 120; battle with Dutch in, 127, 128, 129; 130; forts on, 141; 142; 153; Berkeley at falls of, 157; Bacon descends, 163; 171; 174; Berkeley in, 181, 182; 185; rebels defeated on, 190; 199; English fleet in, 200. 

James, Thomas, preaches in Virginia, 92. 

Jamestown, founded, 1; fleet arrives at 1609, 9; 10; site objected to, 11; Indians attack, 13; 14; Gates finds ruined, 16; 18; Dale reaches, 19; 21; 22; tobacco in streets of, 24; 25; 31; first Assembly at, 37; 48; 53; 63; Baltimore visits, 69; 77; 80; 90; defended by Berkeley, 100; 104; 110; 122; 130; houses built at, 140; fort at, 141; Bacon visits, 163; 164; Bacon flees from, 165; Bacon seizes, 166; Bacon at, 167, 168; 177; Berkeley captures, 178; Bacon besieges, 179, 180; Bacon captures, 181; Bacon burns, 182; 233; 238. 

Japazaws, Indian king, 25. 

Jeffreys, Herbert, 137; 144; Lieutenant-Governor, 196; leaves for Virginia, 197; 199; arrives, 200; yields to Berkeley, 201; 207; insulted, 208; proclamation of, 209; 210; 211; 214; opposition to, 216; illness of, 217, 218; prosecutes Ludwell, 219; again ill, 220; death of, 221; 223; 229. 

Jenkins, Sir Lionel, 225; 238; 243. 

Jennings, John, excepted from pardon, 202. 

Jones, William, approves new Virginia charter, 126. 

Jones, Robert, excepted from pardon, 202; Moryson pleads for, 203; pardoned, 204. 

Judiciary, see Courts. 

Kecoughtan, 90. 

Kemp, Matthew, 229; 234; 235. 

Kemp, Richard, given inadvertently as _Matthew_ Kemp on page 22; pillages Matthews' estate, 81; quarrel of with Panton, 82; 83; prosecuted, 84. 

Kendall, George, Councillor, 3; expelled from Council, 4; tried for mutiny, shot, 5. 

Kent Island, Claiborne settles, 71; 72; 73. 

Knight, John, 145. 

Knowles, John, Puritan minister, 92. 

Larrimore, Captain, Bacon seizes ship of, 174; plots to aid Berkeley, 176; aids in capture of rebels, 177; 211. 

Law, 23; the Divine, Moral and Martial laws, 23; cruelty of, 23, 24; 38; against seizing servants, 73; against Puritans, 92; laws to encourage manufacture, 119; 140; Bacon's Laws, 169, 170; laws of 1679, 222; Culpeper passes three laws, 229, 230, 231. 

Lawrence, Henry, letter of to Virginia, 108; 109. 

Lawrence, Richard, Bacon visits, 163; flees from Jamestown, 178; 182; disposes of Bacon's body, 184; 190; 192; flight of, 193, 194; excepted from pardon, 202; feared, 205. 

Lightfoot, Philip, takes Bacon's oaths, 173. 

London Company, 2; 3; 6; 7; secures charter of 1609, 8; 15; 17; sends Dale, 19; 22; 24; takes tobacco, 28; 29; aids Pilgrims, 30; motives of, 31; England supports, 32; liberalism in, 32; 35; 36; 38; 42; sends more settlers, 43; tobacco restrictions injure, 45; 46; massacre of 1622 discourages, 50; King hostile to, 54; 55; investigated, 56; 57; rejects King's compromise, 58; charters of revoked, 59; 60; 62; plan to revive, 83; 87; 120; 124. 

Lower Norfolk, county, 121; taxation in, 138. 

Loyd, Edward, imprisoned by Berkeley, 198. 

Ludwell, Philip, captures rebel fleet, 177; 189; excluded from Council, 216; 217; Jeffreys prosecutes, 219; convicted, 220; restored to Council, 229; quarrels with Effingham, 253; success of in England, 257, 258. 

Ludwell, Thomas, 86; 131; 132; 136; 141; 220. 

Lynhaven Bay, 129. 

Magna Charta, of Virginia, Yeardley brings, 35; government established under, 36; 38; 61; 64. 

Malaria, epidemic of in Virginia, 11; 15. 

Mannakins, 160. 

Martin, John, Councillor, 3; helps depose Wingfield, 4, 5; 6; 10; his Burgesses not admitted, 38. 

Martin's Hundred, 37; 38. 

Mary, Queen, 256. 

Maryland, 68; 69; founded, 70; war of with Claiborne, 71; 72; 77; 79; 116; agrees to cessation, 122; 123; 127; fleet of saved, 130; 146; 147; Indian war in, 149, 150; 238. 

Mason, Colonel, 146; 147; 149. 

Massacres: of 1622, 47; 48; details of, 49, 50; 88; 89; of 1644, 89; details of, 89; 92; 147. 

Mathews, Thomas, 202. 

Matthews, Samuel, commissioner, 1624, 60; Harvey favors, 65; leads Council, 68; complains of Maryland, 72; threatens Harvey, 73; 74; arrests Harvey, 76; helps expel Harvey, 77; accused of treason, 79; expelled from Council, 80; estate of seized, 81; 82; 83; restored to Council, 86; Governor, 106; deposed but reëlected, 107; 108; death of, 109. 

Mattapony, river, 185. 

Middle class, 92; formation of, 93; freedmen recruit, 94; 102; 131. 

Middlesex, county, 171; 185; 187; rises for Berkeley, 188; 190; 235; 236; 237. 

Milner, Thomas, 173; 243; 251; 252. 

Minifie, George, arrests Harvey, 76; 77; 79; restored to Council, 86. 

Molina, 12; testifies to cruelty, 23. 

Monmouth, Duke of, 243; 244. 

Mortality, see sickness. 

Moryson, Francis, King's commissioner, 196; 199; 200; intercedes for Jones, 203; 204; insulted, 208; 215; influence of, 215; 216; 217; 241. 

Nansemond, county, 95; 129; 130; 142; 143; 207. 

Nansemonds, 52; 146. 

Navigation Acts, 103; 104; 114; act of 1651, 116; act of 1660, 117; effect of on Virginia, 118; Berkeley protests against, 120; act of 1672, 121; 123; 127; 172; 222. 

Necotowance, 90. 

New Kent, county, 156; 178; 193; 235. 

Newport, Christopher, 1; Councillor, 3; 4; 5; 6; 11; saves Smith, 6; brings Second Supply, 7; 8; Vice-Admiral, 8; 9; 11; 17. 

Nicholson, Francis, 257; Governor, 258. 

Northampton, county, 103; 104; 105; 236. 

North Carolina, efforts for cessation in, 121; 122; 123. 

Northern Neck, grant of, 124; 125; 126. 

Notley, Governor Thomas, 137. 

Nottoways, 146. 

Occaneechees, 159; 160; defeat of, 161, 162; 174. 

Opechancanough, plans massacre of 1622, 48; 52; 53; 89; death of, 90; 147. 

Pace, Richard, given by typographical error as Race in text, 48. 

Page, Francis, 250. 

Page, John, 229. 

Pamunkey, river, 185. 

Pamaunkeys, victory over, 1624, 53; 146; 151; 156; 157; Bacon defeats, 174, 175; 178. 

Panton, Anthony, trial of, 82; 83; 84; 85. 

Parke, Daniel, 218; 219. 

Parliament, 32; 33; 34; protects merchants, 39; 42; 54; Company appeals to, 58; 87; 91; sympathy with in Virginia, 92, 93, 94; 95; blockades Virginia, 96; 98; sends fleet against Virginia, 99; Virginia surrenders to, 101; passes Navigation Acts, 116; 120; 121. 

Patents, see charters. 

Pate's House, Bacon dies at, 184; Ingram captures, 188. 

Peninsula, the, between the James and the York, 185. 

Percy, George, President, 10; tells of sickness, 11; Councillor, 17; acting Governor, 19. 

Persicles, 159; defeats Susquehannocks, 160; Bacon defeats, 161; death of, 161. 

Phelps, John, 202. 

Pierce, William, 77; 79; 80; 82; 86. 

Pierse, Thomas, 37. 

Piersey, Abraham, commissioner in 1624, 60. 

Pilgrims, see Puritans. 

Plague, London, epidemic of, 13; 15. 

Plymouth, 78; 118. 

Pocahontas, captured, 25; marries Rolfe, 26; 47; 88. 

Point Comfort, 16; 70; 71; 80; fort at destroyed, 132; 141. 

Pomfoy, Richard, executed, 203. 

Population, 114. 

Pory, John, commissioner in 1624, 60; 61. 

Potomac, river, 25; 69; 71; 120; 124; 141; 146; 149; 159; 174; 182; 256. 

Potts, John, acting Governor, 64; arrested, 65; convicted, 66; 67; 69; 76; 77; 78; 82. 

Pountis, John, represents Assembly in England, 61. 

Powell, William, 52. 

Powhatan, 25; 26; 89; 147. 

President, duties of, 2, 3; 4; 5; 9; 10. 

Privy Council, 2; 54; sends commission to Virginia, 62; 65; 68; acquits Harvey, 79; 81; 82; removes Harvey, 83; 84; 214; 215; 216; 226; 227; 232; 238; 239; 240; 241; 243; 244; 251; 257. 

Protector, Lord, see Cromwell. 

Purifee, Capt, 77. 

Puritans, 30; of Virginia, 92; hostile to King, 93; 95; 99; 103. 

Quit-rents, 124; 230; quarrel over, 245, 246. 

Rappahannock, river, 25; 124; 141; 151; 179; 182; 185; 256. 

Ratcliffe, John, Councillor, 3; President, 4; 5; deposed, 7; 8; helps depose Smith, 10. 

Read, James, 5. 

Reade's House, rebels posted at, 185; captured, 186. 

Representative government, attempt to establish, 6; James I opposes, 32; desire for in Company, 33; none at first, 34; decided upon, 35; established, 36; 54; causes James I to attack Company, 55; Virginians plead for, 60; Charles I opposes, 62; 91; advocates of in Virginia, 93; under the Commonwealth, 102; people schooled in, 114; Berkeley undermines, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138; Berkeley does not believe in, 144; 153; struggle for, 223. 

Restoration Period, 42; unfortunate for Virginia, 115; Navigation Acts in, 117; 138; 224; 252. 

Restoration, of Stuarts, 110; accepted in Virginia, 113; effects of on Virginia, 115; 117; 135. 

Richahecrians, 156. 

Roanoke, river, 159; battle at, 160, 161; 162; Bacon plans to retreat to, 172. 

Rolfe, John, 25; marries Pocahontas, 26; 27; 28; 47; 88. 

Saint Mary's, founded, 71; 72; 73; conference at, 122. 

Sandy Bay, 166; Bacon guards, 167; Bacon's camp at, 179; battle at, 180; 181; 183. 

Sandys, Sir Edwin, draws up charter of 1609, 8; liberal leader, 33; 34; designs liberal government, 35; 43; 45; 46; 47; 50; 54; imprisoned, 55; 56; 60; 61; 62. 

Sandys, George, 44; 46; 52; tries to revive Company, 87. 

_Sarah Constant_, sails for Virginia, 1; 11. 

Scarburgh, Charles, 251. 

Scarburgh, William, executed, 203. 

Scrivener, Matthew, drowned, 7. 

Scurvy, infects immigrants, 15; 19. 

_Sea Adventure_, wrecked, 9; 10. 

_Sea Flower_, 15. 

"Seasoned", see sickness. 

Second Supply, Newport brings, 7. 

Senecas, 146; 160; 256. 

Sharpless, Edward, 61. 

Sherwood. William, 136; forfeits Berkeley's favor, 137; 205; claims frauds in elections, 218; 220; 243; 251. 

Sickness, 2; disastrous, 10; in 1607, 11; in 1610, 12; 18; visitors describe, 12; immigrant ships spread, 13; 18; 19; reduced, 21; renewal of, 25; 44; 45; thousands die of, 46; declines, 1624, 47; 56; 57; 64; 115; attacks Jeffreys, 217. 

Smith, Captain John, restrained, 3; restored to Council, 4; deposes Wingfield, 4, 5; 6; President, 7; his plots, 9; deposed, 10; 11; describes famine, 14; 15. 

Smith, Mr. John, 251. 

Smith, Lawrence, in Gloucester, 188; 189. 

Smith, Sir Thomas, 24; 61. 

Spaniards, colonists fear, 1; 5; 22; 29; 32; 45; 89. 

Spencer, Nicholas, 228; 235; 247; 250. 

Spotswood, Alexander, 44. 

Spring, Robert, excepted from pardon, 202. 

Stafford, county, Indian raid in, 146. 

Stevens, Capt, 74. 

Stoakes, Robert, executed, 203. 

Strachey, William, 17. 

Sturdivant, John, 202. 

Stuyvesant, Governor, 113. 

Swann, Thomas, 173; 200; 201; excepted from pardon, 203; restored to Council, 216. 

Summers, George, admiral, 8; wrecked, 9; 11. 

Surry, county, 138; subdued, 190. 

Susquehannocks, 91; press south, 146; war with, 147; fort besieged, 149, 150; atrocities of, 150; 151; 156; 158; Bacon pursues, 159; Occaneechees defeat, 160; 161; 174. 

Tanx-Powhatans, war against, 52. 

Tappahatomaks, 52. 

Taxation, 39; 40; Harvey's illegal, 72, 73; 79; attempt to equalize, 87; 91; 101; Northampton complains of, 104; 105; 115; 120; 125; 126; 135; local, 138; by poll, 139; 140; 141; 142; rebels refuse to pay, 167; 207; 227; Assembly's control of attacked, 229, 230, 231; 244; 245. 

Thompson, William, 92. 

Thorpe, Rev. George, Indians kill, 50. 

Tindall's Point, rebels surrender at, 192; executions at, 193. 

Tobacco, 22; 24; Rolfe cures, 27; high price of, 28; taxes paid in, 39; 40; 43; James I restricts, 44, 45; 51; Charles I wishes to buy, 63; 70; King asks contract for, 74; 83; 93; 96; 114; 115; price of declines, 117, 118; glut of, 119; attempts to restrict planting of, 121, 122, 123; tobacco fleet captured, 127, 128, 129; 132; low price of, 232; cessation of asked, 233; tobacco riots, 234 to 238; 245; ports for shipping of, 246, 247, 248. 

Tottopottomoi, 156. 

Trade and Plantations, Committee of, 120; 144; 214; 225; 226; 231; 232; 243; 257. 

Tucker, William, 53. 

Turkey Island, 21. 

Turner, John, excepted from pardon, 202. 

Twine, John, 37. 

_Unmasking_, the, attack on Company, 12. 

Utie, John, helps arrest Harvey, 76; 79; sent to England, 80; 82. 

Vestries, cliques control, 138, 139. 

Wading, Rev. , 184. 

Waldo, Richard, 7. 

Walkelett, General, leads expedition to Middlesex, 188; surrender of, 192; 193; 256. 

Warde, Captain, 37. 

Warrens, William, 75. 

Warwick, county, 140. 

Washington, John, besieges Indian fort, 149. 

Weinman, Ferdinando, 17. 

West, Francis, 9; 10; Governor, 64; elected Governor, 1636, 78; 79; excluded from Council, 80; 82. 

West, John, excepted from pardon, 202. 

Western Shore, 174; 177; 183; 187. 

Westminster Hall, 98; 99. 

West Point, Ingram uses as base, 185; 188; rebels surrender, 192. 

Whaly, Major, 185; defeats Farrill, 189, 190; 202. 

Wiccocomico, conference at, 122. 

Wilford, Captain, captured, 186. 

William, of Orange, 256; 257. 

Willis, Francis, 108. 

Windebank, Secretary, 84. 

Wingfield, Edward, President, 3; deposed, 4, 5; 6; 8; 13; 35; 62. 

Winthrop, Governor, letter of to Berkeley, 92. 

Wolstenholme, Sir John, 72; 74. 

Woodall, John, 81. 

Wyatt, Sir Francis, 51; defeats Pamunkeys, 53; reappointed Governor, 1624, 61; 62; saves Assembly, 63; 64; Governor again, 83; attacks Harvey, 84; 85; 86. 

Wynne, Peter, 7. 

Wyanokes, 52. 

Yeardley, George, acting Governor, 27; Governor, 45; brings Magna Charta, 36; meets Assembly, 37; 42; 46; 52; 62; again Governor, 64. 

Yellow fever, 13, 15. 

York, county, 75; 185; Farrill invades, 189; 191. 

York, river, 90; 91; 98; 120; 128; 141; 174; 182; 184; 185; 186; Berkeley's expedition to, 187, 188, 189, 190; 217. 

Young, Captain, 74.