Cromwell was now endeavoring to heal the wounds of civil war, to allay animosities, and to strengthen his power by a generous and conciliatory policy, blended with irresistible energy of action. In return for Lord Baltimore's ready submission to his authority, the Protector apparently recognized his proprietary rights in Maryland, yet at the same time, he sustained and protected his commissioners, only curbing the violent contest that had arisen between Virginia and Maryland respecting their boundary. His policy as to the internal government of these colonies was one of a masterly inactivity.

Remembering, however, Lord Baltimore's ready submission to his authority, he nominally, at the least, restored him to his control over the province.

It was the custom of the Maryland Romanists to celebrate, by a salute of cannon, the thirty-first of July, the birth-day of St.

Ignatius, (Loyola,) Maryland's patron saint. On the 1st of August, 1656, the day following the anniversary, a number of Protestant soldiers, aroused by the nocturnal report of the cannon, issued from their fort, five miles distant, rushed upon the habitations of the Papists, broke into them, and plundered whatever there was found of arms or powder.

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER XXV.

1655-1658.

In March, 1655, Edward Digges was elected by the assembly governor of the colony of Virginia. He was of an ancient and distinguished family, and had been made a member of the council in November, 1654, "he having given a signal testimony of his fidelity to this colony and Commonwealth of England." He succeeded Bennet, who had held the office since April, 1652, and who was now appointed the colony's agent at London.

In the year 1656, six or seven hundred Ricahecrian Indians having come down from the mountains, and seated themselves near the falls of the James River, Colonel Edward Hill, the elder, was put in command of a body of men, and ordered to dislodge them. He was reinforced by Totopotomoi, chief of Pamunkey, with one hundred of his tribe. A creek enclosing a peninsula in Hanover County, retains the name of Totopotomoy; and Butler, in Hudibras, alludes to this chief:—

Hill was disgracefully defeated, and the brave Totopotomoi, with the greater part of his warriors, slain. It appears probable that Bloody Run, near Richmond, derived its name from this sanguinary battle. The action in which so many Indians were afterwards massacred by Bacon and his men, and with which a loose tradition has identified Bloody Run, did not occur near the falls of the James River. Hill, in consequence of his bad conduct in this affair, was subsequently, by unanimous vote of the council and the house of burgesses, condemned to pay the expenses of effecting a peace with the Indians, and was disfranchised.[234:A] During this year an act was passed allowing all free men the right of voting for burgesses, on the ground that "it is something hard and unagreeable to reason that any persons shall pay equal taxes, and yet have no votes in elections." So republican was the elective franchise in Virginia, under the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell two centuries ago! In this year, 1656, Colonel Thomas Dew, of Nansemond, sometime before speaker of the house of burgesses, and others, were authorized to explore the country between Cape Hatteras and Cape Fear. The County of Nansemond had long abounded with non-conformists.

The salary of the governor, as ordered at this time, consisted of twenty-five thousand pounds of tobacco, worth two hundred and fifty pounds sterling, together with certain duties levied from masters of vessels, called castle duties, and marriage license fees. A reward of twenty pounds was offered to any one who should import a minister; ministers, with six servants each, were exempted from taxes, it being provided that they should be examined by Mr. Philip Mallory and Mr. John Green, and should be recommended by them to the governor and council, who were invested with discretionary control of the matter.[234:B] Letters were sent to Matthews, Virginia's agent at the Protector's court, directing him to suspend for the present the further prosecution of the long and fruitless controversy with Lord Baltimore respecting the disputed boundary.[234:C] Matthews, returning from England, was elected by the assembly to succeed Digges in the office of governor, who was now employed as agent. Colonel Francis Morrison, speaker, was desired by the assembly to write a letter to the Protector, and another to the secretary of state, which was as follows:—

The letter to the secretary of state was as follows:—

The allusion in the close of the letter appears to be to a douceur which it was intended to present to the secretary.

Digges was instructed to unite with Matthews and Bennet, in London, and to treat with the leading merchants in the Virginia trade, and to let them know how much the assembly had endeavored to diminish the quantity, and improve the quality of the tobacco; and to see what the merchants, on their part, would be willing to do in giving a better price; for if the planters should find that the bad brought as high a price as the good, they would of course raise that which could be raised the most easily.[236:A] It appears that Digges was appointed agent conjointly with Bennet. Matthews was elected by the assembly to succeed Digges as governor; but the latter was requested to hold the office as long as he should remain in Virginia. Digges departing for England toward the close of 1655, would appear to have co-operated for a short while with both Matthews and Bennet. By a singular coincidence, Digges, Matthews, and Bennet, who were the first three governors of Virginia under the Commonwealth of England, were transferred from the miniature metropolis, Jamestown, and found themselves together near the court of his Highness the Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell.

Digges was succeeded as governor by Matthews, early in the year 1656. The laws of the colony were revised, and reduced into one volume, comprising one hundred and thirty-one acts, well adapted to the wants of the people and the condition of the country. Of the transactions from 1656 to 1660, the year of the restoration, Burk says there is an entire chasm in the records; Hening, on the contrary, declares that, "in no portion of the colonial records under the Commonwealth, are the materials so copious as from 1656 to 1660." The editor of the Statutes at Large is the better authority on this point.

The church government was settled by giving the people the entire control of the vestry; while the appointment of ministers and church wardens, the care of the poor, and parochial matters, were entrusted to the people of each parish. An act was passed for the keeping holy the Sabbath, and another against divulgers of false news. The ordinary weight of a hogshead of tobacco at this time did not exceed three hundred and fifty pounds, and its dimensions by law were forty-three inches long and twenty-six wide. Letters, superscribed "For the Public Service," were ordered to be conveyed from one plantation to another, to the place of destination. A remedy was provided for servants complaining of harsh usage, or of insufficient food or raiment. The penalty for selling arms or ammunition to the Indians was the forfeiture of the offender's whole estate. It was enacted that no sheriff, or deputy sheriff, then called under-sheriff, should hold his office longer than one year in any one county. The penalty of being reduced to servitude was abolished. The twenty-second day of March and the eighteenth of April were still kept as holy days, in commemoration of the deliverance of the colonists from the bloody Indian massacres of 1622 and 1644. The planters were prohibited from encroaching upon the lands of the Indians. The vessels of all nations were admitted into the ports of Virginia; and an impost duty of ten shillings a hogshead was laid on all tobacco exported, except that laden in English vessels, and bound directly for England; from the payment of which duty vessels belonging to Virginians were afterwards exempted. An act was passed to prohibit the kidnapping of Indian children.

In the year 1656 all acts against mercenary attorneys were repealed; but two years afterwards attorneys were again expelled from the courts,[237:A] and no one was suffered to receive any compensation for serving in that capacity. The governor and council made serious opposition to this act, and the following communication was made to the house of burgesses: "The governor and council will consent to this proposition so far as shall be agreeable to Magna Charta. Wm. Clayborne." The burgesses replied, that they could not see any such prohibition contained in Magna Charta; that two former assemblies had passed such a law, and that it had stood in force upwards of ten years. It thus appears that Magna Charta was held to be in force in the colony.

The ground leaves of tobacco, or lugs, were declared to be not merchantable; and it was ordered that no tobacco should be planted after the tenth day of July, under the penalty of a fine of ten thousand pounds of that staple. The exportation of hides, wool, and old iron, was forbidden. The salary of the governor, derived from the impost duty on tobacco exported, was fixed at sixteen hundred pounds sterling.

The burgesses having rescinded the order admitting the governor and council as members of the house, and having voted an adjournment, Matthews, on the 1st of April, 1658, declared a dissolution of the assembly. The house resisted, and declared that any burgess who should depart at this conjuncture, should be censured as betraying the trust reposed in him by his country; and an oath of secrecy was administered to the members. The governor, upon receiving an assurance that the business of the house would be speedily and satisfactorily concluded, revoked the order of dissolution, referring the question in dispute, as to the dissolving power, to his Highness the Lord Protector. The burgesses, still unsatisfied, appointed a committee, of which Colonel John Carter, of Lancaster County, was chairman, to draw up a resolution asserting their powers; and in consonance with their report the burgesses made a declaration of popular sovereignty: that they had in themselves the full power of appointing all officers, until they should receive an order to the contrary from England; that the house was not dissolvable by any power yet extant in Virginia but their own; that all former elections of governor and council should be void; that the power of governor for the future should be conferred on Colonel Samuel Matthews, who by them was invested with all the rights and privileges belonging to the governor and captain-general of Virginia; and that a council should be appointed by the burgesses then convened, with the advice of the governor.

The legislative records do not disclose the particular ground on which the previous elections of governor and appointments of councillors under the provisional government were annulled; but from the exclusion of the governor and council from the house, it might be inferred that it was owing to a jealousy of these functionaries being members of the body that elected them. Yet Bennet, the first of the three governors, and his council, were, in 1652, expressly allowed to be ex officio members of the assembly. An order was also made, April 2d, 1758, by the assembly, in the name of his Highness the Lord Protector, to the sheriff of James City, and sergeant-at-arms, to obey no warrant but those signed by the speaker of the house; and William Clayborne, secretary of state, (under Bennet, Digges, and Matthews,) was directed to deliver the records to the assembly. The oath of office was administered to Governor Matthews by the committee before mentioned, and the members of the council nominated by the governor and approved by the house, took the same oath.[239:A]

The number of burgesses present at the session commencing in March, 1659, was thirty. Colonel Edward Hill, who had been disfranchised, was now unanimously elected speaker. Colonel Moore Fantleroy, of Rappahannock County, not being present at the election, "moved against him, as if clandestinely elected, and taxed the house of unwarrantable proceedings therein." He was suspended until the next day, when, acknowledging his error, he was readmitted.

Any member absent from the house was subject to a penalty of twenty pounds of tobacco. A member "disguised with overmuch drink" forfeited one hundred pounds of tobacco. A burgess was required to rise from his seat, and to remain uncovered, while speaking. The oath was administered to the burgesses by a committee of three sent from the council.

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER XXVI.

1659-1661.

On the 8th of March, 1660, the house of burgesses having sent a committee to notify the governor that they attended his pleasure, he presented the following letter:—

Upon the reading of this letter, the governor and council withdrew from the assembly; and the house of burgesses unanimously acknowledged their obedience to his Highness, Richard, Lord Protector, and fully recognized his power.[241:A] So much truth is there in Mr. Jefferson's remark,[241:B] that in the contest with the house of Stuart, Virginia accompanied the footsteps of the mother country. The government of Virginia under the Commonwealth of England was wholly provisional. By the convention of March the 12th, 1652, Virginia secured to herself her ancient limits, and was entitled to reclaim that part of her chartered territory which had been unjustly and illegally given away to Lord Baltimore. In this, however, owing to the perplexed condition of affairs in England, Virginia was disappointed; but she secured, by the articles of convention, free trade, exemption from taxation, save by her own assembly, and exclusion of military force from her borders. Yet all these rights were violated by subsequent kings and parliaments.[242:A]

The administration of the colonial government, under the Commonwealth of England, was judicious and beneficent; the people were free, harmonious, and prosperous; and while Cromwell's sceptre commanded the respect of the world, he exhibited toward the infant and loyal colony a generous and politic lenity; and during this interval she enjoyed free trade, legislative independence, civil and religious freedom, republican institutions, and internal peace. The Governors Bennet, Digges, and Matthews, by their patriotic virtues, enjoyed the confidence, and affection, and respect of the people; no extravagance, rapacity, corruption, or extortion was charged against their administration; intolerance and persecution were unknown. But rapine, corruption, extortion, intolerance, and persecution were all soon to be revived under the restored dynasty of the Stuarts.

Richard Cromwell resigned the Protectorate on the 22d day of April, 1659. Matthews, the governor, had died in the preceding January. England was without a monarch; Virginia without a governor. It was during this interval that public opinion in England was in suspense, the result of affairs depending upon the line of conduct which might be pursued by General Monk. The Virginia assembly, convening on the 13th day of March, 1660, declared by their first act that as there was then in England no resident, absolute, and generally acknowledged power, therefore the supreme government of the colony should rest in the assembly; and writs previously issued in the name of his Highness, the Lord Protector, now issued in the name of the Grand Assembly of Virginia. By the second act, Sir William Berkley was elected governor; he was required to call a grand assembly once in two years at the least, and was restricted from dissolving the assembly without its consent. The circumstances of this reappointment of Sir William Berkley have been frequently misrepresented; historians from age to age following each other in fabulous tradition, erroneous conjecture, or wilful perversion, have asserted that Sir William was hurried from retirement by a torrent of popular enthusiasm, and made governor by acclamation, and that Charles the Second was boldly proclaimed in Virginia, and his standard reared several months, some say sixteen, before the restoration; and thus the Virginians, as they had been the last of the king's subjects who renounced their allegiance, so they were the first who returned to it![243:A]

Error in history is like a flock of sheep jumping over a bridge; if one goes, the rest all follow. Sir William Berkley, as has been before mentioned, was not elected by a tumultuary assemblage of the people, but by the assembly; the royal standard was not raised upon the occasion, nor was the king proclaimed. The bulk of the Virginia planters undoubtedly retained their habitual attachment to monarchy and to the Established Church; and some royalist refugees had been driven hither by the civil war. Yet, as the colonists had formerly been greatly dissatisfied with some acts of the government during the reign of Charles the First, they certainly had much reason to approve of the wise, and liberal, and magnanimous policy of Cromwell. Besides this, a good many republicans and Puritans had found their way to Virginia. The predominant feeling, however, in Virginia as in England, was in favor of the restoration of Charles the Second. Sir William Berkley, in his speech addressed to the assembly on their proffer of the place of governor, said: "I do, therefore, in the presence of God and you, make this safe protestation for us all, that if any supreme settled power appears, I will immediately lay down my commission, but will live most submissively obedient to any power God shall set over me, as the experience of eight years has shewed I have done." In his address to the house of burgesses, he alludes to the late king, as "my most gracious master, King Charles, of ever blessed memory," and as "my ever honored master, who was put to a violent death." The Berkleys were staunch adherents of Charles the First, and extreme royalists. Referring in his address to the surrender of the colony, Sir William said, that the parliament "sent a small power to force my submission, which, finding me defenceless, was quietly (God pardon me) effected." Of the several parliaments and the protectorate he remarked: "And I believe, Mr. Speaker, (Theodorick Bland,) you think, if my voice had been prevalent in most of their elections, I would not voluntarily have made choice of them for my supremes. But, Mr. Speaker, all this I have said, is only to make this truth apparent to you, that in and under all these mutable governments of divers natures and constitutions, I have lived most resignedly submissive. But, Mr. Speaker, it is one duty to live obedient to a government, and another of a very different nature, to command under it." It thus appears that Sir William accepted the place hoping for the restoration of Charles the Second; but with an explicit pledge, that he would resign in case that event should not occur.[244:A] This speech was made March the nineteenth, and on the twenty-first the council unanimously concurred in his election. The members were Richard Bennet, (late Puritan Governor,) William Bernard, John Walker, George Reade, Thomas Pettus, William Clayborne, Edward Hill, Thomas Dew, Edward Carter, Thomas Swan, and Augustine Warner. Nearly all of these were colonels. The title of colonel and member of the council appears to have been a sort of order of nobility in Virginia. Sir William Berkley was elected two months before the restoration of Charles the Second, which took place on the 20th of May, 1660, that being his birth-day. Yet the word "king" or "majesty" nowhere occurs in the legislative records, from the commencement of the Commonwealth of England until the 11th day of October, 1660, more than four months after the restoration.[244:B] Virginia was indeed loyal, but she was too feeble to avow her loyalty.

An act was passed, entitled an act for the suppressing the Quakers; the preamble of which describes them as an unreasonable and turbulent sort of people, who daily gather together unlawful assemblies of people, teaching lies, miracles, false visions, prophecies, and doctrines tending to disturb the peace, disorganize society, and destroy all law, and government, and religion. Masters of vessels were prohibited from bringing in any of that sect, under the penalty of one hundred pounds of tobacco; all of them to be apprehended and committed, until they should give security that they would leave the colony; if they should return, they should be punished, and returning the third time should be proceeded against as felons. No person should entertain any Quakers that had been questioned by the governor and council; nor permit any assembly of them in or near his house, under the penalty of one hundred pounds sterling; and no person to publish their books, pamphlets, and libels.[245:A] This act was passed in March, 1660, shortly after the election of Sir William Berkley.

Of late years, certain masters of vessels trading to Virginia, in violation of the laws and of the articles of surrender granting the privilege of free trade, had "molested, troubled, and seized divers ships, sloops, and vessels, coming to trade with us." The assembly therefore required every master to give bond not to molest any person trading under the protection of the laws.

Act XVI. establishes free trade: "Whereas, the restriction of trade hath appeared to be the greatest impediment to the advance of the estimation and value of our present only commodity, tobacco, be it enacted and confirmed, That the Dutch, and all strangers of what Christian nation soever, in amity with the people of England, shall have free liberty to trade with us for all allowable commodities." And it was provided, "That if the said Dutch, or other foreigners, shall import any negro slaves, they, the said Dutch, or others, shall, for the tobacco really produced by the sale of the said negro, pay only the impost of two shillings per hogshead, the like being paid by our own nation." The regular impost being ten shillings, this exemption was a bounty of eight shillings per hogshead for the encouragement of the importation of negroes.[245:B]

When Argall, in 1614, returning from his half-piratical excursion against the French at Port Royal, entered what is now New York Bay, he found three or four huts erected there by Dutch mariners and fishermen, on the Island of Manhattan. Near half a century had since elapsed, and the colony planted there had grown to an importance that justified something of diplomatic correspondence. In the spring of 1660 Nicholas Varleth and Brian Newton were sent by Governor Stuyvesant, celebrated by Knickerbocker, from Fort Amsterdam to Virginia, for the purpose of forming a league acknowledging the Dutch title to New York. Sir William Berkley evaded the proposition in the following letter:—

Peter Stuyvesant, the last of the Dutch governors of New Amsterdam, within a few years was dispossessed by a small English squadron, and the captured colony was retained. Sir William Berkley's letter was written nearly three months after the actual restoration, and yet, not having received intelligence of it, he alludes to the English government as in a state of interregnum, and writes not one word in present recognition of his majesty Charles the Second; on the contrary, he expressly avows himself a servant of the assembly.

Tea was introduced into England about this time; the East India Company made the king a formal present of two pounds and two ounces.[247:A]

The address of the Parliament and General Monk to Charles the Second, then at Breda, in Holland, was carried over by Lord Berkley, of Berkley Castle. On the eighth of May Charles was proclaimed in England king, and he returned in triumph to London on the twenty-ninth of that month, being his birth-day. The restored monarch transmitted a new commission, dated July the 31st, 1660, at Westminster, to his faithful adherent Sir William Berkley. He had remained in Virginia during the Commonwealth of England under various pretexts, and it is probable that he kept up a secret correspondence with refugee royalists, and it is said that he even invited Charles to come over to Virginia. This tradition, however, is without proof or plausibility; had the exiled Charles sought refuge in Virginia, an English frigate would have found it easy to make him a prisoner. Virginia would have presented few attractions to the royal profligate; and it could have hardly been a matter of regret to the Virginians that he never came here. Sir William Berkley's letter of acknowledgment, written in March, 1661, is extravagantly loyal. He apologizes for having accepted office from the assembly thus: "It was no more, may it please your majesty, than to leap over the fold to save your majesty's flock, when your majesty's enemies of that fold had barred up the lawful entrance into it, and enclosed the wolves of schism and rebellion, ready to devour all within it," etc. By "the wolves of schism and rebellion" he probably meant the Puritan and Republican party in Virginia, and he appears to have looked upon them as formidable enemies.

Charles the Second, in the first year of his reign, that is, in the first year after the death of his father, for he was considered or imagined to have reigned all the while, had granted all the tract of land lying between the Rappahannock and the Potomac, known as the Northern Neck, to Lord Hopton, the Earl of St. Albans, Lord Culpepper, and others, to hold the same forever, paying yearly six pounds thirteen shillings and four pence to the crown.

The Anglo-American colonies now established, Virginia, New England, and Maryland, contained eighty-five thousand inhabitants. The navigation act had not been recognized by Virginia as obligatory on her; had been opposed by Massachusetts as an invasion of her rights; and had been evaded by Maryland. James the First, Charles the First, and the Commonwealth, had expressly exempted the colonies from direct taxation, but the Restoration parliament extended the customs of tonnage and poundage to every part of the dominion of the crown; and the colonists did not for years resist the collection of those imposts.[248:A]

FOOTNOTES: