CHAPTER XVII.

1622.

During these calamitous events that had befallen the colony, Captain Raleigh Crashaw had been engaged in a trading cruise up the Potomac. While he was there, Opechancanough sent two baskets of beads to Japazaws, the chief of the Potomacs, to bribe him to slay Crashaw and his party, giving at the same time tidings of the massacre, with an assurance that "before the end of two moons" there should not be an Englishman left in all the country. Japazaws communicated the message to Crashaw, and he thereupon sent Opechancanough word "that he would nakedly fight him, or any of his, with their own swords." The challenge was declined. Not long afterwards Captain Madison, who occupied a fort on the Potomac River, suspecting treachery on the part of the tribe there, rashly killed thirty or forty men, women, and children, and carried off the werowance and his son, and two of his people, prisoners to Jamestown. The captives were in a short time ransomed.

When the corn was ripe, Sir George Yeardley, with three hundred men, invaded the country of the Nansemonds, who, setting fire to their cabins, and destroying whatever they could not carry away, fled; whereupon the English seized their corn, and completed the work of devastation. Sailing next to Opechancanough's seat, at the head of York River, Yeardley inflicted the same chastisement on the Pamunkies. In New England it was said: "Since the news of the massacre in Virginia, though the Indians continue their wonted friendship, yet are we more wary of them than before, for their hands have been embrued in much English blood, only by too much confidence, but not by force."[166:A]

The red men of Virginia were driven back, like hunted wolves, from their ancient haunts. While their fate cannot fail to excite commiseration, it may reasonably be concluded that the perpetual possession of this country by the aborigines would have been incompatible with the designs of Providence in promoting the welfare of mankind. A productive soil could make little return to a people so destitute of the art and of the implements of agriculture, and habitually indolent. Navigable rivers, the natural channels of commerce, would have failed in their purpose had they borne no freight but that of the rude canoe; primeval forests would have slept in gloomy inutility, where the axe was unknown; and the mineral and metallic treasures of the earth would have remained forever entombed. In Virginia, since the aboriginal population was only about one to the square mile, they could not be justly held occupants of the soil. However well-founded their title to those narrow portions which they actually occupied, yet it was found impossible to take possession of the open country, to which the savages had no just claim, without also exterminating them from those particular spots that rightfully belonged to them. This inevitable necessity actuated the pious Puritans of Plymouth as well as the less scrupulous settlers of Jamestown; and force was resorted to in all the Anglo-American settlements except in that effected, at a later day, by the gentle and sagacious Penn. The unrelenting hostility of the savages, their perfidy and vindictive implacability, made sanguinary measures necessary. In Virginia, the first settlers, a small company, in an unknown wilderness, were repeatedly assaulted, so that resistance and retaliation were demanded by the natural law of self-defence. Nor were these settlers voluntary immigrants; the bulk of them had been sent over, without regard to their choice, by the king or the Virginia Company. Nor did the king or the company authorize any injustice or cruelty to be exercised toward the natives; on the contrary, the colonists, however unfit, were enjoined to introduce the Christian religion among them, and to propitiate their good will by a humane and lenient treatment. Smith and his comrades, so far from being encouraged to maltreat the Indians, were often hampered in making a necessary self-defence, by a fear of offending an arbitrary government at home.

It has been remarked by Mr. Jefferson,[168:A] that it is not so general a truth, as has been supposed, that the lands of Virginia were taken from the natives by conquest, far the greater portion having been purchased by treaty. It may be objected, that the consideration was often inadequate; but a small consideration may have been sufficient to compensate for a title which, for the most part, had but little validity; besides, a larger compensation would oftentimes have been thrown away upon men so ignorant and indolent. Groping in the dim twilight of nature, and slaves of a gross idolatry, their lives were circumscribed within a narrow uniform circle of animal instincts and the necessities of a precarious subsistence. Cunning, bloody, and revengeful, engaged in frequent wars, they were strangers to that Arcadian innocence and the Elysian scenes of a golden age of which youthful poets so fondly dream. If an occasional exception occurs, it is but a solitary ray of light shooting across the surrounding gloom. Yet we cannot be insensible to the many injuries they have suffered, and cannot but regret that their race could not be united with our own. The Indian has long since disappeared from Virginia; his cry no longer echoes in the woods, nor is the dip of his paddle heard on the water. The exterminating wave still urges them onward to the setting sun, and their tribes are fading one by one forever from the map of existence. Geology shows that in the scale of animal life, left impressed on the earth's strata, the inferior species has still given place to the superior: so likewise is it with the races of men.

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER XVIII.

1622-1625.

The Court of James the First, already jealous of the growing power and republican spirit of the Virginia Company, was rendered still more inimical by the malign influence of Count Gondomar, the Spanish ambassador, who was jealous of any encroachment on the Spanish colony of Florida. He remarked to King James, of the Virginia Company, that "they were deep politicians, and had further designs than a tobacco-plantation; that as soon as they should get to be more numerous, they intended to step beyond their limits, and, for aught he knew, they might visit his master's mines." The massacre afforded an occasion to the enemies of the company to attribute all the calamities of the colony to its mismanagement and neglect, and thus to frame a plausible pretext for dissolving the charter.

Captain Nathaniel Butler, a dependent of the Earl of Warwick, had, by his influence, been sent out Governor of Bermudas for three years, where he exercised the same oppression and extortion as Argall had exhibited in Virginia. Upon finding himself compelled to leave those islands, he came to Virginia, in the midst of the winter succeeding the massacre. He was hospitably entertained by Governor Wyat, which kindness he proved himself wholly unworthy of, his conduct being profligate and disorderly. He demanded a seat in the council, to which he was in no way entitled. He went up the James as far as to the mouth of the Chickahominy, where "he plundered Lady Dale's cattle;" and after a three months' stay, he set sail for England. Upon his return, Butler was introduced to the king, and published "The Unmasked Face of our Colony in Virginia, as it was in the Winter of 1622," in which he took advantage of the misfortunes of the colony, and exaggerated its deplorable condition. The Rev. William Mease, (who had been for ten years resident in the colony,) with several others, replied to this defamatory pamphlet.[170:A]

The company was divided into two parties, the one headed by the Earl of Southampton, Lord Cavendish, Sir Edward Sackville, Sir John Ogle, Sir Edwin Sandys, with several others of less note; on the other side, the leaders were the Earl of Warwick, Sir Thomas Smith, Sir Nathaniel Rich, Sir Henry Mildmay, Alderman Johnson, etc. They appeared before the king, the Earl of Warwick's faction presenting their accusations against the company, and the other side defending it; and Sir Edward Sackville used such freedom of language that "the king was fain to take him down soundly and roundly." However, by the lord treasurer's intervention, the matter was reconciled on the next day.[170:B]

In May, 1623, a commission was issued authorizing Sir William Jones, a justice of the common pleas, Sir Nicholas Fortescue, Sir Francis Goston, Sir Richard Sutton, Sir William Pitt, Sir Henry Bourchier, and Sir Henry Spilman,[170:C] to inquire into the affairs of the colony. By an order of the privy council the records of the company were seized, and the deputy treasurer, Nicholas Ferrar, imprisoned, and on the arrival of a ship from Virginia, her packets were seized and laid before the privy council.

Nicholas Ferrar, Jr., was born in London in 1592, educated at Cambridge, where he was noted for his talents, acquirements, and piety.[171:A] Upon leaving the university he made the tour of Europe, winning the esteem of the learned, passing through many adventures and perils with Christian heroism, and maintaining everywhere an unsullied character. Upon his return to England, in 1618, he was appointed king's counsel for the Virginia Plantation. In the year 1622 he was chosen deputy treasurer of the Virginia Company, (which office his brother John also filled for some years,) and so remained till its dissolution. In the House of Commons he distinguished himself by his opposition to the political corruption of that day, and abandoned public life when little upwards of thirty years of age, "in obedience to a religious fancy he had long entertained," and formed of his family and relations a sort of little half-popish convent, in which he passed the remainder of his life.[171:B]

Carlyle[171:C] thus describes this singular place of retirement: "Crossing Huntingdonshire in his way northward, his majesty[171:D] had visited the establishment of Nicholas Ferrar, at Little Gidding, on the western border of that county. A surprising establishment now in full flower, wherein above fourscore persons, including domestics, with Ferrar and his brother, and aged mother at the head of them, had devoted themselves to a kind of Protestant monachism, and were getting much talked of in those times. They followed celibacy and merely religious duties; employed themselves in binding of prayer-books, embroidering of hassocks, in almsgiving also, and what charitable work was possible in that desert region; above all, they kept up, night and day, a continual repetition of the English liturgy, being divided into relays and watches, one watch relieving another, as on shipboard, and never allowing at any hour the sacred fire to go out."

In October, 1623, the king declared his intention to grant a new charter modelled after that of 1606. This astounding order was read three times, at a meeting of the company, before they could credit their own ears; then, by an overwhelming vote, they refused to relinquish their charter, and expressed their determination to defend it.

The king, in order to procure additional evidence to be used against the company, appointed five commissioners to make inquiries in Virginia into the state and condition of the colony. In November, 1623, when two of these commissioners had just sailed for Virginia, the king ordered a writ of quo warranto to be issued against the Virginia Company.

In the colony, hitherto, the proclamations of the governors, which had formed the rule of action, were now enacted into laws; and it was declared that the governor should no more impose taxes on the colonists without the consent of the Assembly, and that he should not withdraw the inhabitants from their private labor to any service of his; and further, that the burgesses should be free from arrest during the session of the Assembly. These acts of the legislature of the infant colony, while under the control of the Virginia Company, render it certain that there was more of constitutional and well-regulated freedom in Virginia then, than in the mother country.

Of the commissioners appointed to make inquiries in Virginia, John Harvey and John Pory arrived there early in 1624; Samuel Matthews and Abraham Percy were planters resident in the colony, and the latter a member of the House of Burgesses; John Jefferson, the other commissioner, did not come over to Virginia, nor did he take any part in the matter, being a hearty friend to the company.[172:A] Thomas Jefferson, in his memoir of himself,[172:B] says that one of his name was secretary to the Virginia Company. The Virginia planters at first looking on it as a dispute between the crown and the company, in which they were not essentially interested, paid little attention to it; but two petitions, defamatory of the colony and laudatory of Sir Thomas Smith's arbitrary rule, having come to the knowledge of the Assembly, in February, 1624, that body prepared spirited replies, and drafted a petition to the king, which, with a letter to the privy council, and other papers, were entrusted to Mr. John Pountis, a member of the council.[173:A] He died during the voyage to England. The letter addressed to the privy council prayed "that the governors may not have absolute power, that they might still retain the liberty of popular assemblies, than which nothing could more conduce to the public satisfaction and public utility." At the same time the Virginia Company, in England, presented a petition to the House of Commons against the arbitrary proceedings of the king; but although favorably received, it was withdrawn as soon as the king's disapprobation was announced.

In Virginia the commissioners refused to exhibit their commission and instructions, and the Assembly therefore refused to give them access to their records. Pory, one of the commissioners, who had formerly lost his place of secretary of the colony by betraying its secrets to the Earl of Warwick, suborned Edward Sharpless, clerk of the council, to expose to him copies of the journal of that body, and of the House of Burgesses. Sharpless being convicted of this misdemeanor was sentenced to the pillory, with the loss of his ears.[173:B] Only a part of one ear was actually cut off.

The commissioners, having failed to obtain from the Assembly a declaration of their willingness to submit to the king's purpose of revoking the charter, made a report against the company's management of the colony and the government of it, as too popular, that is, democratic, under the present charter. The king, by a proclamation issued in July, suppressed the meetings of the company, and ordered for the present a committee of the privy council, and others, to sit every Thursday, at the house of Sir Thomas Smith, in Philpot Lane, for conducting the affairs of the colony. Viscount Mandeville was at the head of this committee: Sir George Calvert, Sir Ferdinando Gorges, Sir Samuel Argall, John Pory, Sir John Wolstenholme, and others, were members. At the instance of the attorney-general, to enable the company to make a defence, their books were restored and the deputy treasurer released. In Trinity term, 1624, the writ of quo warranto was tried in the Court of King's Bench, and the charter of the Virginia Company was annulled. The case was determined only upon a technicality in the pleadings.

In one of the hearings against the company, before the privy council, the Marquis of Hamilton said of the letters and instructions of the company, written by Nicholas Ferrar, Jr.: "They are papers as admirably well penned as any I ever heard." And the Earl of Pembroke remarked: "They all deserve the highest commendation: containing advices far more excellent than I could have expected to have met with in the letters of a trading company. For they abound with soundness of good matter and profitable instruction, with respect both to religion and policy; and they possess uncommon elegance of language."[174:A]

The company had been long obnoxious to the king's ill will for several reasons; it had become a nursery for rearing and training leaders of the opposition, many of its members being likewise members of parliament. It was a sort of reform club. The king, in a speech, swore that "the Virginia Company was a seminary for a seditious parliament." The company had chosen a treasurer in disregard of the king's nomination; and in electing Carew Raleigh, a member, they had made allusions to his father, Sir Walter Raleigh, which were doubtless unpalatable to the author of his judicial murder. The king was greedy of power and of money, which he wanted the sense and the virtue to make a good use of; and he hoped to find in Virginia a new field for extortion. Fortunately for the history of the colony, copies of the company's records were made by the precaution of Nicholas Ferrar: these being deposited in the hands of the Earl of Southampton, after his death, which took place in 1624, descended to his son. After his death, in 1667, they were purchased from his executors, for sixty guineas, by the first Colonel William Byrd, then in England. From these two folio volumes, in possession of Sir John Randolph, and from the records of the colony, Stith compiled much of his History of Virginia, which comes down to the year 1624.[174:B]

On the sixth day of April, 1625, died King James the First, aged fifty-nine, after a reign of twenty years. By his consort, Anne of Denmark, he had issue, Henry and Robert, who died young, Charles, his successor, and Elizabeth, who married Frederic the Fifth, elector Palatine. Charles the First succeeding to the crown and the principles of his father, took the government of Virginia into his own hands.

The company thus dissolved, had expended one hundred and fifty thousand pounds in establishing the colony, and had transported nine thousand settlers without the aid of government. The number of stockholders was about one thousand; and the annual value of exports from Virginia was, at the period of the dissolution of the charter, only twenty thousand pounds.

The company embraced much of the rank, wealth, and talents of the kingdom—near fifty noblemen, several hundred knights, and many gentlemen, merchants, and citizens. Among the leaders in its courts were Lord Cavendish, afterwards Earl of Devonshire; Sir Edwin Sandys; and Sir Edward Sackville, afterwards the celebrated Earl of Dorset; and, above all, the Earl of Southampton, the friend of Essex, and the patron of Shakespeare. Henry Wriothesley, third Earl of Southampton, in 1601, was implicated with the Earl of Essex in his hair-brained and abortive conspiracy to seize the person of Queen Elizabeth. Essex lost his life. Southampton was convicted, attainted and imprisoned during the queen's life. Upon the accession of James the First he was liberated, and restored in 1603. He was afterwards made Captain of the Isle of Wight and Governor of Carisbroke Castle; and in 1618 a member of the privy council. Brave and generous, but haughty and impetuous, he was by no means adapted to the court and cabinet of James, where fawning servility and base intrigue were the ordinary stepping-stones of political advancement.

About the year 1619, the Earl of Southampton was imprisoned through the influence of Buckingham, "whom he rebuked with some passion for speaking often to the same thing in the house, and out of order." In 1620 he was chosen Treasurer, or Governor of the Virginia Company, contrary to the king's wishes; but he, nevertheless, continued in that office until the charter was dissolved, and at its meetings, and in parliament, opposed the measures of a feeble and corrupt court. He and Sir Edwin Sandys, the leaders, together with the bulk of the members of the company, shared largely in the spirit of civil and religious freedom, which was then manifesting itself so strongly in England. In the hostile course pursued against the company, the attacks were especially directed against the earl and his associates Sir Edwin Sandys and Nicholas Ferrar. These three were celebrated: Lord Southampton for wisdom, eloquence, and sweet deportment; Sir Edwin Sandys for great knowledge and integrity; and Nicholas Ferrar for wonderful abilities, unwearied diligence, and the strictest virtue.[176:A] The earl and Sir Edwin were particular objects of the king's hatred. Sir Edwin, a member of the House of Commons, was arbitrarily imprisoned in 1621, during the session of parliament; and the earl was arrested after its dissolution. Spain had, at this time, acquired the ascendancy in the English Court, and this malign influence was skilfully maintained by the intrigues of her crafty ambassador, Count Gondomar. It was believed by many that James was even willing to sacrifice the interests of the English colonies for the benefit of those of Spain. The Rev. Jonas Stockham, a minister in Virginia, in a letter dated in May, 1621, and addressed to the Council of the Virginia Company, said: "There be many Italianated and Spaniolized Englishmen envies our prosperities, and by all their ignominious scandals they can devise, seeks to dishearten what they can those that are willing to further this glorious enterprise. To such I wish, according to the decree of Darius, that whosoever is an enemy to our peace, and seeketh either by getting monipolical patents, or by forging unjust tales to hinder our welfare—that his house were pulled down, and a pair of gallows made of the wood, and he hanged on them in the place."

The Earl of Southampton was grandson of Wriothesley, the famous Chancellor of Edward the Sixth, father to the excellent and noble Treasurer Southampton, grandfather to Rachel Lady Russel. In his later years he commanded an English regiment in the Dutch service, and died in the Netherlands, 1624. Shakespeare dedicated some of his minor poems to him; the County of Southampton, in Virginia, probably also took its name from him. Captain Smith, who had been unjustly displaced by the company, approved of the dissolution of their charter. Yet, as no compensation was rendered for the enormous expenditure incurred, it can be looked upon as little better than confiscation effected by chicane and tyranny. A parliamentary committee, of which Sir Edwin Sandys was a member, in the same year, 1624, drew up articles of impeachment against Lord Treasurer Cranfield for his agency in bringing about the dissolution of the charter.[177:A] Nevertheless, the result was undoubtedly favorable to the colony, as is candidly acknowledged by that honest chronicler, Stith, although no one could be more strenuously opposed to the arbitrary means employed.

An Assembly had been held in March, 1624, and its acts are preserved: they are brief and simple, coming directly to the point, without the redundancy of modern statutes; and refer mainly to agriculture, the church establishment, and defence against the Indians.[177:B] The following is a list of the members of this early Assembly:—

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER XIX.

1624-1632.

In August, 1624, King Charles the First granted a commission appointing Sir Thomas Wyat Governor, with a council during pleasure, and omitting all mention of an assembly, thinking so "popular a course" the chief source of the recent troubles and misfortunes. The eleven members of the council were, Francis West, Sir George Yeardley, George Sandys, Roger Smith, Ralph Hamor, who had been of the former council, with the addition of John Martin, John Harvey, Samuel Matthews, Abraham Percy, Isaac Madison, and William Clayborne. Several of these were then, or became afterwards, men of note in the colony. This is the first mention of William Clayborne, who was destined to play an important part in the future annals of Virginia.

Thus in effect a royal government was now established in Virginia; hitherto she had been subject to a complex threefold government of the company, the crown, and her own president or governor and council.[179:A]

From 1624 to 1628 there is no mention in the statute-book of Virginia, or in the journal of the Virginia Company, of any assembly having been held in the colony, and in 1628 appeals were made to the governor and council; whereas had there been an assembly, it would have been the appellate court.

The French had established themselves as early as 1625 in Canada; the Dutch were now colonizing the New Netherlands; a Danish colony had been planted in New Jersey; the English were extending their confines in New England (where New Plymouth numbered thirty-two houses and one hundred and eighty settlers) and Virginia; while the Spaniards, the first settlers of the coast, still held some feeble posts in Florida.

Sir Thomas Wyat, the governor of the colony of Virginia, on the death of his father, Sir George Wyat, returning, in 1626, to Ireland, to attend to his private affairs there, was succeeded by Sir George Yeardley. He, during the same year, by proclamation, which now again usurped the place of law, prohibited the selling of corn to the Indians; made some commercial regulations, and directed houses to be palisaded. Yeardley dying, was succeeded in November, 1627, by Francis West, elected by the council. He was a younger brother of Lord Delaware.[180:A]

At a court held at James City, November the sixteenth, Lady Temperance Yeardley came and confirmed the conveyance made by her late husband, Sir George Yeardley, knight, late governor, to Abraham Percy, Esq., for the lands of Flowerdieu Hundred, being one thousand acres, and of Weanoke, on the opposite side of the water, being two thousand two hundred acres. This lady's Christian name is Puritanical; another such was Obedience Robins, a burgess of Accomac in 1630.

James the First had extorted a revenue from the tobacco of Virginia by an arbitrary resort to his prerogative, and in violation of the charter. Charles the First, in a letter dated June, 1628, proposed that a monopoly of the tobacco trade should be granted to him, and recommended the culture of several new products, and desired that an assembly should be called to take these matters into consideration. The ensuing assembly replied, demanding a higher price and more favorable terms than his majesty was disposed to yield. As to the introduction of new staples, they explained why, in their opinion, that was impracticable. This letter was signed by Francis West, Governor, five members of the council, and thirty-one members of the House of Burgesses.

Sir George Yeardley, the late governor, with two or three of the council, had resided for the most part at Jamestown; the rest of the council repaired there as occasion required. There was a general meeting of the governor and council once in every three months. The population of the colony was estimated at not less than fifteen hundred; they inhabited seventeen or eighteen plantations, of these the greater part, lying toward the falls of the James River, were well fortified against the Indians by means of palisades. The planters dwelling above Jamestown, found means to procure an abundant supply of fish. On the banks of that river the red men themselves were now seldom seen, but their fires were occasionally observed in the woods.[181:A]

There was no family in the colony so poor as not to have a sufficient stock of tame hogs. Poultry was equally abundant; bread plenty and good. For drink the colonists made use of a home-made ale; but the better sort of people were well supplied with sack, aqua-vitæ, and good English beer. The common diet of the servants was milk-hominy, that is, bruised Indian-corn, pounded and boiled thick, and eaten with milk. This dish was also in esteem with the better sort. Hominy, according to Strachey, is an Indian word; Lord Bacon calls it "the cream of maize," and commends it as a nutritious diet. The planters were generally provided with arms and armor, and on every holiday each plantation exercised its men in the use of arms, by which means, together with hunting and fowling, the greater part of them became excellent marksmen. Tobacco was the only staple cultivated for sale. The health of the country was greatly improved by clearing the land, so that the sun had power to exhale up the humid vapors. Captain Francis West continued governor till March, 1628, and he then being about to embark for England, John Pott was elected governor by the council.

In the year 1629 most of the land about Jamestown was cleared; little corn planted; but all the ground converted into pasture and gardens, "wherein doth grow all manners of English herbs and roots and very good grass." Such is the cotemporaneous statement, but after the lapse of more than two centuries Eastern Virginia depends largely on the Northern States for her supply of hay. The greater portion of the cattle of the colony was kept near Jamestown, the owners being dispersed about on plantations, and visiting Jamestown as inclination prompted, or, at the arrival of shipping, come to trade. In this year the population of Virginia amounted to five thousand, and the cattle had increased in the like proportion. The colony's stock of provisions was sufficient to feed four hundred more than its own number of inhabitants. Vessels procured supplies in Virginia; the number of arrivals in 1629 was twenty-three. Salt fish was brought from New England; Kecoughtan supplied peaches.

Mrs. Pearce, an honest industrious woman, after passing twenty years in Virginia, on her return to England reported that she had a garden at Jamestown, containing three or four acres, where in one year she had gathered a hundred bushels of excellent figs, and that of her own provision she could keep a better house in Virginia, than in London for three or four hundred pounds a year, although she had gone there with little or nothing. The planters found the Indian-corn so much better for bread than wheat, that they began to quit sowing it.

An assembly met at Jamestown in October, 1629; it consisted of John Pott, Governor, four councillors, and forty-six burgesses, returned from twenty-three plantations. Pott was superseded in the same year by Sir John Harvey, at some time between October and March. In March, the quarter court ordered an assembly to be called, to meet Sir John Harvey on the twenty-fourth of that month; and nothing was done in Pott's name after October, so far as can be found in the records.

The late governor was, during the ensuing year, Rob-Roy-like, convicted of stealing cattle. The trial commenced on the ninth of July, 1630; the number of jurors was thirteen, of whom three were members of the council. The first day was wholly spent in pleading, the next in unnecessary disputations, Dr. John Pott endeavoring to prove Mr. Kingsmell, one of the witnesses against him, a hypocrite by the story of "Gusman of Alfrach, the Rogue." Pott was found guilty, but in consideration of his rank and station, judgment was suspended until the king's pleasure should be known; and all the council became his security.

Sir John Harvey, the new governor, had been one of the commissioners sent out by King James to Virginia, in 1623, for the purpose of investigating the state and condition of the colony, and of procuring evidence which might serve to justify the dissolution of the charter of the Virginia Company. Harvey had also been a member of the provisional government in the year 1625. Returning now to Virginia, no doubt with embittered recollections of the collisions with the assembly in which he had been formerly involved, he did not fail to imitate the arbitrary rule that prevailed "at home," and to render himself odious to the inhabitants of the colony.

Sir George Calvert, the first Lord Baltimore, descended from a noble family in Flanders, born at Kipling, in Yorkshire, England, was educated partly at Trinity College, Oxford, and partly on the continent. Sir Robert Cecil, lord treasurer, employed him as his secretary, and he was promoted to the clerkship of the council. In 1618 he was knighted, and in the succeeding year he was made a secretary of state, and one of the committee of trade and plantations, with a pension of one thousand pounds. Through the influence of Sir Thomas Wentworth, afterwards Earl of Strafford, he was chosen a member of Parliament. Receiving a patent for the southeastern peninsula of Newfoundland, he undertook to establish, in 1621, the plantation of Ferryland, which he called the Province of Avalon—a name derived from some mediæval legend. In 1624 he professed the Romish faith, and resigned his place of secretary of state; but James the First still retained this strenuous defender of royal prerogative as a member of his privy council, and created him[183:A] Baron of Baltimore, in the County of Longford, in Ireland, he being at this time the representative of the University of Oxford in the House of Commons. Still bent upon establishing a colony in America, for the promotion of his private interests, and to provide an asylum for the unmolested exercise of his religion, embarking in a ship lent him by King Charles the First, he came over to Virginia in the year 1629.

Virginia was founded by men devoted to the principles of the Reformation, amid vivid recollections of the persecutions of Mary, the Spanish armada, and the recent gunpowder plot, and when horror of papists was at its height. The charter of the colony expressly required that the oaths of allegiance and supremacy should be taken for the purpose of guarding against "the superstitions of the Church of Rome."[184:A]

The assembly being in session at the time of Lord Baltimore's arrival, proposed these oaths to him and those with him. He declined complying with the requisition, submitting, however, a form which he was ready to accept, whereupon the assembly determined to refer the matter to the privy council. The virtues of this able and estimable nobleman did not secure him from personal indignity. In the old records is found this entry: "March 25th, 1630, Thomas Tindall to be pilloried two hours for giving my Lord Baltimore the lie, and threatening to knock him down."[184:B]

Finding the Virginians unanimously averse to the very name of papist, he proceeded to the head of Chesapeake Bay, and observing an attractive territory on the north side of the Potomac River unoccupied, returned to England, and, in violation of the territorial rights of Virginia, obtained from Charles the First a grant of the country, afterwards called Maryland,[184:C] but before the sealing of his patent.

During the session of 1629-30 ministers were ordered to conform themselves in all things "according to the canons of the Church of England." It would appear that Puritanism had begun to develope itself among the clergy as well as the laity of the colony. Measures were adopted for erecting a fort at Point Comfort; new-comers were exempted from military service during the first five years after their arrival; engrossing and forestalling were prohibited. For the furtherance of the production of potashes and saltpetre, experiments were ordered to be made; to prevent a scarcity of corn, it was enacted that two acres of land, or near thereabouts, be planted for every head that works in the ground; regulations were established for the improvement of the staple of tobacco. An act provided that the war commenced against the Indians be effectually prosecuted, and that no peace be concluded with them.[185:A]

The first act of the session of February, 1632, provides that there be a uniformity throughout this colony, both in substance and circumstance, to the canons and constitution of the Church of England, as near as may be, and that every person yield ready obedience to them, upon penalty of the pains and forfeitures in that case appointed. Another act directs that ministers shall not give themselves to excess in drinking, or riot, spending their time idly, by day or night, playing at dice, cards, or any other unlawful game. Another order was, that all the council and burgesses of the assembly shall in the morning be present at divine service, in the room where they sit, at the third beating of the drum, an hour after sunrise. No person was suffered to "tend" above fourteen leaves of the tobacco-plant, nor to gather more than nine leaves, nor to tend any slips of old stalks of tobacco, or any of the second crop; and it was ordained that all tobacco should be taken down before the end of November. No person was permitted to speak or parley with the Indians, either in the woods or on any plantation, "if he can possibly avoid it by any means." The planters, however, were required to observe all terms of amity with them, taking care, nevertheless, to keep upon their guard. The spirit of constitutional freedom exhibited itself in an act declaring that the governor and council shall not lay any taxes or impositions upon the colony, their land, or commodities, otherwise than by authority of the grand assembly, to be levied and employed as by the assembly shall be appointed.

Act XL. provides, that the governor shall not withdraw the inhabitants from their private labors to service of his own, upon any color whatsoever. In case of emergency, the levying of men shall be ordered by the governor, with the consent of the whole body of the council. For the encouragement of men to plant a plenty of corn, it was enacted, that the price shall not be restricted, but it shall be free for every man to sell it as dear as he can. Men were not allowed to work in the grounds without their arms, and a sentinel on guard; due watch to be kept at night when necessary; no commander of any plantation shall either himself spend, or suffer others to spend, powder unnecessarily, that is to say, in drinking or entertainments. All men fit to bear arms were required to bring their pieces to the church on occasion of public worship. No person within the colony, upon any rumor of supposed change and alteration, was to presume to be disobedient to the present government, nor servants to their private officers, masters, and overseers, at their uttermost peril. No boats were permitted to go and trade to Canada or elsewhere that be not of the burthen of ten tons, and have a flush deck, or fitted with a grating and a tarpauling, excepting such as be permitted for discovery by a special license from the governor.[186:A]

FOOTNOTES: