presume to be disobedient to the present government, or servants to their private officers, masters, or overseers, at their uttermost perils.

Wise regulations were likewise made to prevent surprises by the Indians; every house was to be fortified with palisadoes; no man should go or send abroad without a party sufficiently armed, or to work without their arms, with a sentinel over them; the inhabitants were forbidden to go aboard ships or elsewhere in such numbers as to endanger the safety of their plantations; every planter was to take care to have sufficient arms and ammunition in good order; watch was to be kept by night; and no planter was to suffer powder to be expended in amusement or entertainments. To promote corn-planting, and ensure plenty of provision, no limit was fixed to its price; viewers were appointed to see that every man planted a sufficiency for his family, and all trade with the savages for corn was strictly prohibited.

Having thus given a specimen of colonial spirit, and colonial legislation, we return to the little intrigues of James, who was striving by every means in his power to become possessed of the control of the colony; partly to gratify his love of arbitrary authority and of money, and partly to gratify his royal self-complacency, by framing a code of laws for a people with whose character and condition he was utterly unacquainted, and who, from the specimens recently given, appeared to be fully competent to the management of their own affairs, without the dictation or advice of this royal guardian; who, while he displayed the craft without the talent of a Philip, aspired to the character of a Solon. The recent acts of the king led to a solemn council of the company on the state of their affairs, in which they confirmed by an overwhelming majority the previous determination to defend their charter, and asked for a restitution of their papers for the purpose of preparing their defence. This request was pronounced reasonable by the attorney-general, and complied with. While these papers were in the hands of the company, they were transcribed, and the copy has been fortunately preserved, and presents a faithful record of many portions of Virginia history, which it would be otherwise impossible to elucidate.

The king had caused a quo warranto to be issued against the Nov. 10, company soon after the appointment of his com1624. missioners to go to Virginia, and the cause was tried in the King's Bench, in Trinity Term of 1624. A cause which their royal master had so much at heart could not long be doubtful with judges entirely dependent upon his will for their places; it is even credibly reported that this important case, whereby the rights of a powerful corporation were divested, and the possibility of a remuneration for all of their trouble and expense forever cut off, was decided upon a mere technical question of special pleading !†

* Burke, p. 274-5. Stith compiled his history principally from these documents. + Note to Bancroft, p. 207. Stith, p. 329, 330, doubts if judgment was passed. The doubt may be removed. "Before the end of the same term, a judgment was declared by the Lord Chief Justice Ley, against the company and their charter, only upon failer or mistake in pleading." See a Short Collection of the most Remarkable Passages from the Original to the Dissolution of the Virginia Company: London, 1651, p. 15. See also Hazard, vol. I. p. 19; Chalmers, p. 62; Proud's Pennsylvania, vol. I., p. 107.

In the mean time the commissioners had returned, and reported very favorably of the soil and climate of Virginia, but censuring deeply the conduct of the company,-recommending the government of the original charter of 1606, and declaring that a body so large and so democratic in its forms as the company, could never persevere in a consistent course of policy, but must veer about as the different factions should prevail. In this it must be admitted that there was much truth, and all hopes of profit having for some time expired, and the company only being kept up by the distinguished men of its members, from patriotic motives and as an instrument of power for thwarting the king, in which capacity its present unpopularity rendered it of little use-it was now suffered to expire under the judicial edict, without a groan. The expiration of the charter brought little immediate change to the actual government of the colony-a large committee was formed by the king, consisting principally of his privy council, to discharge the functions of the extinct company; Sir Francis Wyatt was reappointed governor, and he and his council only empowered to govern as fully and amply as any governor and council resident there, at any time within the space of five years last past"which was the exact period of their representative government. The king, in appointing the council in Virginia, refused to appoint embittered partisans of the court faction, but formed the government of men of moderation.

66

So leaving Virginia free, while his royal highness is graciously pleased to gratify his own vanity in preparing a new code of laws to regulate her affairs, we pass on to a new chapter.

CHAPTER IV.

PROGRESS OF THE COLONY FROM THE DISSOLUTION OF THE LONDON COMPANY, TO THE BREAKING OUT OF BACON'S REBELLION IN 1675.

Accession of Charles I.-Tobacco trade.-Yeardley governor—his commission favorable-his death and character.-Lord Baltimore's reception.-State of religion—legislation upon the subject.-Invitation to the Puritans to settle on Delaware BayHarvey governor-Grant of Carolina and Maryland.-Harvey deposed-restored.Wyatt governor.-Acts of the Legislature improperly censured.-Berkeley governor. -Indian relations.-Opechancanough prisoner his death.-Change of government in England. Fleet and army sent to reduce Virginia.-Preparation for defence by Berkeley. Agreement entered into between the colony and the commissioners of the commonwealth.--Indian hostilities.-Matthews elected governor.-Difficulties between the governor and the legislature-adjusted.-State of the colony and its trade.-Commissioners sent to England.—The Restoration.—General legislation.

THE dissolution of the London Company was soon followed by the death of James, and the accession of his son, March 27, 1625. Charles I. The king troubled himself little about the political rights and privileges of the colony, and suffered them

to grow to the strength of established usage by his wholesome neglect; while he was employed in obtaining a monopoly of their tobacco. This valuable article, the use of which extended with such unaccountable rapidity, had early attracted the avidity of King James. The 19th article of the charter of 1609 had exempted the company, their agents, factors, and assignees, from the payment of all subsidies and customs in Virginia for the space of one and twenty years, and from all taxes and impositions forever, upon any goods imported thither, or exported thence into any of the realms or dominions of England; except the five per cent. usual by the ancient trade of merchants. But notwithstanding the express words of this charter, a tax was laid by the farmers of the customs, in the year 1620, upon the tobacco of the colony; which was not only high of itself, but the more oppressive because it laid the same tax upon Virginia and Spanish tobacco, when the latter sold in the market for three times the price of the former. In the same year the same prince was guilty of another violation of the charter, in forcing the company to bring all of their tobacco into England; when he found that a portion of their trade had been diverted into Holland, and establishments made at Middleburg and Flushing. The charters all guarantied to the colony all of the rights, privileges, franchises, and immunities of native born Englishmen, and this act of usurpation was the first attempt on the part of the mother country to monopolize the trade of the colony. The next year the king, either his avidity being unsatisfied, or not liking the usurped and precarious tenure by which his gains were held, inveigled the Virginia and Somer Isles company into an arrangement, by which they were to become the sole importers of tobacco; being bound, however, to import not less than forty nor more than sixty thousand pounds of Spanish varinas, and paying to the king, in addition to the sixpence duty before paid, one-third part of all the tobacco landed in the realms. The king, on his part, was to prohibit all other importation and all planting in England and Ireland; and that which was already planted was to be confiscated.

When the company petitioned parliament to prolong its existence, in opposition to the efforts of the king, they failed-but that portion of their petition, which asked for the exclusive monopoly of tobacco to Virginia and the Somer Isles, was grantSep. 29, 1624. ed, and a royal proclamation issued accordingly.

Whether this exclusiveness was understood with the limitation in the previous contract between the king and the two companies, it is impossible to say, as the original documents are not accessible to the writer.* But the probabilities are greatly against the limitation.

Charles had not been long on the throne before he issued a

* Burke, I. 291, and Bancroft, I. 206-quoting Stith, Cobbett's Parliament. Hist. and Hazard.

proclamation, confirming the exclusive privileges April 9, 1625. of the Virginia and Somer Isles tobacco; and prohibiting a violation of their monopoly, under penalty of censure by the dread star-chamber. This was soon followed by another, in which he carefully set forth the forfeiture of their charter by the company, and the immediate dependence of the colony upon the crown; concluding by a plain intimation of his intention to become their sole factor.

Soon after this, a rumor reached the colonies that an individual was in treaty with the king for an exclusive contract for tobacco; one of the conditions of which would have led to the importation of so large an amount of Spanish tobacco, as would have driven that of the colonists from the market. The earnest representations of the colony on this subject caused an abandonment of the scheme; but in return, the colony was obliged to excuse itself from a charge of trade with the Low Countries, and promise to trade only with England. But the king's eagerness for the possession of this monopoly was not to be baffled thus. He made a formal proposition to the colony for their exclusive trade, in much the same language as one tradesman would use to another; and desired that the General Assembly might be convened for the purpose of Mar. 26, 1628. considering his proposition. The answer by the General Assembly to this proposition is preserved. It sets forth in strong, but respectful language the injury which had been done the planters, by the mere report of an intention to subject their trade to a monopoly: they state the reasons for not engaging in the production of the other staples mentioned by the king; and dissent from his proposition as to the purchase of their tobacco; demanding a higher price and better terms of admission, in exchange for the exclusive monopoly which he wished. In the mean time, the death of his father rendered it necessary for Sir Francis Wyatt to return to Europe, to attend to his private affairs; and the king appointed Sir George Yeardley his successor. This was itself a sufficient guarantee of the political privileges of the colony; as he had had the honor of calling the first colonial assembly. But in addition to this, his powers were, like those of his predecessor, limited to the executive authority exercised by the governor within five years last past. These circumstances taken in connection with the express sanction given by Charles to the power of a legislative assembly, with regard to his proffered contract for tobacco, sufficiently prove that he had no design of interfering with the highly prized privilege of self-government enjoyed by the colonists: and fully justifies the General Assembly in putting the most favorable construction upon the king's ambiguous words, announcing his determination to preserve inviolate all the "former interests" of Virginia, which occur in his letter of 1627.

1626.

Thus were those free principles established in Virginia, for which the mother country had to struggle for some time longer.

The colony rose in the estimation of the public, and a thousand new emigrants arrived in one year; which of course much enhanced the price of provision.

Death now closed the career of Yeardley. The character of his administration is exhibited in the history of the colony; Nov. 14, 1627. and the estimate placed upon his character by those who were best acquainted with his conduct, and who were little disposed to flatter undeservedly either the living or the dead, is to be found in a eulogy written by the government of Virginia to the privy council, announcing his death. In obedience to the king's commission to the council, they elected Francis West governor, the day after the burial of Yeardley. He held the commission until the 5th of March, 1628, when, designing to sail for England, John Pott was chosen to succeed him. Pott did not continue long in office, for the king, when the death of Yeardley was known, issued his commission to Sir John Harvey, who arrived some time between October, 1628, and March, 1629.

In the interval between the death of Yeardley and the arrival of Harvey, occurred the first act of religious intolerance which defiles the annals of Virginia.

Lord Baltimore, a Catholic nobleman, allured by the rising reputation of the colony, abandoned his settlement in Newfoundland and came to Virginia; where, instead of being received with the cheerful welcome of a friend and a brother, he was greeted with the oath of allegiance and supremacy; the latter of which, it was well known, his conscience would not allow him to take.

Much allowance is to be made for this trespass upon religious freedom before we attribute it to a wilful violation of natural liberty. The times and circumstances ought to be considered. The colony had grown into life while the violent struggles between the Romish and Protestant churches were yet rife. The ancient tyranny and oppression of the Holy See were yet fresh in the memory of all; its cruelties and harsh intolerance in England were recent; and yet continuing in the countries in which its votaries had the control of the civil government. The light of Protestantism itself was the first dawn of religious freedom; and the thraldom in which mankind had been held by Catholic fetters for so many ages, was too terrible to risk the possibility of their acquiring any authority in government. Eye-witnesses of the severities of Mary were yet alive in England, and doubtless many of the colonists had heard fearful relations of the religious sufferings during her reign, probably some had suffered in their own families: most of them had emigrated while the excitement against the Papists was still raging in England with its greatest fury, and continually kept in action by the discovery, or pretended discovery, of Popish plots to obtain possession of the government. Was it wonderful, then, that a colony which, with a remarkable uniformity of sentiment, professed a different religion, should be jealous of a faith which sought by every means in its power to obtain supreme control, and used that control for the extermination, by the harshest means, of all other creeds?

The colony in Virginia was planted when the incestuous and monstrous connection of church and state had not been severed in any civilized country on the globe; at a period when it would have been heresy to attempt such a divorce, because it required all the aid of the civil power to give men sufficient freedom to "profess, and by argument to maintain," any other creed than one-and that one the creed of Rome. The anxiety of the British government upon this subject, so far from being unnatural, was highly laudable, since all its efforts were necessary to sustain its new-born power of professing its own creed. The awful effect of Catholic supremacy, displayed in a neighboring kingdom, afforded a warning too terrible to be easily forgotten; and it would have been as unwise to allow the Catholics equal civil privileges at that day, as it would be impolitic and unjust now to exclude them. We find this regard for religious

The massacre of the Protestants by the Catholics on St. Bartholomew's day, in France, in 1572.