freedom, (for emancipation from the Pope's authority was a great step in religious freedom,) carefully fostered in the colonies. Every charter requires the establishment of the church of England, and authorizes the infliction of punishment for drawing off the people from their religion, as a matter of equal importance with their allegiance. For at that period, before any important differences between the Protestants had arisen, when but two religions were struggling for existence, not to be of the church of England was to be a Papist, and not to acknowledge the secular supremacy of the king, was to bow to the authority of the pope. The Catholics, as the only subject of terror, were the only subjects of intolerance; no sufficient number of dissenters had availed themselves of the great example of Protestantism, in rejecting any creed which did not precisely satisfy their consciences, to become formidable to mother church; nor had she grown so strong and haughty in her new-fledged power, as to level her blows at any but her first great antagonist.*

The colony in Virginia consisted of church of England men; and many of the first acts of their legislature relate to provision for the church. Glebe lands were early laid off, and livings provided. The ministers were considered not as pious and charitable individuals, but as officers of the state, bound to promote the true faith and sound morality, by authority of the community by which they were paid, and to which they were held responsible for the performance of their duty. The very first act of Assembly which was passed, required that in every settlement in which the people met to worship God, a house should be appropriated exclusively to that purpose, and a place paled in to be used solely as a burying-ground; the second act imposed a penalty of a pound of tobacco for absence from divine service on Sunday, without sufficient excuse, and fifty pounds for a month's absence; the third, required uniformity, as nearly as might be, with the canons in England; the fourth, enjoined the observance of the holy days, (adding the 22d of March, the day of the Massacre, to the number,) dispensing with some, "by reason of our necessities;" the fifth, punished any minister absenting himself from his church above two months in the year, with forfeiture of half his estate-and four months, his whole estate and curacy; the sixth, punished disparagement of a minister; the seventh, prohibited any man from disposing of his tobacco or corn, until the minister's portion was first paid. This sacred duty discharged, the Assembly next enact salutary regulations for the state. We find at the session of 1629, the act requiring attendance at church on the Sabbath, specially enforced, and a clause added, forbidding profanation of that day by travelling or work; also an act, declaring that all those who work in the ground shall pay tithes to the minister. We find requisition of uniformity with the canons of the English church not only repeated, in every new commission from England, but re-enacted by the legislature of 1629-30, and in 1631-32, as well as in the several revisals of the

*The persecution of the Puritans was an exception to this. They were persecuted with considerable rigor, but their numbers were small, consisting only of two churches, and most of those who then existed went to Holland with their leaders, John Robinson and William Brewster, in 1607 and 8, and settled in Amsterdam, whence they removed to Leyden in 1609, whence they sailed to America in 1620, and landed in Cape Cod Harbor on the 7th of November, and settled Plymouth on the 31st of December follow ing-Holmes' Am. An. 156-203.

laws. In the acts of 1631-32, we find many acts conveying the idea advanced of ministers being considered public officers; and churchwardens required to take an oath, to present offences against decency or morality, which made them in effect censors of the public morals. In these acts, it is made the duty of ministers to teach children the Lord's prayer, commandments, and the articles of faith; also to attend all persons dangerously sick, to instruct and comfort them in their distress; to keep registers of christening, marriages, and deaths; and to preserve in themselves strict moral conduct, as an advancement to religion and an example to others. We find, also, frequent acts passed providing for the payment of ministers, until the session of 1657-58, when church and state seem to have been effectually divorced; for, though no act of religious freedom was passed, but all were still expected, rather than compelled, to conform to the church of England, yet the compulsory payment of ministers was abandoned, and all matters relating to the church were left entirely to the control of the people.

From the review which we have given of the religious condition of England and the colony, it must be manifest that the tender of the oath of supremacy to Lord Baltimore, was not only a religious but a civil duty in the council, which they could by no means have omitted, without a violation of their own oaths, laws, and charters. But if any further proof were necessary, to show that it flowed from this source, and not from a disposition to religious intolerance-it is afforded by the liberal invitation given in the instructions to Captain Bass to the Puritans, who had settled at New Plymouth, to desert their cold and barren soil, and come and settle upon Delaware Bay, which was in the limits of Virginia. Harvey met his first General Assembly in March, and its acts, as those of several succeeding sessions, only consist of the 1629. usual business acts of the colony. We have now approached a period in our history, upon which the few scattered and glimmering lights which exist, have rather served to mislead than to guide historians. It is a period replete with charges made by historians, of the most heinous character, against the governor, with no evidence upon record to support them. The truth is, that Sir John Harvey was deposed and sent home by the colony for some improper conduct: but what that was, does not fully appear, and historians seem to have thought it their duty to supply the defect in the record, by abusing his administration as arbitrary and tyrannical from the first: the charge is without evidence, and every probability is against its truth. During the whole of his administration, the General Assembly met and transacted their business as usual. The fundamental laws which they had passed, to which we have before referred, restraining the powers of the governor, and asserting the powers of the Assembly, were passed again as of course. There could manifestly be no oppression from this source. The General Assembly ordered the building of forts,

made the contracts, provided the payments, provided garrisons and soldiers for the field when necessary, and disbanded them when the occasion for their services had ceased. The Assembly and the soldiers were planters, and they could be little disposed to oppress themselves, their families and friends. The only evidence which exists against Harvey, is the fact of his being deposed, and sent home with commissioners to complain of his conduct to the king; but this did not occur until 1635, after the extensive grants had been made to Lord Baltimore and others, which dismembered the colony, and were so displeasing to the planters; and we shall see that aid or connivance in these grants were the probable causes of Harvey's unpopularity.

The first act of tyranny towards the colony which we find recorded against Charles, was his grant in 1630 to Sir Robert Heath of a large portion of the lands of the colony-commencing at the 36th degree of latitude, and including the whole southern portion of the United States, under the name of Carolina. But as this country was not settled until long afterwards, and the charter became void by non-compliance with its terms, it could not be regarded as injurious by the colony, except as an evidence of the facility with which their chartered rights could be divested. Another instance of a more objectionable character soon oc1632. curred. Cecilius Calvert, Lord Baltimore, obtained a grant of that portion of Virginia which is now included in the state of Maryland, and immediately commenced a settlement upon it, notwithstanding the value which the Virginians set upon it, and their having actually made settlements within its limits. William Claiborne, who had been a member of the council, and secretary of state for Virginia, had obtained a license from the king to "traffic in those parts of America where there was no license," which had been confirmed by Harvey. In pursuance of this authority he had settled himself at Kent Island, near the city of Annapolis, and seemed by no means inclined tamely to relinquish his possessions. He resisted the encroachments of Maryland by force. This was the first controversy between the whites which ever took place on the waters of the Chesapeake. Claiborne was indicted, and found of guilty of murder, piracy, and sedition; and to escape punishment he fled to Virginia. When the Maryland commissioners demanded him, Harvey refused to give him up, but sent him to England to be tried. It is highly probable that the conduct of Harvey in giving up instead of protecting Claiborne, incensed the colony against him; for they clearly thought the Maryland charter an infringement of their rights, and they were little inclined to submit to imposition from any quarter.

The account which we have of the trial of Harvey is extremely meager, detailing neither the accusations nor the evidence, but only the fact. The manner of proceeding, however, as it appears on the record, is as little like that of an enslaved people, as it is like a "transport of popular rage and indignation." The whole

matter seems to have been conducted with calm deliberation, as a free people acting upon the conduct of an unworthy servant. The first entry upon the subject runs thus: "An assembly to be called to receive complaints against Sir John Harvey, on the petition of many inhabitants, to meet 7th of May." Could as much coolness, deliberation, and publicity be given to action against a tyrant who had already trodden liberty under foot? or is a transport of popular rage so slow in action? The next entry upon this subject is the following: "On the 28th of April, 1635, Sir John Harvey thrust out of his government, and Capt. John West acts as governor, till the king's pleasure known." It appears that before the Assembly met which was to have heard complaints against Harvey, he agreed in council to go to England to answer them; and upon that, West was elected governor.

How long West governed is uncertain; but it appears by a paper among the records, that Harvey was governor again in January, 1636. It appears that Charles regarded the conduct of the colony as an unwarrantable piece of insolence, little short of treason, and would not even hear them, lest the spectacle of so noble an example might inflame the growing discontents in his own kingdom, which finally rose to such a pitch, as not only to take the same unwarrantable liberty of deposing him, but even laid violent hands upon his sacred person. He accordingly sent the commissioners home with their grievances untold, and Harvey was reinstated in his power without undergoing even a trial. The conduct of the colony appears to have been a salutary lesson to him, and he probably feared that for the next offence they would take justice into their own hands; for we hear no complaints of him during his administration, which expired in November, 1639. Sir Francis Wyatt succeeded him.

In 1634 the colony was divided into eight shires, which were to be governed as the shires in England: lieutenants were to be appointed in the same manner as in England, and it was their especial duty to pay attention to the war against the Indians. Sheriffs, sergeants, and bailiffs, were also to be elected as in England. In 1628-9 commissions were issued to hold monthly courts in the different settlements, which was the origin of our county court system.

At the first assembly which was held after the return of Wyatt, several acts were passed, which, from the inattention of historians to the circumstances of the times, have received universal reprobation, but which, when properly considered, will be found to be marked with great shrewdness, and dictated by the soundest policy.

The act declares that, "tobacco by reason of excessive quantities being made, being so low, that the planters could not subsist by it, or be enabled to raise more staple com

* Viz., James City, Henrico, Charles City, Elizabeth City, Warwick River, Warros quoyoke, Charles River, and Accomack.

modities, or pay their debts: therefore it was enacted, that the tobacco of that year be viewed by sworn viewers, and the rotten and unmerchantable, and half the good, to be burned. So the whole quantity made would come to 1,500,000 lbs., without stripping and smoothing; and the next two years 170 lbs. tobacco per poll, stripped and smoothed, was to be made, which would make, in the whole, about 1,300,000 lbs., and all creditors were to take 40 lbs. for a hundred." By a second act, it was declared that "no man should be obliged to perform above half his covenants about freighting tobacco in 1639." Nothing could be more absurd than such acts at the present day, and hence they have been pronounced absurd at that time. But let us look to the circumstances. Except the little tobacco made in the Somer Isles, Virginia at that time had the monopoly of the English market. The taste for tobacco was new, existed with few, and could not be suddenly extended; consequently the consumption could not be increased in proportion to the increase of supply, but those who used it would obtain it at a price propor. tionably less. Thus a superabundant supply so glutted the market as to reduce the article to a price ruinous to the planters. On the other hand, with those who had acquired a taste for tobacco, it was nearly indispensable, and if less than a usual crop was made, the demand enhanced the value of the remainder beyond that of the full crop; hence the propriety of burning half of the good tobacco. This seems to have been perceived, and we have seen no fault found with the first portion of the act; but the latter part, forcing creditors to take less than their full dues, has been pronounced flagrantly unjust. But if this had not been done, what would have been the condition of the planter? If he had made a hundred pounds, and owed fifty, the burning and his creditor would deprive him of his whole crop, while the creditor receiving the fifty pounds at its enhanced value, would receive more than double what was due him. This would have been highly oppressive to the debtor, and made the whole act redound entirely to the benefit of the creditor. Whereas, making him take forty pounds in the hundred, when that forty was enhanced to more than the value of the hundred, was no hardship.

In the early stages of the colony, the planters wanted the comforts of life from England, and not money, for money could purchase nothing in America. It would have been wasteful extravagance to have brought it. The Virginians had but one article of export, -all trading vessels came for tobacco,-hence that would purchase every thing, and became, on that account, useful to every man, and an article of universal desire, as money is in other countries, and hence the standard of value and circulating medium of the colony. We find, when money first began to be introduced, as the keeping accounts in tobacco was inconvenient to the foreign merchants who came to trade, an act was passed with the following preamble:-"Whereas it hath been the usual custom of merchants and others dealing intermutually in this colony, to make all bargains, contracts, and to keep all accounts in tobacco, and not in money," &c. It then goes on to enact that in future they should be kept in money, and that in all pleas and actions the value should be represented in money. This was in 1633. But it was found so inconvenient to represent value by an arbitrary standard, the representative of which did not exist in the colony, that another act was passed in January, 1641, declaring that," Whereas many and great inconveniences do daily arise by dealing for money, Be it enacted and confirmed by the authority of this present Grand Assembly, that all money-debts made since the 26th day of March, 1642, or which hereafter shall be made, shall not be pleadable or recoverable in any court of justice under this government." An exception was afterwards made in 1642-3, in favor of debts contracted for horses or sheep, but money-debts generally were not even made recoverable again until 1656. We thus see that tobacco was the currency, and an excess as injurious as an over-issue of bank-paper, depreciating itself in the market, or, in common parlance, causing every thing to rise. We see, moreover, the cause of the excessive care taken in burning bad tobacco, since that was as important to the uniformity of their currency as the exclusion of counterfeits in a money currency. All the viewings, censorships, inspections, regulations of the amount to be cultivated by each planter, each hand, the quantity to be gathered from each plant, the regulations prescribed as to curing it,— -are to be regarded more as mint regulations than as regulations of agricultural industry. Indeed, we find the attempt to sell or pay bad tobacco, is made a crime precisely as it is now to sell or pay counterfeit money. This act of Assembly then allowed debtors to discharge themselves by paying half their debts in amount, did, in effect, make them pay all in value, and can by no means be compared to the acts of states or princes in debasing the eoin, and allowing it to retain its old nominal value, or by introducing valueless paper money; in these cases, the debt is paid nominally, or in words, but not in value, whereas in Vir