[192:A] Force's Hist. Tracts, ii.; Virginia and Maryland, 7 et seq.; and Anderson's Hist. of Col. Church, ii. 113.

[192:B] McSherry's Maryland, 40; Chalmers' Annals, 211, 232; Force's Historical Tracts, ii. 13.

[192:C] Burk's Hist. of Va., ii. 41, referring to "Ancient Records" of the London Company.

[192:D] Force's Hist. Tracts, ii.; Maryland and Virginia, 22.

CHAPTER XXI.

1635-1639.

Eight Shires--Harvey's Grants of Territory--His Corrupt and Tyrannical Administration--The Crown guarantees to the Virginians the Rights which they enjoyed before the Dissolution of the Charter--Burk's Opinion of Clayborne-- Governor Harvey deposed--Returns to England--Charles the First reinstates him--Disturbances in Kent Island--Charles reprimands Lord Baltimore for his Maltreatment of Clayborne-- The Lords Commissioners decide in favor of Baltimore-- Threatening State of Affairs in England--Harvey recalled-- Succeeded by Sir Francis Wyat.

IN the year 1634 Virginia was divided into eight shires: James City, Henrico, Charles City, Elizabeth City, Warrasqueake, Charles River, and Accomac. The original name of Pamaunkee, or Pamunkey, had then been superseded by Charles River, which afterwards gave way to the present name of York. Pamunkey, at first the name of the whole river, is now restricted to one of its branches. The word Pamaunkee is said to signify "where we took a sweat."

The grant of Maryland to Lord Baltimore opened the way for similar grants to other court-favorites, of lands lying to the north and to the south of the settled portion of the Ancient Colony and Dominion of Virginia. While Charles the First was lavishing vast tracts of her territory upon his favorites, Sir John Harvey, a worthy pacha of such a sultan, in collusion with the royal commissioners, imitated the royal munificence by giving away large bodies not only of the public, or crown lands, but even of such as belonged to private planters.[193:A] In the contests between Clayborne and the proprietary of Maryland, while the people of Virginia warmly espoused their countryman's cause, Harvey sided with Baltimore, and proved himself altogether a fit instrument of the administration then tyrannizing in England. He was extortionate, proud, unjust, and arbitrary; he issued proclamations in derogation of the legislative powers of the a.s.sembly; a.s.sessed, levied, held, and disbursed the colonial revenue, without check or responsibility; transplanted into Virginia exotic English statutes; multiplied penalties and exactions, and appropriated fines to his own use; he added the decrees of the court of high commission of England to the ecclesiastical const.i.tutions of Virginia. The a.s.sembly, nevertheless, met regularly; and the legislation of the colony expanded itself in accordance with the exigencies of an increasing population. Tobacco was subjected, by royal ordinances, to an oppressive monopoly; and in those days of prerogative, a remonstrance to the Commons for redress proved fruitless.

At length, in July, 1634, the council's committee for the colonies, either from policy or from compa.s.sion, transmitted instructions to the governor and council, saying: "That it is not intended that interests which men have settled when you were a corporation, should be impeached; that for the present they may enjoy their estates with the same freedom and privilege as they did before the recalling of their patents," and authorizing the appropriation of lands to the planters, as had been the former custom.[194:A]

Whether these concessions were inadequate in themselves, or were not carried into effect by Harvey, upon the pet.i.tion of many of the inhabitants, an a.s.sembly was called to meet on the 7th of May, 1635, to hear complaints against that obnoxious functionary. There is hardly any point on which a people are more sensitive than in regard to their territory, and it may therefore be concluded, that one of Harvey's chief offences was his having sided with Lord Baltimore in his infraction of the Virginia territory.

Burk, in his History of Virginia, has stigmatized Clayborne as "an unprincipled incendiary" and "execrable villain;" other writers have applied similar epithets to him. It appears to have been only his resolute defence of his own rights and those of Virginia that subjected him to this severe denunciation. He was long a member of the council; long filled the office of secretary; was held in great esteem by the people, and was for many years a leading spirit of the colony.

Burk[195:A] denounces Sir John Harvey for refusing to surrender the fugitive Clayborne to the demand of the Maryland Commissioners, and adds: "But the time was at hand when this rapacious and tyrannical prefect (Harvey) would experience how vain and ineffectual are the projects of tyranny when opposed to the indignation of freemen." Thus the governor, who excited the indignation of the Virginians by his collusion with the Marylanders, was afterwards reprobated by historians for sympathizing with Clayborne in his defence of the rights of Virginia, and opposition to the Marylanders. If Harvey, in violation of the royal license granted to Clayborne in 1631, had surrendered him to the Maryland Commissioners, he would have exposed himself to the royal resentment; and nothing could have more inflamed the indignation of freemen than such treatment of the intrepid vindicator of their territorial rights.

Before the a.s.sembly (called to hear complaints against the governor) met, Harvey, having consented to go to England to answer them, was "thrust out of the government" by the council on the 28th of April, 1635, and Captain John West was authorized to act as governor until the king's pleasure should be known. The a.s.sembly having collected the evidence, deputed two members of the council to go out with Harvey to prefer the charges against him. It was also ordered that during the vacancy in the office of governor, the secretary (Clayborne) should sign commissions and pa.s.ses, and manage the affairs of the Indians.[195:B]

King Charles the First, offended at the presumption of the council and a.s.sembly, reinstated Sir John, and he resumed his place, in or before the month of January, 1636. Chalmers[195:C] says that he returned in April, 1637. Thus the first open resistance to tyranny, and vindication of const.i.tutional right, took place in the colony of Virginia; and the deposition of Harvey foreshadowed the downfall of Charles the First. The laws that had been enacted by the first a.s.sembly of Maryland, having been sent over to England for his approval, he rejected them, on the ground that the right of framing them was vested in himself; and he directed an a.s.sembly to be summoned to meet in January, 1638, to have his dissent announced to them.

Early in 1637 a court was established by the Maryland authorities, in Kent Island, and toward the close of that year Captain George Evelin was appointed commander of the island. Many of Clayborne's adherents there refused to submit to the jurisdiction of Lord Baltimore's colony, and the governor, Leonard Calvert, found it necessary to repair there in March, 1638, in person, with a military force, to reduce to submission these Virginia malecontents. The Maryland legislature, convened in compliance with Lord Baltimore's orders, refused to acquiesce in his claim of the legislative power, and in the event they gained their point, his lordship being satisfied with a controlling influence in the choice of the delegates, and his veto.

The Virginians captured by Cornwallis in his engagement with Warren, had been detained prisoners without being brought to trial, there being no competent tribunal in the colony. At length Thomas Smith, second in command to Warren, was brought to trial for the murder of William Ashmore, (who had been killed in the skirmish,) and was found guilty, and sentenced to death; but it is not certain that he was executed.

Clayborne was attainted, and his property confiscated; and these proceedings probably produced those disturbances in Kent Island which required the governor's presence.

Harvey, after his restoration, continued to be governor of Virginia for about three years, during which period there appears to have been no meeting of the a.s.sembly, and of this part of his administration no record is left.

In July, 1638, Charles the First addressed a letter to Lord Baltimore, referring to his former letters to "Our Governor and Council of Virginia, and to others, our officers and subjects in these parts, (in which) we signified our pleasure that William Clayborne, David Morehead, and other planters in the island near Virginia, which they have nominated Kentish Island, should in no sort be interrupted by you or any other in your right, but rather be encouraged to proceed in so good a work." The king complains to Baltimore that his agents, in spite of the royal instructions, had "slain three of our subjects there, and by force possessed themselves by night of that island, and seized and carried away both the persons and estates of the said planters." His majesty concludes by enjoining a strict compliance with his former orders.[197:A]

In 1639 Father John Gravener, a Jesuit missionary, resided at Kent Island. In April of this year the Lords Commissioners of Plantations, with Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, at their head, held a meeting at Whitehall, and determined the controversy between Clayborne and Lord Baltimore. This decision was made in consequence of a pet.i.tion presented in 1637 by Clayborne to the king, claiming, by virtue of discovery and settlement, Kent Island and another plantation at the mouth of the Susquehanna River, and complaining of the attempts of Lord Baltimore's agents there to dispossess him and his a.s.sociates, and of outrages committed upon them. The decision was now absolute in favor of Baltimore; and Clayborne, despairing of any peaceable redress, returned to Virginia, and having in vain prayed for the restoration of his property, awaited some future opportunity to vindicate his rights, and to recover property amounting in value to six thousand pounds, of which he had been despoiled.[197:B]

The Governor of Maryland, engaged in hostilities with the Indians, obtained a supply of arms, ammunition, and provision from the Governor of Virginia.

Charles the First, bred in all the arts of corrupt and arbitrary government, had now for many years governed England by prerogative, without a parliament, until at length his necessities constrained him to convene one; and his apprehensions of that body, and the revolt of the Scotch, and other alarming ebullitions of discontent, admonished him and his advisers to mitigate the high-handed measures of administration. The severity of colonial rule was also relaxed, and in November, 1639, the unpopular Sir John Harvey was displaced, and succeeded by Sir Francis Wyat.[198:A] But Harvey remained in Virginia, and continued to be a member of the council. About this time mention is made of the exportation of cattle from Virginia to New England.

FOOTNOTES:

[193:A] Beverley, B. i. 50.

[194:A] By the words "for the present," was probably intended "at present," "now," otherwise their interests might be impeached at a future day, although not immediately. Chalmers, Hist. of Revolt of Amer.

Colonies, 36, so interprets the expression.

[195:A] Hist. of Va., ii. 40.

[195:B] Hen., i. 223.

[195:C] Hist. of Revolt of Amer. Colonies, i. 36.

[197:A] Chalmers' Annals, 232.

[197:B] Clayborne is the same name with Claiborne; it is found sometimes spelt Claiborn, and sometimes Cleyborne.

[198:A] 1 Hening's Stat. at Large, 4. Burk, Hist. of Va., ii. 46, erroneously makes Sir William Berkley succeed Harvey.

CHAPTER XXII.

1640-1644.

Alarming State of Affairs in England--The Long Parliament summoned--In Virginia Stephen Reekes pilloried--Sir William Berkley made Governor--a.s.sembly declare against Restoration of Virginia Company--The King's Letter--Puritans in Virginia--Act against Non-conformists--Ma.s.sacre of 1644--Opechancanough captured--His Death--Civil War in England--Sir William Berkley visits England--Clayborne expels Calvert from Maryland, and seizes the Government--Treaty with Necotowance--Statistics of the Colony.

THE spirit of const.i.tutional freedom awakened by the Reformation, and which had been long gradually gaining strength, began to develope itself with new energy in England. The arbitrary temper of Charles the First excited so great dissatisfaction in the people, and such a strenuous opposition in parliament, as to exact at length his a.s.sent to the "Pet.i.tion of Right." The public indignation was carried to a high pitch by the forced levying of ship-money, that is, of money for the building of ships-of-war, and John Hampden stood forth in a personal resistance to this unconst.i.tutional mode of raising money. The Puritans found within the pale of the Established Church, as well as without, were arrayed against the despotic rule of the crown and the hierarchy; and Scotland was not less offended against the king, who undertook to obtrude the Episcopal liturgy upon the Presbyterian land of his birth.

In the year 1640 Charles the First found himself compelled to call together the Long Parliament. Virginia meantime remained loyal; the decrees of the courts of high commission were the rule of conduct, and the authority of Archbishop Laud was as absolute in the colony as in the fatherland. Stephen Reekes was pilloried for two hours, with a label on his back signifying his offence, fined fifty pounds, and imprisoned during pleasure, for saying "that his majesty was at confession with the Lord of Canterbury," that is, Archbishop Laud.

In May, 1641, the Earl of Strafford was executed, and Archbishop Laud sent to the Tower, where he was destined to remain until he suffered the same fate. The ma.s.sacre of the Protestants in Ireland occurring in the latter part of this year, rendered still more portentous the threatening storm. January tenth, the king left London, to which he was not destined to return till brought back a prisoner.

In February, 1642, Sir Francis Wyat gave way to Sir William Berkley, whose destiny it was to hold the office of governor for a period longer than any other governor, and to undergo extraordinary vicissitudes of fortune. His commission and instructions declared that it was intended to give due encouragement to the plantation of Virginia, and that ecclesiastical as well as temporal matters should be regulated according to the laws of England; provision was also made for securing to England a monopoly of the trade of the colony. By some salutary measures which Sir William Berkley introduced shortly after his arrival, and by his prepossessing manners, he soon rendered himself very acceptable to the Virginians.

In April, 1642, the a.s.sembly made a declaration against the restoration of the Virginia Company then proposed, denouncing the company as having been the source of intolerable calamities to the colony by its illegal proceedings, barbarous punishments, and monopolizing policy. They insisted that its restoration would cause them to degenerate from the condition of their birthright, and convert them from subjects of a monarchy to the creatures of a popular and tumultuary government, to which they would be obliged to resign their lands held from the crown; which they intimate, if necessary, would be more fitly resigned to a branch of the royal family than to a corporation. They averred that the revival of the company would prove a deathblow to freedom of trade, "the life-blood of a commonwealth." Finally, the a.s.sembly protested against the restoration of the company, and decreed severe penalties against any who should countenance the scheme.[200:A]

At a court holden at James City, June the 29th, 1642, present Sir William Berkley, knight, governor, etc., Captain John West, Mr. Rich.

Kemp, Captain William Brocas, Captain Christopher Wormley, Captain Humphrey Higginson. The commission for the monthly court of Upper Norfolk was renewed, and the commissioners appointed were, Captain Daniel Gookin, commander, Mr. Francis Hough, Captain Thomas Burbage, Mr.

John Hill, Mr. Oliver Spry, Mr. Thomas Den, Mr. Randall Crew, Mr. Robert Bennett, Mr. Philip Bennett. The captains of trained bands: Captain Daniel Gookin, Captain Thomas Burbage.[201:A]

Among the converts made by one of the New England missionaries, named Thompson, was Daniel Gookin (son of the early settler of that name.) He removed to Boston in May, 1644, being probably one of those who were driven away from Virginia for non-conformity. He went away with his family in a ship bought by him from the governor, and was received with distinction at Boston. He soon became eminent in New England, and afterwards enjoyed the confidence of Cromwell, of whom he was a devoted adherent. He was author of several historical works. He died in March, 1686-7[201:B].

The alarming crisis in the affairs of Charles the First strongly dictated the necessity of a conciliatory course; and the remonstrance, together with a pet.i.tion, being communicated to him, then at York, just on the eve of the "Grand Rebellion," he replied to it, firmly engaging never to restore the Virginia Company.

The following is a copy of the king's letter:--

"C. R.

"Trusty and well-beloved, we greet you all. Whereas, we have received a pet.i.tion from you, our governor, council and burgesses of the grand a.s.sembly in Virginia, together with a declaration and protestation of the first of April, against a pet.i.tion presented in your names to our House of Commons in this our kingdom, for restoring of the letters patent for the incorporation of the late treasurer and council, contrary to our intent and meaning, and against all such as shall go about to alienate you from our immediate protection. And whereas, you desire by your pet.i.tion that we should confirm this your declaration and protestation under our royal signet, and transmit the same to that our colony; these are to signify, that your acknowledgments of our great bounty and favors toward you, and your so earnest desire to continue under our immediate protection, are very acceptable to us; and that as we had not before the least intention to consent to the introduction of any company over that our colony; so we are by it much confirmed in our former resolutions, as thinking it unfit to change a form of government wherein (besides many other reasons given, and to be given,) our subjects there (having had so long experience of it) receive so much content and satisfaction. And this our approbation of your pet.i.tion and protestation we have thought fit to transmit unto you under our royal signet.