VIRGINIA: THE FIRST GREAT COLONY OF THE BRITISH
The English settlers in America may be less romantic and less
interesting figures than their Elizabethan predecessors, but they were
undoubtedly fitter instruments for the specific work. The Elizabethan
seamen had played their part, and men now arose who were to fulfil a
greater destiny. The Gilberts and the Drakes were of a race which had
ceased to be, and Fuller justly remarks "how God set up a generation of
military men both by sea and land which began and expired with the reign
of Queen Elizabeth, like a suit of clothes made for her and worn out by
her; for providence so ordered the matter that they almost all attended
their mistress before or after, within some short distance, unto her
grave."[31] Although the adventurous spirit of the Golden Age had passed
away, men were still left who could echo the words of Sir Humphrey
Gilbert and say, "and therefore to give me leave without offence always
to live and die in this mind, that he is not worthy to live at all that
for fear or danger of death shunneth his country's service and his own
honour, seeing death is inevitable and the fame of virtue
immortal."[32] The one great figure who appears to connect the old
period with the new was Sir Walter Raleigh. As has already been
mentioned, he had sent out an expedition in 1584 to see what possibility
there was of establishing a colony in America. The glowing accounts
brought back by his two captains made Raleigh decide upon an undertaking
which, though it proved a failure, must ever be regarded as memorable in
the world's history.
In 1585 Raleigh sent seven ships and one hundred and eight settlers to
the land which had been granted to him by patent. The territory had
already been named Virginia, in honour of the Queen, and it was here
that he hoped to establish a little colony composed of sturdy
Englishmen. In June the settlers, having landed in Roanoke, were left
under the leadership of Ralph Lane; the other generals, Grenville,
Cavendish, and Amidas, returning to the mother country. From the outset
it was certain that Raleigh's colony must fail. The man chosen as leader
had no special aptitude for the post, being possessed with the mania for
discovery rather than the desire to teach the settlers to form a
self-supporting community. But even worse than this, Lane made the fatal
error of estranging the natives by the severity and brutality of his
punishments. Exactly a year after the settlers had landed, Sir Francis
Drake put in to see how his friend Raleigh's Utopian schemes progressed.
He found the colony in a miserable plight and, yielding to the earnest
entreaties of the settlers, took them on board and sailed to England.
Raleigh, however, had not forgotten his colony, and had dispatched Sir
Richard Grenville with supplies; but when he reached the settlement he
found it deserted. Sir Walter Raleigh's buoyant nature was not depressed
by this first failure, and in 1587 a fresh attempt to settle Virginia
was made. Under the command of White, one hundred and thirty-three men
and seventeen women were sent out. White soon returned to England for
supplies, leaving his daughter Eleanor Dare, who gave birth to the first
white child born in the New World. The unhappy emigrants received but
little assistance from the home authorities. Certainly two expeditions
were sent out to help them, but they failed because their captains found
it more lucrative and exciting to go privateering. The stirring times in
Europe and the coming of the Armada were sufficient to absorb the minds
of such men as Raleigh and Drake, and the colony in Virginia was left to
its fate. What that fate was can only be imagined, for, when White at
last reached Virginia in 1589, not a trace of the colony was to be
found, while another expedition in 1602 proved equally unsuccessful in
the search. Hunger and the Indians had done their cruel work, and the
hand of destiny seemed turned against the foundation of an Anglo-Saxon
colony in the mysterious West.
There were, however, dominant motives for colonisation at the beginning
of the seventeenth century, and these, together with the intrepidity of
certain of the Elizabethan school, changed the aspect of the whole
question. The previous incentives for discovery and adventure upon the
high seas had been the tricks of imagination, the more glorious scheme
of spreading Christianity and the race for gold. But now there was a
fear amongst the more intellectual thinkers in England that the country
was suffering from a surplus population. This purely imaginary danger
gave birth to the idea that America might provide new homes for this
surplus, and, at the same time, bring new markets into existence which
in the future would very materially help to develop the naval resources
of the English.
One of the most able and energetic of the new patrons of colonisation
was Shakespere's friend, the Earl of Southampton, who in March 1602
dispatched to the West, Bartholomew Gosnold with thirty-two companions.
This little band of adventurers landed further north than Raleigh's
ill-fated colonists, probably at a spot where in later years the Puritan
settlers established themselves. The chief feature of Gosnold's venture
was the discovery of a new route to the West by way of the Azores, and
thus a week was saved in future voyages. In the following year the
_Discovery_ and _Speedwell_ were sent out under Martin Pring, the
patrons of the expedition having first obtained formal permission from
Sir Walter Raleigh, whose patent rights were still regarded as valid. It
is interesting to notice that with this concession on Raleigh's part his
connection with Virginia ceased for ever.
One of Pring's patrons was Richard Hakluyt, to whom all Englishmen are
indebted for his great prose epic and for the stimulus he gave to the
early founders of the British Empire. Hakluyt was born in London about
the year 1552. He was educated at Westminster School and Christ Church,
Oxford, where he took his degree in 1574. His interest in geography and
discovery had been aroused when quite a boy by seeing a map in the
possession of a relative, and from that moment, he writes, "I constantly
resolved, if ever I was preferred to the University, where better time
and more convenient place might be ministred for those studies, I would,
by God's assistance, prosecute that knowledge and kinde of literature,
the doores whereof (after a sort) were so happily opened before me."[33]
Hakluyt's first book was published in 1582, under the title, _Divers
Voyages touching the discoverie of America and the Ilands adjacent unto
the same, made first of all by Englishmen and afterwards by the
Frenchmen and Britons_. This work consisted of a collection of documents
to support England's claim to the prior discovery of America. In the
autumn of 1584 he presented to Queen Elizabeth his _Discourse of Western
Planting_, the writing of which was largely due to the inspiration of
Sir Walter Raleigh. The subject matter had been supplied by the two
voyagers to Virginia, Captains Amidas and Barlow. The first edition of
his great work saw light in the year after the Armada; but Hakluyt was
not satisfied, and for nine more years laboured on, until in 1598 he
produced the second edition in three volumes, and the world was
infinitely the richer for the _Principal Navigations, Voyages,
Traffiques, and Discoveries of the English Nation_.
The year that Hakluyt sent out Pring to make discoveries is ever famous
for the death of Queen Elizabeth. The great queen, whatever her faults
may have been, had indeed bound her subjects to her by affection and
admiration, and created amongst them a remarkable spirit of both
patriotism and gallantry. It was therefore a fitting and happy
circumstance that associated the last of the Tudors with the first of
our American colonies. Virginia, named from Elizabeth, the child, so to
speak, of a queen, came in time to be the mother of Presidents. It is
not, however, until the accession of the pedantic James that a stern
resolve to accomplish the establishment of a colony seems to have been
taken. The irony of history is better illustrated in this fact than
perhaps elsewhere. The mean mind and timid heart of James I. could never
arouse or inspire enthusiasm as Elizabeth's actions had done. And yet
the appreciation of the importance of a great Empire was reserved for
the reign of the first Stuart rather than during the rule of the
greatest of the Tudors.
The pressing question of surplus population which had reached a climax
at the accession of James I., together with the prosperity and success
of the newly formed East India Company may have had something to do with
the momentous decision that was taken in 1606. In that year two
companies were formed: the first was the London Company, which was given
permission by the Crown to plant in North America between 45° and 38°
north latitude; the second division was the Plymouth Company, whose
rights of plantation overlapped those of the London Company, their
district being between 41° and 34° north latitude. With the history of
this second company we shall deal later.
The London Company consisted of various members, such as Richard
Hakluyt, the recorder of voyages; Sir George Somers, "a lamb on shore, a
lion at sea";[34] and Sir Thomas Gates. The Council was nominated by the
King, and included many well-known men of the day; in particular, Sir
Ferdinando Gorges, who played an important part in colonial history for
many years,[35] and Sir Edwin Sandys, who, in the perilous time which
came upon the Company, fought manfully for the right. The system of
administration was of considerable complexity, as the control of affairs
was both divided and qualified. In return for finding the capital for
the proper working of the scheme, the Company was to receive certain
trading privileges. The actual government was vested in two councils,
both of which were nominated by James I., the one to be resident in
England and supreme in all political and legislative affairs, the other
to be established in the colony and liable for the proper administration
of all local matters. The orders given to those in office, when the
first settlement was made, were to a certain extent harsh, but in no way
contrary to the spirit of the times. The Church of England was to be
supported and the supremacy of the King to be acknowledged. All serious
crimes were to be tried by jury and punished with death, but the penalty
for minor offences was left to the discretion of the resident council.
The Company took care that no trade was carried on by private
individuals, and it was insisted that magazines should be erected for
the produce of the colony and for supplying necessities to the
colonists. It may be stated finally that the old ideas of enterprise and
adventure were not lost sight of, and what had stirred Columbus and many
another voyager was now definitely mentioned in the commands. The
settlers were told "to show kindness to the savages and heathen people
in those parts, and use all proper means to draw them to the true
knowledge and service of God."[36]
By the middle of December 1606, one hundred and forty-three
colonists[37] were on board three ships ready to sail for their new home
in the West. On the morning of New Year's Day, 1607, the little fleet
sailed down the Thames. All praise be to them for showing so brave a
spirit in launching out into an unknown world at the very dawn of
England's expansion. And yet it must be acknowledged that they were the
very worst type of settlers that could have been chosen for such an
undertaking. They were idle, discontented, impatient, and incapable.
Many of them were gentlemen, who had no idea of manual labour; some were
goldsmiths and jewellers, who were without knowledge of agriculture,
building, or even protecting themselves from savages. But even worse
than this was the fact that they had no leader with natural gifts for so
important a position. At their head, to begin with, was Christopher
Newport, famous as a raider off the Spanish main. In council with him
were Gosnold, the intrepid voyager, and Captain John Ratcliffe, a
discontented man, as proved by his later actions, although a
contemporary describes him as "a very valiant, honest, and painful
soldier."[38] From the very outset there were quarrels, and Captain John
Smith, whom we shall meet again, was kept in confinement during the
greater part of the voyage.
On the 16th April 1607, the storm-tossed adventurers sighted the
southernmost extremity of Chesapeake Bay, and called it Cape Henry in
honour of the Prince of Wales. On the 13th May they selected a place for
settlement, and Jamestown, the first permanent plantation, was
established in Virginia on the James River. Almost immediately Edward
Maria Wingfield was elected president, which proved to be one of the
many mistakes made by the settlers. Nobody can question Wingfield's
bravery, honesty, and desire to act justly, but it is very evident from
the records that he was formal and pompous in manner, and filled with a
too conscious sense of his own dignity. No sooner had the president been
elected than the colony was weakened by a division of their party.
Captain John Smith with a few followers preferred to accompany Newport
on an exploring expedition, and reached a spot where now stands Richmond
City. The Indians, under their leader Powhattan, appeared friendly to
this party, but native friendship could only bear a slight strain, and
trouble was only too likely to arise from the careless conduct of the
settlers who had remained at Jamestown. The time was passed in a series
of petty squabbles, and the infant colony struggled through a period of
the gravest vicissitudes. Gosnold, one of the best of the party, died,
and this was followed by the deposition of Wingfield, Captain Ratcliffe
being made governor in his place. His period of office was marked by
troubles with the Indians, and dire sickness which broke out amongst the
settlers, owing to bad water, want of food, and the unhealthy situation
of Jamestown.
At last the dominant character of Captain John Smith manifested itself,
and he was chosen chief by common consent. This man's remarkable
adventures read like fiction, but there is little doubt that there is a
great deal of truth in all that he has left on record. Some of the most
romantic episodes that he lays before the reader may perhaps be regarded
as exaggerations or even untrustworthy, but it would be entirely
erroneous to look upon him as a mere Baron Munchausen or a foolish
braggart. He was brave beyond words, robust in person and self-reliant
in mind. In all his actions he was public-spirited, and, at the same
time, for his age and for his training, tolerant, kindly, and humane. He
was one of the most romantic figures of the period, and as such appeals
in his narrative to the sympathy of his readers and captures their
affection. As a soldier in the wars in the Netherlands he had passed
through many a danger. As a traveller in France, Italy, and the near
East he had learnt to understand and command men. As a hardy crusader
and captain in the Turkish wars he had fought manfully against the
infidel in Hungary. He had suffered all the horrors of slavery, from
which he had escaped through the forests of Transylvania. This man of
many adventures may be regarded by posterity as the chief promoter of
the colonisation of Virginia, and, if not her founder, at least her
saviour.
The early settlers in Virginia would have suffered the fate of Raleigh's
colony of 1587 had it not been for Captain John Smith's perseverance,
steady courage, and determination. He struggled hard to teach the
colonists the necessity of making themselves a self-sufficing community.
Most of the men thought that gold was to be picked up anywhere, failing
to see that if they did not strive manfully they must inevitably starve.
Smith himself says, "our diet is a little meal and water, and not
sufficient of that";[39] and his words are proved by the fact that
within the past six months fifty of the colonists died, and to use the
words of the chronicler, "for the most part they died of famine." Smith
determined that this should not continue, and he took for his motto,
"Nothing is to be expected except by labour." Excellent as was the
motto, the material from which he had to build up a colony was of the
very worst, and it is only natural that he should write home and ask for
"thirty carpenters, blacksmiths, masons, and diggers up of trees' roots,
rather than a thousand of such as we have."[40] His past experiences now
stood him in good stead, and he proved himself a capable leader by
succeeding in forcing the colony into a small, settled community. When
he felt that the colony was for the time being fairly secure he went on
exploring expeditions among the Indians. This was part of the purpose
and duty of the colony, for men were eager to find a short passage to
India, and no one imagined that America was of the gigantic size that
later discovery proved it to be. Whilst on these expeditions the
adventures of Smith were most extraordinary, and may possibly have been
coloured by lapse of time and a brilliant imagination. Once he saved his
life by the marvels of his compass and by the writing of notes to his
friends in Jamestown; and once indeed, according to his own record, he
was saved by the lovely Pocahontas, who pleaded with her father
Powhattan for his life. This latter story is, however, extremely
unlikely, for the Indian princess could have been only a child at the
time, and it is probable that Smith added the account when the fame of
Pocahontas had spread to Europe.
[Illustration: CAPTAIN JOHN SMITH _From an engraving in his
"Generall Historie of Virginia."_]
Smith spent the whole of the spring of 1609 in Jamestown endeavouring to
make the settlers industrious by prosecuting the manufacture of tar,
pitch, and soap ashes. Up to this time, with absurd carelessness, the
Jamestown fortification had been left without a well, and Smith now
remedied this obvious defect. With equal energy he turned to building,
and during the months of February, March, and April, he erected twenty
houses, besides a blockhouse, and re-roofed the church. Agriculture and
the fishing industry were no longer neglected, and while some of the
settlers under Smith's guidance brought forty acres under cultivation,
others undertook to supply the colony with fish. Struggle as he did,
Smith continually suffered reverses, and many disasters overtook the
colonists, the most serious being the destruction of their corn by rats.
Starvation stared them in the face, but Smith's firmness and activity
overcame the horrors of famine, and instead of allowing the settlers to
mass together, the men were quartered in different localities where they
had to seek food for themselves. When this remarkable man at last left
the colony, it can scarcely be said to have been in a prosperous state,
but there were four hundred and ninety strong colonists who had been put
on the right road towards progress, partly by Smith's example and partly
by his doctrine "that he who would not work might not eat."
About the time that Smith was preparing to return to England there was
in that country a reawakening of interest in what Drayton called,
"Virginia, earth's only Paradise." The keener interest that was now
being shown was largely due to a number of pamphlets that had been
published, and also to the enthusiastic sermons of many of the clergy of
the day. In a pamphlet named the _Nova Britannia_ it was pointed out
that Virginia was a valuable opening as a new market for English cloth,
and, in addition, that trade between the two countries would stimulate
the merchant navy. "We shall not still betake ourselves to small and
little shipping as we daily do beginne, but we shall rear againe such
Marchants Shippes, both tall and stout, as no forreine sayle that
swimmes shall make them vayle or stoop; whereby to make this little
northern corner of the world to be in a short time the richest
storehouse and staple for marchandise in all Europe."[41] With this idea
of making England "the richest storehouse," a new charter was granted to
the Company in May 1609. The London Company was now put under a number
of influential men, including Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, and Sir
Francis Bacon, while at the same time the old directors remained upon
the board. Under the new charter the dual control of the two councils
disappeared, and the government was to be in the hands of one council
nominated in the first case by the King, and afterwards, as vacancies
occurred, they were to be filled by men elected by the Company. The
powers of the Company were also extended, for besides the right of
levying duties, it was conceded that defensive war might be waged if it
were thought expedient. By these means the Company practically became an
independent body.
The outcome of the change was immediately seen in an expedition which
set out under Sir George Somers and Sir Thomas Gates. In July 1609 these
adventurers were wrecked upon the uninhabited Bermudas, but in the
following spring they succeeded in reaching Virginia. The attractive
picture of the settlement as drawn in pamphlet and sermon in England was
scarcely true to life. As a matter of fact no sooner had Smith left the
colony than its inhabitants dropped back into their slothful ways,
which were at once taken advantage of by the cunning Redskins, who,
peaceful while the great captain was present, had now become most
hostile. Thus Sir Thomas Gates in this year records, "the state of the
Colony ... began to find a sensible declyning: which Powhattan (as a
greedy Vulture) obseruing, and boyling with desire of reuenge, he
inuited Captaine Ratclife and about thirty others to trade for Corne,
and vnder the colour of fairest friendship he brought them within the
compasse of his ambush, whereby they were cruelly murthered and
massacred."[42]
The fate of the colony once more hung in the balance; starvation was
once again at the door. Very fortunately for the settlers, Lord Delawarr
arrived as Captain-General and Governor, with, what was most important,
supplies. The Company, however was becoming disheartened. The colony had
now been in existence for three years and the returns to the
shareholders were meagre indeed. Something had to be done and strong
measures seemed appropriate. In June 1611, Delawarr embarked for
England, but Sir Thomas Dale had already been dispatched with the title
of High Marshal of Virginia. He was armed with a military and civil code
of the greatest severity, for he was confronted with the arduous task of
governing a people made up of "the scourings of London." The military
code was from the first practically a dead letter; but the civil
enactments were so extremely harsh and so peculiar to modern ideas that
they deserve some attention. Daily worship according to the service of
the Church of England was enforced by a penalty of six months in the
galleys. To refrain from attending Sunday service meant death. If any
man "unworthily demean himself unto any preacher or minister of God's
word" he was to be openly whipped three times, and after each whipping
he was to confess his crime. But these laws were almost mild in
comparison with the vague and brutal enactment that "no man shall give
disgraceful words or commit any act to the disgrace of any person in
this colony, or any part thereof, upon pain of being tied head and feet
together upon the ground every night for the space of one month."[43]
These harsh laws continued, but did not affect the tide of emigration
from England. In August 1611, Sir Thomas Gates returned as Governor with
three hundred fresh settlers.[44] From this moment a much better class
of colonists began to come out, bringing with them their own servants,
and forming the nucleus of a sound colonial population. There were, of
course, other reasons for the improved state of affairs, not the least
important being the fact that Gates worked hard for the benefit of the
colony. An excellent change was carried out when the settlers deserted
unhealthy Jamestown for the more salubrious Henrico. Here a church, a
hospital, and good houses of brick were erected, and a palisade was
raised as a protection from the Indians. Industries, too, began to
thrive, for the records show that both silk and iron were manufactured,
while vines were cultivated with success by some Frenchmen introduced
by Lord Delawarr. Even in England the affairs of the Company had changed
for the better, as in 1612 a fresh charter had been obtained, by which
the Bermudas or Somers Islands were added to its dominions.
Prosperous as the colony appeared there was ever the menace of the
Indian tribes with whom an intermittent war had been waged for some
time, and during which Powhattan had taken captive several of the
settlers. Peace, however, existed between the English and Japazaus, the
Indian chief of the district along the Potomac, to whom Samuel Argall
was sent by the Governor to trade for corn. This was not Argall's first
visit to Japazaus, and a certain friendship existed between the two, the
Indian chief regarding himself as indebted to the Englishman. With the
King of the Potomac district, as wife of one of his captains, was the
romantic Pocahontas, daughter of Powhattan. To the unscrupulous and
ready-witted Argall this appeared a glorious opportunity of demanding
the Princess as a hostage, and paying off old scores against Powhattan.
Argall broached the subject to Japazaus, who readily accepted the plan.
The story is told with strict truth by Ralph Hamor, the secretary of the
colony, who says, "Capt. Argall, having secretly well rewarded him, with
a small copper kettle, and som other les valuable toies so highly by him
esteemed, that doubtlesse he would have betraied his owne father for
them, permitted both him and his wife to returne,"[45] but Pocahontas
remained a captive. Hearing of his daughter's plight Powhattan
immediately restored some of his prisoners and demanded her surrender,
but the English not being satisfied, asked for more. By this time other
influences were at work, and Pocahontas exhibited no desire to return to
her people. In the spring of 1613, she was baptised by the name of
Rebecca, and married to one of the most influential settlers, John
Rolfe, "a gentleman of approved behaviour and honest cariage."[46] The
marriage was welcomed by the Indian chief, and peace was restored for
the time being. Pocahontas and her husband went to England in 1616,
where she was fêted and presented at court, but the English climate did
not suit the Indian beauty, and she died in the spring of the following
year at Gravesend.
The year 1614 is memorable in Virginian history for the first hostile
action between the English and their French rivals. Samuel Argall, who
has been classified as "a sea-captain with piratical tastes," attacked a
French settlement on the coast of Maine and sacked Port Royal, the
capital of Acadia or Nova Scotia. These acts were contrary to all the
principles of international law, but France, under the weak rule of
Marie de' Medici, was in no state to avenge her wrongs, and the matter
dropped after a formal complaint by the French ambassador. This and
other weighty questions caused an animated discussion in Parliament
concerning the rights and privileges of Virginia. Martin, the advocate
of the Company, told the House to look to the advantages to be gained in
Virginia, and not to waste their time on the trifles that generally
engaged their attention. In fact, his speech was so heated that he was
forced to confess his errors on bended knee, and with that the House of
Commons was satisfied, and dropped the subject.
After the retirement of Gates, Sir Thomas Dale continued the government
of Virginia under the merciless code; and yet the colony prospered,
private industry and private property being allowed. Dale's second
period of office was for two years only, and he departed at a time when
a greedy and unprincipled set of men began to administer the affairs of
the Company. In 1617 they selected as their Deputy Governor in Virginia
the most unsuitable Samuel Argall. Certainly he was a man endowed with
ability and resolute courage, but he was one of the few unscrupulous
villains who have disgraced colonial history. Immediately on coming into
power he issued a series of edicts of arbitrary character. Trade with
the Indians was forbidden, but this was not for the advantage of the
shareholders of the Company, but for the benefit of their deputy. The
settlers were made to work as slaves for Argall, for whom the
constitution of the colony afforded splendid opportunities. Such a state
of affairs was not to last for long; the despotic conduct of the
Governor leaked out at identically the moment the Company passed into
the hands of a more honest and capable set of directors.[47] Sir Edwin
Sandys, a leader of that party which was soon to turn boldly against the
King, together with the brilliantly versatile Southampton and the
skilled John Ferrars, were now at the head of Virginian affairs in
England.
The history of Virginia changed for the better in 1619, when Sir George
Yeardley superseded the piratical Argall. The new Governor was not a
particularly strong man, and in many of his actions he proved himself a
weak successor of the stern Sir Thomas Dale. On the other hand there was
beneath the somewhat too gentle exterior a man of considerable worth,
for he succeeded in governing peaceably a turbulent people without
falling back upon unnecessary severity. Yeardley's first year of
administration is ever famous for the establishment of the earliest
representative assembly in the New World. It is only natural that a
fully developed scheme was not evolved at once. There is some
uncertainty as to what classes actually obtained the franchise, but it
is probable that every freeman possessed a vote. Certain it is, however,
that each plantation and each county returned two members, and it is
equally well-known that the assembly took upon itself both legislative
rights and judicial powers. Thus the year 1619 witnessed the creation of
Virginia as an almost independent power heralding a revolutionary change
in the near future.
The colony seemed prosperous in every way, but there were dark clouds
overshadowing the Company on all sides. It was rumoured, and with some
truth, that five thousand emigrants had landed in Virginia, and yet only
one thousand were actually resident. Men asked themselves the question,
"had the settlers returned, or had they died in this so-called land of
promise"? The new board of directors, if they had been left to
themselves, would have put the Company upon an assured footing, and
success would most certainly have attended their efforts. But this was
not to be; the Company was attacked from within and without. Lord
Warwick's party, a clique within the Company, showed every sign of
hostility to Southampton and Sandys. The external attacks came from
three sources, not the least important being that of the Crown. James I.
was jealous of the power of that Company which he himself had created.
His fears were increased by the insidious attacks of the Spanish
ambassador, Gondomar, who informed the King that "a seditious Company
was but the seminary to a seditious Parliament."[48] Even the English
people, little realising the work that the Company was painfully
accomplishing for Imperial purposes, now turned against the men whom,
for sentimental reasons, they ought to have supported, and used the
popular cry against monopolies to bring about the downfall of the
founders of a new nation. The dangers of the Company were increased by
the perils of the colony itself. The old Indian hostility had for a few
years slumbered, but after the death of Powhattan and the succession of
Opechancanough in 1618 the horrors of Indian warfare once more
threatened the colony. In the following year the death of a famous
Indian, Jack the Feather, was a sufficient pretext, and Opechancanough
attacked Virginia. The English proved successful in the end, but not
before they had lost three hundred and seventy of their number. It is
not to be wondered at that the Assembly issued a severe order that "the
inhabitants of every plantation should fall upon their adjoining
savages";[49] this the planters readily obeyed; and the steps taken,
though harsh, appear to have been effectual.
The news of the Indian massacres, the action of Spain and the absurd
desire of a Spanish marriage, worked upon the mind of James I. to such
an extent that he determined to abolish the Company.[50] In 1623 the
King demanded the surrender of the charter, which Sandys and his party
stoutly refused. A writ of _quo warranto_ was then issued to decide
whether the privileges of the Company were purely a monopoly, or whether
they were exercised for the public good. The Law Courts gave a verdict
against the Company, and the charter was declared null and void. The
storm cloud, which had long hung over the Company, had now burst upon
the heads of the devoted directors. They were forced to succumb to the
most pernicious of all influences, for they had been crushed by greed
and covetousness, together with the intrigues of disgraceful courtiers
and disappointed speculators who showed a lack of public spirit that too
often marked the early years of the Stuart period. In reviewing the
actions of the Company it is universally agreed that they had in almost
every case been for good; it is, however, acknowledged with similar
unanimity that for the actual benefit of the colony in the future it was
as well that the Company's powers should pass to the Crown. Had the
actions of the Company been disliked in the colony itself, it is
inexplicable that the colony should have supported the Company at the
time of its trial. The settlers could not foresee what might be the
outcome of a continuance of the Company's rule. At the time they merely
realised with disgust that James had acted as he had done, solely to
gain the fickle and grudging favour of the decadent Spain; but they did
not understand that the Company must inevitably in the future, if it had
not already done so in the past, act as a trammelling influence upon the
progress and prosperity of the little settlement. Unwittingly James, by
his action, had removed the fetters, and had given an opportunity of
free growth to the colony. It was no longer possible for the welfare of
the individual planter to be sacrificed to the merely temporary
advantage of the English trader and shareholder. "Morally and
politically, indeed, the abrogation of the Virginian charter was a
crime"; but "the colony, happily for its future, passed under the
control of the Crown while it was yet plastic, undeveloped and
insignificant."[51] Henceforth the constitution of Virginia was of the
normal type; the administration was carried on by a governor and two
chambers, the one nominated, the other popularly elected.
The first chapter of Virginian history may be said to have closed when
the Company ceased to exist, and at the same time the romantic and
heroic aspect of the colony was concluded. Although perhaps no
individual connected with the foundation of the colony can be compared
with the glorious figures of the Elizabethan epoch, yet in the
characters of Hakluyt, Southampton, Sandys, and Captain John Smith there
was something of the old order. The heroism of the first actors upon the
Virginian stage was probably as great as that of their predecessors, but
the new order of things did not call upon them to exhibit such feats of
strength or of bravery. By the abrogation of the Company's charter a
revolution had indeed been effected. From this moment the history of
Virginia can only be dealt with in a brief and hasty sketch, for happy
is the country that has no history, and such is the case with regard to
the later years of England's first great colony. The interests of the
settlers are in the future mainly confined to the growth of tobacco, as
will be shown in a later chapter, and from 1623 the chroniclers cease to
record the story of the terrible struggle for bare existence, but tell
rather the tale of a steady but unheroic prosperity amongst a rich class
of planters employing negro labour.
The first Governor under the Crown was Sir Francis Wyatt, who was of
good character and inspired the colonists with a self-reliant temper. He
was succeeded in 1626 by Sir George Yeardley, who had already won the
affection of many of the settlers in the days of the Company's rule. The
following year, however, Yeardley died; and the Crown appointed a
creature of its own, Governor Harvey, who quarrelled with the Assembly
on every possible occasion. In fact so bitter did these quarrels become
that a settler, Mathews by name, as leader of the popular party, seized
Harvey in 1635, and placed him upon a vessel where he was kept in
honourable confinement until the old country was reached. It is hardly
likely that the colonists imagined that the Crown would take their part
against the Governor, but their action was probably due to a general
desire to impress the Crown with their power. Charles I., who had
previously shown good feeling towards the colony, now behaved foolishly
in sending Harvey back to Virginia, where he remained for four years,
filling up his time by sending numerous petty and querulous complaints
to the home country of the misdoings of the settlers. During Harvey's
administration the old proprietors made several attempts to obtain a
fresh grant of the charter and the reinstitution of the Company. But
with the same ardent spirit as the colonists had supported the Company
in 1623, so now they opposed its re-establishment and for the same
reason. The change that they had imagined must inevitably take place by
the abolition of the Company was a loss of their titles; but having been
firmly settled under the Crown they were frightened that if the Company
should be again created their titles would be again endangered. The
advocate of the colonists was the pliant and pliable Sandys, who, when
he reached England, deserted his constituents, and pleaded for the
restoration of the old rule. The colony immediately on hearing of this
sent word to the King that their representative was acting contrary to
their wishes, and in 1639 they received the satisfactory reply that
Charles had no intention of restoring the Company.
From this time the settlers appear from contemporary records to have
been contented. The writers point out how nature gave freely, how
beautiful was the land, and how peaceful were the natives. There can be
no doubt that this was the content and boastfulness of a young people,
and that it was unduly exaggerated. On the other hand it must also be
allowed that though Virginia was not quite the paradise represented in
some of the letters written by the settlers, yet it was, when the Civil
War broke out in England, a land of comparative peace and plenty.
Sir Francis Wyatt was again sent out to succeed Governor Harvey in 1639,
but his period of office was short and uneventful. More stirring times
came when the colony passed under the rule of Sir William Berkeley. He
was a typical cavalier, bluff in speech, hot in temper, brave in danger,
and contemptuous of learning. He may, in later years, have exercised a
merciless tyranny, but it was the hardship of his fortunes together
with something closely akin to lunacy that drove him to such actions. On
his appointment, his instructions were more carefully formulated than
had hitherto been the case. This was only natural as the Court party at
home were beginning to see the dangers that were looming ahead, and so
they trusted that in Virginia trouble might be checked by the exaction
of the strictest oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and by the
insistence on the service of the Church of England. This latter was
hardly necessary as speaking widely the Church of England was the Church
of the Virginians. There were, however, three parishes, the members of
which were almost entirely nonconformists until dispersed and scattered
by a conformity act between the years 1642 and 1644.
Sir William Berkeley had hardly taken up the reins of government when
the history of the colony was marked by a great calamity. Opechancanough
was now an old man, enfeebled in body and physically incapable of
leading his people; but his mind was still as active as ever, his savage
cunning was in no way dimmed by years, and he had ever nursed the hatred
he had felt for the settlers since the failure of his attack in the days
of the Company. The rumours of the outbreak of the Civil War in England
soon reached the ears of the Indians, some of whom had actually seen two
ships of the white settlers bombarding each other in the Bay.
Opechancanough seized this opportunity of division and strife among the
Virginians, and fell upon the colony. Before the settlers were ready to
resist, three hundred men, women and children had been slain. The local
militia at last made headway against the savages, and after the capture
and death of the old chief in 1646 a treaty was made as to the boundary
between the English and the Indians, under which peace reigned for
thirty years.
It has been the fashion to regard Virginia as a purely Cavalier colony;
this is probably due to an attempt to accentuate the difference between
the Southern colony and the New England group. It is, however, an
exaggeration to say that Virginia was entirely composed of those
supporting cavalier principles. Certainly there were large landowners
who sympathised with Charles and his party, but there was a very large
and prosperous middle class, composed of small landowners and well-to-do
tradesmen, amongst whom it was only natural to find various opinions and
sympathies. As a whole, however, Virginia may be said to have been
Royalist, not from any rooted objection to the Commonwealth, but rather
because the Royalist party was temporarily predominant in the
settlement. Sir William Berkeley, as a loyal Governor, forbade the
showing of any sympathy to the Parliamentary rebels, and he was
supported in his action by Charles II., who, in 1650, before he left
Breda, despatched a commission empowering Berkeley to act in his name.
The far-reaching power of Cromwell was not to be stayed by any such
commission, for the Commonwealth was determined "to grasp the whole of
the inheritance of the Stuart Kings,"[52] and so Ayscue was sent in 1651
to reduce the colonies to submission. On March 12 of the following year,
Virginia acknowledged the new power in England, much to the rage and
discontent of the Governor. Berkeley had indeed done his best, and had
issued a stirring declaration which concluded with these words, "But,
gentlemen, by the Grace of God we will not so tamely part with our King
and all those blessings we enjoy under him, and if they oppose us, do
but follow me, I will either lead you to victory or lose a life which I
cannot more gloriously sacrifice than for my loyalty and your
security."[53] The settlers, however, were not stirred, and though a
thousand men had been collected at Jamestown, the Assembly refused their
support, not so much for the love of Cromwell as because they feared
material loss if they resisted him. Had the great Protector lived longer
the history of the American colonies might have been very different. He
was the first Englishman who can really be said to have understood in
its fullest sense the word Empire. But the gods were not generous to
this imperialist, and they did not grant to him the necessary time for
the achievement of a policy which Cromwell himself classed as similar to
that of "Queen Elizabeth of famous memory."[54] As it was, the rule of
the Commonwealth had little definite effect upon Virginia, except that
it necessitated a change in governors. The first was Richard Bennet, who
was elected by the Assembly in 1652, and ruled for three years. His
successor, Edward Digges, was a worthy and sensible man, under whose
administration the colony continued a calm and happy existence for one
year. In 1656 Samuel Mathews was chosen, but during his rule Virginian
history was unimportant, and the only cloud upon the horizon was an
Indian panic which came to nothing.
The submission of Virginia was for the time only, and at the
restoration of Charles II. once more the royalist party became supreme.
The King was accepted with perfect quiescence, and it is probable that
the Virginians, like the English, rejoiced at the change, looking
forward to the return of more mirthful and joyous days. As England
learnt to repent the return of the Stuarts, so also Virginia found that
she had fallen upon evil times, a fact which is partially shown in
Berkeley's report in 1671. "As for the boundaries of our land, it was
once great, ten degrees in latitude, but now it has pleased his Majesty
to confine us to halfe a degree. Knowingly I speak this. Pray God it may
be for his Majesty's service, but I much fear the contrary.... I thank
God, there are _no free schools, nor printing_, and I hope we shall not
have these hundred years; for _learning_ has brought disobedience, and
heresy, and sects into the world, and _printing_ has divulged them, and
libels against the best government. God keep us from both."[55]
The greed of the cavaliers under Charles II. is notorious, and it
affected Virginia just as much as it did England. Lord Arlington and
Lord Culpeper obtained in 1672 the most monstrous rights, together with
a grant by which the whole soil of the colony passed into their hands.
An agency was at once sent to England to oppose this discreditable
action, at the same time taking with them a charter for which they hoped
to obtain ratification from the King. Needless to say in this they were
unsuccessful; but the charter is historically important, because it
contained a clause stating that the colonists could not be taxed without
the consent of their own legislature. The work of the agency partly
failed owing to the supineness of Governor Berkeley; chiefly, however,
because the people of Virginia were unable to see that agencies could
not be sent without expenditure. When a poll-tax was enacted to cover
the necessary expenses of their agents, there was a popular outburst.
The inhabitants of Virginia at this time were much divided, and composed
of distinct classes, the well-to-do planter, the tradesman, the "mean
whites," the negro and the criminal. The last class had been growing
steadily for some years as the colony had been used as a dumping-ground
for gaol-birds, and indeed the criminal section would have increased
still more had it not been for the better class of settlers who
determined to stop it. In April 1670, the General Court held at
Jamestown issued a notice "because by the great numbers of felons and
other desperate villains being sent over from the prisons in England,
the horror yet remaining of the barbarous designs of those villains in
September 1663, who attempted at once the subversion of our religion,
laws, liberties, rights and privileges," we do now prohibit "the landing
of any jail-birds from and after the 20th of January next upon pain of
being forced to carry them to some other country."[56] Although this law
tended to exclude a cheap form of labour, nevertheless between 1669 and
1674 Virginia, commercially, was in a most flourishing condition,
raising a greater revenue for the Crown than any other settlement. Sir
John Knight informed Lord Shaftesbury that £150,000 in customs on
tobacco alone had been paid, "so that Virginia is as of great importance
to his Majesty as the Spanish Indies to Spain, and employs more ships
and breeds more seamen for his Majesty's service than any other
trade."[57]
Commercial success was not the only thing that went to make up Virginian
history, for there were signs of external danger only too plainly
exhibited by numerous outrages on the part of the Indians. Had Berkeley
shown any skill or energy in suppressing these disorders all might have
gone well; as it was he did nothing, with dire results. The incapacity
of the Governor at last aroused the wrath of a young, honest,
courageous, but indiscreet, member of the Assembly, named Nathaniel
Bacon. He took up arms and was at first pardoned, but when he once again
attempted to seize Jamestown he was taken, and died in so mysterious a
manner as to give rise to rumours of poison and treachery, though it was
also reported, "that, he dyed by inbibing or taking in two _(sic)_ much
Brandy."[58] Bacon's rising had the effect desired in so far as it
brought about the recall of Berkeley. So vindictively and cruelly did
the Governor punish Bacon's followers that in 1677 the Crown sent three
Commissioners, Sir John Berry, Colonel Francis Moryson, and Colonel
Herbert Jeffreys to look into the grievances of either side. They almost
immediately quarrelled with the Governor, who was anxious to carry on
his severe punishments. The King, however, had commanded the
Commissioners to show, if possible, the greatest lenience. As a matter
of fact out of a population of 15,000, only 500 were on the side of the
Governor, and this small party who claimed to be the loyalists, very
naturally advocated confiscations and fines. Berkeley obstructed the
Commissioners as well as he was able, showing himself reckless of all
consequences, and exhibiting gross discourtesy to the King's
representatives. The truth was that Berkeley was growing old, and had
possessed unlimited power far too long, supported as he had been by a
most corrupt Assembly. The end of the quarrel came when the Governor, or
more probably, Lady Berkeley, insulted the officials beyond forgiveness.
After a consultation at the Governor's house the Commissioners were sent
away in his carriage with "the common hangman" for postillion.[59] This
outrage upon the laws of hospitality was too much; and Jeffreys
immediately assumed the reins of government. Sir William Berkeley gave
one more snarl, informing the new Governor that he was "utterly
unacquainted"[60] with the laws, customs, and nature of the people; he
then sailed for England, which he reached just alive, but "so unlikely
to live that it had been very inhuman to have troubled him with any
interrogations; so he died without any account given of his
government."[61]
Sir Herbert Jeffreys had a difficult task before him in trying to purge
the Assembly. Within a year of taking up office he died, leaving no
lasting memorial of his skill as Governor, but he is "to be remembered
as the first of a long series of officers of the standing army who have
held the governorship of a colony."[62] Jeffreys' successor, Sir Henry
Chicheley, only held office for a few months, and at his departure the
old type of governor disappears. The year 1679 is remarkable for the new
method of administration, a method which proved injurious to the
colony. Thomas, Lord Culpeper, was the first of the new scheme, and
though he resided in the colony for four years he did nothing for its
inhabitants. The appointment of Culpeper was most ill-advised, as he was
already detested owing to the grant of 1672. He took up his office at
identically the same time as the burgesses acquired the right of sitting
as a separate chamber, and he found the council refractory, the colony
unprosperous, and the Company of his Majesty's Guards in "mutinous
humours."[63] His tenure of office expired in 1684, and he was succeeded
by Lord Howard of Effingham. It cannot be said that the new Governor was
idle, but whatever he did was to the disadvantage of Virginia and the
Virginians. By a scandalous system of jobbery he inflicted grievous
financial injury upon individuals, and at the same time retarded the
progress of the colony by a system of new imposts. By his skill he
obtained for the Governor and the Council the right of appointing the
Secretary to the Assembly, which ought not to have been allowed by a
free representative body. From this time the evils of the English
colonial system became apparent, and it is now that absentee governors
enrich themselves at the expense of their settlements, the actual
administration being left to lieutenant governors in the confidence of
their chiefs, who remained at home.
The great stumbling-block to colonial prosperity was the lack of unity
between the different settlements on the eastern coast of North America.
In 1684 an attempt was made to bring about united action against
Indians, who had desolated the western borders of the English colonies.
A conference was called at Albany, and Virginia, like all the other
colonies, sent delegates to discuss the possibility of creating the
United States under the British Crown. Nothing, however, came of it, for
the jealousies and wranglings of the delegates only too well illustrated
the feelings of the different settlements for each other. The Revolution
of 1688 was accepted with tranquillity in Virginia, and two years later
Francis Nicholson was appointed King William's lieutenant governor.
Nicholson was a man of much colonial experience, of violent temper, and
scandalous private life. He strongly opposed the desire for political
freedom, but at the same time he made an excellent governor, and during
his rule, which lasted until 1704 (except for a period of six years,
1692-1698), the colony prospered. A desire for education evinced itself
at this period, and in 1691 Commissary Blair was sent to England to
obtain a patent for the creation of a college. He returned within two
years, his labours having been crowned with success, and in 1693 the
second university[64] in America was established under the title of
William and Mary College.
As the seventeenth century drew to a close, Virginian progress was
stimulated by the settlement, on the upper waters of the James River, of
De Richebourg's colony of Huguenots, which is said to have "infused a
stream of pure and rich blood into Virginian society." If the test of a
colony is its population, Virginia at this time must have been most
flourishing. Less than a century had passed since Newport and his one
hundred and forty-three settlers had sailed into the James River; the
colony had suffered privations, had witnessed many a fluctuation of
fortune, but at the dawn of the eighteenth century about one hundred
thousand souls were living there in peace, plenty and happiness. During
the century that had passed, the settlers had won for themselves
political rights, and practically, political freedom. They were to a
certain extent restricted by the Navigation Acts, but the influence of
the Crown or of the English Parliament was hardly felt. Their interest
in English political life was meagre; the importance of getting
trustworthy lieutenant governors was far greater to the Virginian than
whether Whig or Tory was in power at home. Sometimes the colony was
fortunate, sometimes the reverse, but in every case the lieutenant
governor was opposed to any extension of political rights. The
difficulty of united effort on the part of the planters was, to a
certain extent, intensified by a want of towns. Hampton was Virginia's
chief port, and was composed of a hundred poor houses, while
Williamsburg cannot be regarded as a true centre of either economic or
intellectual activity. This lack of town life is pointed out by
Commissary Blair, who informed the Bishop of London, "even when attempts
have been made by the Assembly to erect towns they have been frustrated.
Everyone wants the town near his own house, and the majority of the
burgesses have never seen a town, and have no notion of any but a
country life."[65] The lieutenant governors during the eighteenth
century had not only to contend with the supineness of the settlers, but
also with intercolonial discord. Thus Alexander Spotswood, in 1711,
attempted to assist North Carolina against the Tuscarora Indians, but he
received no support from either the Council or Assembly of Virginia.
Five years later Spotswood was met with similar bickerings and squabbles
when South Carolina was invaded by the Yamassees. In 1741 Oglethorpe
begged assistance to protect the newly established Georgia; instead of
sending their best we are told that his officer brought back "all the
scum of Virginia."[66]
The worst feature of Virginian life was the omnipresent and omnipotent
slave system, but from the mere commercial aspect this was in favour of
the colony at the time. The planters, however, were never ready to leave
the colony for imperial purposes owing to the fear of a negro rising at
home. This was one of the chief difficulties with which the Governor,
Robert Dinwiddie, had to contend, during that trying period of French
and Indian attack, which prepared the way for the Seven Years' war. With
this period it is not proposed to deal now, but to leave it to a later
chapter concerning the struggle between the French colonists in the
north and west, and the English settlers upon the eastern seaboard
during that period which is peculiarly connected with Britain's imperial
story.
FOOTNOTES:
[31] Quoted by Professor Raleigh in Introduction to _Hakluyt's Voyages_
(ed. 1904), xii. p. 24.
[32] _Hakluyt's Voyages_ (ed. 1904), vol. vii. p. 190.
[33] _Hakluyt's Voyages_ (ed. 1904), vol. i. p. xviii.
[34] Quoted by Doyle, _The English in America_, Virginia (1882), p. 145.
[35] _American Historical Review_, vol. iv. No. 4, pp. 678-702.
[36] Quoted by Doyle, _op. cit._, p. 147.
[37] Doyle says 143 colonists; neither Percy nor Newport mention the
exact number; Bradley, in his life of _Captain John Smith_, says 105.
[38] _Cf._ footnote, Doyle, _op. cit._, p. 149.
[39] Smith's Letter to the Virginia Company.
[40] Quoted by Bradley, _Captain John Smith_ (1905), p. 144.
[41] Force, _Tracts_ (1836-46), vol. i.
[42] Gates, _A True Declaration of the Estate of the Colonie in
Virginia_ (1610).
[43] Force, _Tracts_ (1836-46), vol. iii.
[44] Sir Thomas Dale was Governor 1611 and 1614 to 1616. Sir Thomas
Gates as Governor organised the colony 1611 to 1614. See _Dictionary of
National Biography_, xxi. p. 64.
[45] Hamor, _A True Discourse of the Present Estate of Virginia_ (ed.
1860).
[46] Hamor, _A True Discourse of the Present Estate of Virginia_ (ed.
1860).
[47] The characters of the two parties is controversial owing to the
scarcity of documentary evidence.
[48] Doyle, _op. cit._ p. 220.
[49] _Ibid._, p. 226.
[50] There was no question of abandoning the colony itself, which was
what Spain desired.
[51] Doyle, _op. cit._ pp. 242, 244.
[52] Gardiner, _History of the Commonwealth_, i. 317.
[53] Neill, _Virginia Carolorum_ (1886), p. 215.
[54] _Cromwell's Speech V._, Sept. 17, 1656.
[55] Hening, _Statutes at Large_ (New York, 1823), ii. p. 517.
[56] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1669-1674, p. 64.
[57] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1669-1674, p. 530.
[58] _Strange News from Virginia_ (1677), p. 8.
[59] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1677-1680, p. 64.
[60] _Ibid._, p. 67.
[61] _Ibid._, p. iv.
[62] Fortescue, _Introduction to Calendar_, 1677-1680, p. v.
[63] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1677-1680, p. 589.
[64] See p. 93.
[65] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1697, p. 642.
[66] _Itinerant Observations_, p. 62.