Produced by Mark C. Orton, Patrick Hopkins and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
Transcriber's Note
1. This text has a Rule 6 copyright clearance. Research has indicated
the copyright on this book was not renewed.
2. The position of some illustrations has been changed to facilitate
reading flow.
3. Footnotes are located at the end of each chapter.
4. In general, geographical references, spelling, hyphenation, and
capitalization have been retained as in the original publication.
5. Minor typographical errors--usually periods, commas and hyphens--have
been corrected without note.
6. Significant typographical errors have been corrected. A full list of
these corrections is available in the Transcriber's Corrections section
at the end of the book.
* * * * *
GIVE ME LIBERTY
MEMOIRS OF THE
AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
_held at Philadelphia
for Promoting Useful Knowledge_
VOLUME 46
[Illustration: Thomas Jefferson. Portrait by Thomas
Sully in the Hall of the American Philosophical
Society.]
GIVE ME LIBERTY
_The Struggle for Self-Government
in
Virginia_
THOMAS J. WERTENBAKER
_Edwards Professor Emeritus of American History
Princeton University_
THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
INDEPENDENCE SQUARE
PHILADELPHIA
1958
COPYRIGHT 1958 BY THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
_Library of Congress Catalog_
_Card Number: 58-9093_
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BY J. H. FURST COMPANY, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
_Preface_
None of the American colonies "will ever submit to the loss of those
valuable rights and privileges which are essential to the happiness of
every free state," George Washington wrote in October, 1774. Perhaps the
British officer to whom he made this statement was startled to have him
speak of the colonies as free. Yet at the time the American people were
the freest in the world, freer even than the people of England. It was
to defend this freedom, not to gain new rights, that the colonists
rebelled against Great Britain. For decades they had been governing
themselves, so when the British Ministry tried to govern them from
London, they would not submit.
To understand what was in the minds and hearts of George Washington,
Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and the other patriots, it is necessary to
know how the colonies became self-governing. One must follow the
political battles and hard-earned victories of their fathers, and
grandfathers, and great-grandfathers in the colonial Assemblies.
This volume treats of the struggle for self-government in Virginia from
the founding of Jamestown in 1607 to the Declaration of Independence.
The story of the gradual lessening of the King's prerogative, of the
weakening of the power of the Governor, of the emergence of the Assembly
as the ruling body could be paralleled in other colonies. But it is of
especial importance in Virginia, where was held the first representative
Assembly in the New World, and which gave so many leaders to the
American Revolution.
I wish to express my appreciation to my Alma Mater, the University of
Virginia, for its award of a Thomas Jefferson Research Fellowship,
without which this volume would not have been written.
THOMAS J. WERTENBAKER.
Princeton, N. J.
April 1, 1957.
_Contents_
PAGE
I. The Cornerstone of Liberty 1
II. Self-government 17
III. We Prefer Another Governor 36
IV. Royalty Overthrown 54
V. A Bacon! A Bacon! 76
VI. Reconstruction and Despotism 97
VII. The Glorious Revolution 122
VIII. The Virginia Hitler 133
IX. The Virginia House of Lords 151
X. Spotswood 160
XI. Peace and Prosperity 177
XII. At Stake--Liberty and a Continent 194
XIII. The Widening Rift 209
XIV. Independence 232
Essay on Sources 258
Index 265
Illustrations
Thomas Jefferson. Portrait by Thomas Sully in the Hall
of the American Philosophical Society _frontispiece_
The Old Capitol at Williamsburg, showing the north
elevation which is a duplicate of the historic Virginia
Capitol originally completed in 1705. Courtesy of
Colonial Williamsburg, Inc. _facing page_ 134
The House of Burgesses in the Old Capitol at Williamsburg.
Courtesy of Colonial Williamsburg, Inc. 134
Governor Dinwiddie. Portrait in the National Portrait
Gallery of London 196
The General Court in the Old Capitol at Williamsburg.
Courtesy of Colonial Williamsburg, Inc. 196
Lord Dunmore. From the copy in the possession of the
Virginia Historical Society of the original portrait by
Sir Joshua Reynolds 238
The Governor's Palace, Williamsburg. Courtesy of Colonial
Williamsburg, Inc. 238
CHAPTER I
THE CORNERSTONE OF LIBERTY
Three little vessels--the _Susan Constant_, the _Godspeed_, and the
_Discovery_--left England in December, 1606, under the command of
Captain Christopher Newport, to found a colony on the distant shores of
Virginia. Two decades earlier Sir Walter Raleigh had sent out a group of
settlers to what is now North Carolina, and they had disappeared
mysteriously. What had happened to them? men asked. Had they been killed
by the Indians? Had they fallen victims to disease? Had they starved?
Those who shared in this new venture must have wondered if a like fate
awaited them in this strange new land.
But their spirits rose when they entered Chesapeake Bay. Landing parties
were delighted with the "fair meddowes ... full of flowers of divers
kinds and colors," the "goodly tall trees," and the streams of fresh
water. It was a smiling country which seemed to bid them welcome. But
when they entered the mouth of a broad river, which they called the
James in honor of their King, and made their way up into the country,
new doubts must have assailed them. They knew that savages lived in the
dense forests which lined both banks; might not strange wild beasts live
there also? Might there not be fatal diseases unknown in Europe?
Possibly they wondered what type of government Englishmen would live
under here. In the charter granted the Virginia Company of London in
1606 it was promised that they should "enjoy all the liberties,
franchises, and immunities" of Englishmen, "as if they had been abiding"
in England. Even without this promise they would have taken it for
granted that they were not surrendering the freedom derived from their
ancestors. This was the view taken six decades later by Francis Moryson
and Thomas Ludwell, agents for the colony. If the King planted a colony
of Englishmen, they and their heirs ought by law to enjoy the "same
liberties and privileges as Englishmen in England." After all, the
colony would be but "an extension or dilation of the realm of
England."[1]
The men who came to Virginia had, in the mother country, participated in
the government through representatives of their own choosing, so they
insisted upon this right in their new home. They claimed, also, the
habeas corpus, jury trial, and freedom from taxation save by their own
consent. In England not even the King could take a man's money legally
until it had been granted by the House of Commons. Upon this recognized
principle English liberty was chiefly based; upon its acceptance in
America depended the future of liberty there.
Yet when the first band of settlers stepped ashore at Jamestown, liberty
in England still hung in the balance. At the conclusion of the Wars of
the Roses the King was almost absolute. The people were desperately
tired of anarchy; they were tired also of the oppressions of the barons.
So long as the King put an end to both they had no desire to limit his
power. The Commons ate out of his hand. Henry VIII might tear the Church
from the Roman see, Mary might restore it, Edward might once more break
with Rome--in each case the people submitted. Those who dared resist
faced the headsman's block or the pyre.
But in time the memory of the Wars of the Roses grew dim. And the growth
of the artisan class, the development of trade, the birth of a great
literature, the work of the universities, the expansion of world
horizons fired the imagination and awakened men to their own
potentialities. Self-government is a tender plant which withers in the
soil of poverty and ignorance, and it was the advance of prosperity and
enlightenment under the Tudors which made possible the flowering of
liberty under the Stuarts.
James I had been on the throne only three years when the little town
which bore his name was founded. James has been called the wisest fool
in Christendom; but he was neither wise nor a fool. His conception of
the King's office was logical and simple. It was his function to rule;
the duty of the people was to obey. If they did not, like bad children
they should be scolded and perhaps punished, since it was not only
illegal but wicked to question the King's authority. "As to dispute what
God may do is blasphemy, so it is sedition in subjects to dispute what a
King may do," he said. Parliament he considered a nuisance. "I am
surprised that my ancestors should have permitted such an institution to
come into existence," he said. "I am a stranger and found it here when
I arrived, so that I am obliged to put up with what I cannot get rid
of."[2]
The House of Commons were not inclined to accept the King's theory of
the relations between himself and Parliament. When James told them that
they had no privileges save by royal grace, they replied that he had
been misinformed. When in answer to James' demand that they refrain from
meddling in foreign affairs, they entered on their journal a
protestation of their right of free speech, he was so enraged that he
sent for the book and with his own hands tore out the page.
The Commons considered it a precious privilege to be "governed by
certain rules of law ... and not by uncertain or arbitrary form of
government." There is a general fear among the people, they told James,
that royal proclamations might eventually assume the nature of laws.
Then their ancient freedom would be abridged, "if not quite taken away,"
and "a new form of arbitrary government" brought on the realm.
The conflict between King and Parliament foreshadowed the conflict
between the Governors and the people of the colonies. The provincial
Assemblies were not less determined to resist any infringement on their
rights than was Parliament. And the fortunes of the contending forces in
the mother country affected profoundly those in the colonies. Echoes of
the First Stuart Despotism, the Civil War and Commonwealth, the
Restoration, the Second Stuart Despotism, the Glorious Revolution, the
laissez-faire period, and the reaction under George III reverberated in
the colonies.
But the development of self-government in America was by no means
entirely dependent upon events in England. There were forces in the New
World which favored democracy. The wide spaces of the frontier made men
self-reliant and resourceful and impatient of control by a distant
monarch, ever ready to defend old rights, quick to demand new ones.
"People remote from the seat of government are always remarkable for
their disobedience," wrote Governor Gooch, in 1732.[3] As the historian
Foote has pointed out, they and "their children were republicans; in
England they would have been styled rebels."
The creating of a vast middle class in the colonies also tended toward
democracy. The men who turned their backs on the homes of their
ancestors to start life over again in the tobacco fields of Virginia
were, most of them, desperately poor. Many came under terms of
indenture. But they had, prior to the introduction of slaves in large
numbers, every opportunity to rise. As a result there emerged a
vigorous, intelligent, freedom-loving yeomanry, who had a profound
influence in winning self-government.
But the victory at first seemed to be with the King. When James granted
a charter to the Virginia Company of London, he took care that it should
include no provision for representative government. Instead he kept the
control of the proposed colony in his own hands. There was to be a
Council resident in England appointed by him and responsible to him.
This body was to name another Council which was to reside in Virginia
and administer the "Articles, Instructions, and Orders" which the King
drew up with his own hand. In practice this body assumed administrative,
legislative, and judicial powers, and ruled the infant colony by their
own arbitrary will.[4]
Not only was this constitution undemocratic, but it proved inefficient.
Had the Council in England made better selections for the Council in
Virginia, the colony would have been saved much disorder and suffering.
But never was there a more quarrelsome set of men. The fleet had been at
sea but a few days when Captain John Smith was accused of plotting to
overthrow the government and murder his associates, and was kept in
prison below decks. Only some weeks after the landing at Jamestown was
he released and permitted to take his seat on the Council.[5]
On the Council with him were Captain Christopher Newport, Edward
Wingfield, Bartholomew Gosnold, George Kendall, John Ratcliffe, and John
Martin. One would think that this little group, set down in the
wilderness and faced with many perils, would have occupied their time
better than with plotting against each other. They had enough to do to
defend themselves against the Indians, for in a sudden attack four of
them were wounded and another had a narrow escape when an arrow passed
through his beard.[6]
Kendall was the first to be expelled from the Council. Gosnold died.
Wingfield, who was President of the Council, was accused of being an
atheist, of plotting to desert the colony, and of misappropriating
public funds, and was ousted from his seat. Since Newport had sailed
with the fleet for England, Ratcliffe, Smith, and Martin were now the
only remaining Councillors. But this did not bring harmony. Kendall was
accused of plotting against the other two, tried, and hanged. Smith,
too, was in danger of the gallows, when he was held responsible for the
death of two men who had been killed by the Indians. Were the "whipping,
lawing, beating, and hanging in Virginia known in England, I fear it
would drive many well affected minds from this honorable action,"
Wingfield stated after his return to England. With the drowning of two
new Councillors, Captain John Smith alone remained, and for several
months was the sole ruler of the colony.[7]
When word of what was going on in Virginia reached the London Company it
was obvious to all that the original plan of government had proved a
failure. So they secured a new charter empowering them to change it. But
for a remedy they turned, not to self-government, but to despotism. They
abolished the old Council, and turned the colony over to a Governor who,
within the limits of his instructions, was to "rule and govern by his
own discretion or by such laws" as he should decree. To assist him he
was to choose an advisory Council.
The danger of this system was at first obscured by the wise choice of a
Governor. Thomas Lord De la Warr was a man of distinction and ability.
He had studied at the Queen's College, Oxford, had served with Essex in
Ireland, and had been a member of the Privy Council under both Elizabeth
and James.[8]
Upon landing at Jamestown, De la Warr listened to a sermon by the good
minister, Mr. Buck. He then addressed the people, "laying some blames on
them," and promising, if forced to it, to draw the sword of justice. But
there seems to have been no need for this. The people, forgetting former
quarrels, were united in their efforts to serve their Governor and bring
a degree of prosperity to the colony. The sound of hammering and sawing
was heard on all sides as little houses were built, the fort repaired,
the church restored. "Every Sunday, when the Lord Governor went to
church, he was accompanied by all the Councillors, Captains, and other
officers, and all the gentlemen, and with a band of fifty halberdiers in
his Lordships livery, fair red cloaks, on each side and behind him. The
Lord Governor sat in the choir in a green velvet chair, with a velvet
cushion before him on which he knelt."[9]
But that Lord De la Warr proved to be a mild and just Governor by no
means obscures the evils inherent in absolutism. A good ruler may be
succeeded by a bad one. In ancient Rome the people benefited by the
establishing of law and order under the great Augustus, but they
suffered from the cruelty of the insane Caligula and the dissolute Nero.
So it boded no good for Virginia when De la Warr fell ill. "I was
welcomed by a hot and violent ague," he tells us. This was followed by
an attack of dysentery. "Then the cramp assaulted my weak body with
strong pains, and afterward the gout." Finally scurvy came to add to his
woes, so that he "was upon the point to leave this world." In
desperation he set sail for the West Indies in the hope of recovering
his health.[10]
A few weeks after De la Warr's departure Sir Thomas Gates assumed
command of the colony. In 1614 he, in turn, was followed by Sir Thomas
Dale, Dale by Captain George Yeardley, and Yeardley by Samuel Argall.
When Gates was in Virginia in 1610 he had brought with him certain laws,
orders, and instructions which he posted in the church at Jamestown. As
the people crowded into the little building to read them they must have
expressed their resentment and horror, for the laws were more suited to
a penal colony than to a community of free Englishmen. In 1611 Dale
brought additional laws, and the whole body was revised in England and
published. Gates and Dale had both served with the English army in the
Netherlands, and these laws were "chiefly extracted out of the laws for
governing the army" there.
It was ordered that "every man and woman daily twice a day upon the
first tolling of the bell shall upon the working days repair into the
church to hear divine service upon pain of losing his or her day's
allowance for the first omission, for the second to be whipped, for the
third to be condemned to the galleys for six months." Equally severe was
the law that "no man shall give any disgraceful words or commit any act
to the disgrace of any person ... upon pain of being tied head and feet
together upon the guard every night for the space of one month." To kill
any cattle, or horse, goat, or pig, or chicken without leave was
punishable with death. No doubt conducive to health but not to liberty
was the order that no man or woman should wash linen or pots and pans
"within twenty foot of the old well ... upon pain of whipping."[11]
De la Warr was a humane man, who thought that order could be maintained
without cruelty. Gates, also, seems not to have enforced the severe
laws. But the situation changed when Dale, and after him Argall assumed
power. These two men were guilty of reigns of terror that would have
shamed an Ivan the Terrible or a Hitler. The Virginia Assembly of 1624
testified that the colony suffered "under most severe and cruel laws
sent over in print," contrary to the King's promise. And these laws were
"mercilessly executed, often times without trial or judgment." Some who
sought relief by fleeing to the Indians were captured and executed,
either by hanging, or shooting, or even by being broken on the wheel.
One man who had stolen some oatmeal had a knife thrust through his
tongue, and then was tied to a tree where he was left to starve. In 1612
several men tried to steal a barge and a shallop in order to risk their
lives in a desperate attempt to reach England. For this they were "shot
to death, hanged and broken upon the wheel."[12]
But better things were in store. Many of the leading spirits of the
London Company, who "stood best affected to religion and liberty" were
"distasted with the proceedings of the Court." This group began now to
dream of migrating to Virginia to set up a government there which would
be sympathetic with their views. "Many worthy patriots, lords, knights,
gentlemen, merchants, and others ... laid hold on ... Virginia as a
providence cast before them."[13] Had not the Pilgrim fathers shown the
way to New England a few years later, it might have been in Virginia
rather than in Massachusetts that the Bible commonwealth was
established.
Prominent among the liberal faction in the Company was Sir Edwin Sandys.
In his youth he had studied at Corpus Christi, Oxford, under Richard
Hooker, the future founder of Connecticut, and this ardent Puritan
influenced profoundly his views and career. It was from Hooker that he
got the theory that the King derived his authority from a contract with
the people, and not by divine right. Later, when as a member of the
Commons he enunciated this theory, he drew down on his head James'
bitter hatred. Sandys, who had long been a member of the Council of the
London Company, was elected to the important post of Treasurer in 1617.
To prevent his re-election three years later, the King sent the names of
four other men to the Company with the demand that they elect one of
them. When the Company sent a delegation to him to protest against this
interference with their affairs, James blurted out: "Choose the devil if
you will, but not Sir Edwin Sandys."
Sandys seems to have planned to secure successive charters, each
granting the Company greater powers than its predecessor, under the
pretext that this was necessary for the success of the enterprise. The
second charter, granted in 1609, is of especial importance because by it
the King resigned the immediate control of the colony into the hands of
the Company. The charter of 1612 still further strengthened their hands.
But the Sandys faction met strenuous opposition in the Company itself.
Many of the stockholders thought it a mistake to involve the Company in
the political and religious struggle which was convulsing the nation. At
times the Quarter Courts resounded with the angry debates of the
contending parties. A momentous struggle it was, since upon the outcome
depended the establishing of self-government in America. So there was
rejoicing among the liberal party when Sandys was victorious.
It is probable that Sandys drew up with his own hand what has been
called the Magna Carta of Virginia in the fall of 1617, granting the
colony the right to representative government. Lord De la Warr, who was
still the Governor, had expected to leave at that time with this famous
document. But his sailing was delayed until April, 1618. Unfortunately
De la Warr, who probably had never fully recovered his health, became
ill during the voyage and died.
When news of De la Warr's death reached the London Company, they chose
Captain George Yeardley to be his successor. In January, 1619, Yeardley
sailed from England with several documents, probably duplicates of the
Magna Carta, authorizing him to hold an election for a General
Assembly.[14] His instructions have been preserved, but his commission,
or constitution for the colony, has been lost. Yet undoubtedly it was
similar to, if not identical with the Magna Carta of 1617, and with the
"Ordinance and Constitution" of July 24, 1621, given Sir Francis Wyatt.
This constitution called for a Council to be chosen from time to time by
the Company to assist the Governor in maintaining the "people in justice
and Christian conversation amongst themselves, and in strength and
ability to withstand their enemies." Another body "to be called by the
Governor once yearly and no oftener but for very extraordinary and
important occasions, shall consist for the present of the said Council
of State, and two Burgesses out of every town, hundred, or other
particular plantation, to be respectively chosen by the inhabitants."
This body, which was called the General Assembly, was to "have free
power to treat, consult, and conclude, as well of all emergent occasions
concerning the public weal of the said colony ... as also to make,
ordain, and enact such general laws and orders ... as shall from time to
time appear necessary." To the Governor was reserved a negative voice.
The Governor and Assembly were directed "to imitate and follow the form
of government, laws, customs, and manner of trial, and other
ministration of justice used in the realm of England." And a limit was
put to the authority of the Assembly by a provision that no law should
"continue in force" unless ratified by the Company. But a degree of
independence was granted in the instruction that "after the government
of the said colony shall once have been framed ... no orders of court
afterwards shall bind the said colony, unless they be ratified in like
manner in the General Assemblies."[15]
There must have been rejoicing in Virginia when Yeardley arrived with
orders "for the better establishing a commonwealth." Perhaps there were
cheers, perhaps tears of joy in the crowd which assembled in Jamestown
to listen to his proclamation. It promised that those cruel laws by
which they had so long been governed were now abrogated, and that they
were to be governed by those free laws which his Majesty's subjects in
England lived under.[16]
On August 9, 1619, the first representative assembly in American
history met in the crude little church at Jamestown. When Governor
Yeardley had taken his seat in the choir, the members of the Council sat
beside him, some on one side, some on the other. "But forasmuch as men's
affairs do little prosper when God's service is neglected, all the
Burgesses took their places in the choir till a prayer was said by Mr.
Buck, the minister." Then the Burgesses were called in order by name,
and so every man took the oath of supremacy.[17]
The Assembly assumed from the first that it was to be the Parliament of
Virginia. But they realized that they must make no laws which
contravened those of England, or the charter, or the instructions of the
London Company. During the first session, acts were passed concerning
the Church, Indian affairs, land patents, morality, prices, trade, etc.
But by far the most important law was one ordering "that every man and
man servant above sixteen years of age shall pay into the hands and
custody of the Burgesses ... one pound of the best tobacco."[18]
The control of taxation by the representatives of the people was to play
a vital role in the development of self-government in America. It was
based on the fact, universally recognized by Englishmen, that no power
had the right to take a man's property without his own consent. A
century after the first session of the Virginia Assembly the New York
Assembly reminded Governor Robert Hunter that their inherent right "to
dispose of the money of the freemen" did "not proceed from any
commission, letters patent, or other grant from the Crown, but from the
free choice and election of the people, who ought not to be divested of
their property (nor justly can) without their consent." Similarly the
Virginia House of Burgesses declared: "The rights of the subjects are so
secured by law that they cannot be deprived of the least part of their
property but by their own consent."
The Virginia Assembly of 1619, when they assumed the right to tax the
people, probably did not realize that they were laying the cornerstone
of the structure of American liberty. Yet it was the control of taxation
by the representatives of the people in all the colonies which made it
possible to win victory after victory over the royal Governors. It is an
old saying that one dare not quarrel with one's paymaster. Yet that was
just what most of the Governors had to do. They needed money, money to
cover their own salaries, money with which to pay other government
officials, money to raise and equip men to fight the Indians, or the
Dutch, or the French. The price they had to pay was a part of the royal
prerogative.
It is to be noted that the money raised by the levy of 1619 in Virginia
was to be paid, not to the Governor or to a Treasurer appointed by the
Governor, but to the Burgesses. The question of who was to receive the
revenues and who to decide upon their use was second in importance only
to who had the right to levy taxes. It was to give rise to many disputes
between Governors and Burgesses.
The people of Virginia in their happiness in the setting up of
representative government seem to have overlooked the King's hostility.
But they could not have expected him to assent meekly to the duplication
in the infant colony of the Parliament, the body which was causing him
so much trouble and vexation. They might have been warned of what was
coming when James threw Sir Edwin Sandys in the Tower.
This was followed by a frontal assault on the London Company. John
Ferrar wrote: "The King, notwithstanding his royal word and honor
pledged to the contrary ... was now determined with all his force to ...
give the death blow...."[19] He began by ordering a certain Nathaniel
Butler to write a pamphlet describing conditions in Virginia. In his
_Unmasking of Virginia_, as he called it, Butler drew a vivid picture of
the suffering of the people from disease, hunger, and the Indians. In
reply the Company published _A True Answer_, explaining the misfortunes
which had plagued the colony, and denying responsibility for them.[20]
The King now appointed a commission to inquire into "all abuses and
grievances" in Virginia. In July, 1623, this body reported that most of
the people sent to the colony were now dead, and that the blame must
rest on the Company. "If his Majesty's first grant of April 10, 1606,
... had been pursued, much better effects had been produced than had
been by the alteration thereof into so popular a course."[21] The King
was elated. He was determined, he said, to "resume the government, and
... reduce that popular form so as to make it agree with the monarchical
form."
Should the Company agree, he was willing for them to retain their
charter. But he told them that he was resolved "by a new charter to
appoint a Governor and twelve assistants, resident here in England, unto
whom shall be committed the government." These assistants were to
appoint a Governor and twelve assistants to reside in Virginia, "whereby
all matters of importance may be directed by his Majesty."[22] In
essence this was the original plan of 1606. There was "hot debate" in
the Company when they met to consider this proposal. Every man present
knew that the fate of the Company hung in the balance. Yet when the
King's offer was put to the vote, it was rejected by an overwhelming
majority.[23]
The Company now appealed to the House of Commons. But before the Commons
could act a message came from the King warning them not to meddle in the
affair. "Ourselves will make it our work to settle the quiet and welfare
of the plantations," he said. So, with some "soft mutterings," they
submitted.
The people of Virginia waited impatiently for the outcome of the
struggle which concerned them so deeply. When in March, 1624, the
_Southampton_ arrived with word that James was determined to change the
government, they were in despair. Was liberty to be overthrown? Were
they to be subjected again to the brutality of a Dale or an Argall? They
wrote the Privy Council praying that future Governors should not have
absolute authority. "But above all we humbly entreat your Lordships that
we may retain the liberty of our General Assembly, than which nothing
can more conduce to our satisfaction or the public utility."[24]
If this letter ever reached the Privy Council, it did not stay the
King's hand. Attorney General Coventry had already issued a _quo
warranto_ against the Company. Sandys and others fought the case before
the King's Bench, but the outcome was foregone. On June 26, 1624, the
charter was overthrown and Virginia became a royal colony.
Certain historians have contended that, in destroying the Company, James
was actuated chiefly by economic motives. They point out that the
Company was divided into factions, that the situation in Virginia was
desperate, and that the Company was practically bankrupt. Nothing was
left to show for the L100,000 which had been expended, and unless this
charge was wiped off the books by dissolving the Company, it would
remain for decades as a burden on the colony. No doubt this may have
influenced James in his decision. But he himself said that it had not
been his intention to revoke the charters until the Company drove him to
it by refusing to resign the government into his hands. He had resolved,
he said, "by altering the charters ... as to point of government ... to
settle such a course as might cause the said plantation to flourish, ...
But because the said Treasurer and Company did not submit their charters
to be reformed, our proceedings therein were stayed for a time until ...
the said charters ... were ... avoided."
The future of the colony was now left in doubt. James declared his
intention of issuing a new charter. But since this would require "much
time and care," he appointed a commission headed by Lord Henry
Mandeville, to manage the colony in the meanwhile. This body's first
step was to reappoint Governor Francis Wyatt and his Council, and to
authorize them to exercise all the powers granted to Yeardley and his
Council. But they made no mention of an Assembly.
James, in issuing the new charter, no doubt intended to make it conform
to the charter of 1606. Had he done so, he might have delayed the
development of self-government in Virginia by decades. But before he
could complete the draft, death overtook him. This dissolved the
Mandeville commission, and postponed indefinitely a final settlement of
Virginia affairs.
Charles I was in sympathy with his father's plans for the colony, but he
seems not to have been deeply concerned about carrying them out. His
first step was to place the matter before the Privy Council. The Council
called on Sir Edwin Sandys for his opinion. Sir Edwin replied in a long
document entitled "The Discourse of the Old Company of Virginia,"
advising the King to restore the Company. This Charles had no intention
of doing. On May 23, 1625, he issued a proclamation declaring "that his
intention was that the government of Virginia should immediately depend"
upon himself. It might be proper to commit matters of trade and commerce
to a corporation, but not state affairs. He next outlined a plan of
government for the colony which was essentially the same as that under
the charter of 1606.
In the meanwhile, the people of Virginia awaited anxiously. Would the
King abolish the Assembly? Would another Dale or Argall be sent over for
a new reign of terror? They had opposed the dissolution of the Company
because they feared it might lead to the abolishing of representative
government. Now that the Company no longer existed they pleaded
earnestly to be permitted to keep the Assembly. In June, 1625, the
Governor and Council wrote the Privy Council asking that the "liberty,
of General Assembleys" be continued in order "to avoid the oppressions
of Governors." This letter they entrusted to Sir George Yeardley, who
sailed with it for England and laid it before the Privy Council.[25]
This body hastened to assure the Virginians that the King "doth take all
the country and people into his royal protection and government," and
that they were to enjoy all their former privileges. Still they made no
promise that the people should have a voice in the government. And the
King, because of "many other urgent occasions," still delayed making a
permanent settlement of Virginia affairs. At last, in March, 1626, he
appointed Yeardley to succeed Wyatt, with orders to "continue the same
means that was formerly thought fit for the maintenance of the said
colony."
Wyatt and Yeardley were men of a different stamp from Dale and Argall.
Had they chosen to do so, they could have ruled the colony with no
restraint save from the Council. But they preferred to keep alive the
spark of representative government. So they called together unofficial
gatherings of leading citizens to sit with the Governor and the Council
instead of the House of Burgesses. This body they called the "Governor,
Council, and the colony of Virginia assembled together."[26]
The Assembly of 1624 was automatically dissolved by the death of James
I. So there must have been a new election, since the unofficial House of
Burgesses, had they been appointed by the Governor and Council, would
not have presumed to tax the people for the funds necessary for carrying
on the government. As there was no legal authority for the gatherings
their acts were translated into proclamations.[27]
Legal authority came in an unexpected way. With the demonstration by
John Rolfe, the man who married Pocahontas, that tobacco could be raised
in Virginia, the Indian weed had become more and more the staple of the
colony. Had it been assured of a monopoly of the English market by the
exclusion of foreign tobacco and the prohibition of tobacco planting in
England, and not hampered by high custom duties, it would have brought
prosperity and rapid growth.[28] But both James and Charles were
constantly in need of money, and the revenue from the duty on Spanish
tobacco had been important to them. So in excluding all foreign leaf
they sought to make good their losses from Virginia tobacco.
In 1627 Charles decided to buy the entire colonial crop in the hope of
selling it at a profit. But this he did not venture to do without
securing the consent of the planters. That would have violated the
principle that a man's property must not be taken without his consent,
either directly or through his representative. So he directed the
Governor to hold a general election of Burgesses, summon an Assembly,
and place his proposition before them. Thus he gave official recognition
to the House of Burgesses, and it was upon this recognition that its
authority rested.[29] The Virginians rejected the King's proposal, but
they kept their Assembly. From this date it became habitual for the
Kings to insert in the instructions to a new Governor that he hold an
election of Burgesses.
The setting up of representative government in the first English colony
in America has a double significance. It may be viewed as a part of the
struggle for supremacy between King and Parliament. Sir Edwin Sandys,
the champion of liberty in Virginia, was also a champion of liberty in
the mother country. Had absolutism won in England, its victory in the
colony would have been certain. And had the King succeeded in ruling the
colony unrestrained by any representative body there, it would have
strengthened his hand in England, would have been a defeat for the
liberal group in Parliament.
When the first Assembly met in Jamestown, the year before the Pilgrims
landed on Cape Cod, they established a precedent which was followed in
future English settlements. Had absolutism been firmly rooted in
Virginia, the Stuart Kings might have tried to set it up in all the
colonies. The Massachusetts Bay charter might have been voided, the
charters of Connecticut and Rhode Island might have had no provision for
representative government.
On the other hand, as it was the need for money which forced the hand of
Charles I and gave legality to the House of Burgesses, so the needs of
all the colonial governments made necessary the calling of legislatures
which had the right to levy taxes. It is this which forced the Duke of
York to call an Assembly in New York in 1684. When the American patriots
of 1775 took up arms because Parliament insisted on taxing them, they
were not defending some new principle. The principle that one's property
could be taken only with one's consent antedated the founding of
Jamestown. And upon it American liberty was based from the first.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] _Bath papers_ II, p. 44.
[2] R. W. K. Hinton, Government and liberty under James I, _Cambridge
Historical Journal_ 11 (I).
[3] Gooch to the Lords of Trade, March 30, 1732.
[4] A. Brown, _Genesis of the United States_ 1: 55, 56.
[5] Edward Arber, _Works of Captain John Smith_, 91.
[6] _Ibid._, lii.
[7] _Ibid._, lxxxiv.
[8] A. Brown, _The first republic_, 84.
[9] _Ibid._, 130.
[10] A. Brown, _Genesis of the United States_ 1: 479.
[11] Peter Force, _Tracts_ 3(2).
[12] A. Brown, _The first republic_, 148, 172.
[13] _Ibid._, 85.
[14] A. Brown, _The first republic_, 293.
[15] _Bath papers_ I.
[16] A. Brown, _The first republic_, 312.
[17] L. G. Tyler, _Narratives of early Virginia_, 257.
[18] _Journals of the House of Burgesses_, 1619-1659, 16.
[19] A. Brown, _The first republic_, 531, 532.
[20] _Ibid._, 524.
[21] _Ibid._, 541.
[22] _Ibid._, 542.
[23] _Ibid._, 554.
[24] William Stith, _History of Virginia_, 313, 315.
[25] A. Brown, _The first republic_, 573.
[26] CO1-3, p. 5. This and similar notations all refer to documents in
the British Public Record Office.
[27] W. W. Hening, _Statutes at large_ 1: 129, 130.
[28] CO1-4.
[29] CO1-20.