CHAPTER I_Virginia under the Stuarts 1607-1688

Virginia Under the Stuarts

1607-1688

Virginia Under the Stuarts

1607-1688

THOMAS J. WERTENBAKER

_New York_

RUSSELL & RUSSELL

1959

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER 39-11229

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

_Dedicated

to my mother_

PREFACE

It was in May, 1910, that the author came to Princeton for an interview

with President Woodrow Wilson concerning an appointment as Instructor in

the Department of History, Politics, and Economics. He was elated when

President Wilson engaged him, though not happy over the $1,000 salary.

Yet with this sum to fall back on he borrowed $200, and took a trip to

England.

In London he went treasure hunting, the treasure of old documents

relating to the history of colonial Virginia. He sought out the British

Public Record Office, off Chauncery Lane, and was soon immersed in the

mass of letters, official reports, journal of the Assembly, and other

papers.

The author was prepared to find valuable historical materials in London,

for he had spent the summer of 1908 studying the William Noel Sainsbury

and the McDonald abstracts and transcripts of the documents in the

Record Office deposited in the Virginia State Library. But he was

staggered at the extent of the manuscript collection on Virginia history

alone. Among the scores of volumes are thirty-two devoted to the

correspondence of the Board of Trade, seventeen to the correspondence of

the Secretary of State, twenty-two to entry books, letters, commissions,

warrants, etc.

When the summer waned he left for America taking with him many pages of

closely written notes. But what he had learned served to whet his

appetite for more, so that in 1912 and again in 1914 he was back, going

over volume after volume, searching eagerly for fear some important

point would escape him. The mass of abstracts and notes which he

accumulated formed the basis of this volume.

In fact, any political history of Virginia in the colonial period must

be based on the documents in the Public Record Office, since most of

the copies left in Virginia have been lost or destroyed. Today, however,

colonial historians no longer have to visit London to consult them,

since transcripts have been made and deposited in the Library of

Congress.

In recent years the American Council of Learned Societies has made

available other collections of manuscripts which have thrown new light

on early Virginia history. The most important of these are the Coventry

Papers at Longleat, the residence of the Marquess of Bath. Many of the

letters deal with Bacon's Rebellion, and include the correspondence

between Berkeley and Bacon, accounts of the Indian war, complaints of

the misgovernment of Berkeley, the account of the evacuation of

Jamestown written by Berkeley, accounts of Bacon's death and the

collapse of the rebellion.

This new material adds new weight to the conclusions reached in this

book--that the causes of Bacon's Rebellion were deep-seated, that it

grew out of the discontent caused by the Navigation Acts, the heavy

taxes, the corrupting of the Assembly by Berkeley, and the misuse of the

courts. It in no way shakes the conviction expressed by Thomas Mathews,

who himself was involved in the rebellion, that the Indian war was the

excuse for it rather than the cause.

Yet certain recent historians have contended that this violent uprising

was not a protest against injustice and misgovernment. One has gone so

far as to call it merely a quarrel between a rash young man and an old

fool. We could with equal justice call the American Revolution just a

quarrel between George Washington and George III. Mathews tells us that

it was the general opinion in Virginia at the time that it was not Bacon

who was chiefly responsible for the uprising, but Thomas Lawrence. Bacon

"was too young, too much a stranger there, and of a disposition too

precipitate to manage things to that length they were carried," he

pointed out, "had not thoughtful Mr. Lawrence been at the bottom."

But neither Lawrence's hatred of Berkeley, nor Bacon's rashness, nor

Berkeley's folly, nor the Indian war suffice to explain the rebellion.

When the news of the uprising reached Charles II, he thought it past

belief that "so considerable body of men, without the least grievance

or oppression, should rise up in arms and overthrow the government." He

was quite right. Had there been no grievances and oppression there would

have been no uprising.

That Bacon's Rebellion is explained in part by poverty and suffering is

clear. Philip Ludwell said that the rebel army was composed of men

"whose condition ... was such that a change could not make worse." The

men who fought so valiantly against the Indians and Berkeley's forces,

braved the King's anger, faced death on the gallows were called in

contempt "the bases of the people," "the rabble," the "scum of the

people," "idle and poor people," "rag, tag, and bobtail." The Council

reported that there were "hardly two amongst them" who owned estates, or

were persons of reputation. Berkeley complained that his was a miserable

task to govern a people "where six parts of seven at least are poor,

indebted, discontented, and armed."

So when Bacon sent out his agents to every part of Virginia to denounce

the governor for not permitting an election for a new Assembly, accusing

him of misgovernment, and complaining of the heavy and unequal taxes,

they "infested the whole country." Berkeley stated that the contaigion

spread "like a train of powder." Never before was there "so great a

madness as this base people are generally seized with." When, in panic,

he dissolved the Long Assembly and called for a new election, all except

eight of those chosen were pro-Bacon men.

One cannot but ask why. Surely the voters would not have sided with this

young man who had been in Virginia but a few months had he not taken the

lead in protesting against the many wrongs to which they had been

subjected. And had those who rushed to arms, risking their property, if

not their necks, done so merely because of a quarrel between Bacon and

Berkeley, they would have been more than base, they would have been

fools.

What these wrongs were Bacon and his followers tell us in what they

called the Declaration of the People. Berkeley and his favorites they

denounced "for having upon specious pretences of public works raised

great unjust taxes upon the commonalty for the advancement of private

favorites and other sinister ends...; for having abused and rendered

contemptible the magistrates of justice, by advancing to places of

judicature scandalous and ignorant favorites...."

In a burning manifesto, denouncing the injustice and corruption of the

ruling group, Bacon said: "We appeal to the country itself what and of

what nature their oppressions have been, and by what cabal and mystery

the design of many of those whom we call great men have been transacted

and carried on.... See what sponges have sucked up the public wealth and

whether it hath not been privately contrived away by unworthy favorites,

by vile juggling parasites, whose tottering fortunes have been repaired

and supported by the charge." The constant breach of laws, unjust

prosecutions, excuses, and evasions, proved that the men in power were

conducting public affairs "as if it were but to play a booty, game, or

divide a spoil."

In view of these statements recent attempts to prove that Bacon was no

true patriot and not interested in righting the people's wrongs seem

strange indeed. It is hardly credible that he was merely pretending when

he wrote these fiery words, that he posed as the champion of the people

to further his personal ambitions, that he trumped up charges against

Berkeley because of the disagreement over the Indian war.

But, it has been said, Bacon showed no interest in the passage of the

reform laws enacted by the Assembly of June 1676, refused to have them

read before his army, and complained that the Burgesses had not lived up

to his expectations. Had he been really interested in reform, would he

not have gloried in these laws and have praised the Assembly for passing

them?

Any such conclusion falls flat when we consider the conditions under

which this session was held. The Burgesses had hardly taken their seats

when Bacon, who had been elected as one of the members to represent

Henrico County, was captured. Though Berkeley pardoned him and restored

him to his seat in the Council, he was a virtual prisoner during the

first few days of the session. So he looked on with growing resentment

as the governor overawed the Burgesses and reform measures were set

aside.

Then, suddenly, the entire situation changed. Bacon got permission to

return to Henrico because his wife was ill. Once there he placed himself

at the head of his army of enraged frontiersmen and marched rapidly on

Jamestown. When this news reached the little capital, the governor, his

Council, and the Burgesses were panic stricken. Since resistance was

useless, every thought was of appeasement. A series of reform laws,

which struck at the very roots of Berkeley's system of rule through

placemen, was introduced in the Assembly, rushed through, and signed by

the governor.

Not knowing what had happened during his absence, on his arrival Bacon

mounted the steps to the Long Room of the State House where the Assembly

met, to urge them to right the people's wrongs. Thomas Mathews, who was

present, says that "he pressed hard, nigh an hour's harangue on

preserving our lives from the Indians, inspecting the revenues, the

exorbitant taxes, and redressing the grievances and calamities of that

deplorable country." It was only when he had finished that someone spoke

up to tell him that "they had already redressed their grievances." To

contend that Bacon was not interested in laws which he himself had so

passionately urged and which had obviously been passed to conciliate him

and his followers is merely to attempt to disprove the obvious.

Philip A. Bruce, in a statement published in 1893, in the _Virginia

Magazine of History and Biography_, points out that Bacon's Rebellion

"preceded the American Revolution by a century, an event which it

resembled in its spirit, if not in its causes and results. Bacon is

known in history as the Rebel, but the fuller information which we have

now as to the motives of his conduct shows that he can with more justice

be described as Bacon the Patriot. He headed a powerful popular movement

in which the sovereignty of the people was for the first time relied

upon on American soil by a great leader as the justification of his

acts. The spirit breathing through the Declaration of the People is the

spirit of the Declaration of Independence." Nothing which has been

brought out in the sixty-four years since Dr. Bruce wrote these words

has shaken or can shake their truth. Bacon was the torchbearer of the

Revolution.

Attempts to defend Sir John Harvey are as unconvincing as those to

belittle Bacon. Certainly the Sackville Papers, recently made available

to historians, contain nothing to warrant any change in the conclusion,

long accepted by Virginia historians, that Harvey's expulsion was richly

deserved.

Charles Campbell, in his _History of the Colony and Ancient Dominion of

Virginia_, thus describes Harvey's administration: "He was extortionate,

proud, unjust, and arbitrary; he issued proclamations in derogation of

the legislative powers of the Assembly; assessed, levied, held, and

disbursed the colonial revenue without check or responsibility;

transplanted into Virginia exotic English statutes; multiplied penalties

and exactions and appropriated fines to his own use; he added the

decrees of the court of high commission of England to the ecclesiastical

constitutions of Virginia." Could we have a more perfect description of

a despot?

It remains to point out a few errors which crept into the original

manuscript. On page 21 "the falls of the Appomattox" should be "the

first bend of the Appomattox"; on page 75 "John Pott" should be "Francis

Pott"; on page 82 "Matthew Kemp" should be "Richard Kemp".

_Princeton, New Jersey_ Thomas J. Wertenbaker

_August, 1957_

CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN NOTES xi

CHAPTER I--The Founding of Virginia 1

CHAPTER II--The Establishment of Representative Government 29

CHAPTER III--The Expulsion of Sir John Harvey 60

CHAPTER IV--Governor Berkeley and the Commonwealth 85

CHAPTER V--The Causes of Bacon's Rebellion 115

CHAPTER VI--Bacon's Rebellion 146

CHAPTER VII--The Period of Confusion 195

CHAPTER VIII--The Critical Period 225

INDEX 261

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN NOTES

Arb. Smith, _Works of Captain John Smith_, Edward Arber.

Scobell, _Scobell's Collection of Acts and Ordinances of General Use_.

F. R., _The First Republic in America_, Alexander Brown.

Gen., _The Genesis of the United States_, Alexander Brown.

Force, _Tracts and Other Papers Relating to the Colonies in North

America_, Peter Force.

Nar. of Va., _Narratives of Early Virginia_, Lyon G. Tyler.

Va. Car., _Virginia Carolorum_, E. D. Neill.

Hen., _The Statutes at Large_, W. W. Hening.

Proceedings of Va. Co., _Proceedings of the Virginia Company of London_.

Cradle of Rep., _The Cradle of the Republic_, Lyon G. Tyler.

Bruce, Inst. Hist., _Institutional History of Virginia in the Seventeenth

Century_, P. A. Bruce.

Bruce, EC. Hist., _Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth

Century_, P. A. Bruce.

Miller, _The Legislature of the Province of Virginia_, E. I. Miller.

P. R. O., British Public Record Office.

Stith, _History of Virginia_, William Stith.

Osg., _American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century_, H. L. Osgood.

Neill, Va. Co., _History of the Virginia Company of London_, E. D. Neill.

Fiske, Old Va., _Old Virginia and her Neighbors_, John Fiske.

Burk, _History of Virginia_, John Burk.

Va. Hist. Reg., _Virginia Historical Register_.

Beverley, _History of Virginia_, Robert Beverley.

Va. Mag., _Virginia Magazine of History and Biography_.

Wise, _The Early History of the Eastern Shore of Virginia_, J. C. Wise.

Southern Lit. Mess., _Southern Literary Messenger_.

Campbell, _History of Virginia_, Charles Campbell.

McD., _McDonald Papers_, Virginia State Library.

Jour. H. of B., _Journals of the House of Burgesses_. Manuscript copies

in the Virginia State Library.

Justice in Virginia, _Justice in Colonial Virginia_, O. P. Chitwood.

Sains., _Sainsbury Papers_, Virginia State Library.

Mass. S. IV., _Massachusetts Historical Collections, Series IV._

T. M., _The Beginning, Progress and Conclusion of Bacon's Rebellion_.

W. & M. Q., _William and Mary Quarterly_.

Inds' Pros., _Indians' Proceedings_.

Bac's Pros., _Bacon's Proceedings_.

Ing's Pros., _Ingram's Proceedings_.

Cotton, _Our Late Troubles in Virginia_, Mrs. A. Cotton.

Va. Vet., _Virginia Vetusta_, E. D. Neill.

CHAPTER I

THE FOUNDING OF VIRGINIA

In December, 1606, three little vessels--the _Sarah Constant_, the

_Discovery_ and the _Goodspeed_--set sail from England under Captain

Christopher Newport, for the distant shores of Virginia.[1] After a long

and dangerous voyage across the Atlantic the fleet, on the sixth of May,

1607, entered the Chesapeake Bay.[2] The adventurers spent several days

exploring this great body of water, landing parties to investigate the

nature of the shores, and to visit the Indian tribes that inhabited

them. They were delighted with the "faire meddowes, ... full of flowers

of divers kinds and colours", and with the "goodly tall trees" of the

forests with "Fresh-waters running" between, but they had instructions

not to settle near the coast, lest they should fall victims to the

Spaniards.[3] So they entered the broad mouth of a river which they

called the James, and made their way cautiously up into the country. On

the twenty-third of May they found a peninsula in the river, which

afforded a convenient landing place and was easy to defend, both from

the Indians and the Spaniards. This place they called Jamestown. Landing

their men, they set immediately to work building houses and erecting

fortifications. Thus did the English begin their first permanent

settlement in the New World.

The bold band of adventurers that came thus hopefully into this

beautiful and smiling country little realized that before them lay only

dangers and misfortunes. Could they have foreseen the terrible obstacles

to founding a colony in this land, they would have hesitated before

entering upon the enterprise.

Four things conspired to bring misfortune and disaster upon Virginia.

The form of government prescribed by the King and the Company was

unsuited to the infant settlement, and its defects kept the colonists

for many months in turmoil and disorder. The Indians proved a constant

source of danger, for they were tireless in cutting off stragglers,

ambushing small parties and in destroying the crops of the white men.

Famines came at frequent intervals to weaken the colonists and add to

their misfortunes. But by far the most terrible scourge was the

"sicknesse" that swept over Virginia year after year, leaving in its

wake horrible suffering and devastation.

The charter that James I granted to the London Company served as a

constitution for Virginia, for it prescribed the form of government and

made regulations that none could disregard. It provided for a Council,

resident in England, to which was assigned the management of the colony

and the supervision of its government.[4] This body was appointed by the

King and was strictly answerable to him through the Privy Council for

its every act.[5] The immediate government of the colony was entrusted

to a local Council, selected by the Council in England, and responsible

to it. The Virginia Council exercised extraordinary powers, assuming all

administrative, legislative and judicial functions, and being in no way

restrained by the wishes or demands of their fellow colonists.[6]

Although they were restricted by the charter and by the instructions of

the Council in England, the isolation of the settlement and the

turbulent spirit of the adventurers made them reckless in enforcing

their own will upon the colonists. More than once they were guilty of

unpardonable harshness and cruelty.

The charter did not provide for the appointment of a Governor. The

nominal leadership of the colony was entrusted to a President, chosen by

the local Council from among its members. This officer had no duty

distinct from that of the Councillors, other than to preside at their

meetings and to cast a double or deciding vote in case of deadlock.[7]

He was to serve but one year and if at any time his administration

proved unsatisfactory to his colleagues, they could, by a majority vote,

depose him. In like manner, any Councillor that had become obnoxious

could be expelled without specific charges and without trial.[8] These

unwise provisions led naturally to disorder and strife, and added much

to the misfortunes of the infant colony.[9]

The selections for the Council were made some days before the fleet

sailed, but the Company, fearing a conflict of authority during the

voyage, thought it best that they should be kept secret until the

colonists had reached Virginia. The names of the appointees were

embodied in "several instruments" which were entrusted to the commanders

of the vessels, with instructions that they should be opened within

twenty-four hours after they had arrived off the coast of America.[10]

Upon entering the Chesapeake Bay the adventurers read the papers, and

found that Christopher Newport, the commander of the fleet, Edward

Wingfield, Bartholomew Gosnold, George Kendall, John Ratcliffe, John

Martin and John Smith were those that had been chosen.[11]

After the landing the Council met, were sworn to office, and then

elected Wingfield President.[12] Captain John Smith, who had been

accused of mutiny during the voyage, was not allowed to take his seat,

and was kept under restraint until the twentieth of June.[13]

Hardly had the founding of Jamestown been effected when the weakness of

the constitution became apparent. The meetings of the Council were

discordant and stormy. The members were utterly unable to act with

vigor and determination, or to agree upon any settled course of action

in establishing the little colony. The President, because of the

limitation of his powers, could do nothing to restore harmony or to

enforce his own wishes and policies. Confusion and mismanagement

resulted. In less than a month after the first landing the inefficiency

of the government had created such discontent that the colonists

petitioned the Council for redress.[14] It was only the tact and

moderation of Captain Newport that appeased the anger of the settlers

and persuaded them to submit to the decrees of the governing body.[15]

On the second of July, Newport, with his little fleet, sailed for

England, leaving the ill-fated colonists to their own resources.[16] No

sooner had he gone than the spirit of discord reappeared. The quarrels

within the Council became more violent than ever, and soon resulted in

the complete disruption of that body. Captain Kendall, who seems to have

been active in fomenting ill feeling among his colleagues, was the first

to be expelled. Upon the charge of exciting discord he was deprived of

his seat and committed to prison.[17]

As Captain John Smith had, before the departure of Newport, been allowed

to take his place in the Council, there were now five members of that

body. The number was soon reduced to four by the death of Captain

Gosnold, who fell a victim to the sickness.[18] One would imagine that

the Council, thus depleted, would have succeeded in governing the colony

in peace, but the settlers were given no respite from their wrangling

and disputes. In September, Ratcliffe, Smith and Martin entered into an

agreement to depose President Wingfield and to oust him from the

Council. Before they proceeded against him, however, they pledged each

other that the expulsions should then stop, and that no one of the three

should be attacked by the other two.

The Councillors then appeared before Wingfield's tent with a warrant,

"subscribed under their handes, to depose the President; sayeing they

thought him very unworthy to be eyther President or of the Councell, and

therefore discharged him of both".[19] They accused him of

misappropriating funds, of improper division of the public stores, of

being an atheist, of plotting to desert Virginia in the pinnace left at

Jamestown by Captain Newport, of combining with the Spaniards for the

destruction of the colony. Wingfield, when he returned to England, made

a vigorous defense of his conduct, but it is now impossible to determine

whether or not he was justly accused. After his expulsion from office,

he was summoned before the court by the remnant of the Council to answer

these numerous charges. It might have gone hard with him, had he not

demanded a hearing before the King. As his enemies feared to deny him

this privilege, they closed the court, and committed him to prison on

board the pinnace, where he was kept until means were at hand to send

him to England.[20]

The removal of the President did not bring peace to the colony. If we

may believe the testimony of Wingfield, the triumvirate that now held

sway ruled the settlers with a harsh and odious tyranny. "Wear," he

says, "this whipping, lawing, beating, and hanging, in Virginia, known

in England, I fear it would drive many well affected myndes from this

honourable action."[21] One day Ratcliffe, who had been chosen to

succeed Wingfield, became embroiled with James Read, the smith. Read

forgot the respect due his superior, and struck the new President. So

heinous a crime was this affront to the dignity of the chief officer of

the infant colony, that the smith was brought to trial, convicted and

sentenced to be hanged. But he saved his life, upon the very eve of his

execution, by revealing to Ratcliffe a plot against the government,

headed, he declared, by Captain Kendall.[22] Immediately Kendall, who

had long been an object of suspicion, was tried for mutiny, found guilty

and executed.[23]

In December, 1607, when the colony was suffering severely for the want

of food, Captain Smith led an expedition into the territory of the

Chickahominies in quest of corn.[24] During his absence the President,

despite the protests of Martin, admitted Captain Gabriel Archer to the

Council.[25] Archer, who seems to have been a bitter enemy of Smith, had

no sooner attained this place of power, than he set to work to ruin the

adventurous captain. "Being settled in his authority", he "sought to

call Master Smythes lief in question, and ... indicted him upon a

Chapter in Leviticus for the death" of two men under his charge, that

had been murdered by the Indians. He was to have had his trial upon the

very day of his return from his thrilling adventures with the savages.

His conviction and immediate execution would doubtless have resulted,

had not the proceedings against him been interrupted by the arrival of

the First Supply from England.[26] Captain Newport, whose influence

seems always to have been exerted in favor of moderation and harmony,

persuaded the Council to drop the charges against Smith, to release him

from restraint, and to restore him to his seat in the Council.

Of extraordinary interest is the assertion of Wingfield that the arrival

of the fleet "prevented a Parliament, which ye newe Counsailour (Archer)

intended thear to summon".[27] It is not surprising that the settlers,

disgusted as they were with the violence and harshness of their rulers,

should have wished to share in the government. But we cannot but wonder

at their boldness in attempting to set aside the constitution given them

by the King and the Company. Had they succeeded in establishing direct

government by the people, it could not be supposed that James would have

permitted it to continue. But the attempt is very significant, as

indicating that they were desirous, even at this early date, of having a

voice in the management of affairs.

Archer and the unfortunate Wingfield sailed with the fleet when Captain

Newport returned to England, and a few months later Martin followed

them.[28] Since, with the First Supply had come a new Councillor,

Matthew Scrivener, the governing body once more numbered three.

During the summer of 1608 Smith was frequently away, chasing the phantom

of the passage to the South Sea, but this did not prevent the usual

quarrels. If we may believe the account in Smith's history, Ratcliffe

was deposed from the Presidency because of "pride and unreasonable

needlesse cruelty" and for wasting the public stores.[29] It is probable

that for some weeks Scrivener conducted the government, while Ratcliffe

was kept a prisoner.[30] In September, Captain Smith, returning from a

voyage in the Chesapeake Bay, "received the letters patents, and took

upon him the place of president".[31]

Smith was now supreme in the government, for the Council was reduced to

two, and his casting vote made his will superior to that of Scrivener.

But he was not long to enjoy this power. In October, 1608, Captain

Newport, arriving with the Second Supply, brought with him two "antient

souldiers and valient gentlemen"--Richard Waldo and Peter Wynne--both

bearing commissions as Councillors.[32] Soon afterward Ratcliffe was

restored to his seat. The Council, thus recruited, resumed its control

over the colony, "so that although Smith was President yet the Council

had the authority, and ruled it as they listed".[33]

Two months later, when Newport sailed again, Ratcliffe returned to

England. Smith wrote the English Council, "Captaine Ratcliffe is ... a

poore counterfeited Imposture. I have sent you him home, least the

company should cut his throat."[34] The next spring Waldo and Scrivener,

with nine others, were caught in a small boat upon the James by a

violent gale, and were drowned.[35] As Captain Wynne soon succumbed to

the sickness, Smith became the sole surviving Councillor.[36] During the

summer of 1609 the colony was governed, not, as the King and Company had

designed, by a Council, but by the will of this one man.

In the meanwhile the London Company was becoming aware that a mistake

had been made in entrusting the government of the colony to a body of

Councillors. The reports of Wingfield, Archer, Newport and Ratcliffe

made it evident that the lack of harmony in the Council had been a

serious hindrance to the success of the enterprise.[37] Feeling,

therefore, that this "error in the equality of the governors ... had a

little shaken so tender a body", the managers held an especial meeting

to effect a change.[38] A new charter was drawn up by Sir Edwin Sandys,

approved by the Company and assented to by the King.

In this document James relinquished into the hands of the Company not

only the direct management of the colony, but the power of drawing up a

new and more satisfactory system of government. Acting under this

authority, Sandys and his associates abolished the Council and entrusted

the entire control of the colony to an all-powerful Governor. The

disorder that had so impeded the success of the enterprise was to be

crushed under the iron hand of a despot. Doubtless Sandys would have

attempted to establish representative government at once in Virginia,

had conditions favored so radical a change. But the colony was too young

and feeble, and James could hardly be expected to give his consent. Yet

the many liberal members of the Company were deeply interested in

Virginia and were determined, should a favorable opportunity occur, to

establish there an Assembly similar in character to the English

Parliament.

The granting of the new charter aroused extraordinary interest in the

fortunes of the colony throughout England and stimulated the Company to

renewed efforts.[39] Thousands of pounds were contributed to defray the

expenses of another expedition, and hundreds of persons responded to the

appeals for settlers. The first Governor was a man of ability and

distinction--Thomas Lord De la Warr. Sir Thomas Gates was made

Lieutenant-Governor, George Summers, Admiral, and Captain Newport,

Vice-Admiral.[40] De la Warr found it impossible to leave at once to

assume control of his government, but the other officers, with nine

vessels and no less than five hundred colonists, sailed in June,

1609.[41] Unfortunately, in crossing the Gulf of Bahama, the fleet

encountered a terrific storm, which scattered the vessels in all

directions. When the tempest abated, several of the ships reunited and

continued on their way to Jamestown, but the _Sea Adventure_, which

carried Gates, Summers and Newport, was wrecked upon an island in the

Bermudas.[42] As a result of this misfortune none of the leaders of the

expedition reached Virginia until May, 1610, ten months later.

The other vessels, with most of the settlers, arrived at Jamestown in

August, 1609. The newcomers told Captain Smith of the Company's new plan

of government, and requested him to relinquish the old commission. This

the President refused to do. All the official papers relating to the

change had been aboard the _Sea Adventure_, and he would not resign

until he had seen them.[43] A long and heated controversy followed, but

in the end Smith gained his point.[44] It was agreed that until the

arrival of the _Sea Adventure_ the colony should remain under the old

charter, and that Smith should continue to act as President until the

twentieth of September, when he was to relinquish the government to

Captain Francis West.[45]

This arrangement did not restore harmony. West felt aggrieved that

Captain Smith should insist upon continuing the old order of affairs

despite the known wishes of the Company, and took occasion to ignore and

slight his authority. This so angered the President that he is said to

have plotted with the Indians to surprise and cut off a party of men

that his rival was leading up the James. Before this could be

accomplished, however, Smith met with a serious accident, which led to

his immediate overthrow. "Sleeping in his Boate ... accidentallie, one

fired his powder-bag, which tore the flesh ... in a most pittifull

manner; but to quench the tormenting fire ... he leaped over-board into

the deepe river, where ever they could recover him he was neere

drowned."[46] Three former Councillors--Ratcliffe, Archer and

Martin--who had come over with the new fleet, availed themselves of the

helplessness of their old foe to rid the colony of his presence.

Claiming, with some justice, that if Smith could retain his office under

the old charter, they were by the same power still members of the

Council, they held a meeting, deposed him from the Presidency and sent

him back to England.[47] Having thus disposed of the troublesome

Captain, they looked about them for some man suitable to head the colony

until the arrival of Gates. Neglecting the claims of West, whom they

probably considered too inexperienced for the place, they selected

Captain George Percy.[48]

In the meanwhile, the crew and passengers of the _Sea Adventure_ were

stranded in the Bermudas, upon what was called Devil's Island. Some of

their number were daring enough to venture out into the ocean in the

longboat, in an attempt to reach the colony, but they must have

perished, for they were never heard from again.[49] The rest of the

company, seeing no other way of escape, built two pinnaces and, in May,

1610, sailed away in them for Jamestown. A few days later, upon their

arrival in Virginia, Gates received the old patent and the seal from the

President and the period of the first royal government in Virginia came

to an end.[50]

But the "faction breeding" government by the Council was by no means the

only cause of trouble. Far more disastrous was the "sicknesse". When the

first expedition sailed for Virginia, the Council in England, solicitous

for the welfare of the emigrants, commanded them to avoid, in the choice

of a site for their town, all "low and moist places".[51] Well would it

have been for the colonists had they obeyed these instructions. Captain

Smith says there was in fact opposition on the part of some of the

leaders to the selection of the Jamestown peninsula, and it was amply

justified by the event. The place was low and marshy and extremely

unhealthful.[52] In the summer months great swarms of mosquitoes arose

from the stagnant pools of water to attack the immigrants with a sting

more deadly than that of the Indian arrow or the Spanish musket ball.

Scarcely three months had elapsed from the first landing when sickness

and death made their appearance. The settlers, ignorant of the use of

Peruvian bark and other remedies, were powerless to resist the progress

of the epidemic. Captain George Percy describes in vivid colors the

sufferings of the first terrible summer. "There were never Englishmen,"

he says, "left in a forreign country in such miserie as wee were in this

new discouvered Virginia. Wee watched every three nights, lying on the

bare-ground, what weather soever came;... which brought our men to bee

most feeble wretches.... If there were any conscience in men, it would

make their harts to bleed to heare the pitifull murmurings and outcries

of our sick men without reliefe, every night and day for the space of

sixe weekes; in the morning their bodies being trailed out of their

cabines like Dogges, to be buried."[53] So deadly was the epidemic that

when Captain Newport brought relief in January, 1608, he found but

thirty-eight of the colonists alive.[54]

Nor did the men that followed in the wake of the _Sarah Constant_, the

_Discovery_ and the _Goodspeed_ fare better. In the summer of 1608, the

sickness reappeared and once more wrought havoc among the unhappy

settlers. Captain Smith, who probably saved his own life by his frequent

exploring expeditions, on his return to Jamestown in July, "found the

Last Supply al sicke".[55] In 1609, when the fleet of Summers and

Newport reached Virginia, the newcomers, many of whom were already in

ill health, fell easy victims to malaria and dysentery. Smith declared

that before the end of 1610 "not past sixtie men, women and children"

were left of several hundred that but a few months before had sailed

away from Plymouth.[56] During the short stay of Governor De la Warr one

hundred and fifty, or more than half the settlers lost their lives.[57]

Various visitors to Virginia during the early years of the seventeenth

century bear testimony to the ravages of this scourge. A Spaniard named

Molina, writing in 1613, declared that one hundred and fifty out of

every three hundred colonists died before being in Virginia twelve

months.[58] DeVries, a Dutch trader to the colony, wrote, "During the

months of June, July and August it is very unhealthy, then people that

have lately arrived from England, die, during these months, like cats

and dogs, whence they call it the sickly season."[59] This testimony is

corroborated by Governor William Berkeley, who reported in 1671, "There

is not now oft seasoned hands (as we term them) that die now, whereas

heretofore not one of five escaped the first year."[60]

In 1623 a certain Nathaniel Butler, in an attack upon the London

Company, called "The Unmasked Face of our Colony in Virginia", drew a

vivid, though perhaps an exaggerated picture of the unhealthfulness of

the climate. "I found the plantations," he said, "generally seated upon

meer salt marshes, full of infectious bogs and muddy creeks and lakes,

and thereby subjected to all those inconveniences and diseases which are

so commonly found in the most unsound and most unhealthy parts of

England, whereof every country and climate hath some." It was by no

means uncommon, he declared, to see immigrants from England "Dying under

hedges and in the woods", and unless something were done at once to

arrest the frightful mortality Virginia would shortly get the name of a

slaughter house.[61]

The climate of eastern Virginia, unhealthful as it undoubtedly was in

the places where the first settlements were made, cannot be blamed for

all the epidemics that swept the colony. Much of the ill health of the

immigrants was due to unwholesome conditions on board the ships which

brought them from England. The vessels were usually crowded far beyond

their real capacity with wretched men, women and children, and were foul

beyond description.[62] Not infrequently great numbers died at sea. One

vessel is reported to have lost a hundred and thirty persons out of a

hundred and eighty-five. On the ships that left England in June, 1609,

both yellow fever and the London plague appeared, doing fearful havoc,

and making it necessary to throw overboard from two of the vessels alone

thirty-two unfortunate wretches.[63] The diseases, thus started, often

spread after the settlers had reached their new homes, and under

favoring conditions, developed into terrible epidemics.[64]

Less deadly than the "sicknesse", but still greatly to be dreaded, was

the hostility of the Indians.[65] The natives, resentful at the attempt

of the white men to establish themselves in their midst, proved a

constant menace to the colony. Their superstitious awe of the strange

newcomers, and their lack of effective weapons alone prevented untiring

and open war. Jamestown was but a few days old when it was subjected to

a violent assault by the savages. On the twentieth day of May, 1607, the

colonists, while at work without their arms in the fields, were attacked

by several hundred Indians. In wild dismay they rushed into the fort,

while the savages followed at their heels. "They came up allmost into

the ffort, shot through the tents, appeared in this Skirmishe (which

lasted hott about an hower) a very valient people." The guns of the

ships came to the aid of the English and their thunders struck dismay

into the hearts of the savages. Yet they retired without panic, taking

with them their dead and wounded. Four of the Council, standing in the

front ranks, were wounded by the natives, and President Wingfield, while

fighting valiently, had an arrow shot through his beard, "yet scaped

hurte".[66]

A few days after this event a gentleman named Clovell came running into

the fort with six arrows sticking in him, crying, "Arm, arm". He had

wandered too far from the town, and the Indians, who were still prowling

near, shot him from ambush. Eight days later he died.[67] Thus at the

very outset, the English learned the nature of the conflict which they

must wage against the Indians. In open fight the savages, with their

primitive weapons, were no match for them, but woe to any of their

number that strayed far from the fort, or ventured into the long grass

of the mainland. So frequently were small parties cut off, that it

became unsafe for the English to leave their settlements except in

bodies large enough to repel any attack.[68]

The epidemics and the wars with the Indians conspired to bring upon the

colony still another horrible scourge. The constant dread of attack in

the fields and the almost universal sickness made it impossible for the

settlers to raise crops sufficient for their needs. During the summer of

1607 there were at one time scarce five able men at Jamestown, and these

found it beyond their power even to nurse the sick and bury the dead.

And in later years, when corn was planted in abundance, the stealthy

savages often succeeded in cutting it down before it could be harvested.

There can be no surprise then that famines came at frequent intervals to

add to the misery of the ill-fated colonists. The most terrible of these

visited Virginia in the winter of 1609-10. Smith's Historie gives a

graphic account of the suffering during those fearful months. Those that

escaped starvation were preserved, it says, "for the most part, by

roots, herbes, acornes, walnuts, berries, now and then a fish: they that

had starch in these extremities, made no small use of it; yea, even the

very skinnes of our horses. Nay, so great was our famine, that a Salvage

we slew and buried, the poorer sort took him up againe and eat him; and

so did divers one another boyled and stewed with roots and herbs: And

one amongst the rest did kill his wife, powdered her, and had eaten part

of her before it was knowne; for which hee was executed, as hee well

deserved.... This was the time, which to this day we call the starving

time; it were too vile to say, and scarce to be believed, what we

endured."[69]

The misery of the wretched settlers in time of famine is vividly

described in a letter written in 1623 by a servant to his parents. The

people, he said, cried out day and night, "Oh that they were in England

without their limbs ... though they begged from door to door". He

declared that he had eaten more at home in a day than was now allowed

him in a week, and that his parents had often given more than his

present day's allowance to a beggar at the door. Unless the ship _Sea

Flower_ came soon, with supplies, his master's men would have but half a

penny loaf each a day for food, and might be turned away to eat bark off

the trees, or moulds off the ground. "Oh," he said, "that you did see my

daily and hourly sighs, groans, tears and thumps that I afford mine own

breast, and rue and curse the time of my birth and with holy Job I

thought no head had been able to hold so much water as hath and doth

daily flow from mine eyes."[70]

Thus was the immigrant to Virginia beset on all sides with deadly

perils. If he escaped the plague, the yellow fever and the scurvy during

his voyage across the Atlantic, he was more than apt to fall a victim to

malaria or dysentery after he reached his new home. Even if he survived

all these dangers, he might perish miserably of hunger, or be butchered

by the savage Indians. No wonder he cursed the country, calling it "a

miserie, a ruine, a death, a hell".[71]

It is remarkable that the enterprise, in the face of these stupendous

difficulties, should ever have succeeded. The explanation lies in the

great enthusiasm of all England for this attempt to extend the British

domains to the shores of the New World, and in the devotion of a few

brave spirits of the London Company, who would not be daunted by

repeated failures. It mattered not to them that thousands of pounds were

lost in the undertaking, that many hundreds of men perished, the

English flag and the English religion must gain a foothold upon the

American continent.

Sir Thomas Gates found the colony in a pitiable condition. The tomahawk

of the Indians, famine and pestilence had wrought terrible havoc with

the settlers. A mere handful of poor wretched men were left to welcome

the newcomers and to beg eagerly to be taken away from the ill-fated

country. The town "appeared rather as the ruins of some auntient

fortification, then that any people living might now in habit it: the

pallisadoes he found tourne downe, the portes open, the gates from the

hinges, the church ruined and unfrequented.... Only the block house ...

was the safetie of the remainder that lived: which yet could not have

preserved them now many days longer from the watching, subtile, and

offended Indians."[72]

Nor was it in the power of Gates to remedy these conditions, for he had

brought with him from Devil's Island but a limited supply of provisions.

So, with great reluctance, the Lieutenant-Governor decided to abandon

Virginia rather than sacrifice his people. As the colonists climbed

aboard the vessels which were to take them from the scene of their

sufferings, they would have set fire to the town had not Gates prevented

with his soldiers. He, himself, "was the last of them, when, about noon,

giving a farewell with a peale of small shott, he set sayle, and that

night, with the tide, fell down ... the river."[73]

But it was not destined that this enterprise, which was of such

importance to the English nation, should be thus abandoned. In April,

1610, De la Warr, the Lord Governor, had sailed for Virginia with three

vessels, about a hundred and fifty immigrants and supplies for the

relief of the colony.[74] Reaching Cape Comfort June the sixteenth, he

learned from a small party there of the intended desertion of Jamestown.

Immediately he sent a pinnace up the river to meet Gates, advise him of

his arrival and to order his return to the abandoned town. Upon

receiving these welcome tidings, Gates bore "up the helm" for Jamestown,

and the same night landed all his men.[75] Soon after, the Governor

reached the town and took formal possession of the government.

De la Warr began his administration by listening to a sermon from the

good pastor, Mr. Buck. He then made an address to the people, "laying

some blames on them for many vanities and their idleness", and

promising, if occasion required, to draw the sword of justice.[76]

The Governor was not unrestrained in his authority over the colonists,

for he was to "rule, punish, pardone and governe according to such

directions" as were given him by the London Company. In case of

rebellion or mutiny he might put into execution martial law. In matters

not covered by his instructions he was to "rule and governe by his owne

discretion or by such lawes" as he should think fit to establish.[77]

The Council, which had formerly been all-powerful, was now but an

advisory body, appointed by the Governor and removable at his

discretion. De la Warr chose for his Council Sir Thomas Gates, Sir

George Somers, Captain George Percy, Sir Ferdinando Weinman, Captain

Christopher Newport and William Strachey, Esquire.[78]

Forgetting their former quarrels and factions, the people united in a

zealous effort to serve their noble Governor. "You might shortly behold

the idle and restie diseases of a divided multitude, by the unity and

authority of the government to be substantially cured. Those that knew

not the way to goodnes before, but cherished singularity and faction,

can now chalke out the path of all respective dutie and service."[79]

For a while peace and prosperity seemed to have come at last to the

little colony. All set to work with a good will to build comfortable

houses and to repair the fort. The chapel was restored. The Governor

furnished it with a communion table of black walnut and with pews and

pulpit of cedar. The font was "hewn hollow like a canoa". "The church

was so cast, as to be very light within and the Governor caused it to

be kept passing sweet and trimmed up with divers flowers." In the

evening, at the ringing of the bell, and at four in the afternoon, each

man addressed himself to prayer.[80] "Every Sunday, when the Lord

Governor went to Church he was accompanied with all the Councillors,

Captains, other officers, and all the gentlemen, and with a guard 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, and the

Council, captains, and officers, on each side of him."[81]

But the misfortunes of the colony were far from being at an end. The

principal causes of disaster had not yet been removed. Before many weeks

had passed the "sickly season" came on, bringing the usual accompaniment

of suffering and death. "Not less than 150 of them died of pestilent

diseases, of callentures and feavors, within a few months after" Lord De

la Warr's arrival.[82] So universal was the sickness among the newcomers

that all the work had to be done by the old settlers, "who by use weare

growen practique in a hard way of livinge".[83]

The war with the Indians continued without abatement, causing constant

alarm to the settlers and keeping them closely confined to their forts.

At one time fourteen were treacherously massacred by the Queen of

Appomattox. The English revenged themselves by attacking the savages,

burning their villages and destroying their crops, but they could not

force them into friendly relations.[84]

Lord De la Warr, himself, was assailed by a series of maladies, that

came near costing him his life. "Presently after my arrival in James

Town," he wrote, "I was welcomed by a hot and violent Ague, which held

mee a time.... That disease had not long left mee, till ... I began to

be distempered with other greevous sickness, which successively &

severally assailed me: for besides a relapse into the former disease;

... the Flux surprised me, and kept me many daies: then the cramp

assaulted my weak body, with strong paines; & afterward the Gout

afflicted me in such sort, that making my body through weaknesse unable

to stirre, ... drew upon me the disease called Scurvy ... till I was

upon the point to leave the world."[85] Realizing that it would be fatal

for him to remain longer in Virginia, the Lord Governor set sail with

Captain Argoll for the West Indies, where, he hoped, he would recover

his health.[86] As Gates had left the colony some months before, the

government fell into the experienced hands of Captain George Percy.[87]

In the meanwhile the London Company, undismayed by their former

failures, were preparing a new expedition, which they hoped would

establish the colony upon a firm footing. Three hundred immigrants,

carefully selected from the better class of working men, were assembled

under the command of Sir Thomas Dale, and, on March the twenty-seventh,

1611, embarked for Virginia. Upon the arrival of the fleet at Jamestown,

Dale received the letters patent from Captain Percy, and assumed command

of the colony as Deputy for Lord De la Warr.[88]

The new Governor seems to have perceived at once that the chief source

of disaster had been the location of the settlement upon the Jamestown

peninsula. The small area which this place afforded for the planting of

corn, and the unhealthfulness of the climate rendered it most

undesirable as the site for a colony. Former Governors had refused to

desert the peninsula because of the ease with which it could be defended

against the Indians. But Dale at once began a search for a spot which

would afford all the security of Jamestown, but be free from its many

disadvantages. This he succeeded in finding up the river, some fifty

miles from Jamestown.[89] "I have surveyed," he wrote, "a convenient

strong, healthie and sweet seate to plant the new towne in, from whence

might be no more remove of the principall Seate." This place, which he

named Henrico, was located not far from the point of juncture of the

James and the Appomattox, at what is now called Farrar's Island. Here

the river makes a sweeping curve, forming a peninsula about one square

mile in extent.

[Illustration: DALE'S SETTLEMENTS ON THE UPPER JAMES]

In August, 1611, Sir Thomas Gates, returning to assume the command of

the colony, pushed vigorously the work upon the new settlement.[90] Dale

was sent up the river with no less than three hundred men, with

directions to construct houses and fortifications. The settlers, working

with new life and vigor in the more wholesome air of the upper James,

soon rendered the place almost impregnable to attack from the Indians.

They cut a ditch across the narrow neck of the peninsula, and fortified

it with high palisades. To prevent a sudden raid by the savages in

canoes from the other shore, five strong block houses were built at

intervals along the river bank. Behind these defenses were erected a

number of substantial houses, with foundations of brick and frame

superstructures. Soon a town of three streets had been completed, more

commodious and far more healthful than Jamestown.[91]

When this work had been completed, Dale led a force of men across to the

south bank of the river and took possession of the entire peninsula

lying between the Appomattox and the James. An Indian settlement just

below Turkey Island bend was attacked and destroyed, and the savages

driven away. The English built a palisade over two miles long and

reinforced at intervals with forts and block houses, from the James at

Henrico to the falls of the Appomattox. These fortifications secured

from the attacks of the savages "many miles of champion and woodland",

and made it possible for the English to lay out in safety several new

plantations or hundreds. Dale named the place Bermuda, "by reason of the

strength of the situation".

Here, for the first time, something like prosperity came to the colony.

Although the "sicknesse" was not entirely eliminated even at Henrico,

the percentage of mortality was greatly reduced. Soon there were in

Virginia several hundred persons that had lived through the fatal months

of June, July and August and were thoroughly "seasoned" or immune to the

native disorders. Not until 1618, when the settlers, in their greed for

land suitable for the cultivation of tobacco, deserted their homes on

the upper James for the marshy ground of the lower country, and new,

unacclimated persons began arriving in great numbers, did the pestilence

again assume its former proportions.

Thus protected from the ravages of disease and from the assaults of the

savages, Dale's men were able to turn their attention to the cultivation

of the soil. Soon they were producing an annual crop of corn sufficient

to supply their more pressing needs. And it was well for them that they

could become, to some extent, independent of England, for the London

Company, at last discouraged by continued misfortune, was often remiss

in sending supplies. Clothing became exceedingly scarce. Not only were

the gaudy uniforms of De la Warr's time lacking, but many persons were

forced to imitate the savages by covering themselves with skins and

furs.[92] The Company, however, succeeded in obtaining for them from the

King many suits of old armor that were of great value in their wars with

the savages. Coats of mail and steel that had become useless on the

battlefields of Europe and had for years been rusting in the Tower of

London, were polished up and sent to Virginia. Thus, behind the

palisades of Henrico or in the fort at Jamestown one might have seen at

this time soldiers encased in armor that had done service in the days of

Richard III and Henry VII.[93]

The London Company, when they sent Sir Thomas Gates to Virginia with the

letters patent of 1609, gave directions that the utmost severity should

be used in putting an end to lawlessness and confusion. Gates, who had

fought against the Spaniards in the Netherlands and had the soldier's

dislike of insubordination, was well suited to carry their wishes into

effect. No sooner had he arrived from Devil's Island in 1610 than he

posted in the church at Jamestown certain laws, orders and instructions

which he warned the people they must obey strictly.[94] These laws were

exceedingly severe. It was, for instance, ordered that "every man and

woman daly twice a day upon the first towling of the Bell shall upon the

working daies repaire into the Church, to hear divine Service upon pain

of losing his or her dayes allowance for the first omission, for the

second to be whipt, and for the third to be condemned to the Gallies for

six Months". Again, it was decreed that "no man shall give any

disgracefull words, or commit any act to the disgrace of any person ...

upon paine of being tied head and feete together, upon the guard everie

night for the space of one moneth.... No man shall dare to kill, or

destroy any Bull, Cow, Calfe, Mare, Horse, Colt, Goate, Swine, Cocke,

Henne, Chicken, Dogge, Turkie, or any tame Cattel, or Poultry, of what

condition soever, ... without leave from the Generall, upon paine of

death.... There shall no man or woman ... dare to wash any unclean

linnen ... within the Pallizadoes, ... nor rench, and make clean, any

kettle, pot or pan ... within twenty foote of the olde well ... upon

pain of whipping."[95]

During the administration of Gates and De la Warr these laws seem not to

have been enforced vigorously, but were utilized chiefly _in

terrorem_.[96] Under Dale and Argoll, however, not only were they put

into merciless operation, but were reinforced with a series of martial

laws, drawn from the code in use among the armies of the Netherlands.

The Divine, Moral and Martial Laws, as they were called, undoubtedly

brought about good order in the colony, and aided in the establishment

of prosperity, but they were ill suited for the government of free-born

Englishmen. They were in open violation of the rights guaranteed to the

settlers in their charters, and caused bitter discontent and resentment.

At times they were enforced with odious harshness and injustice. Molina

declared that the Governors were most cruel in their treatment of the

people, often using them like slaves.[97] The Virginia Assembly of 1624

gives a vivid, though perhaps an exaggerated, picture of the severity of

the government. "The Colony ... remained in great want and misery under

most severe and Cruell lawes sent over in printe," they said, "and

contrary to the express Letter of the Kinge in his most gracious

Charter, and as mercylessly executed, often times without tryall or

Judgment." Many of the people fled "for reliefe to the Savage Enemy, who

being taken againe were putt to sundry deathes as by hanginge, shooting

and breaking uppon the wheele and others were forced by famine to filch

for their bellies, of whom one for steelinge of 2 or 3 pints of oatmeale

had a bodkin thrust through his tounge and was tyed with a chain to a

tree untill he starved, if a man through his sicknes had not been able

to worke, he had noe allowance at all, and soe consequently perished.

Many through these extremities, being weary of life, digged holes in the

earth and there hidd themselves till they famished."[98] In 1612,

several men attempted to steal "a barge and a shallop and therein to

adventure their lives for their native country, being discovered and

prevented, were shot to death, hanged and broken upon the wheel".[99]

There was some criticism in England of the harshness of the laws, but

Sir Thomas Smith, then the guiding spirit of the London Company,

declared that they were beneficial and necessary, "in some cases _ad

terrorum_, and in others to be truly executed".[100]

As time passed and the population of the colony increased, it became

necessary to extend beyond the confines of Jamestown and Henrico. The

cultivation of tobacco, which was rapidly becoming the leading pursuit

of the people, required more ground than was comprised within the

fortified districts. Even the expansion of the settlement upon the upper

James to other peninsulas along the "Curls of the River" could not

satisfy the demand for arable land. At one time the very streets of

Jamestown were planted with tobacco.[101] Soon the people, despite their

dread of the savages, were deserting their palisades, and spreading out

in search of fertile soil.

This recklessness brought upon the colony a renewal of the disastrous

epidemics of the earlier period, and exposed the planters to imminent

danger from the savages. Fortunately, however, at this very time the

long sought peace with the Indians was brought about by the romantic

marriage of Pocahontas, the daughter of the powerful chief Powhatan,

with Captain John Rolfe.

In the spring of 1613 Sir Samuel Argoll, while cruising in the

Rappahannock in quest of corn, learned from the natives that the

princess was visiting Japazaws, a neighboring king, at his village upon

the Potomac. Argoll at once resolved to capture the daughter of the

greatest enemy of the white men, and to hold her until all the tools and

weapons stolen by the Indians had been returned.[102] Hastening into the

country of the Potomacs, he demanded the maid of Japazaws. The king,

fearing the hostility of the English more than the anger of Powhatan,

consented, although with great reluctance, and she was placed aboard

Argoll's ship.

The news of the capture of his favorite child filled Powhatan with rage

and grief. Imploring Argoll to do Pocahontas no harm, he promised to

yield to all his demands and to become the lasting friend of the white

men.[103] He liberated seven captives and sent with them "three pieces,

one broad Axe, and a long whip-saw, and one canow of Corne".[104]

Knowing that these did not constitute all the tools in the hands of the

king, the English refused to relinquish Pocahontas, but kept her a

prisoner at Jamestown.[105]

The young princess was treated with consideration and kindness by

Governor Dale. Her gentle nature, her intelligence and her beauty won

the respect and love of the sternest of her captors. Dale himself

undertook to direct her education. "I was moved," he exclaimed, "by her

desire to be taught and instructed in the knowledge of God, her

capableness of understanding, her aptness and willingness to receive any

good impression.... I caused her to be carefully instructed in the

Christian religion, who, after she had made some good progress therein,

renounced publicly her Country's idolatry; openly confessed her

Christian faith; and was, as she desired, baptized."[106]

Before many months had passed the charm of this daughter of the American

forest had inspired a deep love in the breast of Captain John Rolfe.

This worthy gentleman, after struggling long against a passion so

strange and unusual, wrote Dale asking permission to wed the princess. I

am not ignorant, he said "of the inconvenience which may ... arise ...

to be in love with one whose education hath bin rude, her manners

barbarous, her generation accursed".[107] But I am led to take this

step, "for the good of the plantation, for the honour of our countrie,

for the glory of God, for my owne salvation, and for the converting to

the true knowledge of God and Jesus Christ, an unbeleeving creature,

like Pokahuntas. To whom my heartie and best thoughts are, and have a

long time bin so intangled, and inthralled in so intricate a laborinth,

that I was awearied to unwinde myselfe thereout."[108]

Dale, overjoyed at this opportunity to secure the friendship of the

Indians, consented readily to the marriage. Powhatan, too, when he

learned of his daughter's affection for Captain Rolfe, expressed his

approval of the union, and sent Apachisco, an uncle of the bride, and

two of her brothers to represent him at the ceremony.

Both English and Indians regarded this wedding as a bond of friendship

between the two races. Apachisco, acting as deputy for Powhatan,

concluded with Governor Dale a peace which lasted eight years and was

fairly well kept by both parties.[109] "Besides this," wrote Captain

Ralph Hamor, "we became in league with our next neighbors, the

Chicahamanias, a lustie and daring people, free of themselves. These

people, as soone as they heard of our peace with Powhatan, sent two

messengers with presents to Sir Thomas Dale and offered ... their

service."[110] Thus was one of the greatest menaces to the prosperity

of the colony removed. Now the settlers could cultivate the soil, or

hunt and fish without fear of the treacherous savage, and leave their

cattle to range in comparative safety. John Rolfe himself wrote, "The

great blessings of God have followed this peace, and it, next to him,

hath bredd our plentie--everie man sitting under his fig tree in safety,

gathering and reaping the fruits of their labors with much joy and

comfort."[111]

In 1616 Sir Thomas Dale, who had been in command of the colony since the

departure of Gates in 1614, returned to England, leaving the government

in the hands of Captain George Yeardley. Despite the harshness and

cruelty of Dale and Gates, they must be credited with obtaining the

final success of the colony. These two stern soldiers of the Dutch wars

had found the settlers dispirited, reduced in numbers, fighting a losing

battle against pestilence, starvation and the savages. By their rigid

discipline and able leadership they had brought unity and prosperity,

had taught the people how to resist the sickness, and had secured a long

peace with the Indians.[112] Dale left about three hundred and fifty

persons in Virginia, most of them thoroughly acclimated and busily

engaged in building up prosperity for the colony.

Tobacco was already becoming the staple product of Virginia. As early as

1612 Captain Rolfe had been experimenting with the native leaf, in an

effort to make it suitable for the English market.[113] In 1613 he sent

a part of his crop to London, where it was tested by experts and

pronounced to be of excellent quality.[114] The colonists were greatly

encouraged at the success of the venture, for the price of tobacco was

high, and its culture afforded opportunities for a rich return. Soon

every person that could secure a little patch of ground was devoting

himself eagerly to the cultivation of the plant. It even became

necessary for Dale to issue an order that each man should "set two acres

of ground with corn", lest the new craze should lead to the neglect of

the food supply.[115] In 1617 _The George_ sailed for England laden

with 20,000 pounds of tobacco, which found a ready market at five

shillings and three pence a pound. John Rolfe's discovery was opening

for Virginia a veritable gold mine.

Fortunately the King, in 1612, had granted the Company an exemption for

seven years from custom duties upon goods brought from the colony. So,

for a while, at least, the Crown could not appropriate to its own use

the profits from the Virginia tobacco. Since, however, the exemption had

only a few years more to run, the Company hastened to secure what

immediate returns were available. They took from the planters the entire

crop, giving them for it three pence per pound, while they themselves

were able to obtain a much larger price from the English dealers.

The profits thus secured were at once utilized in new measures for

increasing and strengthening the colony. Encouraged by the discovery in

Virginia of so profitable a commodity, the Company became convinced that

now at last success was at hand. "Broadsides" were sent out to the

British people, depicting in glowing terms the advantages of the

country, and asking for immigrants and for financial support. Once more

a wave of enthusiasm for the enterprise swept over England. Money was

contributed liberally. The clergy, interested in the spread of the

Anglican Church, and in the conversion of the savages, worked ardently

for the success of the colony. Soon vessel after vessel was being fitted

out for the voyage across the Atlantic, and hundreds of artisans and

laborers were preparing to risk their all in the New World.[116]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] F. R., pp. 21, 22.

[2] F. R., p. 23.

[3] Arb. Smith, lxi-lxii.

[4] Gen., p. 55.

[5] Gen., p. 56.

[6] Gen., pp. 55, 70, 73.

[7] Gen., p. 77.

[8] Gen., p. 67.

[9] Gen., pp. 342, 411.

[10] Gen., p. 77.

[11] Arb. Smith, p. 91.

[12] Arb. Smith, p. 91.

[13] Arb. Smith, p. 91; F. R., pp. 27, 32. Smith denied the justice of

these charges. "Now Captaine Smith, who all this time from their

departure from the Canaries, was restrained as a prisoner, upon the

scandalous suggestions of some of the chiefe (envying his repute); who

fained he intended to ursurpe the government, murder the Councell, and

make himself king; that his confederats were dispearsed in all the three

ships, and that divers of his confederats that revealed it, would

affirme it: for this he was committed." Arb. Smith, p. 92.

[14] Arb. Smith, liii.

[15] Arb. Smith, liv.

[16] F.R., p. 39.

[17] Arb. Smith, lxxvii.

[18] Arb. Smith, lxxvi.

[19] Arb. Smith, lxxix.

[20] Arb. Smith, lxxxi.

[21] Arb. Smith, lxxxiv.

[22] Arb. Smith, lxxxiv.

[23] Arb. Smith, lxxxv.

[24] Arb. Smith, lxxxv.

[25] F. R., p. 54.

[26] Arb. Smith, lxxxvi.

[27] Arb. Smith, lxxxvi.

[28] F. R., p. 58.

[29] Arb. Smith, pp. 114, 115.

[30] Arb. Smith, p. 119.

[31] Arb. Smith, p. 121; F. R., p. 61.

[32] F. R., p. 68; Arb. Smith, p. 122.

[33] Arb. Smith, p. 122.

[34] Arb. Smith, p. 444.

[35] F. R., 70.

[36] F. R., 71.

[37] F. R., p. 73.

[38] F. R., p. 73.

[39] F. R., p. 80.

[40] F. R., p. 84.

[41] F. R., p. 84.

[42] Gen., pp. 1329, 1330, 346, 400; Force, III; Arb. Smith, p. 635.

[43] F. R., p. 93.

[44] Gen., pp. 331, 347.

[45] Gen., pp. 331, 332; F. R., p. 98.

[46] Arb. Smith, p. 484.

[47] Ratcliffe wrote the Earl of Salisbury, "This man is sent home to

answere some misdemenors, whereof I perswade me he can scarcely clear

himselfe from great imputation of blame." Gen., p. 334.

[48] F. R., p. 108.

[49] F. R., p. 115.

[50] F. R., p. 117.

[51] Gen., p. 84.

[52] Arb. Smith, p. 5.

[53] Arb. Smith, lxxii.

[54] F. R., p. 55.

[55] Nar. of Va., p. 146.

[56] Many of these, however, died of starvation or were killed by the

Indians. Nar. of Va., p. 200.

[57] Nar. of Va., p. 212.

[58] Nar. of Va., p. 220; Gen., p. 648.

[59] Va. Car.

[60] Hen., Vol. I; Gen., p. 499.

[61] Proceedings of Va. Co., p. 171.

[62] Gen., p. 489.

[63] Gen., p. 329.

[64] F. R., p. 98.

[65] Gen., p. 503.

[66] Arb. Smith, lii.

[67] Arb. Smith, liii.

[68] Force, Vol. III, Tract I, p. 17; Gen., p. 405, 419, 456.

[69] Force, Vol. III, Tract I, p. 17; Nar. of Va., p. 295; Gen., pp.

330, 392, 401, 404, 456.

[70] Va. Vet.

[71] Nar. of Va., p. 117.

[72] Gen., p. 405.

[73] Gen., p. 406; Force, Vol. III, Tract I, p. 18.

[74] F. R., p. 127.

[75] F. R., p. 128; Force, Vol. III, Tract I, p. 19; Gen., p. 407.

[76] Gen., p. 407.

[77] Gen., p. 379.

[78] F. R., p. 131.

[79] Force, Vol. III, Tract I, p. 20.

[80] F. R., pp. 129, 130.

[81] F. R., p. 130.

[82] F. R., p. 134.

[83] F. R., p. 134.

[84] F. R., pp. 135, 136.

[85] Gen., p. 479.

[86] Gen., p. 480.

[87] F. R., p. 137.

[88] F. R., p. 137.

[89] Gen., p. 492; Arb. Smith, p. 507; F. R., p. 150.

[90] Gen., p. 474.

[91] Arb. Smith, pp. 509, 510; F. R., p. 157; Cradle of Rep., p. 136.

[92] F. R., p. 226.

[93] F. R., p. 172.

[94] F. R., p. 126; Gen., pp. 342, 345, 528, 529; Force, Vol. III, Tract

II, pp. 9-19.

[95] Force, Vol. III, Tract II, pp. 9-19.

[96] Bruce, Inst. Hist., Vol. I, p. 474.

[97] Gen., p. 648.

[98] Nar. of Va., pp. 422, 423.

[99] F. R., pp. 148, 172.

[100] Gen., pp. 529, 530.

[101] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, p. 222.

[102] Gen., p. 642.

[103] Gen., p. 643.

[104] Gen., pp. 643, 644.

[105] Nar. of Va., p. 308.

[106] Arb. Smith, p. 512.

[107] Nar. of Va., p. 241.

[108] Nar. of Va., pp. 240, 241.

[109] F. R., p. 205; Arb. Smith, p. 514.

[110] Arb. Smith, p. 515.

[111] F. R., p. 226.

[112] F. R., pp. 230, 236.

[113] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, p. 211.

[114] F. R., p. 197; Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, p. 217.

[115] F. R., p. 228; Gen., p. 782.

[116] F. R., p. 209.