THE ESTABLISHMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT
King James I, from the beginning of his reign, was deeply desirous of
planting the English nation upon the shores of the New World. It was
with envy and alarm that he witnessed the extension of the power of
Spain and of the Roman Catholic church across the Atlantic, while his
own subjects were excluded from a share in the splendid prize. He must
have perceived clearly that if the English wished to maintain their
position as a great naval and mercantile people, the establishing of
colonies in America was imperative. Peru, Mexico and the West Indies
added greatly to the wealth and power of the Spanish King; why should
England not attempt to gain a foothold near these countries, before it
became too late?
But James had no desire to arouse the hostility of Philip III. Despite
religious differences, despite the hatred of the English for the
Spaniards, he had reversed the policy of Elizabeth by cultivating the
friendship of these hereditary enemies. And so wedded was he to this
design, that later, when his son-in-law, Frederick of the Palatinate,
was being overwhelmed by a coalition of Catholic nations, he refused to
affront Spain by coming to his rescue. Yet he knew that Philip
considered America his own, and would resent any attempt of the English
to establish colonies on its shores. So the crafty James resolved to
disguise the founding of a royal colony under the guise of a private
venture.[117] If the Spaniards complained of the occupation of their
territory, he could free himself from blame by placing the
responsibility upon the London Company. "If it take not success," his
advisors told the King, "it is done by their owne heddes. It is but the
attempt of private gentlemen, the State suffers noe losse, noe
disreputation. If it takes success, they are your subjects, they doe it
for your service, they will lay all at your Majesty's feet and interess
your Majesty therein."[118]
James was quite liberal in granting charters to those that had
undertaken the settlement, and he encouraged them as much as was
consistent with his friendship for Spain. It was truly written of him
after his death, "Amongst the ... workes of the late Kinge, there was
none more eminent, than his gracious inclination ... to advance and sett
forward a New Plantation in the New World."[119] That he was deeply
interested in the undertaking is shown most strikingly by his consent to
the establishment of the Puritans in America. James hated the tenets of
Calvin from the depths of his soul, and could have no desire to see them
infect the English settlements in America, yet his solicitude for the
welfare of the colony induced him to yield to the request of the
Pilgrims for permission to settle there. How much greater was his
foresight than that of Louis XIV, who, by refusing to allow the
persecuted Huguenots to settle in any part of his domains, deprived the
French colonies of what might have been their most numerous and valuable
recruits! When some of the leading men of the London Company pleaded
with James for the Puritans, the King lent a ready ear. He was asked to
allow them "liberty of conscience under his ... protection in America;
where they would endeavour the advancement of his Majesty's dominions,
and the enlargement of the interests of the Gospel". James replied that
it was "a good and honest motion". He refused to tolerate them by public
authority and would not confirm under the broad seal their petition for
leave to worship as they chose, but he let it be understood that they
were not to be molested in their new homes in any way.[120] And in this
promise they finally decided to put their trust, feeling that "if
afterwards there should be a purpose or desire to wrong them, though
they had a seale as broad as ye house flore, it would not serve ye turn;
for ther would be means a new found to recall or reverse it".[121]
But the chief glory of the establishment of the English in America must
be given to the patriotic and persevering men of the Virginia Company.
It is erroneous and unjust to accuse them of mean and mercenary motives
in founding and maintaining the colony at Jamestown. Some of them,
perhaps, were dazzled with visions of a rich harvest of gold and silver,
but most must have realized that there was small chance of remuneration.
Many were merchants and business men of great foresight and ability, and
it is quite evident that they were fully aware of the risks of the
undertaking in which they ventured their money. What they did hope to
gain from the colony was the propagation of the English Church, the
extension of the English nation and its institutions, and the increase
of British trade.
Over and over again it was asserted that the first object of the
enterprise was to spread the Christian religion. In 1610 the London
Company declared it their especial purpose "to preach and baptize ...
and by propagation of the Gospell, to recover out of the armes of the
Divell, a number of poore and miserable soules, wrapt up unto death, in
almost invincible ignorance".[122] The first draft of the Virginia
charter of 1606 declared that the leading motive of this "noble work",
was "the planting of Christianity amongst heathens".[123] The charter of
1609 asserted that the "principle effect, which we can desire or expect
of this action, is the conversion and reduction of the people in those
parts unto the true worship of God".[124]
That they were also actuated by a desire to extend the British
possessions and trade is attested by numerous documents and letters. The
Company declared it their purpose to promote the "honor and safety of
the Kingdome, the strength of our Navy, the visible hope of a great and
rich trade".[125] One of the leading shareholders wrote that the colony
should be upheld for "ye Honor and profitt to our Nation, to make
provinciall to us a land ready to supply us with all necessary
commodytyes wanting to us: In which alone we suffer ye Spanish
reputation and power to swell over us."[126] The colonists themselves
declared that one of the objects of the settlement of America was the
extension of British territory and the enriching of the kingdom, "for
which respects many noble and well minded persons were induced to
adventure great sums of money to the advancement of so pious and noble a
worke".[127]
The Company, in fact, did no more than take the lead in the work. It was
really the English nation that had decided to second their King in
gaining a foothold in America, and it was they that insisted that this
foothold should not be relinquished. Again and again the London Company
appealed to the people for support, and never without success, for all
classes of Englishmen felt that they were interested in this new
venture. The spirit of the nation is reflected in the statement of the
Council for Virginia in 1610, that the Company "are so farre from
yielding or giving way to any hindrance or impeachment ... that many ...
have given their hands and subscribed to contribute againe and againe to
new supplies if need require".[128]
But although James I and his people were agreed as to the necessity of
extending the English nation to America, they were not in accord in
regard to the form of government which should be established there. The
King, who was always restive under the restraint placed upon him by the
English Parliament, had no desire to see the liberal institutions of the
mother country transplanted to Virginia. He wished, beyond doubt, to
build a colonial empire which should be dependent upon himself for its
government and which should add to the royal revenues. In this way he
would augment the power of the Crown and render it less subject to the
restraint of Parliament. But to found colonies that would set up little
assemblies of their own to resist and thwart him, was not at all his
intention.
On the other hand, many of the leading spirits of the London Company
hoped "to establish a more free government in Virginia".[129] Some,
perhaps, feared that the liberties of the English people might be
suppressed by the King, and they looked hopefully to this new land as a
haven for the oppressed. "Many worthy Patriots, Lords, Knights,
gentlemen, Merchants and others ... laid hold on ... Virginia as a
providence cast before them."[130] In the meetings of the Company were
gathered so many that were "most distasted with the proceedings of the
Court, and stood best affected to Religion and Liberty", that James
began to look upon the body as a "Seminary for a seditious
Parliament".[131]
The leader of these liberals was Sir Edwin Sandys. This man, who was
widely known as an uncompromising enemy of despotism, was heartily
detested by the King.[132] In his youth he had gone to Geneva to study
the reformed religion and while there had become most favorably
impressed with the republican institutions of the little Swiss state. He
was afterwards heard to say that "he thought that if God from heaven did
constitute and direct a forme of government on Earth it was that of
Geneva".[133] Returning to England, he had entered Parliament, where he
had become known as an eminent advocate of liberal principles. He had
contended for the abolition of commercial monopolies; had demanded that
all accused persons be given the assistance of counsel; had denounced
many of the unjust impositions of the Crown; had raised "his voice for
the toleration of those with whom he did not wholly agree"; and had
aided in drawing up the remonstrance against the conduct of James
towards his first Parliament.[134]
But Sandys and his friends were not without opposition in the London
Company. Many of the "adventurers", as the stockholders were called,
were by no means willing to permit the liberal party to utilize the
Company as an instrument for propagating their political tenets. The
great struggle between the forces of progress and reaction that was
convulsing Parliament and the nation, was fought over again in the
Quarter Courts. At times the meetings resounded with the quarrels of the
contending factions. Eventually, however, Sandys was victorious, and
representative government in America was assured.
Sandys seems to have planned to secure from the King successive charters
each more liberal than its predecessor, and each entrusting more fully
the control of the colony to the Company. This could be done without
arousing the suspicions of James under the pretext that they were
necessary for the success of the enterprise. When at length sufficient
power had been delegated, Sandys designed to establish in Virginia a
representative assembly, modelled upon the British Parliament.
Under the provisions of the charter of 1606 Virginia had been, in all
but form, a royal colony. The King had drawn up the constitution, had
appointed the Council in England, and had controlled their policies.
This charter had granted no semblance of self-government to the
settlers. But it was declared "They shall have and enjoy all the
liberties, franchises, and immunities ... to all intents and purposes,
as if they had been abiding and born, within ... this realm of
England".[135] This promise was not kept by the Kings of England.
Several of the provisions of the charter itself were not consistent with
it. In later years it was disregarded again and again by the royal
commissions and instructions. Yet it was of the utmost importance, for
it set a goal which the colonists were determined to attain. Throughout
the entire colonial period they contended for all the rights of native
Englishmen, and it was the denial of their claim that caused them to
revolt from the mother country and make good their independence.
Provision had also been made for trial by jury. James had decreed that
in all cases the Council should sit as a court, but in matters of
"tumults, rebellion, conspiracies, mutiny, and seditions ... murther,
manslaughter", and other crimes punishable with death, guilt or
innocence was to be determined by a jury of twelve. To what extent the
Council made use of the jury system it is impossible to say, but
Wingfield states that on one occasion he was tried before a jury for
slander, and fined £300.[136]
The second charter had been granted in 1609. This document is of great
importance because through it the King resigned the actual control of
the colony into the hands of the Virginia Company. And although this did
not result immediately in the establishment of representative
government, it strengthened the hands of Sandys and made it possible for
him to carry out his designs at a future date. Under this charter the
Company might have set up liberal institutions at once in Virginia, but
conditions were not ripe, either in England or in America, for so
radical a change.
In 1612 the third charter had been granted. This had still further
strengthened the Company and made them more independent of the King. It
gave them the important privilege of holding great quarterly meetings or
assemblies, where all matters relating to the government of the colony
could be openly discussed. Still Virginia remained under the autocratic
rule of Dale and Gates.
In 1617 or 1618, however, when the liberals were in full control of the
Company, it was decided to grant the colonists the privilege of a
parliament.[137] In April, 1618, Lord De la Warr sailed for Virginia to
reassume active control of affairs there, bringing with him instructions
to establish a new form of government. What this government was to have
been is not known, but it was designed by Sir Edwin Sandys, and beyond
doubt, was liberal in form.[138] Possibly it was a duplicate of that
established the next year by Governor Yeardley. Most unfortunately, Lord
De la Warr, whose health had been shattered by his first visit to
Virginia, died during the voyage across the Atlantic, and it became
necessary to continue the old constitution until the Company could
appoint a successor.[139]
In November, 1618, George Yeardley was chosen Governor-General of
Virginia, and was intrusted with several documents by whose authority he
was to establish representative government in the colony.[140] These
papers, which became known as the Virginia Magna Charta, were the very
corner-stone of liberty in the colony and in all America. Their
importance can hardly be exaggerated, for they instituted the first
representative assembly of the New World, and established a government
which proved a bulwark against royal prerogative for a century and a
half.
Governor Yeardley sailed from England January, 1619, and reached
Virginia on the 29th of April. After some weeks of preparation, he
issued a general proclamation setting in operation the Company's orders.
It was decreed, "that all those who were resident here before the
departure of Sir Thomas Dale should be freed and acquitted from such
publique services and labors which formerly they suffered, and that
those cruel laws by which we had so long been governed were now
abrogated, and that now we were to be governed by those free laws which
his Majesty's subjects live under in Englande.... And that they might
have a hand in the governing of themselves, it was granted that a
General Assembly should be held yearly once, whereat were to be present
the Governor and Counsell, with two Burgesses from each plantation
freely to be elected by the inhabitants thereof; this Assembly to have
power to make and ordaine whatsoever lawes and orders should by them be
thought good and proffittable for our subsistence."[141]
The exact date of the election for Burgesses is not known.[142] The
statement that the representatives were to be "chosen by the
inhabitants" seems to indicate that the franchise was at once given to
all male adults, or at least to all freemen. "All principall officers in
Virginia were to be chosen by ye balloting box." From the very first
there were parties, and it is possible that the factions of the London
Company were reflected at the polls in the early elections. The Magna
Charta made provision for the establishment of boroughs, which were to
serve both as units for local government and as electoral districts. No
attempt was made to secure absolute uniformity of population in the
boroughs, but there were no glaring inequalities. With the regard for
the practical which has always been characteristic of Englishmen, the
Company seized upon the existing units, such as towns, plantations and
hundreds, as the basis of their boroughs. In some cases several of these
units were merged to form one borough, in others, a plantation or a town
or a hundred as it stood constituted a borough. As there were eleven of
these districts and as each district chose two Burgesses, the first
General Assembly was to contain twenty-two representatives.[143]
The Assembly convened at Jamestown, August 9th, 1619. "The most
convenient place we could finde to sitt in," says the minutes, "was the
Quire of the Churche Where Sir George Yeardley, the Governor, being sett
down in his accustomed place, those of the Counsel of Estate sate nexte
him on both hands excepte onely the Secretary then appointed Speaker,
who sate right before him, John Twine, the clerk of the General
Assembly, being placed nexte the Speaker, and Thomas Pierse, the
Sergeant, standing at the barre, to be ready for any service the
Assembly shoulde comand him. But forasmuche as men's affaires doe little
prosper where God's service is neglected, all the Burgesses tooke their
places in the Quire till a prayer was said by Mr. Bucke, the
Minister.... Prayer being ended,... all the Burgesses were intreatted to
retyre themselves into the body of the Churche, which being done, before
they were fully admitted, they were called in order and by name, and so
every man tooke the oathe of Supremacy and entered the Assembly."[144]
The body at once claimed and made good its right to exclude Burgesses
who they thought were not entitled to seats. The Speaker himself raised
an objection to admitting the representatives of Warde's plantation,
because that settlement had been made without a commission from the
London Company. But Captain Warde promised to secure a patent as soon as
possible, and the objection was waived. The Assembly refused absolutely,
however, to seat the Burgesses from Martin's Hundred. Captain Martin had
been one of the first Council for Virginia, and as a reward for his long
services had been granted privileges that rendered him almost
independent of the government at Jamestown. He was summoned before the
Assembly and requested to relinquish these extraordinary rights, but he
refused to do so. "I hold my patent," he said, "for my service don,
which noe newe or late comer can meritt or challenge."[145] So the
Assembly, feeling that it would be mockery to permit the Burgesses from
Martin's Hundred to assist in the making of laws which their own
constituents, because of their especial charter, might with impunity
disobey, refused to admit them.[146]
The legislative powers granted the Virginia Assembly in the Magna
Charta, and continued with slight alterations after the revocation of
the charter of the London Company, were very extensive. The Assembly
could pass laws dealing with a vast variety of matters appertaining to
the safety and welfare of the colony. Statutes were enacted in the
session of 1619 touching upon Indian affairs, the Church, land patents,
the relations of servants and landlords, the planting of crops, general
morality in Virginia, the price of tobacco, foreign trade, etc. The
collected laws of the entire colonial period fill many volumes, and
cover a vast variety of subjects. But there were three things which
limited strictly the Assembly's field of action. They must pass no
statutes contravening first, the laws of England; secondly, the
charters; thirdly, the instructions sent them by the London Company.
When the colony passed into the hands of the King, all statutes were
forbidden that conflicted with the charters, or with the instructions of
the Crown. These restrictions lasted during the entire colonial period,
but they were not always carefully regarded. The Company, and later the
King, retained two ways of nullifying legislation which was
unauthorized, or was distasteful to them. First, there was the veto of
the Governor. As the guardian of the interests of England and his
monarch, this officer could block all legislation. Secondly, the
Company, and later the King, could veto laws even though the Governor
had consented to them.
But the most important power exercised by the Assembly was its control
over taxation in Virginia. In the very first session it made use of this
privilege by ordering, "That every man and manservant of above 16 years
of age shall pay into the handes and Custody of the Burgesses of every
Incorporation and plantation one pound of the best Tobacco".[147] The
funds thus raised were utilized for the payment of the officers of the
Assembly.
The levy by the poll, here used, was continued for many years, and
became the chief support of the government. As the colony grew, however,
and the need for greater revenues was felt, customs duties and other
forms of taxation were resorted to. Large sums were raised by an export
duty upon tobacco. At times tariffs were placed upon the importation of
liquors, slaves and other articles. But these duties had to be used with
great care, for the carrying of the colony was done chiefly by English
merchants, and Parliament would permit nothing detrimental to their
interests.
The Assembly claimed the exclusive right to levy general taxes. The
Governor and Council time and again tried to wrest this privilege from
them, but never with success.[148] The Burgesses, realizing that their
hold upon the exchequer was the chief source of their power, were most
careful never to relinquish it. From time to time the Governors sought
to evade this restraint by levying taxes under the guise of fees. But
this expedient invariably excited intense irritation, and yielded a
revenue so small that most Governors thought it best to avoid it
entirely. Of more importance were the quit-rents, a tax on land, paid to
the King by all freeholders. But this was frequently avoided, and,
except at rare intervals, the funds raised by it were left in Virginia
to be expended for local purposes. The greatest blow to the power of the
Burgesses was struck by the King in 1680, when he forced through the
Assembly a law granting to the government a perpetual income from the
export duty on tobacco. This revenue, although not large, was usually
sufficient to pay the Governor's salary, and thus to render him less
dependent upon the Assembly. Finally, it must not be forgotten that the
English government, although it refrained from taxing the colony
directly, imposed an enormous indirect tax by means of a tariff upon
tobacco brought into England. These duties were collected in England,
but there can be no doubt that the incidence of the tax rested partly
upon the Virginia planters. Despite these various duties, all levied
without its consent, the Assembly exercised a very real control over
taxation in Virginia, and used it as an effective weapon against the
encroachments of the Governors.
From the very first the General Assembly showed itself an energetic and
determined champion of the rights of the people. Time and again it
braved the anger of the Governor and of the King himself, rather than
yield the slightest part of its privileges. During the decade preceding
the English Revolution only the heroic resistance of this body saved the
liberal institutions of the colony from destruction at the hands of
Charles II and James II.
The General Assembly was not only a legislative body, it was also a
court of justice, and for many years served as the highest tribunal of
the colony. The judicial function was entrusted to a joint committee
from the two houses, whose recommendations were usually accepted without
question. Since this committee invariably contained more Burgesses than
Councillors, the supreme court was practically controlled by the
representatives of the people. During the reign of Charles II, however,
the Assembly was deprived of this function by royal proclamation, and
the judiciary fell almost entirely into the hands of the Governor and
Council.
The General Assembly consisted of two chambers--the House of Burgesses
and the Council. In the early sessions the houses sat together and
probably voted as one body.[149] Later, however, they were divided and
voted separately. The Burgesses, as time went on, gradually increased in
numbers until they became a large body, but the Council was always
small.
The Councillors were royal appointees. But since the King could not
always know personally the prominent men of the colony, he habitually
confirmed without question the nominations of the Governor. The members
of the Council were usually persons of wealth, influence and ability. As
they were subject to removal by the King and invariably held one or more
lucrative governmental offices, it was customary for them to display
great servility to the wishes of his Majesty or of the Governor. It was
very unusual for them to oppose in the Assembly any measure recommended
by the King, or in accord with his expressed wishes. Although the
Councillors were, with rare exceptions, natives of Virginia, they were
in no sense representative of the people of the colony.
As the upper house of the Assembly, the Council exercised a powerful
influence upon legislation. After the separation of the chambers their
consent became necessary for the passage of all bills, even money bills.
Their legislative influence declined during the eighteenth century,
however, because of the growing spirit of liberalism in Virginia, and
the increasing size of the House of Burgesses.
The executive powers entrusted to the Council were also of very great
importance. The Governor was compelled by his instructions to secure its
assistance and consent in the most important matters. And since the
chief executive was always a native of England, and often entirely
ignorant of conditions in the colony, he was constantly forced to rely
upon the advice of his Council. This tendency was made more pronounced
by the frequent changes of Governors that marked the last quarter of the
seventeenth century. So habitually did the Council exercise certain
functions, not legally within their jurisdiction, that they began to
claim them as theirs by right. And the Governor was compelled to respect
these claims as scrupulously as the King of England respects the
conventions that hedge in and limit his authority.
Before the end of the seventeenth century the Council had acquired
extraordinary influence in the government. With the right to initiate
and to block legislation, with almost complete control over the
judiciary, with great influence in administrative matters, it
threatened to become an oligarchy of almost unlimited power.
But it must not be supposed that the influence of the Council rendered
impotent the King's Governor. Great powers were lodged in the hands of
this officer by his various instructions and commissions. He was
commander of the militia, was the head of the colonial church, he
appointed most of the officers, attended to foreign affairs, and put the
laws into execution. His influence, however, resulted chiefly from the
fact that he was the representative of the King. In the days of Charles
I, in the Restoration Period and under James II, when the Stuarts were
combating liberal institutions, both in England and in the colonies, the
Governor exercised a powerful and dangerous control over affairs in
Virginia. But after the English Revolution his power declined. As the
people of England no longer dreaded a monarch whose authority now rested
solely upon acts of Parliament, so the Virginians ceased to fear his
viceroy.
The powers officially vested in the Governor were by no means solely
executive. He frequently made recommendations to the Assembly, either in
his own name or the name of the King, and these recommendations at times
assumed the nature of commands. If the Burgesses were reluctant to obey,
he had numerous weapons at hand with which to intimidate them and whip
them into line. Unscrupulous use of the patronage and threats of the
King's dire displeasure were frequently resorted to. The Governor
presided over the upper house, and voted there as any other member.
Moreover, he could veto all bills, even those upon which he had voted in
the affirmative in the Council. Thus he had a large influence in shaping
the laws of the colony, and an absolute power to block all legislation.
Such, in outline, was the government originated for Virginia by the
liberal leaders of the London Company, and put into operation by Sir
George Yeardley. It lasted, with the short intermission of the
Commonwealth Period, for more than one hundred and fifty years, and
under it Virginia became the most populous and wealthy of the English
colonies in America.
The successful cultivation of tobacco in Virginia, as we have seen, put
new life into the discouraged London Company. The shareholders, feeling
that now at last the colony would grow and prosper, exerted themselves
to the utmost to secure desirable settlers and to equip them properly.
Soon fleets of considerable size were leaving the English ports for
America, their decks and cabins crowded with emigrants and their holds
laden with clothing, arms and farming implements.[150] During the months
from March 1620 to March 1621 ten ships sailed, carrying no less than
1051 persons.[151] In the year ending March, 1622, seventeen ships
reached Virginia, bringing over fifteen hundred new settlers.[152] And
this stream continued without abatement until 1624, when disasters in
Virginia, quarrels among the shareholders and the hostility of the King
brought discouragement to the Company. In all, there reached the colony
from November, 1619, to February, 1625, nearly five thousand men, women
and children.[153]
Although tobacco culture was the only enterprise of the colony which had
yielded a profit, it was not the design of Sandys and his friends that
that plant should monopolize the energies of the settlers. They hoped to
make Virginia an industrial community, capable of furnishing the mother
country with various manufactured articles, then imported from foreign
countries. Especially anxious were they to render England independent in
their supply of pig iron. Ore having been discovered a few miles above
Henrico on the James, a furnace was erected there and more than a
hundred skilled workmen brought over from England to put it into
operation. Before the works could be completed, however, they were
utterly demolished by the savages, the machinery thrown into the river,
all the workmen slaughtered,[154] and the only return the Company
obtained for an outlay of thousands of pounds was a shovel, a pair of
tongs and one bar of iron.[155] Efforts were made later to repair the
havoc wrought by the Indians and to reëstablish the works, but they came
to nothing. Not until the time of Governor Spotswood were iron furnaces
operated in Virginia, and even then the industry met with a scant
measure of success.
The Company also made an earnest effort to promote the manufacture of
glass in Virginia. This industry was threatened with extinction in
England as a result of the great inroads that had been made upon the
timber available for fuel, and it was thought that Virginia, with its
inexhaustible forests, offered an excellent opportunity for its
rehabilitation. But here too they were disappointed. The sand of
Virginia proved unsuitable for the manufacture of glass. The skilled
Italian artisans sent over to put the works into operation were
intractable and mutinous. After trying in various ways to discourage the
enterprise, so that they could return to Europe, these men brought
matters to a close by cracking the furnace with a crowbar. George
Sandys, in anger, declared "that a more damned crew hell never
vomited".[156]
In order to show that they were sincere in their professions of interest
in the spiritual welfare of the Indians, the Company determined to erect
a college at Henrico "for the training up of the children of those
Infidels in true Religion, moral virtue and civility".[157] The clergy
of England were enthusiastic in their support of this good design, and
their efforts resulted in liberal contributions from various parts of
the kingdom.[158] Unfortunately, however, the money thus secured was
expended in sending to the college lands a number of "tenants" the
income from whose labor was to be utilized in establishing and
supporting the institution.[159] As some of these settlers fell victims
to disease and many others were destroyed in the massacre of 1622, the
undertaking had to be abandoned, and of course all thought of converting
and civilizing the savages was given up during the long and relentless
war that ensued.
Even more discouraging than these failures was the hostility of the King
to the cultivation of tobacco in Virginia, and his restrictions upon its
importation into England. Appeals were made to him to prohibit the sale
of Spanish tobacco, in order that the Virginia planters might dispose of
their product at a greater profit. This, it was argued, would be the
most effective way of rendering the colony prosperous and self
sustaining. But James, who was still bent upon maintaining his Spanish
policy, would not offend Philip by excluding his tobacco from England.
Moreover, in 1621, he issued a proclamation restricting the importation
of the leaf from Virginia and the Somers Isles to fifty-five thousand
pounds annually.[160] This measure created consternation in Virginia and
in the London Company. The great damage it would cause to the colony and
the diminution in the royal revenue that would result were pointed out
to James, but for the time he was obdurate.[161] Indeed, he caused
additional distress by granting the customs upon tobacco to a small
association of farmers of the revenue, who greatly damaged the interests
of the colony. In 1622, James, realizing that his policy in regard to
tobacco was injuring the exchequer, made a compromise with the Company.
The King agreed to restrict the importation of Spanish tobacco to 60,000
pounds a year, and after two years to exclude it entirely. All the
Virginia leaf was to be admitted, but the Crown was to receive one third
of the crop, while the other two thirds was subjected to a duty of six
pence a pound.[162] This agreement proved most injurious to the Company,
and it was soon abandoned, but the heavy exactions of the King
continued. Undoubtedly this unwise policy was most detrimental to
Virginia. Not only did it diminish the returns of the Company and make
it impossible for Sandys to perfect all his wise plans for the colony,
but it put a decided check upon immigration. Many that would have gone
to Virginia to share in the profits of the planters, remained at home
when they saw that these profits were being confiscated by the
King.[163]
Yet the strenuous efforts of the London Company would surely have
brought something like prosperity to the colony had not an old enemy
returned to cause the destruction of hundreds of the settlers. This was
the sickness. For some years the mortality had been very low, because
the old planters were acclimated, and few new immigrants were coming to
Virginia. But with the stream of laborers and artisans that the Sandys
régime now sent over, the scourge appeared again with redoubled fury. As
early as January, 1620, Governor Yeardley wrote "of the great
mortallitie which hath been in Virginia, about 300 of ye inhabitants
having dyed this year".[164] The sickness was most deadly in the newly
settled parts of the colony, "to the consumption of divers Hundreds, and
almost the utter destruction of some particular Plantations".[165] The
London Company, distressed at the loss of so many men, saw in their
misfortunes the hand of God, and wrote urging "the more carefull
observations of his holy laws to work a reconciliation".[166] They also
sent directions for the construction, in different parts of the colony,
of four guest houses, or hospitals, for the lodging and entertaining of
fifty persons each, upon their first arrival.[167] But all efforts to
check the scourge proved fruitless. In the year ending March, 1621 over
a thousand persons died upon the immigrant vessels and in Virginia.[168]
Despite the fact that hundreds of settlers came to the colony during
this year, the population actually declined. In 1621 the percentage of
mortality was not so large, but the actual number of deaths increased.
During the months from March, 1621, to March, 1622, nearly twelve
hundred persons perished. It was like condemning a man to death to send
him to the colony. Seventy-five or eighty per cent. of the laborers that
left England in search of new homes across the Atlantic died before the
expiration of their first year. The exact number of deaths in 1622 is
not known, but there is reason to believe that it approximated thirteen
hundred.[169] Mr. George Sandys, brother of the Secretary of the London
Company, wrote, "Such a pestilent fever rageth this winter amongst us:
never knowne before in Virginia, by the infected people that came over
in ye _Abigall_, who were poisoned with ... beer and all falling sick &
many dying, every where dispersed the contagion, and the forerunning
Summer hath been also deadly upon us."[170] Not until 1624 did the
mortality decline. Then it was that the Governor wrote, "This summer,
God be thanked, the Colony hath very well stood to health".[171] The
dread sickness had spent itself for lack of new victims, for the
immigration had declined and the old planters had become "seasoned".
History does not record an epidemic more deadly than that which swept
over Virginia during these years. It is estimated that the number of
those that lost their lives from the diseases native to the colony and
to those brought in from the infected ships amounts to no less than four
thousand.[172] When the tide of immigration was started by Sir Edwin
Sandys in 1619, there were living in Virginia about nine hundred
persons; when it slackened in 1624 the population was but eleven
hundred. The sending of nearly five thousand settlers to Virginia had
resulted in a gain of but two hundred. It is true that the tomahawk and
starvation accounts for a part of this mortality, but by far the larger
number of deaths was due to disease.
Yet hardly less horrible than the sickness was the Indian massacre of
1622. This disaster, which cost the lives of several hundred persons,
struck terror into the hearts of every Englishman in Virginia. The
colonists had not the least intimation that the savages meditated harm
to them, for peace had existed between the races ever since the marriage
of Rolfe and Pocahontas. Considering the protection of their palisades
no longer necessary after that event, they had spread out over the
colony in search of the most fertile lands. Their plantations extended
at intervals for many miles along both banks of the James, and in the
case of a sudden attack by the Indians it would obviously be difficult
for the settlers to defend themselves or to offer assistance to their
neighbors.
The apparent friendship of the Indians had created such great intimacy
between the two races, that the savages were received into the homes of
the white men and at times were fed at their tables.[173] At the command
of the London Company itself some of the Indian youths had been adopted
by the settlers and were being educated in the Christian faith. So
unsuspecting were the people that they loaned the savages their boats,
as they passed backward and forward, to formulate their plans for the
massacre.[174]
The plot seems to have originated in the cunning brain of
Opechancanough. This chief, always hostile to the white men, must have
viewed with apprehension their encroachment upon the lands of his
people. He could but realize that some day the swarms of foreigners that
were arriving each year would exclude the Indians from the country of
their forefathers. Perceiving his opportunity in the foolish security of
the English and in their exposed situation, he determined to annihilate
them in one general butchery.
His plans were laid with great cunning. Although thousands of natives
knew of the design, no warning reached the white men until the very eve
of the massacre. While Opechancanough was preparing this tremendous
blow, he protested in the strongest terms his perpetual good will and
love, declaring that the sky would fall before he would bring an end to
the peace.[175] In order to lull the suspicions of the planters, "even
but two daies before the massacre", he guided some of them "with much
kindnesse through the woods, and one Browne that lived among them to
learne the language", he sent home to his master. The evening before the
attack the Indians came as usual to the plantations with deer, turkeys,
fish, fruits and other provisions to sell.[176]
That night, however, a warning was received, which although too late to
save the most remote settlements, preserved many hundreds from the
tomahawk. Chanco, an Indian boy who had been adopted by an Englishman
named Race, revealed the entire plot to his master. The man secured his
house, and rowed away before dawn in desperate haste to Jamestown, to
give warning to the Governor. "Whereby they were prevented, and at such
other plantations as possibly intelligence could be given."[177]
The assault of the savages was swift and deadly. In all parts of the
colony they fell upon the settlers, and those that had received no
warning were, in most cases, butchered before they could suspect that
harm was intended. Sometimes the Indians sat down to breakfast with
their victims, "whom immediately with their owne tooles they slew most
barbarously, not sparing either age or sex, man woman or childe".[178]
Many were slain while working in the fields; others were trapped in
their houses and butchered before they could seize their weapons. The
savages, "not being content with their lives,... fell againe upon the
dead bodies, making as well as they could a fresh murder, defacing,
dragging, and mangling their dead carkases into many peeces".[179]
That the plot was so successful was due to the completeness of the
surprise, for where the English made the least resistance the savages
were usually beaten off. A planter named Causie, when attacked and
wounded and surrounded by the Indians, "with an axe did cleave one of
their heads, whereby the rest fled and he escaped; for they hurt not any
that did either fight or stand upon their guard. In one place where they
had warning of it, (they) defended the house against sixty or more that
assaulted it."[180]
At the plantation of a Mr. Harrison, where there were gathered seven men
and eighteen or nineteen women and children, the savages set fire to a
tobacco house and then came in to tell the men to quench it. Six of the
English, not suspecting treachery, rushed out, and were shot full of
arrows. Mr. Thomas Hamor, the seventh man, "having finished a letter he
was writing, followed after to see what was the matter, but quickly they
shot an arrow in his back, which caused him to returne and barricade up
the dores, whereupon the Salvages set fire to the house. But a boy,
seizing a gun which he found loaded, discharged it at random. At the
bare report the enemy fled and Mr. Hamor with the women and children
escaped."[181] In a nearby house, a party of English under Mr. Hamor's
brother, were caught by the Indians without arms, but they defended
themselves successfully with spades, axes and brickbats.[182]
One of the first to fall was Reverend George Thorpe, a member of the
Virginia Council, and a man of prominence in England.[183] Leaving a
life of honor and ease, he had come to Virginia to work for the
conversion of the Indians. He had apparently won the favor of
Opechancanough, with whom he often discoursed upon the Christian
religion. At the moment of his murder, his servant, perceiving the
deadly intent of the savages, gave him warning, but his gentle nature
would not permit him to believe harm of those whom he had always
befriended, and he was cut down without resistance.[184]
The barbarous king failed in his design to destroy the English race in
Virginia, but the massacre was a deadly blow to the colony. No less than
three hundred and fifty-seven persons were slaughtered, including six
Councillors. The news of the disaster brought dismay to the London
Company. For a while they attempted to keep the matter a secret, but in
a few weeks it was known all over England. Although the massacre could
not have been foreseen or prevented, it served as a pretext for numerous
attacks upon Sandys and the party which supported him. It discouraged
many shareholders and made it harder to secure settlers for the colony.
Even worse was the effect in Virginia. The system of farming in
unprotected plantations, which had prevailed for some years, had now to
be abandoned and many settlements that were exposed to the Indians were
deserted. "We have not," wrote the Assembly, "the safe range of the
Country for the increase of Cattle, Swyne, etc; nor for the game and
fowle which the country affords in great plentye; besides our duties to
watch and warde to secure ourselves and labor are as hard and chargeable
as if the enemy were at all times present."[185]
The massacre was followed by a venomous war with the Indians, which
lasted many years. The English, feeling that their families and their
homes would never be safe so long as the savages shared the country with
them, deliberately planned the extermination of all hostile tribes in
Virginia. Their conversion was given no further consideration. "The
terms betwixt us and them," they declared, "are irreconcilable."[186]
Governor Wyatt wrote, "All trade with them must be forbidden, and
without doubt either we must cleere them or they us out of the
Country."[187]
But it soon became apparent that neither people would be able to win an
immediate or decisive victory. The Indians could not hope to destroy the
English, now that their deeply laid plot had failed. In open battle
their light arrows made no impression upon the coats of plate and of
mail in which the white men were incased, while their own bodies were
without protection against the superior weapons of their foes. On the
other hand, it was very difficult for the colonists to strike the
savages, because of the "advantages of the wood and the nimbleness of
their heels".[188] Even though they "chased them to and fro", following
them to their villages and burning their huts, they found it very
difficult to do them serious harm.
Finally the English hit upon the plan of bringing distress upon the
savages by destroying their corn. Although the Virginia tribes subsisted
partly upon game, their chief support was from their fields of maize,
and the entire failure of their crop would have reduced hundreds of them
to the verge of starvation.[189] Each year the white men, in small
companies, in various parts of the country, brought ruin to the corn
fields. Sometimes the savages, in despair at the prospect of famine,
made valiant efforts to defend their fields, but were invariably beaten
off until the work of destruction was done.
The natives retaliated with many sudden raids upon the more exposed
parts of the colony, where they burned, pillaged and murdered. The
planter at work in his fields might expect to find them lurking in the
high grass, while their ambushes in the woods made communication from
plantation to plantation very dangerous. "The harmes that they do us,"
wrote the Assembly, "is by ambushes and sudden incursions, where they
see their advantages."[190] In 1625 Captain John Harvey declared that
the two races were "ingaged in a mortall warre and fleshed in each
others bloud, of which the Causes have been the late massacre on the
Salvages parte.... I conceive that by the dispersion of the Plantations
the Salvages hath the advantage in this warre, and that by their
suddaine assaults they do us more harme than we do them by our set
voyages".[191]
When the English had recovered from the first shock of the massacre,
they planned four expeditions against the tribes living on the river
above Jamestown. Mr. George Sandys attacked the Tappahatomaks, Sir
George Yeardley the Wyanokes, Captain William Powell the Chickahominies
and the Appomatocks, and Captain John West the Tanx-Powhatans. The
savages, without attempting to make a stand, deserted their villages and
their crops and fled at the approach of the English. Few were killed,
for they were "so light and swift" that the white men, laden with their
heavy armor, could not overtake them.[192] In the fall Sir George
Yeardley led three hundred men down the river against the Nansemonds and
against Opechancanough. The natives "set fire to their own houses, and
spoiled what they could, and then fled with what they could carry; so
that the English did make no slaughter amongst them for revenge. Their
Corne fields being newly gathered, they surprised all they found, burnt
the houses (that) remained unburnt, and so departed."[193]
It is remarkable that the colonists could continue this war while the
sickness was raging among them. At the very time that Yeardley was
fighting Opechancanough, hundreds of his comrades were dying "like cats
and dogs". "With our small and sicklie forces," wrote Mr. George Sandys,
"we have discomforted the Indians round about us, burnt their houses,
gathered their corn and slain not a few; though they are as swift as
Roebucks, like the violent lightening they are gone as soon as
perceived, and not to be destroyed but by surprise or famine."[194]
How bitter was the war is shown by an act of treachery by the English
that would have shamed the savages themselves. In 1623, the Indians,
discouraged by the destruction of their crops, sent messengers to
Jamestown, asking for peace. The colonists determined to take advantage
of this overture to recover their prisoners and at the same time to
strike a sudden blow at their enemy. Early in June, Captain William
Tucker with twelve well armed men was sent "in a shalope under colour to
make peace with them". On the arrival of this party at the chief town of
Opechancanough, the savages thronged down to the riverside to parley
with them, but the English refused to consider any terms until all
prisoners had been restored. Assenting to this, the savages brought
forth seven whites and they were placed aboard the vessel. Having thus
accomplished their purpose, the soldiers, at a given signal, let fly a
volley into the midst of the crowd, killing "some 40 Indians including 3
of the chiefest".[195]
In 1624 the English won a great victory over the most troublesome of the
Indian tribes, the Pamunkeys. Governor Wyatt, in leading an expedition
against this people had evidently expected little resistance, for he
brought with him but sixty fighting men. The Pamunkeys, however, had
planted that year a very large crop of corn, which they needed for the
support of themselves and their confederates, and they determined to
protect it at all hazards. So Wyatt and his little band were surprised,
on approaching their village to find before them more than eight hundred
warriors prepared for battle. The English did not falter in the face of
this army, and a fierce contest ensued. "Fightinge not only for
safeguards of their houses and such a huge quantity of corn", but for
their reputation with the other nations, the Pamunkeys displayed unusual
bravery. For two days the battle went on. Whenever the young warriors
wavered before the volleys of musketry, they were driven back into the
fight by the older men. Twenty-four of the English were detached from
the firing line and were employed in destroying the maize. In this they
were so successful that enough corn was cut down "as by Estimation of
men of good judgment was sufficient to have sustained fower thousand men
for a twelvemonth". At last the savages in despair gave up the fight and
stood nearby "rufully lookinge on whilst their Corne was cutt down". "In
this Expedition," wrote the colonists, "sixteene of the English were
hurte our first and seconde day, whereby nyne of the best shott were
made unserviceable for that tyme, yett never a man slayne, nor none
miscarried of those hurtes, Since when they have not greatly troubled
us, nor interrupted our labours."[196]
The series of misfortunes which befel the London Company during the
administration of Sir Edwin Sandys culminated in the loss of their
charter. For some time King James had been growing more and more hostile
to the party that had assumed control of the colony. It is highly
probable that he had had no intimation, when the charter of 1612 was
granted, that popular institutions would be established in Virginia, and
the extension of the English parliamentary system to America must have
been distasteful to him. The enemies of Sandys had been whispering to
the King that he "aymed at nothing more than to make a free popular
state there, and himselfe and his assured friends to be the leaders of
them".[197] James knew that Sandys was not friendly to the prerogative
of the Crown. It had been stated "that there was not any man in the
world that carried a more malitious heart to the Government of a
Monarchie".[198]
In 1621 the controlling party in the London Company was preparing a new
charter for Virginia. The contents of this document are not known, but
it is exceedingly probable that it was intended as the preface to the
establishment of a government in the colony far more liberal than that
of England itself. It was proposed to have the charter confirmed by act
of Parliament, and to this James had consented, provided it proved
satisfactory to the Privy Council.[199] But it is evident that when the
Councillors had examined it, they advised the King not to assent to it
or to allow it to appear in Parliament. Indeed the document must have
stirred James' anger, for not only did he end all hopes of its passage,
but he "struck some terrour into most undertakers for Virginia", by
imprisoning Sir Edwin Sandys.[200]
Even more distasteful to the King than the establishment of popular
institutions in the little colony was the spreading of liberal doctrines
throughout England by the Sandys faction of the Company. James could no
longer tolerate their meetings, if once he began to look upon them as
the nursery of discontent and sedition. The party that was so determined
in its purpose to plant a republican government in Virginia might stop
at nothing to accomplish the same end in England. James knew that
national politics were often discussed in the assemblies of the Company
and that the parties there were sometimes as "animated one against the
other" as had been the "Guelfs and Gebillines" of Italy.[201] He decided
that the best way to end these controversies and frustrate the designs
of his enemies was to annul the charter of the Company and make Virginia
a royal colony.
The first unmistakable sign of his hostility came in June 1622, when he
interfered with the election of their treasurer. It was not, he told
them, his intention "to infringe their liberty of free election", but he
sent a list of names that would be acceptable to him, and asked them to
put one of these in nomination. To this the Company assented readily
enough, even nominating two from the list, but when the election was
held, the King's candidates were overwhelmingly defeated.[202] When
James heard this, he "flung himself away in a furious passion", being
"not well satisfied that out of so large a number by him recommended
they had not made any choice".[203] The incident meant that James had
given the Company an unmistakable intimation that it would be well for
them to place the management of affairs in the hands of men more in
harmony with himself, and that they had scornfully refused.
The Company was now doomed, for the King decided that the charter must
be revoked. He could not, of course, annul a grant that had passed under
the Great Seal, without some presence of legal proceedings, but when
once he had determined on the ruin of the Company, means to accomplish
his end were not lacking. John Ferrar wrote, "The King, notwithstanding
his royal word and honor pledged to the contrary ... was now determined
with all his force to make the last assault, and give the death blow to
this ... Company."[204]
James began by hunting evidence of mismanagement and incapacity by the
Sandys party. He gave orders to Captain Nathaniel Butler, who had spent
some months in Virginia, to write a pamphlet describing the condition of
the colony. _The Unmasking of Virginia_, as Butler's work is called was
nothing less than a bitter assault upon the conduct of affairs since the
beginning of the Sandys administration. Unfortunately, it was not
necessary for the author to exaggerate much in his description of the
frightful conditions in the colony; but it was unfair to place the blame
upon the Company. The misfortunes of the settlers were due to disease
and the Indians and did not result from incapacity or negligence on the
part of Sandys. The Company drew up "A True answer to a writing of
Information presented to his Majesty by Captain Nathaniel Butler",
denying most of the charges and explaining others, but they could not
efface the bad impression caused by the _Unmasking_.[205]
In April, 1623, James appointed a commission to make enquiry into the
"true estate of ... Virginia".[206] This body was directed to
investigate "all abuses and grievances ... all wrongs and injuryes done
to any adventurers or planters and the grounds and causes thereof, and
to propound after what sort the same may be better managed".[207] It
seems quite clear that the commissioners understood that they were
expected to give the King "some true ground to work upon", in his attack
on the Company's charter.[208] In a few weeks they were busy receiving
testimony from both sides, examining records and searching for evidence.
They commanded the Company to deliver to them all "Charters, Books,
Letters, Petitions, Lists of names, of Provisions, Invoyces of Goods,
and all other writing whatsoever". They examined the clerk of the
Company, the messenger and the keeper of the house in which they held
their meetings.[209] They intercepted private letters from Virginia,
telling of the horrible suffering there, and made the King aware of
their contents.[210]
In July the commission made its report. It found that "the people sent
to inhabit there ... were most of them by God's visitation, sicknes of
body, famine, and by massacres ... dead and deceased, and those that
were living of them lived in miserable and lamentable necessity and
want.... That this neglect they conceived, must fall on the Governors
and Company here, who had power to direct the Plantations there.... That
if his Majesty's first Grant of April 10 1606, and his Majesty's most
prudent and princely Instructions given in the beginning ... had been
pursued, much better effects had been produced, than had been by the
alteration thereof, into so popular a course."[211] James was much
pleased with the report, and it confirmed his determination to "resume
the government, and to reduce that popular form so as to make it agree
with the monarchial form".[212]
Before taking the matter to the courts, the King resolved to offer the
Company a compromise. If they would give up the old charter, he said, a
new one would be granted them, preserving all private interests, but
restoring the active control of the colony to the Crown. The government
was to be modelled upon the old plan of 1606, which had already given so
much trouble. "His Majesty," the Company was told, "hath ... resolved by
a new Charter to appoint a Governor and twelve assistants, resident here
in England, unto whom shall be committed the government.... And his
Majesty is pleased that there shall be resident in Virginia a Governor
and twelve assistants, to be nominated by the Governor and assistants
here ... whereby all matters of importance may be directed by his
Majesty."[213] The Company was commanded to send its reply immediately,
"his Majesty being determined, in default of such submission, to proceed
for the recalling of the said former charters".[214]
A special meeting of the stockholders was called, October 30th, 1623, to
consider the King's proposal. Every man present must have known that the
rejection of the compromise would mean the loss of all the money he had
invested in the colony, and that if the King's wishes were acceded to
his interests would be preserved. But the Company was fighting for
something higher than personal gain--for the maintenance of liberal
institutions in America, for the defence of the rights of English
citizens. After a "hot debate" they put the question to the vote, and
the offer was rejected, there being "only nine hands for the delivering
up of the Charters, and all the rest (being about three score more) were
of a contrary opinion".[215]
As a last hope the Company resolved to seek the assistance of
Parliament. A petition was drawn up to be presented to the Commons, and
the shareholders that were members of that body were requested to give
it their strenuous support when it came up for consideration. The
petition referred to Virginia as a "child of the Kingdom, exposed as in
the wilderness to extreme danger and as it were fainting and labouring
for life", and it prayed the House to hear "the grievances of the Colony
and Company, and grant them redress".[216] The matter was brought before
the Commons in May, 1624, but before it could be considered, a message
was received from the King warning them "not to trouble themselves with
this petition as their doing so could produce nothing but a further
increase Schisme and factions in the Company". "Ourself," he announced,
"will make it our own work to settle the quiet, and wellfare of the
plantations."[217] This was received with some "soft mutterings" by the
Commons, but they thought it best to comply, and the Company was left to
its fate.[218]
In the meanwhile the King had placed his case in the hands of
Attorney-General Coventry, who had prepared a _quo warranto_ against the
Company.[219] Although all hope of retaining the charter was gone, the
Sandys party were determined to fight to the end. They voted to employ
attorneys and to plead their case before the King's Bench. The _quo
warranto_ came up June 26th, 1624, and "the Virginia Patent was
overthrown", on a mistake in pleading.[220] With this judgment the
London Company practically ceased to exist, and Virginia became a royal
province.
FOOTNOTES:
[117] F. R., p. 6.
[118] F. R., p. 76.
[119] Gen., p. 1027.
[120] F. R., p. 265.
[121] F. R., p. 271.
[122] Gen., p. 339.
[123] F. R., p. 6.
[124] Gen. p. 236. Compare F. R., pp. 262, 263, 264, 31, 248, 80; Gen.,
pp. 49, 146.
[125] F. R., p. 80.
[126] F. R., p. 49.
[127] Gen., p. 50.
[128] Gen., p. 355.
[129] F. R., p. 558.
[130] F. R., p. 85.
[131] F. R., p. 237.
[132] F. R., vi.
[133] F. R., p. 251.
[134] F. R., p. 75.
[135] Gen., pp. 60, 61.
[136] Arb. Smith, lxxxiii.
[137] F. R., p. 266.
[138] F. R., p. 266.
[139] F. R., pp. 281, 282.
[140] F. R., p. 293.
[141] F. R., p. 312.
[142] F. R., p. 315.
[143] Nar. of Va., pp. 249, 250.
[144] Nar. of Va., p. 251.
[145] F. R., p. 317.
[146] Nar. of Va., pp. 252, 253, 254, 255, 260, 261.
[147] Nar. of Va., p. 276.
[148] In 1662 the Assembly granted power to the Governor and Council for
three years to levy a small tax by the poll. The county taxes for
defraying local expenses, were assessed and collected by the justices of
the peace. The vestries controlled the raising of the parish dues.
[149] Miller, p. 41.
[150] F. R., p. 376.
[151] F. R., p. 415.
[152] F. R., p. 464.
[153] F. R., p. 612.
[154] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. II, pp. 448, 449.
[155] _Ibid._
[156] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. II, pp. 442, 443.
[157] F. R., p. 322.
[158] F. R., p. 335.
[159] F. R., p. 336.
[160] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, p. 264.
[161] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, p. 265.
[162] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, p. 269.
[163] P. R. O., CO1-3.
[164] F. R., p. 372.
[165] F. R., p. 377.
[166] F. R., p. 377.
[167] F. R., p. 377.
[168] F. R., p. 415.
[169] F. R., p. 506.
[170] F. R., p. 506.
[171] F. R., p. 608.
[172] P. R. O., CO1-36-37.
[173] Stith, p. 210.
[174] Stith, p. 210.
[175] Arb. Smith, p. 573.
[176] Arb. Smith, p. 573.
[177] Arb. Smith, p. 578.
[178] Arb. Smith, p. 573.
[179] Arb. Smith, p. 574.
[180] Arb. Smith, p. 575.
[181] Arb. Smith, p. 576.
[182] Arb. Smith, p. 576.
[183] Stith, p. 211.
[184] Stith, pp. 211, 212.
[185] F. R., pp. 576, 577.
[186] F. R., p. 576.
[187] F. R., p. 508.
[188] F. R., p. 576.
[189] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, pp. 155 to 159.
[190] F. R., p. 576.
[191] F. R., p. 611.
[192] Arb. Smith, p. 594.
[193] Arb. Smith, p. 559; F. R., pp. 475, 495.
[194] F. R., p. 510.
[195] F. R., pp. 514, 515.
[196] P. R. O., CO1-3.
[197] F. R., p. 530.
[198] F. R., p. 529.
[199] F. R., p. 393.
[200] F. R., pp. 436, 437.
[201] F. R., p. 542.
[202] F. R., p. 477.
[203] F. R., p. 478.
[204] F. R., pp. 531, 532.
[205] F. R., p. 524.
[206] F. R., p. 520.
[207] F. R., p. 520.
[208] F. R., p. 521.
[209] F. R., p. 541.
[210] F. R., p. 535.
[211] F. R., pp. 519, 520.
[212] F. R., p. 542.
[213] F. R., p. 551.
[214] F. R., p. 542.
[215] F. R., p. 554.
[216] F. R, pp. 595, 596.
[217] F. R., pp. 597, 598.
[218] F. R., p. 598.
[219] F. R., p. 587.
[220] F. R., pp. 601, 602.