THE EXPULSION OF SIR JOHN HARVEY
The people of Virginia sympathized deeply with the London Company in its
efforts to prevent the revocation of the charter. The Governor, the
Council and the Burgesses gave active assistance to Sandys and his
friends by testifying to the wisdom of the management and contradicting
the calumnies of their enemies. In the midst of the controversy the
Privy Council had appointed a commission which they sent to Virginia to
investigate conditions there and to gather evidence against the Company.
This board consisted of John Harvey, John Pory, Abraham Piersey and
Samuel Matthews, men destined to play prominent rôles in Virginia
history, but then described as "certayne obscure persons".[221] When the
commissioners reached the colony they made known to the Assembly the
King's desire to revoke the charter and to take upon himself the
direction of the government. They then asked the members to subscribe to
a statement expressing their gratitude for the care of the King, and
willingness to consent to the contemplated change. The Assembly returned
the paper unsigned. "When our consent," they said, "to the surrender of
the Pattents, shalbe required, will be the most proper time
to make reply: in the mean time wee conceive his Majesties intention of
changing the government hath proceeded from much misinformation."[222]
After this they ignored the commissioners, and addressed themselves in
direct letters and petitions to the King and the Privy Council.[223]
They apprehended, they wrote, no danger from the present government,
which had converted into freedom the slavery they had endured in former
times.[224] They prayed that their liberal institutions might not be
destroyed or the old Smith faction of the Company placed over them
again.[225] These papers they sent to England by one of their number,
John Pountis, even refusing to let the commissioners see them. But Pory
succeeded in securing copies from the acting secretary, Edward
Sharpless.[226] The Council, upon learning of this betrayal, were so
incensed against the secretary that they sentenced him to "stand in the
Pillory and there to have his Ears nailed to it, and cut off".[227] His
punishment was modified, however, so that when he was "sett in the
Pillorie", he "lost but a part of one of his eares".[228] The King, upon
learning of this incident, which was represented to him "as a bloody and
barbarous act", became highly incensed against the Council.[229]
In the meanwhile James had appointed a large commission, with Viscount
Mandeville at its head, "to confer, consult, resolve and expedite all
affaires ... of Virginia, and to take care and give order for the
directing and government thereof".[230] This body met weekly at the
house of Sir Thomas Smith, and immediately assumed control of the
colony.[231] Their first act was to decide upon a form of government to
replace the Virginia Magna Charta. In conformance with the wishes of the
King they resolved to return to the plan of 1606. In their
recommendations no mention was made of an Assembly. It seemed for a
while that the work of Sandys was to be undone, and the seeds of liberty
in Virginia destroyed almost before they had taken root. Fortunately,
however, this was not to be. The commission, perhaps wishing to allay
the fears of the colonists, reappointed Sir Francis Wyatt Governor, and
retained most of the old Council. This made it certain that for a while
at least the government was to be in the hands of men of lofty character
and liberal views.[232] More fortunate still for Virginia was the death
of James I. This event removed the most determined enemy of their
Assembly, and placed upon the throne a man less hostile to the Sandys
faction, less determined to suppress the liberal institutions of the
colony.
Soon after his accession Charles I abolished the Mandeville commission
and appointed in its place a committee of the Privy Council.[233] For a
while he seemed inclined to restore the Company, for he consulted with
Sandys and requested him to give his opinion "touching the best form of
Government".[234] But he finally rejected his proposals, declaring that
he had come to the same determination that his father had held. He was
resolved, he said, that the government should be immediately dependent
upon himself and not be committed to any company or corporation.[235]
But, like his father, he was "pleased to authorise Sir Francis Wyatt
knight to be governor there, and such as are now employed for his
Majesties Councell there to have authoritie to continue the same
employment". No provision was made for a representative body, the power
of issuing decrees, ordinances and public orders being assigned to the
Council.
But the Assembly was saved by the unselfish conduct of Wyatt and
Yeardley and their Councils.[236] Had these men sought their own gain at
the expense of the liberty of their fellow colonists, they would have
welcomed a change that relieved them from the restraint of the
representatives of the people. The elimination of the Burgesses would
have left them as absolute as had been Wingfield and the first Council.
But they were most anxious to preserve for Virginia the right of
representative government, and wrote to England again and again pleading
for the reëstablishment of the Assembly.[237] "Above all," they said,
"we humbly intreat your Lordships that we may retaine the Libertie of
our Generall Assemblie, than which nothing can more conduce to our
satisfaction or the publique utilitie."[238] In 1625 Yeardley himself
crossed the ocean to present a new petition. He pleaded with Charles "to
avoid the oppression of Governors there, that their liberty of Generall
Assemblyes may be continued and confirmed, and that they may have a
voice in the election of officers, as in other Corporations".[239] After
the overthrow of the Company charter, there could be no legal election
of Burgesses and no legislation save by proclamation of the Governor and
Council. Yet Wyatt, in order to preserve as far as possible some form of
representative government, held conventions or informal meetings of
leading citizens, to confer with the Council on important matters. They
issued papers under the title of "Governor, Councell and Collony of
Virginia assembled together",[240] and it is possible that the people
elected their delegates just as they had formerly chosen Burgesses.
Since, however, acts passed by these assemblages could not be enforced
in the courts, all legislation for the time being took the form of
proclamations.[241]
Finally Charles yielded to the wishes of the people, and, in the fall of
1627, sent written instructions to the officials in Virginia to hold an
election of Burgesses and to summon a General Assembly.[242] The King's
immediate motive for this important step was his desire to gain the
planters' acceptance through their representatives of an offer which he
made to buy all their tobacco. In the spring of 1628 the Council wrote,
"In obedience to his Majesties Commands wee have given order that all
the Burgesses of Particular Plantations should shortly be assembled at
James Citty that by the general and unanimous voice of the whole Colony
his Majesty may receave a full answere."[243] Although the Assembly must
have realized that its very existence might depend upon its compliance
with the King's wishes, it refused to accept his proposition. The
planters were willing to sell their tobacco to his Majesty, but only
upon more liberal terms than those offered them. Charles rejected the
counter-proposals of the Virginians, with some show of anger, but he did
not abolish the Assembly, and in ensuing years sessions were held with
great regularity.[244]
The apprehensions of the colonists during this trying period were made
more acute by the resignation of Sir Francis Wyatt. In the winter of
1625-26 the Council wrote the Virginia commissioners, "The Governor hath
long expected a Successor, and the necessity of his private estate
compelling him not to put off any longer his return for England, wee
hope it is already provided for."[245] Great must have been the relief
in the colony when it was learned that Sir George Yeardley had been
chosen to succeed Governor Wyatt. Yeardley had been the bearer of the
Virginia Magna Charta, under which the first Assembly had been
established, and his services had not been forgotten by the people. But
he was not destined to see the restoration of the Burgesses, for he died
in November, 1627.[246] We have lost, wrote the Council in great grief,
"a main pillar of this our building & thereby a support to the whole
body".[247]
By virtue of previous appointment, Captain Francis West, brother of the
Lord De la Warr who had lost his life in the service of Virginia, at
once assumed the reins of government. Captain West continued in office
until March 5th, 1629, when he resigned in order to return to
England.[248] John Harvey, a member of the Virginia commission of 1624,
was the King's next choice for Governor, but pending his arrival, the
office fell to one of the Council--Dr. John Pott. This man had long been
a resident of Virginia, and had acted as Physician-General during the
years when the sickness was at the worst. He is described as "a Master
of Arts ... well practiced in chirurgery and physic, and expert also in
the distilling of waters, (besides) many other ingenious devices".[249]
He had made use of these accomplishments to poison large numbers of
Indians after the massacre of 1622.[250] This exploit caused the
temporary loss of his place in the Council, for when James I settled the
government after the fall of the Company, Pott was left out at the
request of the Earl of Warwick, because "he was the poysoner of the
salvages thear".[251] In 1626 his seat was restored to him. He seems to
have been both democratic and convival, and is described as fond of the
company of his inferiors, "who hung upon him while his good liquor
lasted".[252]
In the spring of 1630 Sir John Harvey arrived in Virginia.[253] This man
proved to be one of the worst of the many bad colonial governors.
Concerned only for his own dignity and for the prerogative of the King,
he trampled without scruple upon the liberties of the people, and his
administration was marked throughout by injustice and oppression.
His first efforts as Governor were to attempt to win the friendship and
support of one of the Council and to bring humiliation and ruin upon
another. He had been in Virginia but a few weeks when he wrote the King
asking especial favors for Captain Samuel Matthews. "This gentleman," he
said, "I found most readie to set forward all services propounded for
his Majesties honor, ... and without his faithful assistance perhaps I
should not soe soon have brought the busines of this Country to so good
effect." It would be a just reward for these services, he thought, to
allow him for a year or two to ship the tobacco of his plantation into
England free of customs.[254] At the same time Harvey seemed bent upon
the utter undoing of Dr. Pott. Claiming that the pleasure loving
physician while Governor had been guilty of "pardoninge wilfull Murther,
markinge other mens Cattell for his owne, and killing up their hoggs",
Harvey suspended him from the Council and, pending the day of his trial,
confined him to his plantation.[255]
It seems quite certain that this treatment of the two Councillors was
designed to impress upon the people a just appreciation of the
Governor's power. Harvey felt keenly the restriction of the Council. It
had been the intention of James and after his death Charles to restore
the government of the colony to its original form, in which all matters
were determined by the Council. "His Majesties ... pleasure," wrote the
Privy Council in 1625, "is that all judgements, decrees, and all
important actions be given, determined and undertaken by the advice and
voices of the greater part."[256] If these instructions were adhered to,
the Governor would become no more than the presiding officer of the
Council. To this position Harvey was determined never to be reduced. He
would, at the very outset, show that he was master in Virginia, able to
reward his friends, or to punish those that incurred his displeasure.
Dr. Pott could not believe that the proceedings against him were
intended seriously, and, in defiance of the Governor's commands, left
his plantation to come to Elizabeth City. "Upon which contempt," wrote
Harvey, "I committed him close prisoner, attended with a guard." At the
earnest request of several gentlemen, the Governor finally consented
that he might return to his plantation, but only under bond. Pott,
however, refused to avail himself of the kindness of his friends, and so
was kept in confinement.[257] On the 9th of July he was brought to
trial, found guilty upon two indictments, and his entire estate
confiscated.[258]
That Pott was convicted by a jury of thirteen men, three of them
Councillors, is by no means conclusive evidence of his guilt. The close
connection between the executive and the courts at this time made it
quite possible for the Governor to obtain from a jury whatever verdict
he desired. In fact it became the custom for a new administration, as
soon as it was installed in power, to take revenge upon its enemies by
means of the courts.
Pott's guilt is made still more doubtful by the fact that execution of
the sentence was suspended "untill his Majesties pleasure might be
signified concerning him", while the Council united in giving their
security for his safe keeping.[259] Harvey himself wrote asking the
King's clemency. "For as much," he said, "as he is the only Physician in
the Colonie, and skilled in the Epidemicall diseases of the planters,
... I am bound to entreat" your Majesty to pardon him.[260] It would
seem quite inexplicable that Harvey should go to so much trouble to
convict Dr. Pott, and then write immediately to England for a pardon,
did not he himself give the clue to his conduct. "It will be," he said,
"a means to bring the people to ... hold a better respect to the
Governor than hitherto they have done."[261] Having shown the colonists
that he could humble the strongest of them, he now sought to teach them
that his intercession with the King could restore even the criminal to
his former position.
When Dr. Pott was at Elizabeth City his wife was reported to be ill, but
this did not deter her from making the long and dangerous voyage to
England to appeal to the King "touching the wrong" done her
husband.[262] Charles referred the matter to the Virginia commissioners,
who gave her a hearing in the presence of Harvey's agent. Finding no
justification for the proceedings against him, they wrote Harvey that
for aught they could tell Pott had demeaned himself well and that there
seemed to have been "some hard usage against him".[263] The sentence of
confiscation seems never to have been carried out, but Pott was not
restored to his seat in the Council.[264]
This arbitrary conduct did not succeed in intimidating the other
Councillors. These men must have felt that the attack upon Dr. Pott was
aimed partly at the dignity and power of the Council itself. If Harvey
could thus ruin those that incurred his displeasure, the Councillors
would lose all independence in their relations with him. Soon they were
in open hostility to the Governor. Claiming that Harvey could do nothing
without their consent, and that all important matters had to be
determined "by the greater number of voyces at the Councell Table", they
entered upon a policy of obstruction. It was in vain that the Governor
declared that he was the King's substitute, that they were but his
assistants, and that they were impeding his Majesty's business; they
would yield to him only the position of first among equals. Early in
1631 Harvey was filling his letters to England with complaints of the
"waywardness and oppositions of those of the Councell". "For instead of
giving me assistance," he declared, "they stand Contesting and disputing
my authoritie, avering that I can doe nothinge but what they shall
advise me, and that my power extendeth noe further than a bare casting
voice."[265] He had received, he claimed, a letter from the King,
strengthening his commission and empowering him to "doe justice to all
men, not sparinge those of the Councell", which he had often shown them,
but this they would not heed. "I hope," he wrote, "you never held me to
be ambitious or vainglorious, as that I should desire to live here as
Governor to predominate, or prefer mine owne particular before the
generall good." My position in Virginia is most miserable, "chiefly
through the aversions of those from whom I expected assistance". He had
often tried to bring peace and amity between them, but all to no
purpose, for he was scorned for his efforts. He would be humbly thankful
if his Majesty would be pleased to strengthen his commission, "that the
place of Governor and the duty of Councellors may be knowne and
distinguished".[266]
It is probable that the Councillors also wrote to England, to place
before the King their grievances against Harvey, for before the end of
the year letters came from the Privy Council, warning both sides to end
the dispute and to proceed peacefully with the government of the colony.
In compliance with these commands they drew up and signed a document
promising "to swallow up & bury all forepart Complainte and accusations
in a generall Reconciliation". They thanked their Lordships for advice
that had persuaded their "alienated & distempered" minds to thoughts of
love and peace and to the execution of public justice. The Council
promised to give the Governor "all the service, honor & due Respect
which belongs unto him as his Majesties Substitute".[267] It is quite
evident, however, that this reconciliation, inspired by fear of the
anger of the Privy Council, could not be permanent. Soon the Council,
under the leadership of Captain Matthews, who had long since forfeited
Harvey's favor, was as refractory as ever.
A new cause for complaint against the Governor arose with the founding
of Maryland. In 1623 George Calvert, the first Lord Baltimore, had
received a grant of the great southeastern promontory in Newfoundland,
and had planted there a colony as an asylum for English Catholics.
Baltimore himself had been detained in England for some years, but in
1627 came with his wife and children to take personal control of his
little settlement. His experience with the severe Newfoundland winter
persuaded him that it would be wise to transfer his colony to a more
congenial clime. "From the middle of October," he wrote Charles I, "to
the middle of May there is a sad face of winter upon all the land; both
sea and land so frozen for the greater part of the time as they are not
penetrable ... besides the air so intolerable cold as it is hardly to be
endured.... I am determined to commit this place to fishermen that are
able to encounter stormes and hard weather, and to remove myself with
some forty persons to your Majesties dominion of Virginia; where, if
your Majesty will please to grant me a precinct of land, with such
privileges as the King your father ... was pleased to grant me here, I
shall endeavour to the utmost of my power, to deserve it."[268]
In 1629 he sailed for Virginia, with his wife and children, and arrived
at Jamestown the first day of October. His reception by Governor Pott
and the Council was by no means cordial. The Virginians were loath
either to receive a band of Catholics into their midst, or to concede to
them a portion of the land that they held under the royal charters.
Desiring to be rid of Baltimore as speedily as possible, they tendered
him the oath of supremacy. This, of course, as a good Catholic he could
not take, for it recognized the English sovereign as the supreme
authority in all ecclesiastical matters. Baltimore proposed an
alternative oath of allegiance, but the Governor and Council refused to
accept it, and requested him to leave at once. Knowing that it was his
intention to apply for a tract of land within their borders, the
Virginians sent William Claiborne after him to London, to watch him and
to thwart his designs.
Despite Claiborne's efforts a patent was granted Baltimore, making him
lord proprietor of a province north of the Potomac river, which received
the name of Maryland. Baltimore, with his own hand, drew up the charter,
but in April, 1632, before it had passed under the Great Seal, he died.
A few weeks later the patent was issued to his eldest son, Cecilius
Calvert. The Virginians protested against this grant "within the Limits
of the Colony", claiming that it would interfere with their Indian trade
in the Chesapeake, and that the establishment of the Catholics so near
their settlements would "give a generall disheartening of the
Planters".[269] But their complaints availed nothing. Not only did
Charles refuse to revoke the charter, but he wrote the Governor and
Council commanding them to give Lord Baltimore every possible assistance
in making his settlement. You must, he said, "suffer his servants and
Planters to buy and transport such cattle and comodities to their
Colonie, as you may conveniently spare ... and give them ... such lawful
assistance as may conduce to both your safetyes".[270]
The second Lord Baltimore appointed his brother, Leonard Calvert,
Governor of Maryland, and sent him with two vessels and over three
hundred men to plant the new colony. In February, 1634, the expedition
reached Point Comfort, where it stopped to secure from the Virginians
the assistance that the King had promised should be given them.
They met with scant courtesy. The planters thought it a hard matter that
they should be ordered to aid in the establishment of this new colony.
They resented the encroachment upon their territories, they hated the
newcomers because most of them were Catholics, they feared the loss of a
part of their Indian trade, and they foresaw the growth of a dangerous
rival in the culture of tobacco. Despite the King's letter they refused
to help Calvert and his men. "Many are so averse," wrote Harvey, "that
they crye and make it their familiar talke that they would rather knock
their Cattell on the heades than sell them to Maryland."[271] The
Governor, however, not daring to disobey his sovereign's commands, gave
the visitors all the assistance in his power. "For their present
accomodation," he said, "I sent unto them some Cowes of myne owne, and
will do my best to procure more, or any thinge else they stand in need
of."[272] This action secured for Harvey the praise of the Privy
Council, but it made him more unpopular with his Council and the people
of Virginia.
After a stay of several weeks at Point Comfort, Calvert sailed up the
Chesapeake into the Potomac, and founded the town of Saint Mary's. This,
however, was not the first settlement in Maryland. In 1631, William
Claiborne, returning from England after his unsuccessful attempt to
block the issuing of Baltimore's charter, had established a settlement
upon Kent Island in the Chesapeake Bay. Here he had built dwellings and
mills and store houses, and had laid out orchards and gardens. In thus
founding a colony within Baltimore's territory he was sustained by the
Council. When Calvert arrived in 1634 he sent word to Claiborne that he
would not molest his settlement, but since Kent Island was a part of
Maryland, he must hold it as a tenant of Lord Baltimore. Upon receipt of
this message Claiborne laid the matter before his colleagues of the
Virginia Council, and asked their commands. The answer of the
Councillors shows that they considered the new patent an infringement
upon their prior rights and therefore of no effect. They could see no
reason, they told Claiborne, why they should render up the Isle of Kent
any more than the other lands held under their patents. As it was their
duty to maintain the rights and privileges of the colony, his settlement
must continue under the government and laws of Virginia.
Despite the defiant attitude of the Virginians, it is probable that
Calvert would have permitted the Kent Islanders to remain unmolested,
had not a report spread abroad that Claiborne was endeavoring to
persuade the Indians to attack Saint Mary's. A joint commission of
Virginians and Marylanders declared the charge false, but suspicion and
ill will had been aroused, and a conflict could not be avoided. In
April, 1635, Governor Calvert, alleging that Claiborne was indulging in
illicit trade, fell upon and captured one of his merchantmen. In great
indignation the islanders fitted out a vessel, the _Cockatrice_, to
scour the Chesapeake and make reprisals. She was attacked, however, by
two pinnaces from Saint Mary's and, after a severe conflict in which
several men were killed, was forced to surrender. A few weeks later
Claiborne gained revenge by defeating the Marylanders in a fight at the
mouth of the Potomac.
In these encounters the Kent Islanders had the sympathy of the Virginia
planters. Excitement ran high in the colony, and there was danger that
an expedition might be sent to Saint Mary's to overpower the intruders
and banish them from the country. Resentment against Harvey, who still
gave aid and encouragement to Maryland, became more bitter than ever.
His espousal of the cause of the enemies of Virginia made the planters
regard him as a traitor. In 1635 Samuel Matthews wrote to Sir John
Wolstenholme, "The Inhabitants also understood with indignation that the
Marylanders had taken Capt. Claibournes Pinnaces and men ... which
action of theirs Sir John Harvey upheld contrary to his Majesties
express commands."[273] The Councillors held many "meetings and
consultations" to devise plans for the overthrow of the new colony, and
an active correspondence was carried on with Baltimore's enemies in
England in the vain hope that the charter might yet be revoked.[274]
Matters were now moving rapidly to a crisis. Harvey's administration
became more and more unpopular. Sir John Wolstenholme, who kept in close
touch with the colony, declared that the Governor's misconduct in his
government was notorious at Court and in the city of London.[275] When,
in the spring of 1635, he was rudely thrust out of his office, the
complaints against him were so numerous that it became necessary to
convene the Assembly to consider them.[276]
To what extent Harvey usurped the powers of the General Assembly is not
clear, but it seems very probable that he frequently made use of
proclamations to enforce his will upon the people.[277] It was quite
proper and necessary for the Governor, when the houses were not in
session, to issue ordinances of a temporary character, but this was a
power susceptible of great abuse. And for the Governor to repeal
statutes by proclamation would be fatal to the liberties of the people.
That Harvey was guilty of this usurpation seems probable from the fact
that a law was enacted declaring it the duty of the people to disregard
all proclamations that conflicted with any act of Assembly.[278]
Also there is reason to believe that Harvey found ways of imposing
illegal taxes upon the people. John Burk, in his _History of Virginia_,
declares unreservedly that it was Harvey's purpose "to feed his avarice
and rapacity, by assessing, levying, and holding the public revenue,
without check or responsibility".[279]
In 1634 an event occurred which aroused the anger of the people, widened
the breach between the Governor and the Council, and made it evident to
all that Harvey would not hesitate upon occasion to disregard property
rights and to break the laws of the colony. A certain Captain Young came
to Virginia upon a commission for the King. Wishing to build two
shallops while in the colony and having need of a ship's carpenter,
Young, with the consent of Harvey, seized a skilled servant of one of
the planters. This arbitrary procedure was in direct defiance of a
statute of Assembly of March, 1624, that declared that "the Governor
shall not withdraw the inhabitants from their private labors to any
service of his own upon any colour whatsoever".[280]
Upon hearing of the incident Captain Samuel Matthews and other members
of the Council came to Harvey to demand an explanation. The Governor
replied that the man had been taken because Young had need of him "to
prosecute with speed the King's service", and "that his Majesty had
given him authority to make use of any persons he found there".[281]
This answer did not satisfy the Councillors. Matthews declared "that if
things were done on this fashion it would breed ill bloude in Virginia",
and in anger "turning his back, with his truncheon lashed off the heads
of certain high weeds that were growing there".[282] Harvey, wishing to
appease the Councillors, said, "Come gentlemen, let us goe to supper &
for the night leave this discourse", but their resentment was too great
to be smoothed over, and with one accord rejecting his invitation,
"they departed from the Governour in a very irreverent manner".[283]
Harvey, in his letters to the English government tried to convey the
impression that he was uniformly patient with the Council, and courteous
in all the disputes that were constantly arising. That he was not always
so self restrained is shown by the fact that on one occasion, he became
embroiled with one of the Councillors, Captain Stevens, and knocked out
some of his teeth with a cudgel.[284] Samuel Matthews wrote that he had
heard the Governor "in open court revile all the Councell and tell them
they were to give their attendance as assistants only to advise with
him". The Governor attempted, he declared, to usurp the whole power of
the courts, without regard to the rights of the Councillors, "whereby
justice was now done but soe farr as suited with his will, to the great
losse of many mens estates and a generall feare in all".[285]
In 1634 the King once more made a proposal to the colonists for the
purchase of their tobacco, and demanded their assent through the General
Assembly. The Burgesses, who dreaded all contracts, drew up an answer
which was "in effect a deniall of his Majesties proposition", and, in
order to give the paper the character of a petition, they all signed it.
This answer the Governor detained, fearing, he said, that the King
"would not take well the matter thereof, and that they should make it a
popular business, by subscribing a multitude of hands thereto, as
thinking thereby to give it countenance".[286] The Governor's arbitrary
action aroused great anger throughout the colony. Matthews wrote Sir
John Wolstenholme, "The Consideration of the wrong done by the Governor
to the whole Colony in detayning the foresaid letters to his Majesty did
exceedingly perplex them whereby they were made sensible of the
condition of the present Government."[287]
The crisis had now come. During the winter of 1634-35 the Councillors
and other leading citizens were holding secret meetings to discuss the
conduct of the Governor. Soon Dr. John Pott, whose private wrongs made
him a leader in the popular discontent, was going from plantation to
plantation, denouncing the Governor's conduct and inciting the people to
resistance. Everywhere the angry planters gathered around him, and
willingly subscribed to a petition for a redress of grievances. In
April, 1635, Pott was holding one of these meetings in York, at the
house of one William Warrens, when several friends of the Governor
presented themselves for admission. "A servant meeting them told them
they must not goe in ... whereupon they desisted and bended themselves
to hearken to the discourse among them." In the confusion of sounds that
came out of the house they could distinguish many angry speeches against
Harvey and cries against his unjust and arbitrary government. When Pott
read his petition, and told the assemblage that it had the support of
some of the Councillors, they all rushed forward to sign their names.
When Harvey heard of these proceedings he was greatly enraged. Summoning
the Council to meet without delay, he issued warrants for Dr. Pott and
several others that had aided in circulating the petition. "After a few
days Potts was brought up prisoner, having before his apprehending bin
in the lower parts of the Country there also mustering his names at a
meeting called for that purpose."[288] He does not seem to have feared
the angry threats of the Governor, for when put in irons and brought
before the Council, he readily consented to surrender the offending
petition. At the same time he asserted "that if he had offended he did
appeal to the King, for he was sure of noe justice from Sir John
Harvey". When some of the other prisoners, in their hearing before the
Council, asked the cause of their arrest, the Governor told them they
should be informed at the gallows.
Shortly after this the Council was summoned to deliberate on the fate of
the accused. The Governor, fearing that he might not secure conviction
from a jury, "declared it necessary that Marshall law should be executed
upon" them. When the Councillors refused to consent to any other than a
legal trial, Harvey flew into a furious passion. For a while he paced
back and forth in the room hardly able to contain himself. At length he
sat down in his chair, and with a dark countenance commanded his
colleagues to be seated. A long pause ensued, and then he announced that
he had a question that they must answer each in his turn, without
deliberation or consultation. "What," he enquired, "doe you think they
deserve that have gone about to persuade the people from their obedience
to his Majesties substitute?" "And I begin with you," he said, turning
to Mr. Minifie. "I am but a young lawyer," Minifie replied, "and dare
not uppon the suddain deliver my opinion." At this point Mr. Farrar
began to complain of these strange proceedings, but Harvey commanded him
to be silent. Captain Matthews also protested, and the other Councillors
soon joined him in refusing to answer the Governor's question. "Then
followed many bitter Languages from him till the sitting ended."
At the next meeting Harvey asked what the Council thought were the
reasons that the petition had been circulated against him, and demanded
to know whether they had any knowledge of the matter. Mr. Minifie
replied that the chief grievance of the people was the detaining of the
letter of the Assembly to the King. This answer seems to have aroused
the Governor's fury, for, arising from his seat, and striking Mr.
Minifie a resounding blow upon the shoulder, he cried, "Doe you say soe?
I arrest you upon suspicion of treason to his Majesty." But Harvey found
that he could not deal thus arbitrarily with the Councillors. Utie and
Matthews rushed up and seizing him cried, "And we you upon suspicion of
treason to his Majestie". Dr. Pott, who was present and had probably
been waiting for this crisis, held up his hand as a signal to
confederates without, "when straight about 40 musketiers ... which
before that time lay hid, came ... running with their peeces presented"
towards the house. "Stay here," commanded Pott, "until there be use of
you."
In the meanwhile the Councillors crowded around Harvey. "Sir," said
Matthews, "there is no harm intended you save only to acquaint you with
the grievances of the Inhabitants and to that end I desire you to sit
downe in your Chayre."
And there, with the enraged Governor seated before him, he poured out
the recital of the people's wrongs. When he had finished there came an
ominous pause. Finally Matthews spoke again. "Sir," he said, "the
peoples fury is up against you and to appease it, is beyond our power,
unlesse you please to goe for England, there to answer their
complaints." But this Harvey refused to do. He had been made Governor of
Virginia by the King, he said, and without his command he would not
leave his charge.
But before many days the Governor changed his mind. He found himself
deserted by all and entirely in the power of the Councillors. As
sentinals were placed "in all wayes & passages so that noe man could
travell or come from place to place", he could make no effort to raise
troops. Dr. Pott and the other prisoners were set at liberty. A guard
was placed around Harvey, ostensibly to protect him, but really with the
purpose of restraining him. A letter came from Captain Purifee, a
Councillor then in the "lower parts" of the colony, which spoke of
designs of the people to bring Harvey to account for his many wrongs. In
alarm the Governor consented to take the first ship for England. He
endeavored, however, to name his successor, to induce Matthews, Pierce,
and Minifie to go with him to England, and to secure a promise from the
Council not to molest Maryland. But they would consent to none of these
things.
In the meantime an Assembly had been called to consider the innumerable
grievances against the Governor. When they met at Jamestown, Harvey sent
them a letter, declaring the session illegal and ordering them to
disperse to their homes. "Notwithstanding his threats ... the assembly
proceeded according to their former intentions." Harvey then dispatched
a letter to the Council, ordering them to send him his royal commission
and instructions, but these documents had been intrusted to the keeping
of Mr. Minifie with directions not to surrender them. The Council then
turned themselves to the task of selecting a successor to Harvey. Their
unanimous vote was given to Captain Francis West, the senior member of
the board and formerly Governor. Feeling that since the expulsion of
Harvey had been primarily a movement to protect the rights of the
people, the Burgesses should have some voice in the election of the new
Governor, they appealed to the Assembly for the ratification of their
choice. West was popular in the colony, and "the people's suffrages"
were cast for him as willingly as had been those of the Council. The
Assembly then drew up resolutions setting forth the misconduct of Harvey
and justifying their course in sending him back to England. These
documents were entrusted to one Thomas Harwood, who was to deliver them
to the King. Of what happened after Harvey's departure we have little
record, but it is probable that the colonists revenged themselves upon
the deposed Governor by confiscating all his ill gotten possessions.
It was decided that Dr. Pott should go to England to stand trial as his
appeal to the King had taken the case beyond the jurisdiction of the
Virginia courts. He and Harwood sailed upon the same vessel with Sir
John. It is not hard to imagine with what dark looks or angry words Pott
and Harvey greeted each other during their long voyage across the
Atlantic. Doubtless Harwood and Pott held many a consultation upon what
steps should be taken when they reached England to secure a favorable
hearing for the colony, and to frustrate Harvey's plans for revenge. It
was Harwood's intention to hasten to London, in order to forestall the
Governor and "to make friends and the case good against him, before he
could come".[289] But Sir John was too quick for him. Hardly had the
ship touched the dock at Plymouth, than he was off to see the mayor of
the city. This officer, upon hearing of the "late mutiny and rebellion"
in Virginia, put Pott under arrest, "as a principal author and agent
thereof", and seized all the papers and letters that had been entrusted
to Harwood. Having thus gotten his hands upon the important documents,
Harvey proceeded to London to complain of the indignities shown him and
to ask for the punishment of his enemies.
When Charles I learned that the Virginians had deposed his Governor and
sent him back to England, he was surprised and angered. It was, he
said, an assumption of regal power to oust thus unceremoniously one of
his officers, and he was resolved to send Harvey back, if for one day
only. And should the Governor acquit himself of the charges against him,
he was to be inflicted upon the colony even longer than had at first
been intended. The case came before the Privy Council in December
1635.[290] In the charges that were made against Harvey nothing was said
of the illegal and arbitrary measures that had caused the people to
depose him. All reference was omitted to the detaining of the Assembly's
letter, to the support given Maryland, to the abuse of the courts, to
illegal taxes and proclamations. Possibly the agents of the Virginians
felt that such accusations as these would have no weight with the
ministers of a monarch so little in sympathy with liberal government, so
they trumped up other charges to sustain their cause. Despite the
assertion of Harwood that Harvey "had so carryed himself in Virginia,
that if ever hee retourned back thither hee would be pistolled or
Shott", he was acquitted and restored to his office. West, Utie,
Matthews, Minifie and Pierce, whom Harvey designated as the "chief
actors in the munity", were ordered to come to England, there to answer
before the Star Chamber the charge of treason.[291]
As the time approached for him to return to Virginia, Harvey began to
show symptoms of nervousness. Feeling possibly that the threats of
"pistolling" were not to be taken lightly, he requested the King to
furnish him a royal vessel in which to make the journey. The appearance
of one of the King's own ships in the James, he thought, would "much
abate the bouldness of the offenders". This request was granted, and,
after some months of delay, Harvey set forth proudly in the _Black
George_. But Charles had not cared to send a really serviceable vessel
to Virginia, and for a while it seemed that the _Black George_ would
relieve the colonists of their troubles by taking Sir John to the
bottom. The vessel, it would appear, sprang a leak
before it had been many hours at sea, and was forced to return to port.
The Governor then decided that a merchant vessel would suffice for his
purposes, and set sail again, upon a ship of the Isle of Wight.
He reached Point Comfort in January, 1637. Not wishing to wait until his
ship reached Jamestown before asserting his authority, he landed at once
and established a temporary capital at Elizabeth City. He had received
instructions to remove from the Council all the members that had taken
part in the "thrusting out", and he brought with him commissions for
several new members. Orders were issued immediately for this
reconstructed Council to convene in the church at Elizabeth City. There,
after the oath had been administered, he published a proclamation of
pardon to all persons implicated in the "mutiny", from which, however,
West, Matthews, and the other leaders were excluded. The Governor then
proceeded to displace all officials whom he considered hostile to his
administration. "Before I removed from Elizabeth City," he wrote, "I
appointed Commissioners and sheriffs for the lower counties, and for the
plantation of Accomack, on the other side of the Bay."
The "thrusting out" did not cause Harvey to become more prudent in the
administration of the government. His restoration, which Charles had
meant as a vindication of the royal authority, the Governor seems to
have interpreted as a license for greater tyranny. If the accusations of
his enemies may be credited, he went to the greatest extremes in
oppressing the people and in defying their laws. With the Council now
completely under his control, he was master of the courts, and inflicted
many great wrongs by means of "arbitrary and illegal proceedings in
judgment". Confiscations and other "most cruel oppressions", it was
declared, were used to punish all that showed themselves hostile to his
government. He and his officers did not scruple to impose many unjust
fines, which they converted "to their own private use", nor to strike
terror into the people with whippings and "cutting of ears".[292]
Nor did Sir John neglect to take revenge upon those old enemies that had
so defied and humiliated him. West, Utie, Matthews and Pierce were sent
at once to England, and their goods, cattle and servants seized. Beyond
doubt it was against Samuel Matthews that Harvey bore the most bitter
animosity, and it was his estate that suffered most. The Governor had
been heard to say that if one "stood, tother should fall, and if hee
swomme, the other should sinke". Matthews was one of the wealthiest men
of the colony, his property consisting largely of cattle, but Sir John
now swore that he would not leave him "worth a cow taile". At the next
session of the Quarter Court, suit was entered against Matthews by one
John Woodall, for the recovery of certain cattle. The learned judges,
upon investigation, found that in the year 1622 Matthews held two cows
rightfully belonging to Woodall. It was their opinion that the increase
of these cows "unto the year 1628 ... might amount unto the number of
fifteen". "Computing the increase of the said fifteen head from the year
1628 to the time of their inquiry, they did return the number of fiftye
head to the said Woodall."[293]
When Matthews heard that his estate had been seized and "havoc made
thereof", he entered complaint with the Privy Council and secured an
order requiring Harvey to restore all to his agents in Virginia. But the
Governor was most reluctant to give up his revenge upon his old enemy.
For seven months he put off the agents and at last told them that he had
received new orders from the Privy Council, expressing satisfaction with
what had been done and bidding him proceed.[294] Thereupon Secretary
Kemp and other friends of the Governor entered Matthews' house, broke
open the doors of several chambers, ransacked all his trunks and chests,
examined his papers, and carried away a part of his goods and eight of
his servants.[295] Soon after, however, Harvey received positive
commands from the Privy Council to make an immediate restoration of all
that had been taken. In January, 1639, he wrote that he had obeyed their
Lordships exactly, by calling a court and turning over to Matthews'
agents many of his belongings.[296] But Harvey denied that he had ever
appropriated the estate to his own use, and claimed that he had been
misrepresented by "the Cunning texture of Captain Mathews, his
complaint".[297]
Among those that felt most keenly the Governor's resentment was a
certain clergyman, Anthony Panton. This man had quarrelled with Harvey's
best friend and chief advisor in the stormy days of the expulsion,
Secretary Matthew Kemp. Panton had incurred Kemp's undying resentment by
calling him a "jackanapes", "unfit for the place of secretary", and
declaring that "his hair-lock was tied up with ribbon as old as St.
Paul's".[298] The belligerent parson was now brought to trial, charged
with "mutinous speeches and disobedience to Sir John Harvey", and with
disrespect to the Archbishop of Canterbury. His judges pronounced him
guilty and inflicted a sentence of extreme rigor. A fine of £500 was
imposed, he was forced to make public submission in all the parishes of
the colony, and was banished "with paynes of death if he returned, and
authority to any man whatsoever to execute him."[299]
In the meanwhile the Governor's enemies in England had not been idle.
Matthews, Utie, West and Pierce, upon landing in 1637, had secured their
liberty under bail, and had joined with Dr. Pott in an attempt to
undermine Harvey's influence at Court. Had Sir John sent witnesses to
England at once to press the charges against them before the Star
Chamber, while the matter was still fresh in the memory of the King, he
might have brought about their conviction and checked their plots. But
he neglected the case, and Charles probably forgot about it, so the
whole matter was referred to the Lord Keeper and the Attorney-General
where it seems to have rested.[300] The exiles had no difficulty in
finding prominent men willing to join in an attack upon Harvey. Before
many months had passed they had gained the active support of the
"sub-committee" of the Privy Council to which Virginia affairs were
usually referred.[301] Harvey afterwards complained that members of this
committee were interested in a plan to establish a new Virginia Company
and for that reason were anxious to bring discredit upon his
government.[302] It was not difficult to find cause enough for removing
Sir John. Reports of his misconduct were brought to England by every
vessel from the colony. Numerous persons, if we may believe the
Governor, were "imployed in all parts of London to be spyes", and to
"invite the meanest of the planters newly come for England into
Taverns", where they made them talkative with wine and invited them to
state their grievances.[303]
The English merchants trading to Virginia also entered complaint before
the Privy Council against Harvey's administration. They sought relief
from a duty of two pence per hogshead on all tobacco exported from the
colony, from a fee of six pence a head on immigrants, and a requisition
of powder and shot laid upon vessels entering the James.[304] The Privy
Council, always careful of the welfare of British trade, wrote the
Governor and the Council, demanding an explanation of these duties and
requiring an account of the powder and shot. Harvey replied at great
length, justifying the duties and begging their Lordships not to credit
"the malitious untruths of such who by all means do goe about and studie
to traduce us".
But the Privy Council, not waiting to receive all of Harvey's defense,
decided to remove him and to appoint in his place Sir Francis
Wyatt.[305] The new Governor was directed to retain the old Council and
to confirm Kemp as Secretary.[306] But he was authorized to restore to
Matthews any part of his estate yet withheld from him, and to reopen in
the Virginia courts the case against Anthony Panton.[307] The day of
reckoning had now arrived. When Wyatt reached Virginia, he lost no time
in bringing Harvey to account for his misdeeds. He was arraigned before
the courts, where he was forced to answer countless complaints of
injustice and oppression, and to restore to their owners his ill gotten
gains. Kemp wrote, in March, 1640, that Sir John was being persecuted
with great rigor, that most of his estate had been confiscated, and at
the next court would assuredly be swept away.[308] A few weeks later
Harvey wrote to Secretary Windebank, to relate his misfortunes. "I am so
narrowly watched," he complained, "that I have scarce time of priviledge
for these few lines, which doe humbly crave of you to acquaint his
Majesty how much I groan under the oppressions of my prevayling enemies,
by whom the King's honor hath soe much suffered and who are now advanced
to be my judges, and have soe farr already proceeded against me as to
teare from me my estate by an unusuall way of inviting my creditors to
clamour." He wished to return to England, there to repair his fortunes
and seek revenge upon his enemies, but for some time he was detained in
Virginia. The new Governor thought best to keep him in the colony where
it would be difficult for him to plot against the administration. Harvey
wrote, "I am denyed my passage for England notwithstanding my many
infirmities and weaknesses of body doe crave advice and help beyond the
skill and judgment which this place can give."[309]
"Sir John being ... layed flatt," the Governor next turned his attention
to Kemp.[310] Sir Francis, who had strong reasons for hating the
Secretary, summoned him into court to explain his offenses against
Anthony Panton. Realizing that he had little hope of clearing himself,
Kemp sought to leave for England, but his enemies restrained him. "I am
extremely injured," he wrote in April, 1640, "and shall suffer without
guilt, unless my friends now assist me, ... the Governor and Council
here ... aim at my ruin."[311]
But Wyatt feared to retain Harvey and Kemp permanently in Virginia. Both
had powerful friends who might take the matter before the King or the
Privy Council. So, in the end, both made their way to England, taking
with them the charter and many important letters and records.[312] It
was now their turn to plot and intrigue to overthrow the party in
power.[313] And so quickly did their efforts meet success that before
Wyatt had been in office two years he was recalled and Sir William
Berkeley made Governor in his place.
FOOTNOTES:
[221] F. R., p. 556; Osg., Vol. III, p. 47.
[222] F. R., p. 574.
[223] F. R., p. 572.
[224] Osg., Vol. III, p. 50.
[225] Osg., Vol. III, p. 50.
[226] F. R., p. 584.
[227] F. R., p. 584.
[228] P. R. O., CO1-3.
[229] F. R., p. 584.
[230] F. R, p. 634.
[231] Osg., Vol. III, p. 74.
[232] F. R., p. 639.
[233] F. R., p. 640.
[234] F. R., p. 641.
[235] F. R., pp. 641, 642.
[236] F. R., p. 647.
[237] F. R., p. 648.
[238] F. R., p. 573.
[239] P. R. O., CO1-3-7.
[240] P. R. O., CO1-3-5.
[241] Hen., Vol. I, pp. 129, 130.
[242] F. R., p. 648; P. R. O., CO1-4.
[243] P. R. O., CO1-20.
[244] Bruce, Ec. Hist, Vol. I, p. 287.
[245] P. R. O, CO1-4.
[246] F. R., p. 647.
[247] P. R. O., CO1-4-18.
[248] Gen., p. 1047.
[249] Neill, Va. Co., p. 221.
[250] F. R., p. 568.
[251] F. R., p. 639.
[252] Fiske, Old Va., Vol. I, p. 252.
[253] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, p. 130.
[254] P. R. O., CO1-5-29.
[255] P. R. O., CO1-5.
[256] F. R., p. 644.
[257] P. R. O., CO1-5-31.
[258] P. R. O., CO1-5-32; Hen., Vol. I., p. 145.
[259] P. R. O., CO1-5; Hen., Vol. I, p. 146.
[260] P. R. O., CO1-5.
[261] P. R. O., CO1-5-32.
[262] P. R. O., CO1-5-33.
[263] P. R. O., CO1-5-33.
[264] P. R. O., CO1-6.
[265] P. R. O., CO1-6-34.
[266] P. R. O., CO1-6-35, 57.
[267] P. R. O., CO1-6-37.
[268] Fiske, Old Va., Vol. I, pp. 262, 263.
[269] P. R. O., CO1-6-39.
[270] P. R. O., CO1-6-39.
[271] P. R. O., CO1-6-46.
[272] P. R. O., CO1-6-46.
[273] P. R. O., CO1-6-52.
[274] P. R. O., CO1-6-46.
[275] P. R. O., CO1-8-60.
[276] Hen., Vol. I, p. 223.
[277] Bruce, Inst. Hist., Vol. II, p. 324.
[278] Hen., Vol. I, p. 264.
[279] Burk, Vol. II, pp. 28, 29.
[280] Hen., Vol. I, p. 124.
[281] P. R. O., CO1-8.
[282] P. R. O., CO1-8.
[283] P. R. O., CO1-8.
[284] P. R. O., CO1-8-63.
[285] P. R. O., CO1-8.
[286] P. R. O., CO1-8.
[287] P. R. O., CO1-8.
[288] P. R. O., CO1-8-48.
[289] P. R. O., CO1-8-61.
[290] P. R. O., CO1-8-62.
[291] P. R. O., CO1-8-61.
[292] Report of Com. on Hist. Mans. 3.
[293] P. R. O., CO1-10-14.
[294] P. R. O., CO1-9-121.
[295] P. R. O., CO1-9-121.
[296] P. R. O., CO1-10-6.
[297] P. R. O., CO1-10-6.
[298] Fiske, Old Va., Vol. I, p. 295.
[299] P. R. O., CO1-10-32.
[300] P. R. O., CO1-10-73.
[301] P. R. O., CO1-10-10.
[302] P. R. O., CO1-10-10.
[303] P. R. O., CO1-10-15.
[304] P. R. O., CO1-10-5.
[305] P. R. O., CO1-10-3.
[306] P. R. O., CO1-10-43.
[307] P. R. O., CO1-10-26, 32.
[308] P. R. O., CO1-10-61.
[309] P. R. O., CO1-10-67.
[310] P. R. O., CO1-10-64. 1.
[311] P. R. O., CO1-10-64.
[312] Report of Com. on Hist. Man., 3.
[313] Report of Com. on Hist. Man., 3.