GOVERNOR BERKELEY AND THE COMMONWEALTH
Sir William Berkeley, who succeeded Governor Wyatt in 1642, is one of
the striking figures of American colonial history. Impulsive, brave,
dogmatic, unrelenting, his every action is full of interest. He early
displayed a passionate devotion to the house of Stuart, which remained
unshaken amid the overthrow of the monarchy and the triumph of its
enemies. When the British Commons had brought the unhappy King to the
block, Berkeley denounced them as lawless tyrants and pledged his
allegiance to Charles II. And when the Commonwealth sent ships and men
to subdue the stubborn Governor, they found him ready, with his raw
colonial militia, to fight for the prince that England had repudiated.
Throughout his life his chief wish was to win the approbation of the
King, his greatest dread to incur his censure.
Berkeley did not know fear. When, in 1644, the savages came murdering
through the colony, it was he that led the planters into the forests to
seek revenge. In 1666, when a Dutch fleet sailed into the James and
captured a number of English vessels, the Governor wished to sally out
in person with a few merchantmen to punish their temerity.
He possessed many of the graces of the courtier, and seems to have
charmed, when he so desired, those with whom he came in contact. His
friends are most extravagant in his praises, and their letters refer to
him as the model soldier, statesman and gentleman.
The overthrow of Sir Francis Wyatt was a severe blow to the enemies of
the old Harvey faction. Anthony Panton entered a protest against the
change of administration, claiming that it had been brought about by
surreptitious means and that no just complaint could be made against
Governor Wyatt.[314] At his petition Berkeley was ordered to postpone
his departure for Virginia until the matter could be investigated
further. Upon signing an agreement, however, to protect the interests of
Wyatt and his friends, he was allowed to sail and reached the colony in
1642.
The new Governor soon showed that he had no intention of persecuting
Harvey's enemies, or of continuing the bitter quarrels of the preceding
administrations. In his first Council we find Samuel Matthews, William
Pierce and George Minifie, all of whom had been implicated in the
"thrusting out".[315] Whether proceeding under directions from the
English government, or actuated by a desire to rule legally and justly,
he conferred a priceless blessing upon the colony by refusing to use the
judiciary for political persecution. So far as we can tell there was no
case, during his first administration, in which the courts were
prostituted to personal or party ends. Thomas Ludwell afterwards
declared that it was a convincing evidence of Berkeley's prudence and
justice that after the surrender to the Commonwealth, when his enemies
might easily have hounded him to his ruin, "there was not one man that
either publickly or privately charged him with injustice".[316] In
March, 1643, he affixed his signature to a law allowing appeals from the
Quarter Courts to the Assembly. This right, which seems not to have been
acknowledged by Sir John Harvey, was of the very highest importance. It
gave to the middle class a share in the administration of justice and
afforded an effectual check upon the abuse of the courts by the Governor
and Council.
Berkeley greatly endeared himself to the poor planters by securing the
abolition of a poll tax that contributed to the payment of his own
salary.[317] "This," the Assembly declared, "is a benefit descending
unto us and our posterity which we acknowledge contributed to us by our
present Governor."[318] Berkeley also made an earnest effort to relieve
the burden of the poor by substituting for the levy upon tithables
"assessments proportioning in some measure payments according to mens
abilities and estates" But the colonial legislators soon found a just
distribution of the taxes a matter of great difficulty, and we are told
that the new measures, "through the strangeness thereof could not but
require much time of controverting and debating".[319] In 1648 the
experiment was abandoned and the old oppressive tax upon tithables
revived.[320]
During the first administration of Berkeley numerous other measures were
adopted tending to augment the liberty and prosperity of the people. In
1643 a law was passed prohibiting the Governor and Council from imposing
taxes without the consent of the Assembly.[321] At the same session
Berkeley assented to a statute exempting the Burgesses from arrest
during sessions of Assembly and for ten days after dissolution.[322] The
fees of the Secretary of State were limited and fixed in order to
prevent excessive and unjust charges by that officer.[323]
That the colonists were not insensible of the Governor's liberal conduct
is shown by their generosity to him on more than one occasion. In 1642
they presented him with an "orchard with two houses belonging to the
collony ... as a free and voluntary gift in consideration of many worthy
favours manifested towards the collony".[324] In 1643, when the war in
England caused the suspension of Berkeley's pensions and allowances from
the King, the Assembly voted a tax of two shillings per poll on all
tithable persons as a temporary relief.[325]
When Sir William assumed the government in 1642 he was conscious that an
effort was being made in England to restore the old London Company of
Virginia, and it became his first care to thwart this design. In 1639
George Sandys had been sent to England as the agent of the Assembly and
had presented a petition in the name of the Virginia planters, to the
House of Commons, for the restoration of the old corporation.[326] The
Assembly of April, 1642, called together by Berkeley, repudiated
entirely the action of their agent, declaring that he had misunderstood
his instructions. The renewal of the Company, they said, was never
"desired, sought after or endeavoured to be sought for either directly
or indirectly by the consent of any Grand Assembly or the common consent
of the people". They drew up a petition to the King, expressing their
desire to remain under his immediate care and protection, citing the
many blessings of the present order of government, and drawing the most
melancholy picture of their sufferings before the revocation of the
charter. "The present happiness," they said, "is exemplified to us by
the freedom of yearly assemblies warranted unto us by his majesties
gratious instructions, and the legal trial per juries in all criminal
and civil causes where it shall be demanded."[327]
This declaration of loyalty and contentment, reaching Charles at a time
when so many of his subjects were rising in rebellion against his
authority, was most pleasing to the unfortunate monarch. "Your
acknowledgement," he replied to the Governor and the Assembly, "of our
grace, bounty, and favour, towards you, and your so earnest desire to
continue under our immediate protection, is very acceptable to us."
"And," he continued, "as we had not before the least intention to
consent to the introduction of any company over that our Colony, we are
by it much confirmed in our resolution, as thinking it unfit to change a
form of government wherein our subjects there ... receive much
contentment and satisfaction".[328]
In the early years of Berkeley's administration the colony experienced
another horrible Indian massacre. As in 1622 the blow came without
warning. The cruel and barbarous war that followed the first massacre
had long since come to an end and for many years there had been peace
between the two races. It is true that the friendly relations that
resulted from the marriage of Rolfe and Pocahontas had not been
restored, that the Indians were not allowed to frequent the English
settlements, that no weapons were sold them, but the peace was fairly
well observed and there was no reason to suspect the savages of
treachery.
The plot originated in the brain of Opechancanough. This remarkable
savage was long supposed to have been the brother of Powhatan, but newly
discovered evidence tends to show that this was not the case. It is
known that he belonged to a foreign tribe that came from the far
southwest. Having, it is supposed, been defeated in a battle with the
Spaniards, he had led his people to Virginia and united them with the
tribes under the command of Powhatan. This tremendous march must have
consumed many months, and have been beset with countless dangers, but
Opechancanough overcame them, and "conquered all along from Mexico" to
Virginia.[329] He was now an extremely aged man. Being unable to walk he
was carried from place to place upon a litter. His eyelids were so heavy
that he could not of his own volition move them, and attendants stood
always ready to raise them whenever it became necessary for him to
see.[330] But his mind was clear, his force of will unshaken, and the
Indians paid him the reverent obedience that his able leadership
demanded.
Opechancanough planned the massacre for April 18th, 1644, and it was
carried out upon that date with the utmost ferocity.[331] The slaughter
was even greater than in 1622, and no less than five hundred Christians
are said to have been destroyed.[332] But this calamity fell almost
entirely upon the frontier counties at the heads of the great rivers,
and upon the plantations on the south side of the James. The savages
could not penetrate to the older and more populous communities of the
lower peninsula. For this reason the disaster, horrible as it was, did
not overwhelm the entire colony and threaten its destruction as had the
massacre of 1622.
Another deadly war with the savages ensued immediately. Sir William
Berkeley several times placed himself at the head of large expeditions
and carried fire and destruction to many Indian villages.[333] As in the
former war, the naked and poorly armed natives could not withstand the
English, and, deserting their homes, they usually fled into the woods at
their approach. And again the white men brought famine upon them by
going out each year in the months of July and August to cut down their
growing maize.[334] In order to protect the isolated frontier
plantations the Governor ordered the people to draw together in
fortified camps, strong enough to resist the assaults of a large body of
the savages.[335] "He strengthened the weak Families," it was said, "by
joining two or three ... together and Palizaded the houses about."[336]
Despite these wise measures the savages would probably have continued
the war many years had not Opechancanough fallen into the hands of the
English. The old king was surprised by Sir William Berkeley, and,
because of his decrepitude, was easily captured.[337] He was taken in
triumph to Jamestown, where the Governor intended to keep him until he
could be sent to England and brought before Charles I. But a few days
after the capture, a common soldier, in revenge for the harm done the
colony by Opechancanough, shot the aged and helpless prisoner in the
back.[338]
Soon after this event the Indians sued for peace. Discouraged and
starving, they promised to become the friends and allies of the whites
forever, if they would cease their hostility and grant them their
protection. A treaty was drawn up and ratified by the Assembly and by
the new Indian king Necotowance.[339] It provided that the savages
should acknowledge the King of England as their sovereign and overlord;
that Necotowance and his successors should pay as tribute "the number of
twenty beaver skins at the goeing of the Geese yearly"; that all the
land between the York and the James from the falls of both rivers to
Kecoughtan should be ceded to the English; that all white prisoners and
escaped negroes should be returned. In compensation the English agreed
to protect the savages from the attacks of their enemies and to resign
to them as their hunting ground the territory north of the York
River.[340] This peace, which was most beneficial to the colony, was not
broken until 1676, when the incursions of the wild Susquehannocks
involved the native Virginia tribes in a new conflict with the white
men.[341]
During the civil war that was at this time convulsing England most of
the influential Virginia planters adhered to the party of the King. They
were, with rare exceptions, members of the established church, and could
have little sympathy with a movement that was identified with
dissenters. If the triumph of Parliament was to bring about the
disestablishment of the Church, or even the toleration of Presbyterians
and Independents, they could not give them their support. Moreover,
loyalty to the House of Stuart was strong in Virginia. The very
remoteness of the planters from the King increased their reverence and
love. They could not be present at court to see the monarch in all his
human weakness, so there was nothing to check their loyal imaginations
from depicting him as the embodiment of princely perfection. Nor had the
wealthy families of the colony aught to anticipate of economic or
political gain in the triumph of Parliament. Possessed of large estates,
monopolizing the chief governmental offices, wielding a great influence
over the Assembly and the courts, and looking forward to a future of
prosperity and power, they could not risk their all upon the uncertain
waters of revolution. Some, no doubt, sympathized with the efforts that
were being made in England to limit the King's power of taxing the
people, for the colony had always contained its quota of liberals, but
the dictates of self-interest must have lulled them into quiescence. And
the Governor, in this hour of need, proved a veritable rock of loyalty
for the King. None that showed leanings towards the cause of Parliament
could expect favors of any kind from Sir William Berkeley. Moreover, if
they spoke too loudly of the rights of the people and of the tyranny of
monarchs, they might find themselves under arrest and charged with
treason.
But there was another faction in Virginia, composed largely of small
planters and freedmen, which sympathized with the aims of their fellow
commons of the mother country. Prominent among these must have been a
small number of Virginia Puritans, who had for some years been subjected
to mild persecution. The overwhelming sentiment of the colony had long
been for strict uniformity in the Church "as neere as may be to the
canons in England", and several statutes had been passed by the Assembly
to suppress the Quakers and Puritans.[342] In 1642, Richard Bennett and
others of strong Calvinistic leanings, sent letters to Boston requesting
that Puritan ministers be sent to Virginia, to minister to their
non-conformist congregations.[343] The New Englanders responded readily,
despatching to their southern friends three ministers of
distinction--William Thompson, John Knowles and Thomas James. Despite
the laws against non-conformity these men anticipated little
interference with their work and even brought letters of introduction
from Governor Winthrop to Sir William Berkeley.[344] Little did they
know the temper of the new Virginia Governor. So far from welcoming this
Puritan invasion Berkeley determined to meet it with measures of stern
repression. A bill was put through the Assembly requiring all ministers
within the colony to conform to the "orders and constitutions of the
church of England", both in public and in private worship, and directing
the Governor and Council to expel all dissenters from the country.[345]
Disheartened at this unfriendly reception, James and Knowles soon
returned to New England, leaving Thompson to carry on the work. This
minister, in defiance of the law, lingered long in Virginia, preaching
often and making many converts.
Among those that embraced the Calvinistic tenets at this time was Thomas
Harrison, formerly Berkeley's chaplain. Harrison seems to have regarded
the massacre of 1644 as a judgment of God upon the colonists for their
persecution of the Puritans. His desertion of the established Church
aroused both the anger and the alarm of the Governor and in 1648 he was
expelled from his parish for refusing to use the Book of Common Prayer.
Later he left the colony for New England.
This persecution, although not severe enough to stamp out dissent in
Virginia, could but arouse among the Puritans a profound dissatisfaction
with the existing government, and a desire to coöperate with their
brethren of England in the great contest with the King. Although not
strong enough to raise the Parliamentary standard in the colony and to
seek religious freedom at the sword's point, the Puritans formed a
strong nucleus for a party of opposition to the King and his Governor.
Moreover, in addition to the comparatively small class of Puritans,
there must have been in the colony hundreds of men, loyal to the
established church, who yet desired a more liberal government both in
England and in Virginia. A strong middle class was developing which must
have looked with sympathy upon the cause of the English Commons and with
jealousy upon the power of the Virginia Governor and his Council. There
is positive evidence that many poor men had been coming to Virginia from
very early times, paying their own passage and establishing themselves
as peasant proprietors. Wills still preserved show the existence at this
period of many little farms of five or six hundred acres, scattered
among the great plantations of the wealthy. They were tilled, not by
servants or by slaves, but by the freemen that owned them. Depending for
food upon their own cattle, hogs, corn, fruit and vegetables, and for
the other necessities of life upon their little tobacco crops, the poor
farmers of Virginia were developing into intelligent and useful
citizens. They constituted the backbone of a distinct and powerful
middle class, which even at this early period, had to be reckoned with
by aristocracy and Governor and King.
This section of the population was constantly being recruited from the
ranks of the indentured servants. The plantations of the rich were
tilled chiefly by bonded laborers, brought from the mother country. So
long as land was plentiful in Virginia the chief need of the wealthy was
for labor. Wage earners could not supply this need, for the poor man
would not till the fields of others when he could have land of his own
almost for the asking. So the planters surmounted this difficulty by
bringing workmen to the colony under indenture, to work upon their farms
for a certain number of years. Many a poor Englishman, finding the
struggle for existence too severe at home, thus surrendered for a while
his liberty, that in the end he might acquire a share in the good things
of the New World. After serving his master five or six years the servant
usually was given his liberty and with it fifty acres of land and a few
farm implements. Thus equipped, he could, with industry and frugality,
acquire property and render himself a useful citizen in his adopted
country. There can be no doubt that many hundreds of former servants,
become prosperous, did unite with the free immigrants of humble means to
form a vigorous middle class.
Nothing could be more natural than that the small farmers should regard
Parliament as the champion of the poor Englishman at home and in the
colony. They knew full well that if Charles should triumph over the
Commons, his victory would mean greater power for their Governor,
greater privilege for the wealthy planters. On the other hand, the
King's defeat might bring increased influence to the middle class and to
the Burgesses.
It is not possible to determine how numerous was the Parliamentary party
in Virginia, but the faction was powerful enough to cause serious
apprehension to the loyalists. So bitter was the feeling that fears of
assassination were entertained for Sir William Berkeley, and a guard of
ten men was granted him. We are "sensible", declared the Assembly, in
1648, "of the many disaffections to the government from a schismaticall
party, of whose intentions our native country of England hath had and
yet hath too sad experience".[346]
But the commons of Virginia were not prepared to raise the standard of
revolt. They must have lacked organization and leaders. Most of the
aristocracy and wealth of Virginia was arrayed against them, while the
government was in the hands of a man noted for his passionate attachment
to the Throne. The Parliamentary party must have felt it best to await
the event of the struggle in England, pinning their hopes upon the
success of their comrades there. But even after Parliament had won the
victory, after the King had been executed, they were not strong enough
to overthrow Berkeley's government and force Virginia into obedience to
the Commonwealth.
The news of the death of Charles I filled the royalists of Virginia with
grief and anger. It seemed to them that the cause of law and order and
religion in the unhappy kingdom had fallen with their monarch. Moreover,
they could but expect the victorious party, after settling all at home,
to extend their arms to the little colony and force upon them a
reluctant obedience to the new government. But the intrepid Berkeley was
determined never to submit until compelled to do so by force of arms.
Charles II was proclaimed King. The Assembly was called together and a
law enacted declaring it high treason to question, even by insinuation,
the "undoubted & inherent right of his Majesty ... to the Collony of
Virginia, and all other his majesties dominions".[347] The Assembly
referred to Charles I in terms of reverence and affection, as their late
blessed and sainted King, and, unmindful of consequences, denounced his
executioners as lawless tyrants. For any person to cast dishonor or
censure upon the fallen monarch, or to uphold in any way the proceedings
against him, or to assert the legality of his dethronement, was declared
by the Assembly high treason. "And it is also enacted," they continued,
"that what person soever, by false reports and malicious rumors shall
spread abroad, among the people, any thing tending to change of
government, ... such persons, not only the authors of ... but the
reporters and divulgers thereof, shall be adjudged guilty."[348]
Even before the news of these events reached England, Sir William had
aroused the anger of Parliament by his persecution of the Puritans. Some
of the people of Nansemond county had written, complaining of the
banishment of Mr. Harrison, whom they described as an able minister and
a man of splendid character. The English Council wrote Berkeley
commanding him to restore Mr. Harrison to his parish. "Wee know," they
said, "you cannot be ignorant that the use of the common prayer book is
prohibited by the parliament of England."[349] And when they learned
that the colony had refused to acknowledge the Commonwealth, and still
adhered to the House of Stuart, they were determined to punish the
Virginians for their temerity. Since it would be exceedingly
inconvenient at this time of uncertainty and change to send an
expedition across the Atlantic, it was decided to bring the colonists to
their senses by cutting off their foreign trade. An act was passed by
Parliament in October, 1650, declaring that since the colony had been
settled by the English at great cost to the nation, it should rightly be
under the authority of the present government; that divers persons in
Virginia had committed open treason, "traytorously by force and
Subtilty" usurping the government and defying the Commonwealth; and in
order to repress speedily the rebellious colonists and to inflict upon
them a merited punishment, they were to be forbidden all "Commerce or
Traffique with any people Whatsoever". The full force of the English
navy was to be used in carrying out this act, and all commanders were
directed to seize and bring in foreign vessels found trading with the
colony. No English ships were to sail for Virginia without special
license from the Council of State.[350]
This was a dire threat indeed. To cut off all commerce with England and
foreign countries would bring utter ruin upon the planters, for their
tobacco crop would then be without a market. Even now, however, the
Governor did not falter in his loyalty. He felt, no doubt, that
Parliament would have difficulty in enforcing this act, and he looked to
the Dutch merchantmen to take off the tobacco.
Before an Assembly called together in March, 1651, Berkeley delivered an
address ringing with defiance of Parliament "Gentlemen," he said, "you
perceave by the Declaration that the men of Westminster have set out,
... how they meane to deale with you hereafter.... Indeed me thinks they
might have proposed something to us which might have strengthened us to
beare those heavy chaines they are making ready for us, though it were
but an assurance that we shall eat the bread for which our owne Oxen
plow, and with our owne sweat we reape; but this assurance (it seems)
were a franchise beyond the Condition they have resolv'd on the Question
we ought to be in: For the reason why they talk so Magisterially to us
is this, we are forsooth their worships slaves, bought with their money
and by consequence ought not to buy, or sell but with those they shall
Authorize with a few trifles to Coszen us of all for which we toile and
labour.... The strength of their argument runs onely thus: we have laid
violent hands on your Land-lord, possessed his Manner house where you
used to pay your rents, therefore now tender your respects to the same
house you once reverenced.... They talke indeed of money laid out in
this country in its infancy. I will not say how little, nor how Centuply
repaid, but will onely aske, was it theirs? They who in the beginning of
this warr were so poore, & indigent, that the wealth and rapines of
three Kingdomes & their Churches too cannot yet make rich."
The Governor then began an impassioned appeal to the Assembly to remain
firm in their loyalty to the Crown. "Surely Gentlemen," he cried, "we
are more slaves by nature, than their power can make us if we suffer
ourselves to be shaken with these paper bulletts, & those on my life are
the heaviest they either can or will send us.... You have heard under
what heavy burthens the afflicted English Nation now groans, and calls
to heaven for relief: how new and formerly unheard of impositions make
the wifes pray for barrenness and their husbands deafnes to exclude the
cryes of their succourles, starving children.... Consider your selves
how happy you are and have been, how the Gates of wealth and Honour are
shut to no man, and that there is not here an Arbitrary hand that dares
to touch the substance of either poore or rich: But that which I woud
have you chiefly consider with thankfullnes is: That God hath separated
you from the guilt of the crying bloud of our Pious Souveraigne of ever
blessed memory: But mistake not Gentlemen part of it will yet stain your
garments if you willingly submit to those murtherers hands that shed it;
I tremble to thinke how the oathes they will impose will make those
guilty of it, that have long abhor'd the traiterousnesse of the act....
Gentlemen by the Grace of God we will not so tamely part with our King,
and all these blessings we enjoy under him; and if they oppose us, do
but follow me, I will either lead you to victory, or lose a life which I
cannot more gloriously sacrifice then for my loyalty, and your
security."[351]
When the Governor had completed his appeal the obnoxious act of
Parliament was read aloud. The Assembly then passed a series of
resolutions, reiterating their loyalty to the Crown, denouncing the
Commons as usurpers and regicides, and defending themselves against the
charge of treachery and rebellion. They had, they declared, adhered
always to the "Lawes of England", which enjoined upon them the oaths of
allegiance and supremacy, and they refused now, at the bidding of
Parliament, to break their word by renouncing their King. They could not
be expected to give passive obedience to every party that possessed
themselves of Westminster Hall, where the heads of divers factions had
followed each other in quick succession. They had been accused of
usurping the government of the colony, but their records would show that
they had never swerved from their allegiance. And it ill became the
Parliament that had overthrown the English constitution to bring such
accusations. Finally, they declared, "we are resolv'd to Continue our
Allegeance to our most Gratious King, yea as long as his gratious favour
permits us, we will peaceably trade with the Londoners, and all other
nations in amity with our Soveraigne: Protect all forraigne Merchants
with our utmost force in our Capes: Allwaies pray for the happy
restoration of our King, and repentance in them, who to the hazard of
their soules have opposed him."[352]
As Berkeley had foreseen, the English found it impossible to enforce a
strict blockade. The government could not spare war vessels enough to
close the Virginia capes, and foreign merchantmen continued to sail
unmolested into the James and the York, bringing goods to the planters
and taking off their tobacco. Indeed the Dutch took advantage of this
quarrel between colony and mother country to extend their American
trade at the expense of the English merchants. The Council of State was
soon made to realize by the complaints that poured in from the London
shippers, that the "Blockade Act" was injuring England more than the
refractory colony.
At this moment, several leaders of the Virginia Parliamentary party came
to the Council at Westminster and represented to it the necessity of
fitting out an expedition to overthrow the Berkeley government. They
could plead that the blockade had proved ineffective, that the honor of
the Commonwealth demanded the prompt subjection of the impudent
Governor, that the coöperation of the Virginia commons would make the
task easy. Nor could they omit to remind the Councillors that it was
their duty to bring relief to their fellow Puritans of Virginia.
At all events the Council, seeing the necessity of prompt action, sent
forth a well armed expedition under the command of Captain Robert Denis
to subdue both the Barbadoes and Virginia. But wishing to avoid, if
possible, open hostilities, at the same time they sent commissioners to
treat with the colonists and persuade them to submit peaceably to the
Commonwealth. The Council of State evidently expected active assistance
from the Parliamentary party in the colony in these efforts to establish
the new political order, for they gave directions to the commissioners
to raise troops in the plantations, to appoint captains and other
officers, and to guarantee freedom to all servants that volunteered to
fight with the Commonwealth forces. They were given power to grant
pardon to all that submitted, making such exceptions as they thought
proper, and were directed to establish a new government in accord with
the present constitution of England.
When, in the spring of 1652, the British fleet sailed up the James
river, Captain Denis found the intrepid Berkeley prepared for a
strenuous resistance. With the guns of the warships approaching his
capital, with English soldiers ready for a landing, with a strong party
in the colony in sympathy with the invaders, he might well have
despaired. Resistance would certainly entail enormous misfortunes upon
the colony--bloodshed, devastation, civil strife--and success could be
but temporary. Should he beat off the present expedition, others too
powerful to be resisted would undoubtedly follow, and the punishment of
the colony would be but the more severe.
Yet the Governor did not falter. He called around him the full strength
of the colonial militia, posted them to good advantage, and himself took
active command. Several Dutch vessels that had been trading in the James
were pressed into service, filled with men and moored in close to
Jamestown, with their guns trained upon the approaching enemy. Behind
them were several land batteries. The whole made an imposing appearance,
and might well have given apprehension to the invaders.
Fortunately, however, the threatened conflict was averted by the
persuasion of the Parliamentary commissioners. These men, anxious to
avoid civil war, availed themselves of the authority given them by the
Council of State, to offer very lenient terms of surrender. Some of them
seem to have preceded the fleet to Virginia, to consult with their
friends and to formulate plans to render the Governor's resistance
ineffectual. It is not improbable that these efforts were seconded by
some of the most prominent men of the colony. Two members of the Council
itself, it is said, who possessed goods of great value upon vessels in
the fleet, received warning that their property would be at once
confiscated, if they gave their support to the Governor. They therefore
were constrained to advocate submission. With division in the ranks of
the colonists and with the invaders ready for action, even Berkeley was
at last forced to give way and consent to a capitulation.
The terms of surrender were drawn up at Jamestown and agreed to by the
commissioners on the one hand, and by the Governor, Council and
Burgesses on the other. It was agreed first, that Virginia should
acknowledge its due allegiance to the Commonwealth of England, and "to
the lawes there established". This submission, it was declared, was "a
voluntary act, not forced nor constrained by a conquest upon the
country".[353] It was also stipulated "that the people of Virginia have
free trade as the people of England do enjoy to all places and with all
nations according to the lawes of that commonwealth". Even more
interesting was the agreement "that Virginia shall be free from all
taxes, customs and impositions whatsoever, and none to be imposed on
them without consent of the Grand Assembly, and soe that neither fforts
nor castles bee erected or garrisons maintained without their consent".
When these terms of surrender were reported to the English government,
Parliament thought that the commissioners had been too liberal in their
concessions, and some of the articles were not ratified.
The commissioners granted full pardon and indemnity for all "acts, words
or writeings done or spoken against the parliament" and any persons
refusing to take the oath of allegiance to the new government were given
"a yeares time ... to remove themselves and their estates out of
Virginia". The use of the Book of Common Prayer was permitted for one
year in the parishes that so desired, and no ministers were deprived of
their charges or their livings.[354]
Separate articles were drawn up between the commissioners and the
Governor and Council. Neither Berkeley nor the Councillors were to be
compelled, during the ensuing twelve months, to take the oath of
allegiance. They were not to be censured for speaking well in private of
the King. They were given leave to sell all their property and to quit
the country without molestation. They were permitted to send a message
to Charles II, giving an account of the surrender.[355]
The commissioners were now confronted with the all-important task of
establishing a new government. They had been given power by the Council
of State to hold an election of Burgesses granting the franchise to all
who had taken the oath of allegiance. Feeling, doubtless, a reluctance
to assume the entire responsibility of moulding a new constitution, they
resolved to wait until the Burgesses assembled and to consult with them
in all their measures. The election was held without delay, and the
members were sworn in on April 26th, 1652.
The Burgesses and the commissioners then entered upon a long and serious
debate concerning "the settling and governing of Virginia".[356] The
English Council had not, it would seem, given specific directions in
regard to this work, so the members of the little constitutional
convention were practically at liberty to do what they chose. Realizing,
however, that all might be changed if it proved unsatisfactory to
Parliament, they proceeded cautiously. Their chief concern was to
establish a tentative government that would prevent present confusion
and could later be perfected by the Council of State. It so happened,
however, that the English, amid the confusion of the times, neglected to
attend to this matter, and the work of the convention remained
essentially unaltered throughout the Commonwealth period.
The House of Burgesses, since it had been officially recognized by the
Council of State, was made the chief governing body of the colony.
Except for the veto of the English government its power was to be
unlimited. It was to elect the Governor and to specify his duties. If
his administration proved unsatisfactory it might remove him from
office. The Burgesses were also to elect the Council, to prescribe its
functions and limit its power. This proud body, which had formerly been
so powerful, was now to exist only on the suffrage of the House. It was
even debated whether Councillors should be admitted to membership in the
General Assembly. The appointment of all officials was also to
"appertain to the Burgesses, the representatives of the people", but it
was agreed that for the present most of the first nominations should be
left to the Governor and the commissioners.[357]
Thus did Virginia become in all but name a republic. In England, the
long cherished hope of the patriots for liberty was to be disappointed
by the usurpation of Oliver Cromwell, and the victory of Parliament over
the stubborn Charles was to result only in the substitution of one
despot for another. But the commons of Virginia, although they had
played an insignificant role in the great drama of the times, were to
reap the reward which was denied their cousins of England. Their
government for the next eight years was to be truly representative of
the people. Nor did the English government often interfere with their
affairs. Busy with his numerous wars and with the cares of
administration, the Protector never found time to acquaint himself
thoroughly with what was happening in Virginia. In 1653, and again in
1658, Cromwell promised to make some definite regulations for the
government of the colony, but he was interrupted on each occasion before
he could put his resolutions into effect. That it was his intention,
however, to keep the appointment of the Governor in his own hands seems
certain. In 1654 the Assembly received word that his Highness had
decided then to continue Colonel Bennett, of whose good character he had
heard, in the execution of his office, until he could further signify
his pleasure. In 1657, the Council of State requested Cromwell to
appoint some person to go to Virginia as its Governor, but this he
failed to do.[358] With the exception of such spasmodic interruptions as
these, and the partial enforcement of the Navigation Acts, the colony
was left almost to its own devices throughout the Commonwealth period.
By the unanimous vote of the commissioners and the Burgesses Mr. Richard
Bennett was made Governor. This choice must have been satisfactory both
to the English government and the Parliamentary party in the colony. Mr.
Bennett had been one of the few prominent Virginia Puritans and had left
the colony during the persecution of dissenters by Sir William Berkeley.
As a member of the commission he had been instrumental in bringing about
the surrender and saving the colony from civil war. It was agreed that
he should serve for one year, "or untill the next meeting of the
Assembly", but as his administration proved most satisfactory he was
continued in office by Cromwell until March 31st, 1655.[359]
The new government, however, was not to be established entirely without
disorder and strife. In the interval between the surrender and the
assembling of the Burgesses affairs on the Eastern Shore assumed a
threatening aspect. The people of Northampton, many of whom seem
formerly to have been favorable to the Commonwealth, became ill affected
to the new régime, even before it was well begun. A number of things
conspired to bring about this change. Among the inhabitants of
Northampton were a number of Dutch who had settled there during the
preceding decade. When war broke out between Holland and England in 1652
it was rumored that these people were conspiring with the Indians to
bring about another massacre in Virginia. Groundless as these suspicions
were, they infuriated the English and caused grave fears for the safety
of the Dutch planters. When the justices of the peace took precautions
to protect the unfortunate foreigners their action caused discontent and
bitterness against the new government. Moreover, the Navigation Acts,
recently passed by Parliament, restricting foreign trade would, if
enforced, prove especially damaging to the people of the Eastern Shore.
Finally, Northampton had not been represented in the Assembly since
1647, except for one Burgess in 1651, and the belief had sprung up that
the county was to become independent of the government at Jamestown. For
various reasons, therefore, Northampton was hostile to the government.
And when the Parliamentary commissioners imposed upon them a tax of
forty-six pounds of tobacco per poll, the people of the county voiced
their anger in no uncertain terms, and selected a committee of six to
draw up a statement of their grievances and present it to the new
Assembly.
"Wee," they protested, "the Inhabitants of Northampton Countie doe
complanye that from tyme to tyme wee have been submitted & bine obedient
unto the paymt of publeq taxacons. Butt after ye yeare 1647, since yt
tyme wee Conceive & have found that ye taxes were very weightie. But in
a more espetiall manner ... the taxacon of fforty sixe pounds of tobacco
p. poll (this present yeare). And desire yt ye same bee taken off ye
charge of ye Countie; furthermore wee alledge that after 1647, wee did
understand & suppose or Countie or Northampton to be disioynted &
sequestered from ye rest of Virginia. Therefore that Llawe wch requireth
& inioyneth Taxacons from us to bee Arbitrarye & illegall; fforasmuch as
wee had neither summons for Ellecon of Burgesses nor voyce in their
Assemblye (during the time aforesd) but only the Singular Burgess in
September, Ano., 1651. Wee conceive that wee may Lawfullie ptest agt the
pceedings in the Act of Assemblie for publiq Taxacons wch have relacon
to Northmton Countie since ye year 1647."[360]
Thus early in the history of the colony was enunciated the principle
that taxation without representation is unjust and illegal. The men of
Northampton do not speak of the doctrine as something new, but as a
thing understood and recognized. Certain it is that the people of
Virginia, in all periods of their colonial history, realized the vast
importance of confining the power of taxation to their own Assembly.
But the leaders of the new government did not receive the petition with
favor. They were willing to give Northampton her due quota of Burgesses,
but they were angered at the suggestion of separation. Moreover, the
disorders on the Eastern Shore became more pronounced and the justices
were compelled to seek aid from the Council in protecting the Dutch. In
June, 1653, the turbulent people met and, amid scenes of disorder,
denounced the action of the authorities. When a voice from the crowd
cried out that the justices were a "company of asses and villyanes", the
people roared out their approval. The Assembly, at its meeting in June,
1653, was forced to take active steps to suppress the agitation and to
restore order upon the peninsula. Mr. Bennett with several members of
the Assembly, was sent to Northampton, "for the settlement of the peace
of that countie, and punishinge delinquents". In this he seems to have
been entirely successful, for we hear no more of disorders upon the
Eastern Shore during this period.[361]
When the commissioners and the Burgesses, in 1652, established anew the
gubernatorial office, they were somewhat vague in defining the duties
belonging to it. They first declared that Mr. Bennett was to exercise
"all the just powers and authorities that may belong to that place
lawfully".[362] But that it was not their intention to give the new
officer the prerogatives enjoyed by the royal Governor is shown by their
further statement that he was to have such power only as should be
granted him from time to time by the Assembly.[363] This lack of
clearness led, quite naturally, to several clashes between the
legislative and executive branches of the government.
At the session of Assembly of July, 1653, the Burgesses showed that they
would brook no interference from the Governor with their affairs. On the
eve of the election of the Speaker, they received a message from Mr.
Bennett and the Council advising them not to choose a certain
Lieutenant-Colonel Chiles. Although it was clearly shown that this
gentleman could not serve with propriety, the Burgesses gave him the
election, merely, it would seem, as a rebuke to the presumption of the
Governor.[364]
Edward Digges, who succeeded Mr. Bennett, seems to have had no clash
with the Assembly, but during the next administration, when Samuel
Matthews was Governor, the executive made a determined effort to break
the power of the Burgesses. At the session of 1658, the Governor and the
Council sent a message to the Assembly declaring that body
dissolved.[365] This move startled the Burgesses. The royal Governors
had always possessed the right of dissolving the House, but no such
authority had been delegated to the new executive. Moreover, it was
inconsistent with the theory, upon which everyone had acted since the
surrender in 1652, that all power resided in the representatives of the
people. "The said disolution," replied the House, "as the case standeth
is not presidentall neither legall according to the lawes, now in force,
Therefore wee humbly desire a revocation of the said declaration."[366]
Although the Burgesses replied thus courteously they were deeply
angered. Rightly judging this to be a challenge to their power, they
resolved to show once more that they were supreme in the government.
They voted, therefore, to ignore the dissolution. And it was ordered
that if any member left his seat he was to be censured "as a person
betraying the trust reposed in him by his country".[367] An oath of
secrecy was administered to all present, while the Speaker was directed
to "sign nothing without the consent of the major part of the house".
Staggered by the determined attitude of the Burgesses, the Governor and
Council at once showed signs of weakening. They were willing, they said,
to allow the Assembly to continue its deliberations, provided the work
were brought to a speedy conclusion. The "dispute of the power of
disolving and the legality thereof" they wished to refer to the Lord
Protector. But the House resolved unanimously that this answer was
unsatisfactory. The withdrawal of the dissolution was not enough, the
Governor and Council must acknowledge that their act was illegal and
therefore had never taken effect. "The House, unsatisfied with these
answers, appointed a committee to draw up a report for the manifestation
and vindication of the Assembly's power which after presentation to the
House to be sent to the Governour and Councell."[368] This committee
recommended the immediate dismissal of the Council, and proposed
resolutions declaring the "power of government to reside in such persons
as shall be impowered by the Burgesses (the representatives of the
people) who are not dissolvable by any power now extant in Virginia, but
the House of Burgesses". Upon receiving this report the House proceeded
to annul "all former election of Governour and Councill". Since the
executive had presumed to abuse its authority by defying the body that
had appointed it to office, it must be removed to evince to all the
supremacy of the House. The Burgesses seem not to have laid the blame
for this crisis upon the Governor, but upon some of the Councillors, who
were endeavoring to make their own power supreme in the government.
Colonel Matthews was, therefore, reëlected, and invested with "all just
rights and privileges belonging to the Governour and Captain Generall of
Virginia".[369]
Fearing that the Council might offer resistance to their decrees, the
Burgesses commanded the serjeant-at-arms of the Assembly and the
sheriffs of James City county not to execute any warrant, precept or
command from any other person than the Speaker of the House. The
Secretary of State, Colonel William Claiborne, was directed to deliver
up the public records. But the Governor and Council seem not to have
thought of resistance, and submitted to the recall and to a new election
by the Assembly. Although they had just resolved that "for the future
none bee admitted a councellor but such who shall be nominated,
appointed and confirmed by the house", the Burgesses now allowed the
Governor to propose to them a list of names for the new Council. It
would seem that Nathaniel Bacon and Francis Willis were regarded as the
instigators of the dissolution, for they were the only members of the
Council which had signed the offensive order who were not now
reëlected.[370]
When the Assembly met again, in March, 1659, it found that its supremacy
was once more threatened. A letter had been received from Henry
Lawrence, President of the Council of State in the home government,
which seemed to imply that the Governor and his Council and not the
Burgesses, were to hold the chief power in Virginia. Lawrence declared
that the "looseness" of affairs in the colony had induced Cromwell to
take active steps for the settlement of its constitution, but that these
measures had been brought to a sudden halt by the Lord Protector's
death. The matter was, however, still before the Council of State, and
the colony might soon expect some definite orders from its
deliberations. In the meanwhile, he wrote, "their Lordships do will and
require you the present Governour and Councill there to apply yourselves
... to the peaceable and orderly management of the affairs of that
collony, according to such good lawes and customes as have been
heretofore used and exercised among you".[371]
The Burgesses were deeply agitated by this letter. They at once passed
resolutions promising to obey the commands of the Council of State, but
they determined to write the new Lord Protector, Richard Cromwell,
asking that the privileges of the Burgesses be confirmed. In this crisis
the Governor gave striking evidence of his liberal inclinations by
coming before the House to promise them his support. "He acknowledged
the supream power of electing officers to be by the present lawes
resident in the Grand Assembly", and offered to "joyne his best
assistance with the countrey in makeing an addresse to his Highnesse for
confirmation of their present priviledges".[372]
In the meanwhile an act was prepared making some important changes in
the constitution, but confirming the power of the Burgesses. It was
proposed, first, that Colonel Matthews "bee the Governour and Captain
Gennerall of Virginia for two yeares ensueing, and then the Grand
Assembly to elect a Governour as they think fitt, the person elect being
then one of the Councell". The personnel of the Council was to remain
unchanged and for the future its members were to serve for life, "except
in case of high misdemanors". Lastly the Governor was to have the
privilege of nominating the Councillors, but the Burgesses could confirm
or reject at their discretion.[373] The Council at first assented to
these proposals, "till the pleasure of his Highness be further
signified", but later, it seems, they "expressly declined the said act",
and declared the Assembly dissolved.[374] Whether or not the Burgesses
submitted to this dissolution and left the Governor and Council to
govern the colony as they chose, does not appear. It is quite probable
that the executive, in the interval between the sessions of Assembly of
March 1659 and March 1660, based its right to rule, not upon the
commission of the Burgesses, but upon the authority given it in
Lawrence's letter.
In May, 1659, Richard Cromwell resigned the reigns of government, and
England was left a prey to confusion and uncertainty. The Virginians did
not know to what government to give their allegiance. None could tell
whether military despotism would be established in England, or another
Cromwell would arise, or the House of Stuart be restored. To add to
their troubles, in January, 1660, Colonel Matthews died, leaving them
without a Governor. March 13th, the Assembly convened.
The Burgesses at once took steps to reëstablish their questioned
prerogatives. An act was passed declaring that "whereas by reason of
the late frequent distractions there being in England noe resident
absolute and gen'll confessed power; Be it enacted and confirmed, That
the supreame power of the government of this country should be resident
in the Assembly, And that all writts issue in the name of the Grand
Assembly of Virginia, until such a comand and comission come out of
England as shall be by the Assembly adjudged lawfull".[375]
Their next care was to elect a new Governor. Strangely enough their
choice fell upon that staunch advocate of royalty, Sir William Berkeley.
When the surrender had been made to the parliamentary commissioners in
1652, the Governor had secured for himself the right to quit the colony
any time within the ensuing year. But circumstances had prevented his
sailing during this period, and later he resolved to remain in Virginia.
During the eight years of the Commonwealth period he had lived in
retirement, obedient to the new government, but longing for the
restoration of the Stuarts. Why he was now called forth by the Assembly
to take once more the most important office in Virginia, cannot be
certainly determined. It seems strange that the Burgesses in one act
should assert their own sovereignty in the most emphatic terms, and in
the next elect as their Governor this ardent servant of the Crown. If it
had been their only aim to choose a leader of executive ability, they
did not lack men of power and experience whose love of popular
government was unquestioned. Berkeley had in his first administration
ruled justly and well, but there is no reason to think that Virginia had
been more prosperous and happy under him than under the Commonwealth
Governors. It seems then most probable that the Assembly was actuated in
its choice by an apprehension that the monarchy might be restored. If
the English should invite Charles to reclaim his lost inheritance, it
would be of much advantage to the colony to have at its head the former
royal Governor. It would make the restoration in Virginia easy and
peaceful, for the staunchest republican would not dare resist, with
Charles II on his throne and Sir William Berkeley ruling at Jamestown.
Moreover, it could but please the King and recommend the colony to his
favor. On the other hand, the Assembly was careful to reserve all real
authority to itself. Sir William was to be its servant, not its master.
If, out of the confusion in England, should emerge a real republic, they
could force the Governor either to acknowledge the new power or to
resign his commission. In fact the office was at first proffered him
only upon condition that he would submit to any power, whatever it might
be, that succeeded in fixing itself over the English people.[376]
But to this requirement Berkeley would by no means consent. He was
willing, during the present interregnum, to hold office from the people
of Virginia, but never from any English power save that of the Crown. In
an address to the Assembly, outlining his conduct during the troubles of
the past eleven years, he made it quite clear that his sympathies had
undergone no change. "When I came first into this Countrie," he said, "I
had the Commicon and Commands of my most gracious master King Charles of
ever blessed memory.... When God's wrath lay heavie upon us for the sins
of our nation, my ever honoured Master was put to a violent death, and
immeadiately after his Royall Sonne ... sent me a Commicon to governe
here under him.... But the Parliament, after the defeat at Worcester,
(by the instigation of some other intent) sent a small power to force my
submission to them, which finding me defenceless, was quietly (God
pardon me) effected. But this parliament continued not long after this,
but another supream power outed them, whoe remained not long neither,
nor his sonne after him.... And now my intelligence is not enough to
tell me what incorporate, mixt, or individuall power there is.... Under
all these mutable governments of divers natures and constitutions, I
have lived most resigningly submissive: But, Mr. Speaker, it is one duty
to live obedient to a government, and another of a very different nature
to Command under it.... You have, Mr. Speaker, with great wisdome and
providence taken care of my obedient prostrating to the Supreame power
the authoritie you would entrust me with, for which I give you my
humble thanks; for this wisdome of yours hath animated my caution of
assumeing this burden, which is so volatile, slippery and heavy, that I
may justly feare it will breake my Limbs." It might be thought by some,
he said, that the emergency would excuse his accepting this authority,
but the King would judge him, and if his information were prejudiced,
his punishment might be severe. He did not fear death, he was too old
for that, but an imprudent, criminal death he abhorred. In conclusion he
declared that these and other considerations must dissuade him from
accepting the proffered office.
But the Assembly persisted in its determination to make him Governor. If
he scrupled to promise to serve under the enemies of the Crown, that
promise would not be required of him. Let him be Governor of Virginia,
by their authority only, and only so long as the confusion in England
continued. If a new Protector, or a new Commonwealth gained the
ascendency, and demanded Virginia's submission, he might resign. If
England returned to its obedience to the Throne, he could petition the
King for a new commission. To this Berkeley assented. "Wee have all," he
said, in another short address, "had great and pressing feares of
offending a Supreame power which neither by present possession is soe,
nor has a publiquely confessed politique capacity to be a Supream power.
I alsoe, Mr. Speaker, have my pressing feares too, and I am seriously
afraid to offend him, who by all Englishmen is confessed to be in a
naturall politique capacity of being a Supreame power." He therefore, he
said, made this declaration in the presence of God, that if any
government became fixed in London, he would immediately lay down his
commission. When this was recorded and they were still of the same mind,
he was ready most thankfully to serve them.[377]
Thus did Sir William Berkeley a second time become Governor of Virginia.
It must have been with trepidation that this man, who had so often
denied the right of any officer to serve save by the King's commands,
accepted now this commission from the hands of the people. The stern
hater of republicanism was becoming the head of an independent little
republic. For such Virginia was and must continue to be until there
should appear in England some fixed government to which it could submit.
"I am," Berkeley wrote Governor Stuyvesant of New Amsterdam, "but a
servant of the assembly's; neither do they arrogate any power to
themselves, further than the miserable distractions of England force
them to. For when God shall be pleased in his mercy to take away and
dissipate the unnatural diversions of their native country, they will
immediately return to their own professed obedience."[378]
The restoration of the monarchy took place May 29th, 1660. When the news
reached Virginia some weeks later, the people accepted the change
without opposition, and probably with relief, for they were weary of
uncertainty and confusion. Berkeley's unaffected joy was mingled with a
deep apprehension that the King might be angered at his accepting office
without his consent. But Charles was not so unmindful of his staunch
support at a time when the fortunes of the monarchy were at their lowest
ebb as to reproach him for this act, which might, and probably did,
redound to his advantage. He soon relieved the Governor's fears by
sending a new commission. In a passion of joy and gratitude Berkeley
wrote his thanks. "I ... doe most humbly throwe myselfe at your Ma'ties
feet," he said, "in a dutifull thankfullness to your Majestie, that you
yett think me worthy of your Royall Commands. It is true, ... I did
something, which if misrepresented to your Majestie, may cause your
Majestie to think me guilty of a weakness I should ever abhor myself
for. But it was noe more ... than to leape over the fold to save your
Majesties flock, when your Majesties enemies of that fold had barred up
the lawfull entrance into it, and enclosed the Wolves of Scisme and
rebellion ready to devour all within it. Nor did I adventure on this,
without the advice and impulsion of your Majesties best Subjects in
these parts.... I always in all conditions had more fear of your
Majesties ffrownes than the Swords or Tortures of your Enemies."[379]
And so the Commonwealth period in Virginia came to an end. The colony
had benefited greatly by the eight years of semi-independence and
self-government. The population had increased rapidly. In 1649, there
had been about 15,000 people in Virginia, while six years after the
Restoration, the Governor estimated their number at 40,000. This great
gain was due chiefly to accelerated immigration from England. The
overthrow and execution of the King had sent many of his followers to
seek shelter with Sir William Berkeley, others had come to escape the
confusion and horrors of civil war, while the numerous prisoners taken
in battle had furnished abundant material for the never-ending stream of
indentured servants. Gentleman and tradesman and laborer alike were
welcome, for land was abundant and the colony's only need was men. Nor
was prosperity yet strangled by the strict enforcement of the Navigation
Acts. Dutch vessels continued to sail through the capes in defiance of
England and to carry off the planters' tobacco. Not until the closing
years of the Commonwealth period did the increasing freight rates and
the decreasing price of tobacco indicate that the "Hollanders" were
being more strictly excluded.[380]
Equally important was the training received by the people in
self-government. For eight years they had been their own masters,
enacting such laws as they chose, and free from the restraining hand of
the King. There had been no royal Governor to veto their bills, or
threaten the Burgesses, or intimidate the voters, or overawe the
Council, or sway the courts of justice. And the experience was
priceless. It schooled them in governmental affairs and taught them
self-reliance, patience and stubbornness to oppose oppression. Having
tasted the sweets of freedom, they were ill prepared ever again to
tolerate injustice and misgovernment. If there had been no Commonwealth
period in Virginia, possibly there had never been a Bacon's Rebellion.
FOOTNOTES:
[314] Report of Commission on Hist. Manuscripts. 3.
[315] Hen., Vol. I, p. 235.
[316] P. R. O., CO1-20.
[317] Hen., Vol. I, pp. 236, 237.
[318] Hen., Vol. I, pp. 236, 237.
[319] Hen., Vol. I, p. 237.
[320] Hen., Vol. I, p. 356.
[321] Hen., Vol. I, p. 244.
[322] Hen., Vol. I, p. 263.
[323] Hen., Vol. I, p. 265.
[324] Hen., Vol. I, p. 267.
[325] Hen., Vol. I, pp. 280, 281.
[326] Hen., Vol. I, p. 230.
[327] Hen., Vol. I, p. 231.
[328] Va. Hist. Reg., Vol. I, p. 160.
[329] P. R. O., CO5-1371-6 to 16.
[330] Beverley.
[331] The Assembly, in 1645, ordered that the 18th of April be
celebrated ever afterwards for the deliverance of the colony from the
savages. Hen., Vol. I, p. 290. The year is fairly well determined by the
fact that mention of an Indian war occurs for the first time, during
this period, in the statutes of the session of Assembly of October,
1644. Hen., Vol. I, p. 285.
[332] Beverley.
[333] P. R. O., CO1-30-71; CO1-41-111.
[334] P. R. O., CO5-1371-6 to 16.
[335] CO5-1371-6 to 16.
[336] CO5-1371-6 to 16.
[337] P. R. O., CO1-41-111.
[338] Beverley.
[339] Hen., Vol. I, p. 323.
[340] Hen., Vol. I, p. 323.
[341] P. R. O., CO1-30-71.
[342] Hen., Vol. I, p. 123, 149, 277.
[343] Bruce, Inst. Hist., Vol. I, p. 254.
[344] Bruce, Inst. Hist., Vol. I, p. 254.
[345] Hen., Vol. I, p. 277.
[346] Hen., Vol. I, p. 355.
[347] Hen., Vol. I, p. 360.
[348] Hen., Vol. I, p. 361.
[349] Sp. Dom. Inter., 1-94.
[350] Scobell, Vol. II, p. 132.
[351] Va. Mag., Vol. I., p. 77.
[352] Va. Mag., Vol. I, pp. 75 to 81.
[353] Hen., Vol. I, p. 363.
[354] Hen., Vol. I, pp. 363-365.
[355] Hen., Vol. I, pp. 365-367.
[356] Hen., Vol. I, p. 371.
[357] Hen., Vol. I, pp. 371, 373.
[358] Sp. Dom. Int., 1-75; Hen., Vol. I, p. 510; Bruce, Inst. Hist.,
Vol. II, p. 302.
[359] Hen., Vol. I, pp. 371, 408.
[360] Wise, p. 139.
[361] Hen., Vol. I, p. 371.
[362] Wise, pp. 114, 115; Hen., Vol. I, p. 380.
[363] Hen., Vol. I, p. 372.
[364] Hen., Vol. I, pp. 377, 378.
[365] Hen., Vol. I, p. 499.
[366] Hen., Vol. I, p. 499.
[367] Hen., Vol. I, p. 500.
[368] Hen., Vol. I, p. 501.
[369] Hen., Vol. I, pp. 502, 503.
[370] Hen., Vol. I, pp. 499, 505.
[371] Hen., Vol. I, p. 510.
[372] Hen., Vol. I, p. 512.
[373] Hen., Vol. I, p. 517.
[374] Hen., Vol. I, p. 537.
[375] Hen., Vol. I, p. 530.
[376] Southern Lit. Mess., Jan. 1845.
[377] Southern Lit. Mess., Jan. 1845.
[378] Campbell, p. 74.
[379] Southern Lit. Mess., Jan., 1845.
[380] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, pp. 357-360.