diff options
Diffstat (limited to '29348-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 29348-h/29348-h.htm | 2848 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 29348-h/images/end_map.jpg | bin | 0 -> 75898 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 29348-h/images/end_map_full.jpg | bin | 0 -> 200762 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 29348-h/images/i008.jpg | bin | 0 -> 67617 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 29348-h/images/i011.jpg | bin | 0 -> 74953 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 29348-h/images/i011_full.jpg | bin | 0 -> 173253 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 29348-h/images/i018.jpg | bin | 0 -> 77191 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 29348-h/images/i018_full.jpg | bin | 0 -> 167834 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 29348-h/images/i056.jpg | bin | 0 -> 73430 bytes |
9 files changed, 2848 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/29348-h/29348-h.htm b/29348-h/29348-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..647bc48 --- /dev/null +++ b/29348-h/29348-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,2848 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" /> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> + <title> + The Project Gutenberg eBook of Virginia Under Charles I and Cromwell, 1625-1660, by Wilcomb E. Washburn. + </title> + <style type="text/css"> +body { + margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; +} + +h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 { + text-align: center; + clear: both; +} + +p { + margin-top: .75em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .75em; +} + +hr { + width: 15%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + clear: both; + color: #BDBDBD; +} + +.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ + visibility: hidden; + position: absolute; + left: 95%; + font-size: smaller; + text-align: right; + color: #C0C0C0; +} + +.center {text-align: center;} + +.center2 {text-align: center; font-size: 107%; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-top: 2em;} + +.smcap {font-variant: small-caps; text-align: center;} + +.caption {text-align: center; margin-top: 2.5em;} + +.captionr {float: right; width: auto;} + +.image {text-align: center; margin: auto;} + +.dropcap { + float: left; + font-size: 310%; + line-height: 77%; + padding-right: 2px; + padding-bottom: 1px; + width: auto; +} + +.upper {text-transform: uppercase;} + +.minispace {margin-bottom: 1em;} + +.microspace {margin-bottom: .5em;} + +.nanospace {padding-bottom: .25em;} + +.stext {font-size: 92%;} + +.border2 { + border-style: solid; + border-width: 2px; + background: #FFFFFF; + border-color: #000000; + margin: auto; +} + +.blockquote {margin-left: 3em; font-size: 95%; padding-top: .5em; padding-bottom: .5em;} + +.tnote { + border-style: double; + border-width: 6px; + padding: 1em; + background: #FFFFFF; + text-align: center; + margin-left: 20%; + margin-right: 20%; + font-size: 95%; + border-color: #000000; +} + </style> + </head> +<body> + + +<pre> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of Virginia Under Charles I And Cromwell, +1625-1660, by Wilcomb E. Washburn + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: Virginia Under Charles I And Cromwell, 1625-1660 + +Author: Wilcomb E. Washburn + +Release Date: July 7, 2009 [EBook #29348] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK VIRGINIA--1625-1660 *** + + + + +Produced by Mark C. Orton, Meredith Bach, and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net + + + + + + +</pre> + + +<div class="minispace"> </div> + +<div class="tnote"> +<h3>Transcriber's Note:</h3> + +Research done for this book indicates that its copyright was not renewed. +</div> +<div class="minispace"> </div> +<div class="minispace"> </div> +<div class="microspace"> </div> + +<h1>VIRGINIA UNDER CHARLES I<br /> +AND CROMWELL, 1625-1660</h1> + +<h2 style="margin-top: 1em;">By</h2> + +<h2><span class="smcap">Wilcomb E. Washburn</span><br /> +Research Associate, Institute<br /> +of Early American History and Culture<br /> +and<br /> +Instructor in History,<br /> +College of William and Mary</h2> + +<div class="minispace"> </div> +<h3><span class="smcap">Virginia 350th Anniversary Celebration Corporation<br /> +Williamsburg, Virginia</span><br /> +1957</h3> + + + + +<div class="minispace"> </div> +<hr /> + +<h3>COPYRIGHTŠ, 1957 BY<br /> +VIRGINIA 350TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION<br /> +CORPORATION, WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA</h3> + +<div class="minispace"> </div> + +<h3>Jamestown 350th Anniversary<br /> +Historical Booklet, Number 7</h3> + + + +<hr /> +<div class="minispace"> </div> +<h2 style="margin-bottom: 2em;">Virginia Under Charles I and Cromwell,<br /> +1625-1660</h2> + +<div class="center2"><span class="smcap">Virginia on the Eve of Expansion</span></div> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[1]</a></span><span class="dropcap">W</span><span class="upper">oodrow</span> Wilson named the first volume of his <i>History of +the United States</i> "The Swarming of the English." We +might go further and compare the colonization and expansion in +the New World to a fissioning process in which individual atoms +are torn loose from a former pattern of coherence and fused into +new and strange patterns. The United States, indeed, is still in +the process of fusion following the earlier fission process. It has +not yet reached the stability that comes to some nations in history, +and which is marked by a fixed pattern of population growth, +land use, day-to-day habits, and philosophic beliefs. It is, rather, +a country in which every generation can look back to a strangely +different era that existed before it came of age.</p> + +<p>The period 1625-1660 in Virginia history is an important one +for the study of the fission-fusion process in America. During +those years Virginia's population increased perhaps twenty-five +or thirty fold, and the settlements spread from a thin belt along +the James River to the whole of Tidewater Virginia. Human +atoms were propelled outwards in every direction in an uncontrolled +and only feebly directed expansion.</p> + +<p>The years 1607 to 1625 had created a base for this expansion. +Those had been crucial years and difficult ones. Settlements had +resembled military camps and individual colonists had been commanded +like soldiers. Rigorous administration of justice, fear of +the Indians, and the strict economic regulations imposed by the +London Company had served to restrain the potentially expansive +nature of the colonists.</p> + +<p>The year 1625 saw Virginia under a new King and under a +new form of government. The charter of the London Company<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[2]</a></span> +was made void, and the colony passed from the control of a commercial +company to the direct control of King Charles I.</p> + +<p>The official census of the non-Indian population of Virginia +in 1625 showed 1,232 persons in the colony. Nine hundred and +fifty-two were males, twelve of them Negroes. Two hundred and +eighty were females, eleven of them Negroes. Although the +colony had been in existence for eighteen years the fissioning +process had hardly begun. But it was beginning. Five years later +the population had more than doubled to approximately 3,000. +In 1640 the population jumped to 8,000, and by 1670 to 40,000, +of whom 2,000 were Negroes. Every aspect of Virginia life—political, +physical, economic, social, and moral—was to be affected +by this explosive and uncontrolled growth.</p> + +<p>Virginia did not develop any cities or even towns during the +period 1625-1660. Indeed, the towns, such as Jamestown and +Henrico, that had earlier been established, declined in population +or were totally abandoned. The immigrants who were funneled +into the colony through Jamestown were soon attracted to +the ever widening frontier. During the first twenty years colonists +had lived in organized farming communities, separated from other +such settlements, but strictly supervised by local "plantation +commanders." The separate settlements were variously called +"colonies," "plantations," "hundreds," and "particular plantations," +and sometimes contained hundreds of planters. Frequently +the "plantation" was located within a loop of the James River. +The members of the settlement planted their crops within the +loop, and set up palisades and forts at the open end for their +common defense. Sentinels and guards were provided cooperatively +to man the defenses. As the settlers increased in numbers +and the power of their governors and of the Indians to restrain +them decreased, however, they tended to leave the organized +communities and to carve out for themselves individual plantations +in the wilderness. Thus, even while the population of the +colony grew by leaps and bounds, the population of Jamestown<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[3]</a></span> +and other areas where population was once concentrated declined. +It was a process, one might call it, of de-urbanization.</p> + +<p>What was it that reversed the process of urbanization that was +going on in the mother country? The attraction was, of course, +the land and its fruits. England, with her five or six millions, was +not overpopulated by modern standards. Nor was she overpopulated +by comparison with the great nations of the Orient such +as China which could even in that period count its population in +the hundreds of millions. But her few millions seemed at times +to oppress the English soil. On the other hand, America was a +relatively new home of the human species. Perhaps less than a +million Indians lived within the present bounds of the United +States, and the Indians with whom the English in Virginia came +in contact numbered less than 10,000. "In the beginning all the +world was America," wrote John Locke, and the English townsmen, +villagers, and yeomen who came to America found it natural +to revert back to the time when Adam went forth from the Garden +of Eden to till the ground from whence he was taken. It +would be more truthful to say, however, that the English went +not so much in sorrow as in confidence, as the sons of Abraham +to whom God had promised all the land of Canaan for an everlasting +possession.</p> + +<p>Tobacco was the richest fruit of the land. Despite the moral +opprobrium in which the "vile, stinking weed" was held by men in +England, including King James himself, the public soon developed +an insatiable appetite for it. Having for the Europeans the +attraction of novelty and utility, it commanded an enormous +price in the early years of the settlement. With Spanish tobacco +selling at eighteen shillings a pound in 1619, the opportunities +for gain from tobacco production seemed unlimited. Here was +the "gold" that Virginia had to offer, and soon all hands could +think of nothing else. The earliest settlers, hoping to emulate the +Spaniards in finding great treasures and living off the labor of +the Indians, had suffered bitterly from shortages of food. Later<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[4]</a></span> +settlers, though they did not hold to the expectations of the first +arrivals, still sought the avenue of quickest and greatest gain, +and tobacco provided that avenue. Throughout the 1620's many +planters neglected to grow corn or wheat, preferring to obtain +their food supply by barter or seizure from the Indians, or by purchase +from planters who were willing to divert their labor to such +crops. Who would bother with grain when tobacco sold for as +much per pound as grain did per bushel? Frenchmen, brought +over to introduce vine-growing in the colony, neglected their specialty +to plant tobacco and had to be restrained by an act of February +1632. An act of February 1633 similarly required all gunsmiths, +brickmakers, carpenters, joiners, sawyers, and turners to +work at their trades and not to plant tobacco or do other work in +the ground.</p> + +<p>Another booklet in this series deals with agriculture in Virginia. +It is enough to say here that as the total production of tobacco +increased so did the price decline. Our present-day farm surplus +problem is not new. Even when the price had plummeted to a +penny a pound the planters were not discouraged from planting. +Attempts were made on both sides of the Atlantic to fix prices and +to control the amount of production in order to restore prosperity +to the tobacco farmers. The important questions were whose interests +would be served, and how would they be served best?</p> + +<p>The death of James I and the dissolution of the Virginia Company +occurred almost at the same time. Charles I, his son, assumed +the throne in 1625 and promptly assured the planters that +though the form of Virginia's government had changed, the individual +planters could be sure that their rights and property +would be respected. Charles informed the colonists, however, +that he would take over the buying of their tobacco as a royal +monopoly and give them such prices as would satisfy and encourage +them. Agreement with the planters, nevertheless, was +difficult to obtain. The Virginians were solidly united as a special +interest in favoring the highest prices and the greatest pro<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[5]</a></span>duction. +Their representatives, both in the House of Burgesses +and on the Council, were their ardent spokesmen, themselves +planters, whose interest lay in fighting the battle of all Virginians. +On the other hand the King, and the English merchants and +associates through whom he dealt, desired to buy Virginia's tobacco +at the lowest possible prices and in moderate quantities. The +tug of war between the two sides continued for many years without +any clear-cut resolution.</p> + + +<div class="center2"><span class="smcap">Virginia Under Wyatt and Yeardley, 1625-1627: +Tobacco and Defense</span></div> + +<p>Sir Francis Wyatt, who had been the London Company's +Governor in the period 1621-1624, was appointed Governor by +James I the first year the colony was under royal control. Although +the King made no specific provision for the continuation of a representative +Assembly, Wyatt and the Council called together representatives +of the various settlements to meet in a General Assembly +on May 10, 1625, in Jamestown. There they drew up a +petition complaining of the old Company rule and the miserable +state in which it had kept the colony during the previous twelve +years, and pleading with the King not to allow a monopoly of the +tobacco trade. The King's advisers, they feared, were those who +had formerly oppressed them and who would do so again should +the King consent to a "pernitious contract" taking all their tobacco +at unfair rates. To present their case against the contract they +chose Sir George Yeardley, former Governor, to go to England +as their agent. The willingness of Wyatt and the Council to call +such an Assembly and the unanimity of views deriving from it, +show how single in their economic interests all Virginians were.</p> + +<p>Governor Wyatt attempted to prevent disorderly expansion of +settlement and to build positions of strength in the colony, but he +knew that the "affection" of the planters to "their privat dividents" +was too strong a force to resist. Hence he recommended that a +palisade be built from Martin's Hundred on the James River to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[6]</a></span> +Chiskiack on the York River, with houses spaced along it at +convenient intervals. In this way the Indians might be kept out +of the entire lower portion of the peninsula, the cattle kept in, and +the colony provided with a secure base for the development of its +economy. After the economy was flourishing, there would be a +chance for finding the riches in the mountains to the west and +the longed-for passage to the South Sea, so confidently believed +to lie just beyond the Appalachians. All these enterprises presupposed +the "winning of the Forest" between the York and the +James, which Wyatt hoped to accomplish by means of his palisade +scheme.</p> + +<p>Wyatt's project was not immediately put into effect. In 1626 +he was replaced by Sir George Yeardley. Yeardley, like Wyatt, +devoted much of his time to devising means to promote the security +of the colony against attack by land or by sea.</p> + +<p>It is hard for us to realize how desperately concerned with their +security were the few thousand Englishmen who inhabited Virginia +at this time. Separated from the mother country by 3,000 +miles of ocean, a dangerous crossing usually taking two months, +the settlers had only a precarious toe hold on a vast continent. +From the ocean side the settlers feared possible attack from other +European colonizing powers: the Spanish, French, or Dutch. The +Spanish ambassador in London in the early period of the Virginia +settlement had frequently urged his government to wipe out +the struggling colony. But the indecision of Spain's monarch had +saved the colony.</p> + +<p>The Virginians themselves had engaged in expeditions against +the French settled in Maine, and spoke menacingly of the Dutch +who had established a settlement on the King's domain in Hudson's +River in 1613. The claims of the European monarchs to the +American continent conflicted with one another, and there seemed +little chance that a resolution would come by any other means +than war. So it proved to be, later. In the meantime, at home, +Virginia settlers stood on guard. Governor Yeardley appointed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[7]</a></span> +Capt. William Tucker, one of the Virginia Council, to check at +Point Comfort all ships entering the James River. Tucker was +provided with a well-armed shallop and absolute authority to +check all ships arriving. He could not do battle with an enemy +warship, of course, but he could give the alarm in case the enemy +appeared. A few years later a fort was built at Point Comfort to +defend the entrance to Virginia's great river. Although the channel +was too wide ever to be adequately commanded by the cannon +of the day, the fort provided some protection to the colony.</p> + +<p>Yeardley made similar efforts to strengthen Virginia's position +on land against the numerically superior Indians. Like Wyatt he +urged the necessity of "planting the forest" rather than jumping +beyond it to areas far from existing settlements. As a means of +controlling the population Yeardley issued a proclamation requiring +that anyone who desired to move his place of residence within +the colony must obtain prior permission from the Governor and +Council. Even to be absent for a short time from his place of +residence, a planter was required to get permission from his +"plantation commander." As was pointed out earlier, "plantations" +in this early period were usually not the individually-owned, +individually-operated plantations of later times, but "private +colonies" or "particular plantations," organized on a joint-stock +basis, on which more than a hundred men might live.</p> + +<p>In keeping with his conception of the colony as a military +outpost, Yeardley made plans for an armed settlement on the York +at Chiskiack, and devised a project for a surprise attack on all +the surrounding Indians on the first day of August 1627. Each +"particular plantation" was to march against an Indian town, kill +as many Indians as possible, and seize or cut down what corn it +could. The attack was a success, but because of a scarcity of shot +the English failed in their desired goal of utterly extirpating the +red men.</p> + +<p>In November 1627 Yeardley died, and the Council chose one<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[8]</a></span> +of its number, Captain Francis West, to assume the role of Governor +and Captain General.</p> + + +<div class="center2"><span class="smcap">Virginia Under Francis West and Dr. John Pott, 1627-1630</span></div> + +<p>Meanwhile the King had grown increasingly disgusted that +Virginia's economy continued to be "built on smoke," and he ordered +the Virginians to concentrate on crops and products other +than tobacco. Among the products urged on the colonists were +iron, salt, pitch and tar, potash, and pipe staves. As his directives +went unheeded, the King determined to force a drastic reduction +in the planting of the profitable tobacco crop. In instructions +sent out in 1627 he directed that no master of a family be allowed +to plant above 200 pounds of tobacco and no servant more +than 125 pounds. He also ordered that all tobacco was to be consigned +to him or his representatives.</p> + +<p>Charles directed that a general assembly of the planters' representatives +be summoned to deal with his proposals, and Governor +West and the Council ordered an Assembly to meet on +March 10, 1628. The Assembly thanked the King for prohibiting +the importation of Spanish tobacco into the English market, but +cried that they would be at the mercy of covetous individuals +in England if a monopoly on Virginia tobacco was allowed. They +proposed, however, that since the King intended to take all +their tobacco, he should agree to take at least 500,000 pounds of +tobacco at 3 shillings 6 pence the pound delivered in Virginia, +or 4 shillings delivered in London. If the King was unwilling +to take so much, they desired the right to export again from +England to the Low Countries, Ireland, Turkey, and elsewhere. +As to the King's proposal to limit tobacco cultivation to 200 +pounds for the master of a family and 125 pounds for a servant, +"every weake judgment," they asserted, could see that this would +not be sufficient for their maintenance. As to the King's desire +that the colonists should produce pitch and tar, pipe staves, and +iron, they complained that much capital was needed to put such +<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[9]</a></span>enterprises in operation. Few planters either could or would undertake +such schemes when tobacco culture required so little +capital and produced such quick and profitable results.</p> + +<div class="minispace"> </div> +<div class="image border2" style="width: 364px; height: 590px; border-color: #FFFFFF;"> +<img src="images/i008.jpg" width="364" height="590" alt="National Portrait Gallery, London + +KING CHARLES I + +Painting by Daniel Mytens" title="" /> +<span class="captionr stext">National Portrait Gallery, London</span></div> +<div class="caption">KING CHARLES I<br /> +Painting by Daniel Mytens +</div> +<div class="minispace"> </div> + + + +<p>The Assembly commissioned Sir Francis Wyatt, then in England, +and two Virginians to represent them in negotiations with +the King. They were to be allowed to come down six pence on +each of the figures insisted upon by Governor, Council, and +Burgesses in their answer to the King's letter.</p> + +<p>As in 1625, the opportunity to join in Assembly for the purpose +of agreeing on regulations for tobacco production allowed the +planters to deal with other matters. Wesley Frank Craven has +written that "representative government in America owes much +in its origins to an attempt to win men's support of a common +economic program by means of mutual consent." Had the King +been less desirous of taking every planter's tobacco and less concerned +with the neglect of staple commodities, he might well +have governed the colony without calling the planters together +in periodic "assemblies."</p> + +<p>Dr. John Pott was elected by the Council on March 5, 1629, +to succeed West as Governor, and he governed in Virginia for +one year. Few men possess a less savory record than this first +representative of the medical profession in America. In 1624 +he had been ordered removed from the Virginia Council, at the +insistence of the Earl of Warwick, for his part in the attempt +to poison the colony's Indian foes. He was later convicted of +cattle stealing but spared punishment because he was the only +doctor in the colony and therefore in great demand.</p> + +<p>Both West and Pott were foes of the Indians, and in numerous +orders and proclamations denounced former treaties of peace +with them, and directed that perpetual enmity and wars be +maintained against them. A pretended peace was, however, authorized +to be extended to the Indians in August 1628 until certain +captive Englishmen were redeemed; then it was to be broken.</p> + +<p>The colonists, too, suffered during the administrations of West<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[10]</a></span> +and Pott. One man expressed the hope for "an Easterly wind to +blow to send in Noble Capt. Harvey, And then I shall have wright +for all my wrong." Capt. John Harvey was known in the colony +for the investigation he had conducted in Virginia in 1624-1625, +and the King had appointed him Governor on March 26, 1628. +Harvey did not actually take up his government in Virginia until +two years later. In the meantime West and Pott administered +the colony.</p> + + +<div class="center2"><span class="smcap">Virginia Under John Harvey, 1630-1632: Expansion +and Development</span></div> + +<p>When Harvey arrived in 1630 he found that inadequate restrictions +placed on tobacco production in the previous years had +created an enormous surplus which had forced the price down +to a penny a pound. Harvey found also that because of their +"greedie desires to make store of Tobackoe," the settlers had neglected +to plant sufficient corn, let alone to develop different commodities +as instructed by the King. Calling an Assembly, he convinced +the representatives to agree to reduce the amount of tobacco +planted, and to increase the amount of corn. He also sent ships +into the Chesapeake and southward to Cape Fear to trade for +corn with the Indians to make up the deficit left by the negligent +planters. But most important of all, Harvey put into effect the +long-dreamed-of plan to secure the entire area between the James +and the York by building a palisade between Archer's Hope +Creek (now College Creek), emptying into the James River, +and Queen's Creek, emptying into the York River. Harvey's +plan called also for a settlement on the south side of the York. +This outpost would serve as an advance base and point of defense +for operations against Opechancanough, King of the Pamunkeys, +and his many warriors. Six hundred acres apiece were granted +there in 1630 to Capt. John West, brother of Lord Delaware, +and to Capt. John Utie, who were made commanders of the settlement. +Fifty acres were offered to any person who would settle +there during the first year of its existence and twenty-five during<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[11]</a></span> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[12]</a></span>the next year. Exactly when the first settlers moved to the York is +uncertain, but it was probably in 1631. West and Utie settled +on either side of a bay formed by the joining of King's Creek and +Felgate's Creek about four miles above modern Yorktown. The +tourist who speeds along the Colonial Parkway from Jamestown +to Yorktown crosses the bay within sight of the tracts granted +West and Utie. Today he may drive from Jamestown to the York +with comfort and safety in a few minutes. It took the early settlers +twenty-four years to cover the same distance.</p> + +<div class="minispace"> </div> +<div class="image"> +<a href="images/i011_full.jpg"><img src="images/i011.jpg" width="570" height="311" alt="Map 1" title="" /></a> +</div> +<div class="minispace"> </div> + +<p>About the same time, probably in 1630, another distant settlement +was established. William Claiborne, Secretary of the Council +of State of Virginia, with one hundred men, settled Kent +Island 150 miles up Chesapeake Bay. In the Assembly of February +1632 both "Kiskyacke and the Isle of Kent" were represented +by Capt. Nicholas Martiau, ancestor of George Washington.</p> + +<p>The great expansion had now begun. Settlers crossed from +the James to the York, and provision was made by an act of the +Assembly of February 1633 for building houses at Middle +Plantation, situated strategically between College Creek and +Queen's Creek, and for "securing" the tract of land lying between +the two creeks.</p> + +<p>Besides being concerned with questions of defense, Harvey +pursued a policy of encouraging trade with other colonies in the +New World. Numerous commissions were issued by the Governor +in March and April of 1632 authorizing individuals to +trade with New England, Nova Scotia, and the Dutch plantation +in Hudson's River, as well as with the West Indies. Harvey +even gave instructions to Nathaniel Basse, one of the traders +and a member of the Council, to encourage people from the +other colonies to come to Virginia. "If those of Newe England +shall dislike the coldnes of there clymate or the barrenness of +the soyle," wrote Harvey, "you may propose unto them the +plantinge of Delaware bay, where they shall have what further<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[13]</a></span>ance +wee cann afford them, and noe impediment objected against +theire owne orders and lawes."</p> + +<p>But all was not well in the government of the colony. Harvey +found the Council members constantly opposing him, disputing +his authority, resisting his attempts to administer equal justice +to all men. The royal Governor was not supreme as we now +sometimes mistakenly assume. He was first among equals only. +Decisions at this time were made by majority vote, and the Governor +was frequently outvoted. Moreover the Councilors, who +could devote more of their time to their private affairs, tended +to be better off financially than the Governor himself, who found +it next to impossible to get his salary from the King, and who +was forced to entertain at his own expense all who came to James +City. Harvey complained that he should be called the "host" +rather than the "Governor" of Virginia. In contrast, Samuel +Mathews, one of Harvey's enemies on the Council, owned the +finest estate in Virginia. William Claiborne, another of Harvey's +enemies on the Council, besides a large estate, had a royal commission +and English backers for his powerful trading company.</p> + +<p>Harvey made every effort to reconcile the differences which +arose between him and the Council members, and on December +20, 1631, all signed an agreement promising to work in harmony +and to mend their discontent.</p> + +<p>Fortified by this agreement, Harvey went forward with his +efforts to put Virginia's agricultural economy on a sound basis. +The principal problem was to force the planters to diversify. +Many tears are shed for the poverty of the planters of Virginia, +and their customary indebtedness to English creditors is usually +cited as proof of their poverty. But this "poverty" was not based +on the inability of the planter to raise enough food to support +himself and his family, but on the fluctuations of the market +price of the crop—tobacco—to which he had devoted most of his +energies as a speculative venture. Strange as it may seem, the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[14]</a></span> +planter had to be forced to raise enough food for his own support, +so avid was his desire for quick tobacco profits.</p> + +<p>Governor Harvey's Assembly of February 1632 directed that +every man working in the ground should plant and tend at least +two acres of corn per head, on penalty of forfeiture of his entire +crop of tobacco. Harvey hoped to make Virginia "the granarie +to his Majesty's Empire," as Sicily had been to Rome. Another +act allowed corn to be sold for as high a price as could be obtained, +contrary to the usual European and colonial habit of fixing prices +on basic commodities used by the people. The reason given for +this freedom from price fixing was that the precedents of other +countries did not apply to America, "for none are so poore heere, +as that they may not have as much corne, as they will plant, +havinge land enough."</p> + +<p>The Assembly of 1632 did, however, fix a price on tobacco, +requiring that it not be sold at less than six pence per pound, a +law they went to great pains to justify to the King. Tobacco was +Virginia's primary economic interest, and the Virginians were +willing to go to any lengths to advance that interest. They urged +the King not to place any impediment to their "free trade," or +right to sell their tobacco wherever they could, and mentioned +that they had already constructed several barques and had begun +trading with the Dutch plantation on Hudson's River. Governor +Harvey asked why the English merchants could not afford to +allow them a penny a pound for their tobacco when the Dutch +paid eighteen pence per pound.</p> + +<p>The English merchants who traded with Virginia formed a +tight little group which used its favored position to charge excessive +prices for English-made goods, and to give abnormally low +prices for Virginia tobacco. Such a policy was not entirely owing +to covetousness. The English economy was shackled by a conception +of economic life which believed in the necessity of +monopolies and restrictive devices of all sorts. The Dutch nation,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[15]</a></span> +on the other hand, had thrown off many of the traditional +mercantilist restraints on trade. Holland soon enjoyed a level +of prosperity that made her the envy of the rest of Europe. Her +rivals attributed Dutch success to the energy of her people. "Go +to beat the Dutch" became a byword which has persisted to +this day. Not until a century later did the English realize that +Dutch prosperity was caused not so much by hard work as by +the policy of freeing trade from unnecessary restraints. As Dutch +prosperity increased, Dutch ships appeared in every sea, underselling +all rivals and paying better prices for local products. The +complaint that the London merchants allowed only one penny +a pound for the Virginians' tobacco while the Dutch gave eighteen +strikingly illustrates the measure of Dutch commercial superiority. +No wonder that the London merchants should demand +that the Dutch be excluded from the Virginia market! For the +same reason Virginians, whether Governors, Councilors, Burgesses, +or planters, were, throughout the seventeenth century, +almost unanimously opposed to the English government's policy +of restricting trade with Virginia to English ships and confining +that trade to English ports.</p> + +<p>Although Governor Harvey supported the Burgesses and Council +in their strong defense of tobacco production, he privately +wrote that he had not only endeavored to have reduced the +amount of tobacco planted "but if it might have been, to have +utterly rooted out this stinking commodity." He reported that +only the powerful hand of the King and his Council could, however, +effect such an end, so "indeared" were the planters to the +traffic. Moreover, Harvey admitted that until some more staple +commodity could be developed, tobacco could not be prohibited +without the utter ruin of the colony. Virginia was rooted to +tobacco—seemingly for ever.</p> + +<p>The Virginia planters' proposals, of course, met the opposition +of the London merchants, who complained to their powerful<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[16]</a></span> +friends and associates in the government and urged the King and +his Council to nullify the restrictions which the Virginians tried +to place on the sale of their tobacco. The merchants were particularly +opposed to the desire of the Virginians to by-pass them +and trade with foreign nations directly.</p> + +<p>It is hard for us to realize today the immense importance of +merchants and traders in influencing the colonial policies of the +English government. Virginia was founded by a commercial +company. All the early attempts at settlement were made by +private persons who were willing to "adventure" their capital or +their skill. Behind the great explorers stood private individuals +who risked their money on the success of the voyage or settlement. +The "government"—perhaps it would be truer to say the +Kings and their advisers—did not have the funds or the foresight +to support these ventures. They were perfectly willing to sign +papers granting lands they did not own to those who were willing +to attempt the settlement, but they were reluctant to put up +their own money except on a sure thing.</p> + +<p>Once the settlements were functioning, once revenues were +patently obvious, the monarchs showed more concern with their +government. Merchants still, however, continued to provide the +link between the King and colony to a great extent. In an age +of state regulation and monopolies, in an age which did not +provide fixed salaries for men in high position, there was a close +relationship between the Exchange and the Court. A merchant +dealing with overseas trade could not be successful unless he +had influence at Court. Even after the King took away the +charter of the Virginia Company, merchants continued to apply +pressure to the committees and commissions set up to advise the +King on colonial policy. Although the colonists feared that +Charles I might reinstitute a company over them, and the former +representatives of the Virginia Company pressed for such a move, +the merchants were not able to re-establish direct control over +the colony.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[17]</a></span></p> + + +<div class="center2"><span class="smcap">Virginia Under Harvey, 1632-1634: Prosperity And +Decentralization</span></div> + +<p>In September 1632, under Governor Harvey's direction, the +first revisal of Virginia's laws was made. Twenty-five years of +experience under varying forms of government lay behind the +revisal. All previous laws were examined and brought into conformity +with existing conditions. Most of the legislation concerned +the Church, tobacco, and the Indians, good indications +of what most concerned the early settlers. Highways were also +authorized to be laid out in convenient places, the first sign that +settlement was spreading from the rivers—the traditional highways +of Virginia—into the interior. Virginia was becoming more +than a military outpost. It was becoming a "home."</p> + +<p>The success of Harvey's attempt to stabilize and diversify +agricultural production is confirmed in the account of Captain +Thomas Young of his voyage to Virginia and Delaware Bay in +1634. Sailing up the James River he noticed that "the cuntry +aboundeth with very great plentie of milk, cheese, butter and +corne, which latter almost every planter in the country hath." +The grim threat of starvation that had in former times hung +over the colony had been dispelled. Although there had been a +rapid increase in population, the food supply more than kept +up with the increase, and thousands of bushels of corn were +even transported and sold to the New England colonists.</p> + +<p>The year 1634 also marked the establishment of the county +form of local government in Virginia. The scattered plantations +and settlements, rapidly expanding and hence more difficult to +govern from James City, were now organized into eight counties. +For each a monthly court was established by commission from +the Governor and Council. Provision for separate courts in +outlying areas had been made as early as 1618. Now the shift to +decentralized government was formalized.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[18]</a></span></p> + +<div class="minispace"> </div> +<div class="image"> +<a href="images/i018_full.jpg"><img src="images/i018.jpg" width="500" height="408" alt="Map 2" title="" /></a> +</div> +<div class="minispace"> </div> + +<div class="center2"><span class="smcap">The "Thrusting Out" of Governor Harvey and Its +Aftermath, 1635-1641</span></div> + +<p>In 1635, in one of the most famous incidents in Virginia's<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[19]</a></span> +early history, Governor Harvey was deposed by his Council. +Many historians have assumed that Harvey was deposed by a +spontaneous uprising of the people no longer able to bear his +oppressive government. There is, however, little justification for +this view. Many more accusations have been hurled at Harvey +by later historians than by his contemporaries, and it is undoubtedly +Harvey's position as a royal Governor and his quick +temper that have caused historians to take such a hostile view +of him. Ever since the successful American Revolution of 1776, +American historians, in interpreting the events of the colonial +period, have jumped at any evidence of discontent as an anticipation +of, and justification for, the War for Independence. They +have not stopped to determine whether the charges hurled at the +royal Governors were true or not. It is enough that someone +accused them of oppression.</p> + +<p>The causes of the revolt against Harvey were various. Of first +importance was the continual opposition that existed between +the Governor and his Council. The revolt was not primarily a +revolt of the people but a revolt by certain members of the +Council who attempted to give their particular insubordination +the appearance of a general rebellion.</p> + +<p>Harvey's commission was such that he could do nothing except +by majority vote of himself and the Council sitting as a +single body. The Council frequently outvoted him, effectively +blocking his proposals. Harvey bitterly disputed the Council's +power to thwart his will. He pointed out that the King had sent +him to Virginia not only as the new Governor but with the +specific duty of correcting the abuses that were reported to have +existed under previous Governors, especially those abuses for +which members of the Council were responsible. Previous to +his arrival the government had been in the hands of Francis<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[20]</a></span> +West and Dr. John Pott, elected to office by the other members +of the Council. Pott, whose reputation has been mentioned +earlier, was not pleased to be brought to justice for his dishonest +actions. Nor was Samuel Mathews, an important member of +the Council, pleased to be brought to justice for withholding +the cattle and property of other men. (Mathews, the richest man +in the colony, successfully resisted all legal attempts to divest +him of this property.) Nor were the Council members pleased +when, in accordance with His Majesty's commands, Harvey attempted +to punish those responsible for the ill treatment of +William Capps, sent earlier by the King to start production of +tar, potash, salt, pipe staves and other commodities. The Council +had discouraged him from his mission, except in so far as it +concerned the production of salt, and Pott had issued an order +preventing him from leaving the colony to report to the King.</p> + +<p>Another cause for grievance against Harvey was the peace he +made with the local Indians. The colonists distrusted the Indians +more than they distrusted other Europeans. The great massacre +of 1622, when the Indians made a desperate attempt to destroy +the English settlement, had placed Indian-white relations on a +basis of perpetual enmity. Legally, the Indians had never been +considered to have the same rights as the English. English law +throughout the seventeenth century maintained the doctrine that +between Christians and infidels there could exist nothing but +perpetual enmity, a view which was a hangover from the period +of the Crusades, wars against the Turks, and expansion by +militant Christian nations into heathen lands during the fifteenth +and sixteenth centuries. It is true that practical co-operation and +on-the-spot recognition of Indian rights had developed in Virginia +in the early years. The massacre of 1622, however, gave +Virginians an excuse for abandoning all forms of co-operation +with, and respect for, the Indians. Deceit and breach of faith +were elevated into acknowledged instruments of policy. The right +of the Indians even to occupy the land of their forefathers was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[21]</a></span> +denied. They were admitted to exist and to hold land <i>in fact</i>, +but the English refused to recognize <i>in law</i> either their existence +or their title to land. Total extirpation was resolved against those +Indian nations which had taken part in the massacre. "Marches" +were periodically ordered against the various tribes with the +purpose of destroying or seizing their corn, burning their shelters, +and killing as many members of the tribe as possible.</p> + +<p>Governor Harvey reversed this policy and made peace with +the Indians against the advice of Dr. Pott and other Councilors. +He also attempted to see that some measure of equity was extended +to Indian-white relations. As a result, the more aggressive +planters accused him of promoting a second massacre.</p> + +<p>What really set off the revolt against Harvey, however, was +the injection of the hottest issue of the day into the controversy: +whether Harvey was "soft" on Catholicism. This issue was +brought to a head because of the grant of a portion of Virginia's +original territory to George Calvert, first Lord Baltimore. Harvey +had extended a helping hand to Baltimore's colonists. Although +his actions in this regard were specifically required of him by +the King, and although he received especially warm commendation +from the English government for doing so, the Virginia +colonists objected. The King's grant, for one thing, had been +carved out of the Virginia Company's old bounds which had +been left undisturbed when the Company lost its right to govern +the area. Already Virginians were beginning to eye the benefits +of settlement in the northern reaches of Chesapeake Bay. One, +Colonel William Claiborne, Secretary of the colony, had obtained +a royal commission to trade in the area and had established a +settlement on Kent Island, opposite the present Annapolis, far +up Chesapeake Bay. By acting on the King's instructions and +supporting Baltimore's authority in the area against Claiborne's +claims, Harvey turned the second most important man in the +colony against him.</p> + +<p>Harvey at first backed the Virginia Council's assertion that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[22]</a></span> +Kent Island was a part of Virginia, and not part of the supposedly +uncultivated wilderness granted to Baltimore by the King. But in +the face of Charles's obvious desire to take the area away from +Virginia, and because Claiborne's patent authorized trade rather +than settlement, Harvey soon accepted Lord Baltimore's position +that Claiborne's trading post lay within the limits of Baltimore's +jurisdiction. Irritation between the two men increased when +Harvey attempted jointly with the Maryland authorities to conduct +an examination of charges that Claiborne was stirring up +Maryland's Indians against the new settlers. Claiborne was accused +of telling the local Indians that the new settlers were not +Englishmen but Spaniards. The investigation which ensued was +hampered at every turn by Claiborne and his friends on the Virginia +Council.</p> + +<p>The Virginians were most concerned not by the apparent violation +of Virginia's territorial integrity, but by the fact that the +new settlement was being established and settled by Roman Catholics. +The Virginians were less tolerant than the King in wishing +success to Lord Baltimore, a Catholic, and his fellow religionists, +in establishing a colony on their northern border. The Virginia +Council wrote Charles in 1629 thanking him for "the freedome +of our Religion which wee have enjoyed," and asserting proudly +that "noe papists have beene suffered to settle amongst us." They +insisted upon tendering the oaths of supremacy and allegiance +to Lord Baltimore when he arrived in Virginia in October 1629 +to consider a possible settlement, and reported to the King that +he had refused to take those oaths. Charles I had married a +Catholic, Henrietta Maria of France, and, like his father, James +I, was not disposed to allow too rigorous penalties against those +who professed religious allegiance to Rome. But the Parliament, +and the people in general, feared and hated Catholics, believing +their religious beliefs to be incompatible with loyalty to a Protestant +state.</p> + +<p>By means of the oaths of allegiance and supremacy Catholics<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[23]</a></span> +were required to recognize the English sovereign as their rightful +ruler in matters spiritual and ecclesiastical as well as temporal, +to repudiate the papal claim to depose heretical princes, +to promise to fight for the King in case of rebellion caused by a +papal sentence of deposition, and to denounce the doctrine that +princes, being excommunicated, could be deposed or murdered, +or that subjects could be absolved from their oath of allegiance. +The oaths were based on a real fear which identified Roman Catholicism +with treason. Protestants felt that Catholics owed their +highest allegiance to a foreign power, and hence were not good +Englishmen. The problem was a complicated one, and much debated +at the time and since. Now it is generally accepted that +one can owe spiritual allegiance to Rome while remaining a +faithful subject of a non-Catholic state. In England in the seventeenth +century, however, the Church of Rome was too closely +identified with England's mortal enemies to allow her freely to +tolerate Catholics in her midst. For a long period England had +feared Spain as the greatest threat to her existence. Even after +the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 this fear persisted and +to a certain extent was transferred to France, another Catholic +power. The measures taken against the Catholics in England +were similar to those taken against Communists in this country +today, and they were taken for the same reason: the fear that +the followers of a universal ideology would turn against their +local allegiance if the two ever came in conflict.</p> + +<p>Eventually Charles's easy attitude towards Catholics helped +bring about his downfall. In a similar way Harvey's compliance +with the King's instructions to aid and respect Baltimore's colonists +weakened his popularity in Virginia.</p> + +<p>As the locus of power in England shifted from the King and +his lords towards the Parliament and the people, a stronger +Protestant and democratic policy became necessary. The eventual +result of this shift in power became evident with the beheading +of Charles I in 1649 and, later, with the Glorious Revolution of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[24]</a></span> +1689 and the crowning of William and Mary as constitutional +symbols of the power of the English nation.</p> + +<p>So great was the popular feeling in Virginia against the "Papists" +in Maryland that many, in casual conversation, exclaimed +that they would rather knock their cattle on the head than sell +them to Maryland. To accommodate the needs of the new settlers +in Maryland, Harvey sent them some cows of his own and did +his best to ease their early struggles, in accordance with the King's +commands. He could not do all he wished, however, because he +was frequently outvoted at the Council meetings on anything +that had to do with Maryland.</p> + +<p>The deposition of Governor Harvey had its origin on April 27, +1635, in a mutinous gathering held in the York River area, Virginia's +first frontier settlement outside the James River. The ring-leader +seems to have been Francis Pott, brother of Doctor Pott, +who harangued the meeting about the alleged injustice of Governor +Harvey, and about the Governor's toleration for Indians, +which he said would bring on another massacre. Francis Pott had +formerly been commander of the fort at Point Comfort but had +a short time before been discharged by Harvey for misbehavior.</p> + +<p>Harvey ordered the principals in the York meeting arrested, +and called the Council together to consider what action should +be taken against them. The Council opposed Harvey's desire +to proceed against them by martial law, and began to excuse +the dissidents on the grounds of the many complaints the people +had about the government. Harvey thereupon demanded +opinions in writing on what should be done with the mutineers. +George Menefie, the first Councilor of whom Harvey demanded +such a written statement, said he was but a young lawyer and +dared not give a sudden opinion. A violent debate ensued. The +rest of the Council also refused to put their opinions in writing. +At the next meeting of the Council, Menefie began to recount +the grievances of the country, naming Harvey's detention of the +Assembly's letter to the King as the principal one. The original<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[25]</a></span> +of this letter, refusing the King's propositions concerning a tobacco +contract, Harvey had retained, as likely to infuriate the +monarch and do the country no good. Instead he had sent a copy +of the letter to the Secretary of State. At Menefie's words, Harvey, +in a rage, brought his hand down sharply on the Councilor's +shoulder and said, "Do you say so? I arrest you on suspicion of +treason to his Majesty." Then Capt. John Utie and Capt. Samuel +Mathews seized Harvey and said, "And we you upon suspicion +of treason to his Majesty." Secretary Richard Kemp immediately +stepped between the men and told Utie and Mathews +that Harvey was the King's Lieutenant and that they had done +more than they could answer for. Mathews and Utie released +their hold on the Governor but demanded that he go to England +to answer the people's complaints. To emphasize their demand +Dr. John Pott signaled forty soldiers who had been concealed +outside the Governor's house (where the meeting was held) to +march up to the door, apparently as a form of threat, although +the mutineers protested that the guard was for the Governor's +safety. More days of negotiations passed. The rebellious Council +called an Assembly to hear charges against Harvey, and chose +Capt. John West to be Governor until His Majesty's pleasure +might be known. Finally Harvey agreed to return to England. +Francis Pott went on the same ship home.</p> + +<p>In England the Privy Council heard the charges against Harvey +and his defense. None of the accusations stood up, and he +was able to show why the Council had private reasons to desire +his removal. The King directed him to return to his government +with increased power, and ordered the Councilors who had been +instrumental in deposing him to be sent to England for trial. +Harvey was able to collect some of his back pay and to obtain the +King's agreement that he should return in a ship of war. Unfortunately, +an old and unseaworthy prize ship was provided him +which had to turn back shortly after its departure, and Harvey +was forced to take passage on an ordinary merchant ship which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[26]</a></span> +arrived in Virginia January 18, 1637. Harvey suffered great +losses because of the unseaworthiness of the prize ship, and petitioned +the King for recompense. He was, however, ordered to +pay out of his own pocket all the losses he had sustained by the +affair, although he was authorized to collect an equivalent amount +from the estates of the mutinous Councilors should they be convicted.</p> + +<p>The sending of the mutinous Councilors—Capt. John West, +Samuel Mathews, John Utie, and William Pierce—as prisoners +to England, strangely enough allowed them to accomplish what +they had been unable to do in Virginia. So many and so powerful +were their friends, so wealthy were they themselves, and so +many were the charges that they contrived against Harvey now +that he was back in the colony and unable to answer them, +that the King soon reversed himself and ordered Harvey relieved +of his post. The King's action illustrates one of the little appreciated +factors in American colonial history: the role played +by petitions to the King. Three thousand miles of ocean, and +months, even years, in time, separated the assertion from the +proof, encouraged the most exaggerated charges, and contributed +to the unjustified sympathy extended by the King to many petitioners +who did not deserve such consideration. Some of the +"crimes" charged against Harvey were even discovered to have +their origin in the King's own commands or in earlier acts of +Assembly. Yet they contributed to clouding the atmosphere and +blinding the lords of England to the true worth of their representative +in Virginia.</p> + +<p>On the basis of unjustified or unsupported charges concerning +Harvey's alleged misappropriation of the mutinous Councilors' +estates, which had been seized for the King pending their trial, +the King, on May 25, 1637, ordered these estates returned to their +owners. Harvey complied immediately as far as four of the Councilors +were concerned, but he had already allowed legal action +to be directed against Mathews' estate by those who had claims<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[27]</a></span> +against Mathews, and judgments had been made in favor of the +plaintiffs. When the English government heard he had not turned +back Mathews' property, it promptly ordered that he do so without +delay, which order Harvey then tried to put into effect as +best he could. The damage had been done, however, and the impression +created that he had willfully misappropriated Mathews' +property and disobeyed the King's commands.</p> + +<p>Harvey's fight against the charges his enemies brought against +him in England suffered another blow when Mr. Anthony +Panton, a minister who had been twice banished from the colony, +returned to England to add his complaints to those of the others. +Harvey was not given a chance to defend himself against the new +charges, and on January 11, 1639, Sir Francis Wyatt was appointed +to succeed him.</p> + +<p>On Wyatt's arrival Harvey's estate was seized and the old Governor +prevented from returning to England until he could satisfy +his creditors. To meet their demands, Harvey, in 1640, was forced +to sell all his land and much of his personal property. The fact +that he was in debt to many persons in the colony is itself a significant +indication that he had not abused the powers of his office. +It is a curious fact that both Governor Sir William Berkeley +and Governor Harvey were much in debt when the rebellions +against their rule began, while their principal enemies were among +the wealthiest men in the colony.</p> + +<p>Harvey was finally able to return to England, probably in 1641. +There he found Anthony Panton continuing his campaign of +defamation against him. Panton was not content to accuse the +previous government in Virginia of every sort of general crime +(although he failed to cite any specific instance of oppression) +but charged that the commission the King had granted to Sir +William Berkeley in August 1641 to replace Wyatt had been +surreptitiously obtained. The House of Lords therefore ordered +Berkeley's voyage delayed while they examined the case. The +House of Commons, on the basis of an earlier petition from<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[28]</a></span> +Panton, had similarly prevented the return to Virginia of Richard +Kemp, Secretary of the colony, and Christopher Wormeley. Both +Berkeley and the two Virginians presented counterpetitions, the +one pointing out that he was charged with nothing and hence +desired not to be held up on his costly voyage, the others asserting +that all Panton's accusations were untrue and similarly requesting +permission to leave. The House of Lords thereupon +granted these petitions, sending Panton's charges to the Governor +and Council of Virginia for a decision.</p> + + +<div class="center2"><span class="smcap">The Early Administration of Sir William Berkeley, +1642-1644: an Era of Good Feeling</span></div> + +<p>In March 1642 Sir William Berkeley took up his duties in +Virginia and began a career which ended both gloriously and +ignominiously thirty-five years later. Berkeley came from a distinguished +family, was a graduate of Oxford and the Inns of +Court, a playwright, and a courtier much admired by the King. +Men frequently wondered why he chose to waste his talents in +the American wilderness when he might have achieved eminence +at Court. The mystery will probably ever remain. In Virginia +Berkeley had to work with many of the same Councilors who bedeviled +Harvey, but Berkeley was able to get along well with +them and with the Assembly and people of Virginia. No Governor +of Virginia in the seventeenth century was ever so well or +so deservedly loved by the people. Since he ended his long career +as Governor amidst a colonial rebellion against his rule in 1676, +historians have found it hard to determine whether to bestow +praise or blame upon him. Usually he is praised for his early +years in the government and condemned for his later years, thus +taking on a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde character. The last word +has not yet been written on Governor Berkeley, however, and his +character may prove to be more consistent than historians have +realized.</p> + +<p>Berkeley's first action was to join the Burgesses and Council<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[29]</a></span> +in a violent denunciation of those who were attempting to reinstitute +the old Virginia Company's control over the colony. In a +"Declaration against the Company" Berkeley and the Assembly +asserted that government under the Company had been intolerable +and if introduced again would destroy all the democratic rights +allowed by the King's instructions, such as legal trial by jury, +the right to petition the King, and yearly Assemblies. The readmission +of the Company would also, the declaration asserted, impeach +the "freedom of our trade (which is the blood and life of a +commonwealth)." The declaration went on to order that anyone +who promoted the restoration of the Company's power would, +upon due conviction, be held an enemy to the colony and forfeit +his whole estate.</p> + +<p>Berkeley's next action was to recommend the repeal of the tax +of four pounds of tobacco per poll which formerly had been levied +for the Governor's use. The Assembly acknowledged this as "a +benefit descending unto us and our posterity ... contributed to +us by our present Governor." Berkeley abolished certain other +valuable emoluments due him by virtue of his office "wherein," +the Assembly declared, "we may not likewise silence the bounty +of our present Governor in preferring the public freedom before +his particular profit." Finally Berkeley recommended that taxes +be proportioned in some measure "according to mens abilities and +estates" rather than by the old poll tax system, and the new +scheme was, for a brief period, put into effect.</p> + +<p>Governor Berkeley not only showed himself selfless in restraining +his own opportunities for profit, but fearless in restraining the +colonists' itch for land. A few months before his arrival, the Assembly +had authorized settlement both on the north side of the +York and in the Rappahannock area, if it could be done in great +enough force. Opechancanough was to be offered fifty barrels of +corn a year for the area between the York and the Piankatank, although +the English proposed to take the area whether Opechancanough +accepted the offer or not. Twenty-four years had elapsed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[30]</a></span> +before English settlement jumped from the James to the York. +Now, ten years after the first settlements on the York, Virginians +were settling on the next great river to the north, the Rappahannock. +By the time Berkeley arrived, some settlers had established +themselves in the area, and many more had claimed grants. Indian +hostility was great, however, and soon a number of the settlers +returned to more secure areas of the country.</p> + +<p>Berkeley, working with the Assembly of March 1643, obtained +a law which provided that the Rappahannock River region +should remain "unseated," though grants might be tentatively +claimed in the area, until the Governor, Council, and Burgesses, +that is, the Grand Assembly, should authorize settlement there. +The Governor was attempting to regulate the expansion of the +colony so that the twin goals of security for the English and justice +for the Indians could both be secured. In this he was not +entirely successful, since he could only guide, not arbitrarily direct, +the representatives of the people. The rich, virgin land of +the frontier exerted a continuing attraction to the tobacco planters, +and five years later, in 1648, the restrictions on settlement +in the Rappahannock region, as well as in the Potomac region, +were officially lifted.</p> + +<p>Many other important policy decisions were made at the March +1643 meeting of the Grand Assembly. One of these decisions +concerned church government. The first act provided for the +establishment of church government according to the Anglican +form. Virginia was not formed as a protest against the Church +of England, as were the Puritan colonies in New England in large +measure. Conformity in religious matters was considered a virtue +in Virginia. The Assembly, indeed, enacted that nonconformist +ministers be compelled to depart the colony, an act which did +much to sour Virginia's relations with New England. What was +significant about the act, however, was that, with certain exceptions +and qualifications, it gave the vestry of every parish power +to elect the minister of the parish. Because established landlords<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[31]</a></span> +and nobles did not exist to build and endow churches as in England, +the representatives of the people, in the vestry, had to assume +the role of patron, to build the church, and to provide for +the support of the minister. In such circumstances it was natural +that much of the power that remained in the hierarchy of church, +state, and society in England should, in Virginia, pass to the +ordinary people and be exercised through their representatives—the +vestry and Burgesses. The people, not the King, became the +patron of the Church of England in Virginia. Popular responsibility +replaced clerical responsibility and added one more phase +of life to those controlled directly by the people in the New +World. It is significant that Patrick Henry, years before the Revolution, +should first have asserted the doctrine of popular responsibility +and authority in a case—the celebrated "Parsons' Cause"—involving +the people's authority over the church.</p> + +<p>An even more significant indication of the shift in power in +the government was the provision in one of the acts of the Assembly +of 1643 that appeals from the General Court (composed +of the Governor and Council, all appointees of the Crown) should +be made to the Grand Assembly (composed of the representatives +of the people plus the Governor and Council).</p> + +<p>Still another demonstration of the <i>de facto</i> shift in power from +the Crown to the people was the third act of the 1643 Assembly +which declared that the Governor and Council "shall not lay any +taxes or impositions upon this collonie their lands or comodities +otherwise then by the authority of the Grand Assembly to be +leavied and imployed as by the Assembly shall be appointed." +The first such law had been passed in March 1624 and renewed +in February 1632. The process of wresting control of the purse +strings from the representatives of the Crown was to be a long-drawn-out +process in America, as indeed it was in England. In +Virginia the battle was won without a fight either because the +Governors were unable to oppose the power of the Burgesses or +because they identified their interests with those of the people.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[32]</a></span> +In the case of the rights won by the people of Virginia during +Sir William Berkeley's governorship, these seem to have been the +results as much of the Governor's benevolence as of the Burgesses' +power.</p> + +<p>The colony also took its economic welfare into its own hands +in the early years of Berkeley's administration. Dutch traders +were encouraged by an act which made it free and lawful for any +Dutch merchant or shipowner to bring merchandise into the +colony and to take tobacco out of it. Means were provided to +ease the difficulty caused by the requirement that the Dutch give +security for payment of the King's customs at the port of London.</p> + + +<div class="center2"><span class="smcap">The Great Massacre and Indian War, 1644-1646</span></div> + +<p>On April 18, 1644, occurred the second great Indian massacre +in Virginia's history. Opechancanough, King of the Pamunkey +Indian confederation, planned and executed the massacre, which +most historians attribute to the steadily increasing pressure exerted +by the English on the Indians' lands. The white population +had increased from 3,000 in 1630 to 8,000 in 1640, and more +were pouring in yearly. Nearly four hundred English, living in +exposed areas of the colony, reportedly lost their lives in the +massacre. The gallant young Berkeley, as proficient a soldier as +he was a playwright and courtier, struck back hard at the Indians. +The entire colony was put on a war footing. Campaigns, usually +by small mobile forces, were conducted against the Indians where +they could be found. The June Assembly passed an act for "perpetuall +warre with the Indians" promising to "pursue and root +out those which have any way had theire hands in the shedding +of our blood and massacring of our people."</p> + +<p>As in the case of so many Indian wars, there was a difference +of opinion as to which Indian nations were guilty of the attack. +The Assembly's act attempted to restrict reprisals to those who +had actually perpetrated the massacre. Some individuals, however, +like Col. William Claiborne, seem to have desired to ex<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[33]</a></span>tend +the reprisals to the Indians living between the Rappahannock +and the Potomac, where the land interests of Claiborne +and others were concentrated at this time.</p> + +<p>Little progress was made in defeating the enemy in the early +months of the war. The Assembly, meeting in June 1644, foreseeing +ruin and desolation unless the colony could be furnished +with a greater supply of arms and ammunition, entreated Governor +Berkeley to return to England and implore His Majesty +for assistance to the country. The Assembly also commissioned +Mr. Cornelius Lloyd as agent for the colony to obtain what supplies +he could from the Dutch plantation in Hudson's River, +from the Swedish plantation on the Delaware, and from the +New England settlements.</p> + +<p>It does not seem, from the records available, that either mission +was successful. Governor Berkeley found England involved in +full-scale war between the forces of the King and those of Parliament. +Instead of receiving aid from the King, Berkeley lent his +own assistance to the King's cause in his English campaigns. +Berkeley returned to Virginia a year later.</p> + +<p>The mission of Virginia's agent to the northern colonies apparently +met with similar lack of success. Governor John Winthrop +of Massachusetts Bay attributed the massacre to Virginia's +expulsion of certain "godly ministers" sent from New England +a short time before, and told the Virginia agent that Massachusetts +could not spare the powder requested. When Massachusetts' +principal powder store shortly thereafter blew up, Winthrop +wondered whether God's wrath might not have been kindled +against the Bay Colony for her refusal to provide powder to fellow +Englishmen in need.</p> + +<p>The war with Opechancanough continued throughout the +fall and winter of 1644 and into the spring of 1645. At the Assembly +of February 1645 provision was made for sending out the +usual military parties. But in addition three forts were ordered<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[34]</a></span> +built: one in the Pamunkey territory, one at the falls of the James, +and a third along the Chickahominy.</p> + +<p>Efforts were made to see that the expenses of the war were +equitably shared. The settlers at Northumberland, on the south +bank of the Potomac, were ordered to contribute to the cost of +the war on the north side of the James. Chickacoan, as the area +was known at first, had served for several years as a rallying +point for Protestants disaffected with the government of Lord +Baltimore, but this was the first official notice of the settlement +by the Virginia Assembly. Settlement along the Potomac was +significant, of course, because it placed a body of citizens farther +from effective control than any had been in the past. It had been +hard enough for Harvey to control the citizens on the south side +of the York River; now two broad rivers, the York and Rappahannock, +lay between the frontier settlements and Jamestown.</p> + +<p>The Assembly of February 1645 found time to deal with matters +other than the conduct of the war. It passed an act providing +"That Free trade be allowed to all the inhabitants of the collony +to buy and sell at their best advantage." Because some questions +had been asked by the merchants of London concerning a rumored +prohibition of trade with them, it was thought fit to explain +that Virginia's free trade extended to them as to other +Englishmen.</p> + +<p>Following Sir William Berkeley's return from England June 7, +1645, vigorous measures were taken to end the protracted war +with Opechancanough, and a new Assembly was called to reform +abuses which had sprung up. This Assembly met in November +and passed reform laws which demonstrate the concern Berkeley +had for satisfying all the legitimate grievances of the people. +Action was taken against innkeepers who charged unreasonable +rates and fraudulently mixed their wines and liquors with water. +Similar action was taken against millers who overcharged the +people. Attorneys at law who charged fees for their services were<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[35]</a></span> +expelled from office, the colony having become outraged at their +exactions. The prohibition against professional attorneys continued +for a number of years before it was finally relaxed. Strict +regulations were instituted to curb the abuses of administrators +of deceased persons and orphans. Because of the trouble and +charge to plaintiffs and defendants of coming to Jamestown to +attend the General Court, county courts were allowed power to +try all causes at common law and equity. The tradition that appeals +should lie from county courts to the General Court and +from the General Court to the Assembly was reaffirmed. General +poll taxes, which had been reintroduced, were abolished on the +grounds that they were "inconvenient" and had "become insupportable +for the poorer sorte to beare." All levies were ordered +to be raised "by equall proportions out of the visible estates in +the collony." Exemptions from taxation extended to members +of the Council were canceled for the duration of the war. It +is not hard to imagine the praise that would have been heaped +on the initiator of such reforms, had it seemed that they were the +result of a democratic uprising.</p> + +<p>In March 1646 the Assembly met again. The policy of building +forts had evidently been considered successful enough to +encourage the Assembly to order another, Fort Henry, constructed +at the falls of the Appomattox for the defense of the inhabitants +on the south side of the James River and to deprive the Indians +of their fishing in the area. The war had been going on for a +year and a half and the enemy forces were still not destroyed. +The Assembly, considering the vast expense that the conflict had +caused and considering "the almost impossibility of a further revenge +upon them, they being dispersed and driven from their +townes and habitations, lurking up and downe the woods in small +numbers, and that a peace (if honourably obtained) would conduce +to the better being and comoditie of the country," authorized +Capt. Henry Fleet, the colony's interpreter, and sixty men, to go +out and try to make a peace with Opechancanough. If they could<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[36]</a></span> +not make such a peace, they were to erect a fort on the Rappahannock +River or between it and the York.</p> + +<p>The "break" in the war came with the daring capture of +Opechancanough himself by Governor Berkeley. Berkeley, who +frequently led the troops of the colony in the field, was apprised +of the Indian leader's whereabouts, and with characteristic boldness +led a troop of men in a raid on his headquarters. The raid +was successful: Opechancanough was captured and brought back +to Jamestown. The old chief, said to be over 100 years, acted +the part of Emperor of the Indian confederation with grave dignity. +The historian Robert Beverley tells us that one day the +nearly blind warrior heard "a great noise of the treading of people +about him; upon which he caused his eye-lids to be lifted up; +and finding that a crowd of people were let in to see him, he call'd +in high indignation for the Governour; who being come, Opechancanough +scornfully told him, that had it been his fortune to take +Sir William Berkeley prisoner, he should not meanly have exposed +him as a show to the people." Berkeley accepted the rebuke, +and ordered him treated with all the dignity due his position as +the leader of many Indian nations. Unfortunately the life of +Opechancanough was shortly after snuffed out by one of his +guards who shot him in the back, despite his defenseless condition.</p> + +<p>Peace was concluded with Necotowance, Opechancanough's +successor, by the first act of the October 1646 Assembly. The +treaty is a document of historic importance. Under its provisions +Necotowance acknowledged that he held his kingdom from the +King of England and that his successors might be appointed or +confirmed by the King's Governors. Twenty beaver skins were +to be paid to the Governor yearly "at the going away of the geese" +in acknowledgment of this subjection. Necotowance and his people +were given freedom to inhabit and hunt on the north side +of York River without interference from the English, provided +that if the Governor and Council thought fit to permit any English +to inhabit the lower reaches of the peninsula, where land<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[37]</a></span> +grants had been made before the massacre, Necotowance first +should be acquainted therewith. Necotowance in turn surrendered +all claim to the land between the falls of the James and +the York rivers downward to Chesapeake Bay. Indians were not +allowed on this land unless specially designated as messengers +to the English. Similarly it was a felony for an Englishmen to +repair to the north side of the York River except temporarily +under special conditions authorized by the Governor.</p> + +<p>The significance of the treaty lies in the fact that the Indians +were to be treated as equals, with equal rights to live on the land +with the English and to enjoy the rights of human beings. They +were no longer considered as vermin to be exterminated whenever +the opportunity presented itself. For the first time in Virginia's +history, the Indian was considered to have an unquestioned legal +right to the land. The setting aside of a reservation for the Indians +into which English intrusion was forbidden marked the end of +the "perpetual enmity" policy of earlier days. When differences +arose, they might still be settled by peace or by war, but the right +of either side to exist would not be questioned.</p> + +<p>Despite the improvement in the status of the Indian nations +occasioned by the treaty of 1646 it proved impossible to preserve +their rights in the face of the enormous increase in English population. +The fate of the eastern Indians proved identical to the +fate of their western brothers in the nineteenth century, when +white population increased around the areas set aside for Indian +occupancy. But in Virginia the attempt was made to establish +a fair settlement, and Governor Berkeley honestly and courageously +labored to keep faith with the Indians, even though he +lost popularity and eventually his position as a result.</p> + +<p>The Assembly of October 1646 also provided for the maintenance +of the forts built during the war. This was done by +granting the land on which they were built, plus adjoining acres, +to individuals who would guarantee to maintain the forts and to +keep a certain number of men constantly on the place. By this<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[38]</a></span> +method the valuable forts of the colony were preserved, yet the +people were spared the heavy taxes that would normally have +been necessary to maintain them.</p> + +<p>The Assembly made further provision that those who had +settled along the Potomac in Northumberland should not be allowed +to avoid taxes as they had done during the war. The English +in this remote area had evidently ignored the act of the +February 1645 Assembly which attempted to tax them, and followed +instead their own interests, free from any effective control +by Virginia's government during the conflict with Opechancanough.</p> + +<p>Finally the October Assembly enacted the strictest and most +democratic voting law ever made in Virginia. Not only were all +freemen (as well as covenanted servants) allowed to vote, but +they were fined 100 pounds of tobacco for failing to do so. This +act seems to have continued in effect until 1655 when the Assembly +prohibited freemen from voting unless they were also +householders.</p> + + +<div class="center2"><span class="smcap">The Administration of Berkeley in 1647-1648: Trade and +Expansion</span></div> + +<p>Following the war Virginia returned to its two great peacetime +interests—trade and expansion. In the Assembly of April 1647 +Berkeley, the Council, and the Burgesses joined in a declaration +which reveals the extent to which the colony relied on Dutch +traders. It noted that "absolute necessities" had caused earlier +Assemblies to invite the Dutch to trade with the inhabitants of +Virginia, "which now for some few yeares they have injoyed +with such content, comfort and releife that they esteeme the +continuance thereof, of noe lesse consequence then as a relative +to theire being and subsistence." Rumors had been raised, the +declaration went on, that by a recent ordinance of Parliament, all +foreigners were prohibited from trading with any of the English +plantations "which wee conceive to bee the invention of some<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[39]</a></span> +English merchants on purpose to affright and expell the Dutch, +and make way for themselves to monopolize not onely our labours +and fortunes, but even our persons." The declaration noted the +baneful effects on the colony of the greed of the English merchants +and pointed out that by ancient charter and right the inhabitants +of Virginia were allowed to trade with any nation in +amity with the King. It would be inconceivable that Parliament +would abridge this right "especially without hearing of the parties +principally interested, which infringeth noe lesse the libertye of +the Collony and a right of deare esteeme to free borne persons: +<i>viz.</i>, that no lawe should bee established within the kingdome +of England concerninge us without the consent of a grand Assembly +here." But since they had heard nothing officially concerning +the rumored act, "wee can interprett noe other thing +from the report, then a forgerye of avaritious persons, whose +sickle hath bin ever long in our harvest allreadye." To provide +for Virginia's subsistence the Governor, Council, and Burgesses +ordered that the right of the Dutch nation to trade with Virginia +be reiterated and preserved, and her traders given every protection.</p> + +<p>Virginia's other great problem, that of unregulated expansion, +was dealt with by the Grand Assembly of November 1647 in an +extraordinary way. The Governor, Council, and Burgesses ordered +that persons inhabiting Northumberland and "other remote +and straying plantations on the south side of Patomeck River, +Wicokomoko, Rappahannock and Fleets Bay" be displanted and +removed. They justified this act on the basis of frequent instructions +from the King to Berkeley and the Council directing that +the planters not be allowed to scatter themselves too widely, +and also because they considered such settlement "pernicious" +and "destructive" to the peace and safety of the colony, animating +the Indians to attack, and thus imbroiling the country in troublesome +and expensive wars. Since winter was approaching, the inhabitants +were allowed one year to remove themselves to the +south side of York River.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[40]</a></span></p> + +<p>The same session of the Assembly authorized Capt. Edward +Hill and others to establish, at the head of Rappahannock River, +a military and trading outpost which was deemed valuable to the +peace and safety of the colony. Hill and his associates were to +provide forty men to man the fort which was not to exceed five +acres at most, on pain of having the grant revoked.</p> + +<p>It was a brave and sensible policy which Berkeley and the Assembly +pursued, but one that was destined to be overridden by +the power, self-interest, and numbers of the thousands of new +members of the colony, both those being born in Virginia in ever-increasing +numbers, and those who had left behind them the +civil strife of England. In less than a year the Assembly enacted +that the tract of land between the Rappahannock and Potomac +rivers should be called Northumberland and that it should have +power to elect Burgesses. The reasons of "state" that had convinced +the Assembly of November 1647 to order the utter dissolution of +the Northumberland settlements were thus thrown to the winds +by the next Assembly. No doubt the pressure of the inhabitants, +would-be inhabitants, and speculators, in addition to the difficulty +of enforcing the decision, caused the repeal of the act. The restraining +hand of the Governor was never again to be felt as it +had been in the period following the 1646 peace. The explosive +growth of settlement in Virginia had proved impossible to control.</p> + +<p>The justification of the settlement south of the Potomac River +was not the only victory of the people in the Assembly of October +1648. Upon the representation of the Burgesses to the Governor +and Council complaining of the worn-out lands and insufficient +cattle ranges of the earlier settlements, the Governor and Council, +after long debate, joined the Burgesses in authorizing settlement +on the north side of the York and Rappahannock rivers. The act +declared, however, that "for reasons of state to ... [the Governor +and Council] appearing, importing the safety of the people in +their seating," no one was to go there before the first of September<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[41]</a></span> +of the following year. Surveys of the area were allowed at once, +however, and land patents were authorized to be taken out. The +act making it a felony to go to the north side of York River was +repealed. The settlers' and speculators' victory was complete. Reasons +of "policy" and "state" proved only of sufficient power to delay +the inevitable.</p> + + +<div class="center2"><span class="smcap">Execution of Charles I and Capture of Colony by +Parliamentary Forces, 1649-1652</span></div> + +<p>On January 30, 1649, King Charles I was beheaded by the +Parliamentary forces. It was a logical climax to the turmoil into +which English institutions and values had been cast by the long +years of civil war that preceded the deed. The execution of the +King shocked Englishmen as well as foreigners. The reaction of +the Virginians came in the form of Act I of the Assembly of +October 1649 which hailed "the late most excellent and now +undoubtedly sainted king," denounced the perpetrators of the +deed, and declared that if any person in the colony should defend +"the late traiterous proceedings ... under any notion of law and +justice" by words or speeches, such person should be adjudged +an accessory <i>post factum</i> to the death of the King. Anyone who +expressed doubt, by words and speeches, as to the inherent right +of Charles II to succeed his father as King of England and Virginia, +was likewise to be adjudged guilty of high treason.</p> + +<p>The death of Charles I left the Parliamentary forces supreme +in England. Some royalists retired to the continent of Europe, +and some came to Virginia. England became a Commonwealth +without a King; Oliver Cromwell was later named Protector. The +new government, after consolidating its power in England, attempted +to extend its control over the colonies, some of which, +like Virginia, continued to demonstrate their loyalty to royal authority. +On October 3, 1650, Parliament, as a punitive measure, +prohibited the trade of the colonies with foreign nations except +as the Parliamentary government should allow. "This succession<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[42]</a></span> +to the exercise of the kingly authority," wrote Jefferson later, +"gave the first colour for parliamentary interference with the colonies, +and produced that fatal precedent which they continued +to follow after they had retired, in other respects, within their +proper functions."</p> + +<p>The reaction of the Virginia Burgesses to this act was as violent +as their reaction to the beheading of Charles I. Their temper +on both occasions owed much to the eloquence of their Governor, +and to the admiration in which he was held by the people. In +March 1651 they met to consider the Parliamentary threat to their +beliefs and to their livelihood. Sir William Berkeley spoke to them +on the subject of Parliament's claim to speak for the English nation. +Said the Governor:</p> + +<div class="blockquote"><p>If the whole current of their reasoning were not as ridiculous, as +their actions have been tyrannicall and bloudy, we might wonder with +what browes they could sustaine such impertinent assertions: For if +you looke into it, 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, therfore now tender your +respects to the same house you once reverenced.... They talke indeed +of money laid out on this country in its infancy: I will not say +how little, nor how centuply repaid, but will onely aske, was it +theirs?... Surely Gentlemen we are more slaves by nature, then +their power can make us if we suffer our selves to be shaken with +these paper bulletts, and those on my life are the heaviest they either +can or will send us.</p></div> + +<p>Berkeley was confident that if Virginia put up a determined +resistance, the new English rulers would beg the colony to trade +with them. He compared the state of England with the state of +Virginia, to the disadvantage of the former. The Parliamentary +government of England, he asserted, did not represent the will +of the people who would not endure their "slavery, if the sword +at their throats did not compell them to languish under the misery +they howrely suffer." As for Virginia, "there is not here an arbitrary +hand that dares to touch the substance of either poore or<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[43]</a></span> +rich." Berkeley called on the Burgesses to support his stand against +the act, asking:</p> + +<div class="blockquote"><p>What is it can be hoped for in a change, which we have not allready? +Is it liberty? The sun looks not on a people more free then we +are from all oppression. Is it wealth? Hundreds of examples shew us +that industry and thrift in a short time may bring us to as high a +degree of it, as the country and our conditions are yet capable of: +Is it securely to enjoy this wealth when gotten? With out blushing +I will speake it, I am confident theare lives not that person can accuse +me of attempting the least act against any mans property. Is it peace? +The Indians, God be blessed round about us are subdued; we can +onely feare the Londoners, who would faine bring us to the same +poverty, wherein the Dutch found and relieved us; would take away +the liberty of our consciences, and tongues, and our right of giving +and selling our goods to whom we please. But 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 loose a life which I cannot more +gloriously sacrifice then for my loyalty, and your security.</p></div> + +<p>The speech being ended the House of Burgesses, unanimously +with the Governor and Council, agreed to reject the Parliamentary +act of October 3, 1650, as illegal, and to continue in allegiance +to King Charles II, always praying for his restoration to the throne +and for the repentance of those who, "to the hazard of their soules" +opposed him. The Assembly proclaimed that they would continue +to trade freely with all persons of whatever nation who came to +trade with them, not excluding the Londoners.</p> + +<p>This assertion of Virginia's traditional freedom and rights was, +of course, a direct challenge to the Parliamentary government. In +the fall of 1651 that government determined to chastise the rebellious +colony and subject it by force. A fleet was dispatched in +October to conquer Virginia and Barbados, another rebellious +colony. Robert Dennis, Richard Bennett, Thomas Stegge, and +William Claiborne were chosen commissioners to take over the +government of Virginia once it had been conquered. Bennett and +Claiborne were living in Virginia at the time.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[44]</a></span></p> + +<p>Part of the fleet arrived in Virginia waters in January 1652. +Berkeley called upon the people to prepare for resistance. One +thousand troops, it is said, gathered in James City for the purpose. +Five hundred Indian allies of the colony promised their aid. Berkeley +denounced the leaders of the Parliamentary expedition as +bloody tyrants, pirates, and robbers. He warned the Virginians +that, if they did not repel the attack, their land titles would be +thrown into doubt and they would be brought under a company +of merchants who would order them at their pleasure and keep +them from trade with all others. To counteract the Governor's +influence, the Parliamentary commissioners circulated letters and +declarations throughout the country denying any such evil intentions. +Finally, on January 19, they sent a summons to the Governor +and Council to surrender, and set sail from the lower reaches +of the James to Jamestown. A milder answer than expected was +returned, setting forth various demands and privileges desired by +the Virginians.</p> + +<p>The commissioners' reply to these proposals was favorable +enough to cause Berkeley to call an Assembly, and negotiations +were entered into between the Governor, Council, and Burgesses +on the one hand, and the Parliamentary commissioners on the +other. Articles of submission were agreed upon which were honorable +to both sides, Virginia receiving guarantees of the privileges +of freeborn people of England, authority for the Grand Assembly +to continue to function, guarantees of immunity for acts or words +done or spoken in opposition to Parliament, guarantees of the +bounds of Virginia, of the fifty-acre headright privilege, and of +the right to "free trade as the people of England do enjoy to all +places and with all nations according to the lawes of that commonwealth." +Special provisions were made which allowed the Governor +and Council to refrain from taking any oath to the Commonwealth +for one year and guaranteed them for one year from +censure for speaking well of the King in their private houses. +Berkeley and the Council were given leave to sell their estates and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[45]</a></span> +quit Virginia, either for England or Holland. No penalties were +to be imposed on those who had served the King.</p> + +<p>The commissioners of Parliament considered that they had been +lucky to reduce the colony without bloodshed, even though forced +to agree to such mild terms. At the same time the event suggests +that the bitterness which existed in England between Roundheads +and Cavaliers was not quite so extreme in the colonies, +where little blood had been shed for the cause of either. The +colonies had interests of their own which ran counter to those of +the mother country, whether in the hands of King or Parliament. +Governor, Council, and Burgesses in Virginia were closer to each +other economically and politically than they were to their respective +counterparts in England. What held the colonies to the +mother country was not self-interest but ties of historical tradition +and racial patriotism. The execution of Charles I and seizure of +the colony by the Parliamentary fleet loosened these ties. The +Crown, symbol of continuity with past ages of English subjects +and of unity among all the King's realms, was now not only removed +but denounced by those who had done the deed.</p> + +<p>Virginia never showed sympathy for those who had killed the +King, and the Assembly took to heart Governor Berkeley's warning +of 1651 that the blood of Charles I "will yet staine your +garments if you willingly submit to those murtherers hands that +shed it." It is true that following the surrender the Parliamentary +commissioners agreed with the representatives of the people on +a provisional government for Virginia, but the bonds that held +Virginia to England had lost much of the cement of love and +tradition. Local and self-interest were now to dominate to a great +extent Virginia's actions. Such motives had always been latent, +and indeed active. But under royal government, the Governor +could often exert a countervailing force to prevent such interests +from overriding the interests of nation and morality.</p> + +<p>Under the terms of the settlement the Grand Assembly was +to continue to function, and the Assembly and commissioners<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[46]</a></span> +agreed that Richard Bennett, one of the commissioners, should +act as Governor for a year. It was expected that orders would shortly +arrive from England establishing new patterns of government. +Such instructions were especially necessary to determine the role +and authority of the Governor and Council, formerly appointed +by the King. The new rulers in England were made aware of the +need for a new policy for the colonies, but they never found time +to make the necessary decisions. At intervals the colonists were +informed that Cromwell had not forgotten them and that His +Highness would soon let them know his pleasure. But instructions +never came except spasmodically and inadequately. The +merchants who stood to gain from the Navigation Act of 1651, +which generally excluded foreign ships from the colonies and attempted +to restrain colonial trade with foreign countries, complained +at the failure of the colonists to obey the act and demanded +that orders be sent to enforce it, but no adequate provisions were +ever made.</p> + +<p>Thus the colony was left to its own devices during the period. +Virginia traders paid little attention to Parliamentary restrictions +on their commerce. They insisted that the provision of the Articles +of Surrender allowing them free trade with all nations according +to the laws of the Commonwealth did not prevent them from +trading with foreigners. They argued that since the first article +of the surrender agreement guaranteed them the rights of freeborn +Englishmen, an act discriminating against them in matters of trade +because they happened to live in the colonies was illegal. Dutch +ships called often, though perhaps not so frequently as some have +believed, and individual Virginians traded as they pleased with +the Dutch and English colonies in America.</p> + + +<div class="center2"><span class="smcap">Expansion in Virginia, 1650-1656</span></div> + +<p>The existence of a weak executive, dependent on the people +for his authority, inevitably brought about a dispersal of power +and authority from the center to the outer edges of settlement.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[47]</a></span> +The explosive force of expansion was no longer limited by the +strong hand of a royal Governor, and each increment of population +in the colony and power in the hands of the local authorities +added fuel to the combustion.</p> + +<p>One of Virginia's frontiers at this time was the Eastern Shore. +It was a frontier community because the law of the colonial government +in Jamestown rarely extended to it. The local commissioners +of the county court, later called "justices," provided what +justice existed on the Eastern Shore. But since these commissioners +were sometimes the worst offenders against the policies of the +Governor, Council, and Burgesses, justice was often sacrificed to +interest, especially when Indians were involved. The leaders on +the Eastern Shore, like Edmund Scarborough, were among the +richest men and greatest landowners of the colony. They conducted +the county's business as if it were their own, which indeed +it was to a great extent. Their oppression of the Eastern Shore +Indians makes a sorry history, despite the efforts of Governor +Berkeley to restrain them. In April 1650, for example, Berkeley +was forced to write to the commissioners of Northampton asking +them not to allow any land to be taken from the Laughing King +Indians. Berkeley pointed out that during the massacre of 1644 +these Indians had remained faithful to the English. How could +Virginia expect them to do the same again, asked Berkeley, "unless +we correspond with them in acts of charity and amity, especially +unless we abstain from acts of rapine and violence, which +they say we begin to do, by taking away their land from them, +by pretence of the sale of a patent."</p> + +<p>Honest attempts were made both before and after the retirement +of Sir William Berkeley in 1652 to restrain the frontier +barons in their savage attacks on unsuspecting Indian towns. But +often the law was too weak and the guilty too strong. Neither +the Indians in front of them nor the government behind them had +the power to curb their desires except in a limited fashion. This +was one of the benefits—to the frontiersmen—of living under Eng<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[48]</a></span>lish +law. The government could not effectively restrain the Englishman +nor protect the Indian. As a result the reckless expansion +went on into the lands of other tribes. As each new Indian tribe +was reached the same dismal pattern of subjugation or extirpation +was repeated, despite the efforts of the Governor and Council +to see that the rights of the Indians were preserved.</p> + +<p>Every extension of settlement strengthened local rule. In May +1652 the people of Northampton County, which comprised the +whole of the Eastern Shore of Virginia, protested to the Assembly +against a tax levied on them, asserting that since they had not sent +representatives to the Assembly since 1647, except for one Burgess +in 1651, they did not think the Assembly could tax them. +They asked that they be allowed to have a separate government +and the right to try all causes in their own courts. Although +Northampton was not allowed to dissociate itself entirely from +the rest of Virginia, acts of 1654 and 1656 allowed the county +to constitute laws and customs for itself on matters dealing with +Indians and manufactures.</p> + +<p>Virginia's most important frontier region in the 1650's was the +area along the Potomac River, although settlement went on +simultaneously westward up the James, York, and Rappahannock, +southward into Carolina, and northward up the Eastern Shore to +Maryland. Sometimes individuals obtained grants to explore, settle, +and monopolize the trade of these regions. But usually the +expansion was catch as catch can. Since land travel was still more +difficult than water travel, expansion up the Potomac, the last +great unsettled tidewater river, was fastest. Individuals who already +had plantations in the older areas of settlement around +Jamestown sailed their barques up the Potomac and, without +bothering to go ashore, took the bounds of likely pieces of land. +The best spots were often the corn fields of the Indians and sometimes +the very towns where they lived. The fact that the Indians +occupied the land counted for little in the thoughts of the settlers +and speculators who flocked to the area.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[49]</a></span> +Following their surveys, the explorers rushed back to James +City and put in claims for the waterfront acreages, presenting one +"headright"—proof that someone had been imported into the colony +by their agency—for every fifty acres. The Patent Books of +the colony frequently show signs of fraud in the presentation of +headrights. Occasionally more land was granted than the claimant +was entitled to on the basis of the headrights he presented. But +the headright system, even imperfectly administered, remained +during the Parliamentary period as one of the elements of restraint +on the unbounded desires of the planters. Land acquisition was +thus tied in a fixed ratio to population increase. There was, as a +result, some assurance that land acquired would be populated and +farmed. It was not until late in the seventeenth century that anyone +could buy land for money alone, a practice which enabled +some individuals in the eighteenth century to obtain holdings +exceeding 100,000 acres. In the middle of the seventeenth century +10,000 acres was a practical "top" limit.</p> + +<p>At the beginning of the Commonwealth period in Virginia +a number of new counties were set up. The Assembly of April +1652 listed two new ones: Gloucester, north of the York, and +Lancaster, north of the Rappahannock. The Assembly of November +1652 listed Surry, south of the James, for the first time. Settlers +had moved into these areas earlier when they were parts of +other counties, and in two cases the county organization may have +been set up prior to April 1652. The Assembly of July 1653, in +addition to authorizing exploration and settlement on the Roanoke +and Chowan rivers in present-day North Carolina, and +exploration into the Appalachian Mountains, ordered that a county +to be called Westmoreland should be set up west of Northumberland +County on the Potomac, with boundaries from Machodoc +River to the falls of the Potomac above the town of the Anacostan +Indians. It was thus intended not only to include in the new +county all the lands of the Doeg Indians, but also those of the +Anacostans. The Assembly of November 1654 authorized the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[50]</a></span> +establishment of New Kent County along both sides of the upper +York River and far up the Pamunkey and Mattaponi rivers.</p> + +<p>The Assembly of November 1654 also authorized the three +new northern counties of Lancaster, Northumberland, and Westmoreland +to march against the Rappahannock Indians to punish +various "injuries and insolencies offered" by them. One hundred +men were to be raised in Lancaster, forty in Northumberland, +and thirty in Westmoreland. The commissioners of these counties +were authorized to raise the troops, and one of their number was +appointed commander-in-chief of the expedition. He was to march +to the Rappahannock Indian town and demand and receive +"such satisfaction as he shall thinke fitt for the severall injuries +done unto the said inhabitants not using any acts of hostility but +defensive in case of assault." The charge of the war was to be +borne by the three counties concerned. This expedition was like +many others that both preceded and followed it. In each case, +enormous authority and responsibility were given to local officials +who were themselves frequently the leading oppressors of the +Indians. Such expeditions not infrequently took on the character +of private wars between the big landowners of the frontier and +the Indian towns in the vicinity. The Governor, Council, and +Burgesses frequently heard the complaints of the local settlers, +but rarely the complaints of the Indians. The authorization to the +local community to administer justice to the Indians often proved +a cover for their expulsion or extirpation.</p> + +<p>The usual grievances of the settlers against the Indians were +not the violent murders and massacres so often associated in the +public mind with Indian-white relations, but minor irritations +concerning property and animals. The settlers let their hogs run +wild. The hogs would get into the Indians' corn. The Indians +would kill the hogs. The settlers would demand satisfaction. Many +acts of the Assembly testify to the fact that shooting of wild hogs +was one of the most frequent points of dispute not only between +the English and the Indians but among the English themselves.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[51]</a></span> +It was one reason why early Assemblies provided strict rules for +erecting adequate fences around cultivated fields and establishing +lines of responsibility for damage caused by straying cattle or hogs. +On the frontier, however, such refinements of civilization as fences +were long in coming. What was more natural than that the same +conflicts which arose among the English in the early years of +settlement should arise between the English and the Indians on +the frontier. The tragedy was that English-Indian conflicts were +not normally settled in the courts as were conflicts between Englishmen. +The courts did deal with Indian-white conflicts to a +certain extent, but, as noted before, the local justices were often +the very persons the Indians accused of oppressing them. Sometimes +the Indians were able to bring their complaints before the +General Court in Jamestown. But often the dispute was settled +in the wilderness in the traditional frontier way: by violence. +Since the settlers had weapons of violence superior to those possessed +by the Indians, it was not very frequently that the Indians +won their "case."</p> + +<p>In the Assemblies of these years there is occasional mention +of the splitting of counties in two parts, or of the formation of +new parishes. Usually these divisions were made along rivers or +streams. Such legislation suggests that settlement was spreading +back from the water routes into the land area between streams. +The early counties were normally set up to embrace the area on +both sides of watercourses, even broad rivers like the James and +York. The rivers were, in the early period of settlement, bonds +that linked the settlers on either side to each other. It was natural +that rivers should be the principal thoroughfares of the country. +But as settlement spread into the interior, up the tributary streams +that issued into the larger rivers, the natural social unit that developed +was that of communities on the same side of the river. +Hence the gradual conversion of rivers into political boundaries.</p> + +<p>The Assembly of March 1655, for the first time in Virginia's +history, restricted the voting privilege to "housekeepers whether<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[52]</a></span> +freeholders, leaseholders, or otherwise tenants." Freemen who +could not qualify as householders, even though they may have +been grown sons living in their father's house, could not vote. It +is significant that this first restriction on the right to vote in Virginia +came not under a royal governor, but under so-called "Parliamentary" +rule. So unpopular was this enactment that it was +amended by an act of the Assembly of March 1656 on the grounds +that "we conceive it something hard and unagreeable to reason +that any persons shall pay equall taxes and yet have no votes in +elections." Freemen were again allowed to vote provided that they +did not do so "in a tumultuous way."</p> + +<p>The Assembly of March 1656 passed an act which attempted +to solve the Indian problem in a way that had never been tried +before but has been frequently tried since. The plan was to encourage +the growth of an acquisitive spirit among the Indians to +serve as a counterweight to the acquisitive spirit of the English. +The preamble to the act asserted that the danger of war from +the Indians stemmed from two causes: "our extreame pressures +on them and theire wanting of something to hazard and loose +beside their lives." Therefore the Assembly enacted that for every +eight wolves' heads brought in by the Indians, the King or great +man of the Indians should have a cow delivered to him at the +public charge. "This will be a step to civilizing them and to making +them Christians," the act went on; "besides it will certainly +make the comanding Indians watch over their own men that they +do us no injuries, knowing that by theire default they may be in +danger of losing their estates." The Assembly also attempted to +make the lands possessed by the Indians under the seal of the +colony inalienable to the English. Otherwise, constant pressure on +the Indians by the settlers would force them over and over again +to dispose of their lands.</p> + +<p>Many people fail to realize that the Indians of Virginia lived in +well-defined towns or settlements. It was, indeed, the Indians who +lived an "urban" life in the seventeenth century while the Eng<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[53]</a></span>lish +settlers were usually scattered about the countryside. The conventional +picture of the Indian roaming the forests, living solely +by hunting and fishing, is mistaken. The Indian did hunt and +fish, as many of us do today. But his support came in large measure +from the corn and vegetables growing in the fields which adjoined +every Indian town. The Indians had a close-knit and harmonious +community life. They were only indirectly touched by +the white man's money economy and were usually content to +raise only what food they needed for their own consumption. +They were not infected with the restless, individualistic spirit of +the white settler who constantly worked to accumulate a monetary +surplus from the returns on his single cash crop, tobacco.</p> + +<p>Like later attempts to destroy the group-centered society of the +Indians in favor of a self-centered society, this attempt of 1656 +was not completely successful.</p> + + +<div class="center2"><span class="smcap">Indian Troubles, 1656-1658</span></div> + +<p>Early in 1656 word was received that six or seven hundred +strange Indians from the mountains had come down and seated +themselves near the falls of the James. The March Assembly, +considering how much blood it had cost to "expell and extirpate +those perfidious and treacherous Indians which were there formerly," +and considering how the area lay within the limits "which +in a just warr were formerly conquered by us," ordered the two +upper counties under Col. Edward Hill to send 100 men to +remove the intruders peacefully, making war only in self-defense. +Messages were sent to obtain the aid of the Pamunkeys, +Chickahominies, and other neighboring Indians. Tottopottomoy, the +King of the Pamunkeys, joined Hill with 100 of his warriors, +although only the summer before his brother had been murdered +by an Englishman.</p> + +<p>The western Indians had apparently come down to treat with +the English about trade, bringing with them many beaver skins<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[54]</a></span> +to begin the commerce. Col. Hill, however, despite the Assembly's +command to avoid the use of force, perfidiously had five of +the kings who came to parley with him put to death. "This unparalleled +hellish treachery and anti-christian perfidy more to be +detested than any heathenish inhumanity," a contemporary wrote, +"cannot but stink most abominably in the nosetrils of as many +Indians, as shall be infested with the least scent of it, even to +their perpetual abhorring and abandoning of the very sight and +name of an English man, till some new generation of a better +extract shall be transplanted among them!" In the fight that +ensued Tottopottomoy lost his life fighting bravely for the English. +Despite his fidelity, neither he nor his tribe was honorably +treated by the English, the very land he owned being extorted +from him and his successors.</p> + +<p>Hill himself was found guilty by the unanimous vote of the +Burgesses and Council of "crimes and weaknesses" in his conduct +of the campaign. He was ordered suspended from all offices, +military and civil, and made liable for the charge of procuring a +peace with the Indians with whom he had so treacherously dealt.</p> + +<p>The disgraceful episode of Hill's campaign may have caused +some soul-searching in the Assembly that met following the +event, for, in addition to censuring Hill, it repealed an act which +had made it lawful to kill an Indian committing a trespass. It +pointed out that since the oath of the person killing the Indian +was considered sufficient evidence to prove the alleged trespass, +killing Indians, "though never so innocent," had come to be of +"small account" with the settlers. Since the colony would probably +be involved in endless wars and might "expect a success answerable +to the injustice of our beginning if no act be made for the +future to prevent this wanton and unnecessary shedding of +blood," the Assembly attempted to provide some protection for +the Indians.</p> + +<p>That expansion into the Indians' territory continued is shown<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[55]</a></span> +by the authorization given by this same Assembly of December +1656 to form the county of Rappahannock on both sides of the +Rappahannock River above Lancaster County. Confirmation of +the movement towards the frontier is shown in the report to the +same Assembly by the sheriffs of Isle of Wight County and +Elizabeth City County, both at the mouth of the James River, +that their counties were overrated in the tax lists of "tithable" +persons by thirty-eight and thirty-two persons respectively. The +Assembly ordered that their tax allotments should be reduced +accordingly and laid upon Lancaster County "where they are +increased since the last year's list 152 persons." An act of the +Assembly of March 1658 similarly took note of the numbers of +inhabitants who had "deserted their plantations and receded +into the bay of Chisapeake" without having satisfied their creditors. +It prescribed penalties for removing without notice.</p> + +<p>Bills guaranteeing the Indians their lands, justice, and personal<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[56]</a></span> +freedom continued to pass. The acts freely admitted that +previous guarantees to this effect had been ineffective and that +"manie English doe still intrench upon the said Indians' land," +which the Assembly conceived to be "contrary to justice, and the +true intent of the English plantation in this country." Nevertheless +attempts to legislate justice for the Indians continued. +It could not be done. The power of the Assembly's acts was not +equal to the power of the frontiersmen's muskets. However, the +acts of the Assembly were not without effect, and in many cases +served their purpose. One of the most notable acts of this Assembly +provided that no grants of land should be made to any +Englishman in the future until the Indians had first been guaranteed +fifty acres for each bowman. The good intent of this act +seems to have been a direct consequence of the practice that had +arisen in the preceding years of granting patents to Englishmen +for land occupied by the Indians. It was an attempt to make sure +that the Indians would not be wholly dispossessed to satisfy the +land hunger of the English.</p> + +<div class="minispace"> </div> +<div class="image border2" style="width: 472px; height: 580px; border-color: #FFFFFF"> +<img src="images/i056.jpg" width="472" height="580" alt="National Portrait Gallery, London + +OLIVER CROMWELL + +Painting by Robert Walker" title="" /> +<span class="captionr stext">National Portrait Gallery, London</span></div> + +<div class="caption">OLIVER CROMWELL<br /> +Painting by Robert Walker +</div> +<div class="minispace"> </div> + +<div class="center2"><span class="smcap">Parliamentary Governors, 1652-1659</span></div> + +<p>Early writers on Virginia history tended to overemphasize how +completely affairs in Virginia during the Commonwealth and +Protectorate periods were in the hands of the House of Burgesses. +Still, the House did assume to itself many of the powers of government +in the period and asserted its ultimate authority in all +other matters. It took this position out of necessity, and always +with the proviso that, should instructions come from the supreme +power in England, it would obey them.</p> + +<p>The first Governor under the Commonwealth, Richard Bennett, +was appointed by an act of Assembly on April 30, 1652, his +term to last for one year or until the following meeting of the +Assembly, with the further proviso that the appointment should +be in effect "untill the further pleasures of the states be knowne." +Bennett, a planter of Nansemond County, was a Puritan in his +religious outlook and was one of those who had invited New +England to send ministers to Virginia in the early 1640's. When +Parliament decided to conquer the colony in 1651 it appointed +him one of the commissioners for the enterprise. It is probable +that the secret instructions issued to Bennett by the Parliamentary +authorities required him to come to some agreement with the +Burgesses on who should be Governor until a more formal commission +for the office should issue from the supreme power in +England. However, as the years passed, and as instructions from +England failed to deal with Virginia's problems, the House of +Burgesses asserted its prerogative more and more.</p> + +<p>On March 31, 1655, Edward Digges was elected Governor +by the Assembly to replace Bennett. Digges was the son of Sir +Dudley Digges, Master of the Rolls under Charles I. He came to +Virginia sometime before 1650 and bought a plantation on the +York River, subsequently known as "Bellfield." The plantation +become famous for the quality of the tobacco grown there, and +was also the scene of Digges's efforts at silk production, in the +culture of which he employed three Armenians. When Digges<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[57]</a></span> +decided to return to England in 1656, Samuel Mathews was +elected to succeed him. There is some confusion as to whether +Governor Mathews was the man who so bedeviled Sir John Harvey +in the 1630's, or his son of the same name.</p> + +<p>When Mathews and the Council attempted to dissolve the +Assembly on April 1, 1658, the Burgesses answered that the +Governor's action was illegal, and that they would remain and +complete their work. Mathews refused to concede their point +formally, though he declared his willingness to allow them to +continue in fact while the dispute was submitted to the Lord +Protector in England. The Burgesses declared his answer unsatisfactory. +They demanded a specific acknowledgment that +the House remained undissolved. Mathews and the Council +finally agreed to revoke the declaration of dissolution, but still +insisted on referring the dispute to the Lord Protector. The House +rejected this answer as well, asserting that the present power of +Virginia resided in the Burgesses, who were not dissolvable by +any power extant in Virginia but themselves. They directed the +High Sheriff of James City County not to execute any warrant +but from the Speaker of the House. In addition, they ordered +Col. William Claiborne, the Secretary of the Council, to surrender +the records of the country into the hands of John Smith, +the Speaker of the Assembly, on the basis of the Burgesses' +declaration to hold "supreame power of this country."</p> + +<p>That the House of Burgesses did not mean its actions to be in +defiance of the power that existed in England, however, is shown +by its agreement to proclaim Richard, son of Oliver Cromwell, +Lord Protector when the Governor sent down, at the March 1659 +session, an official letter from His Highness' Council requiring +that it be done. Immediately after agreeing to proclaim Richard, +the Burgesses decided to address the new Lord Protector for +confirmation of the privilege granted to the Assembly, perhaps +under the terms of Bennett's secret instructions, to elect its own +officers. Although the Speaker of the House assured the Burgesses<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[58]</a></span> +that the Governor was willing to join them in such a request, +some of the Burgesses expressed a desire to hear the assurance +from the Governor's own lips. Accordingly, he was sent for and, +to the satisfaction of the Burgesses, "acknowledged the supream +power of electing officers to be by the present lawes resident in +the Grand Assembly." He promised to join them in requesting +confirmation of these privileges from His Highness.</p> + +<p>The Assembly, at this same session, passed an act electing +Mathews Governor again for two years "and then the Grand +Assembly to elect a Governour as they shall think fitt." The act +was to be in force "until his Highness pleasure be further signified." +William Claiborne was appointed Secretary of State on +his acknowledgment that he received the place from the Assembly, +and with the proviso that he should continue Secretary until +the next Assembly or until the Lord Protector's pleasure should +be further signified to the colony.</p> + +<p>The Assembly of 1659 marks the high water point of local +government in Virginia. Not only were the Burgesses supreme +in matters of general legislation, compelling the Governor and +Secretary to bow to their sovereign power, but in their home +counties affairs were conducted much as the local justices saw +fit. The Assembly of 1659 even authorized free trade with the +Indians by anyone in any goods—even guns and ammunition. +Never before had regulation on a point of such vital interest to +the security of the colony been so utterly abandoned.</p> + + +<div class="center2"><span class="smcap">Recall of Sir William Berkeley by the Assembly, +1659-1660</span></div> + +<p>Soon after the Assembly of March 1659 ended, Richard Cromwell +resigned the reins of government in England. The English +nation was again plunged into turmoil. Letters arriving in Virginia +spoke of the people divided "some for one Government +some for another." The prospect of London "burned into Ashes<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[59]</a></span> +and the streets running with blood" was held a likely outcome +of the divisions.</p> + +<p>In the midst of this troublous situation, Governor Mathews +died. The next Assembly met in March 1660. In a move that +has astonished historians since that time it asked Sir William +Berkeley, the royal Governor whom its former leaders had deposed, +to govern Virginia again. No royal banners were unfurled; +Charles II was not proclaimed King. The House of Burgesses, +holding the supreme power in the colony, merely offered the +governorship to the man who had been universally admired +for his justice, humanity, and willingness to sacrifice his own +interest to that of the colony.</p> + +<p>Berkeley had been unwilling to disavow his loyalty to the +Crown in 1652 and he was not prepared to do so now. He replied +to the Burgesses' invitation by saying that he would not dare to +offend the King by accepting a commission to govern from any +power in England opposed to him. He urged them to choose +instead a more vigorous man from amongst their own number. +But he did offer to accept the governorship directly from the +House of Burgesses if the Council would concur with the Burgesses +in offering it to him. He promised that if thereafter any +supreme power in England succeeded in re-establishing its authority +in Virginia he would immediately lay down his commission +and "will live most submissively obedient to any power God +shall set over me, as the experience of eight yeares have shewed +I have done." He would not refuse their call, he wrote, if they +accepted his conditions, for "I should be worthily thought hospitall +mad, if I would not change povertie for wealth,—contempt +for honor."</p> + +<p>The Council on March 21, 1660, unanimously concurred in +the Burgesses' choice of Berkeley as Governor, and the King's +loyal servant was thereupon installed in the office.</p> + +<p>Some historians have seen the election of Berkeley as the +signal for a royalist purge of the Parliamentary influences that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[60]</a></span> +were thought to have existed in the colony since 1652. A study +of the membership of the House of Burgesses, Council, and +county courts, however, shows a continuity of membership which +extends from before the Parliamentary seizure of the colony until +after the restoration of King Charles II. The evidence suggests +that there was no violent division between royalists and Parliamentarians +in Virginia. The people were Virginians first and +royalists or Parliamentarians second. The solidarity of their +political interests was a harbinger of the American independence +that was slowly to mature in the next century.</p> + +<p>On May 29, 1660, the birthday of Charles II, that monarch +returned to London and was restored to the throne of England. +Word of the restoration was received in Virginia in the fall, and +Berkeley ordered the sheriffs and chief officers of all counties to +proclaim Charles II King of England, and to cause all writs and +warrants from that time on to issue in His Majesty's name. The +Assembly of March 1661, taking into consideration the fact that +the colony, by submitting to the "execrable power" of the Parliamentary +forces, had thereby become guilty of the crimes of that +power, enacted that January 30, the day Charles I was beheaded, +should "be annually solemnized with fasting and prayers that our +sorrowes may expiate our crime and our teares wash away our +guilt." Another act declared May 29, the day of Charles II's +birth and restoration, a holy day to be annually celebrated "in +testimony of our thankfulnesse and joy."</p> + +<p>Thus ended the brief period in which Virginia's government +was turned upside down and permanent alteration caused in +her relations with England. Although the King once more became +the symbol of the unity of the colony and the mother country, +the royal prerogative would never again be blindly accepted by +the people of either place. Larger developments in the economic, +social, and intellectual spheres were bringing to an end the era +of all-powerful Kings. Power had descended to the lower ranks +of society, and that power was beginning to be brought into play.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[61]</a></span></p> + +<p>This larger shift of power has been chronicled in the story of +Virginia from 1625 to 1660. It is the story of a small community +of Englishmen transplanted to American shores, living for a +time subject to traditional English restraints, then, in a period of +rapid expansion, losing their cohesiveness and their values under +the impact of the American experience and their own natures. +Their political expression soon passed from a passive to an active +mode. The law became something they made, not something +someone else applied to them. Land was similarly not something +bestowed on them by generous parents, but something one took +from Nature, or Nature's surrogate, the Indian. Labor was no +longer a privilege allowed the individual by the community, but +a precious gift contributed by the individual to the community. +In sum, the ordinary people who had removed themselves to the +New World soon discovered that they were no longer humble +servants of great lords, but were themselves lords of the American +earth. If they had the power why not exercise it? The process +by which the rulers of the people were forced to become the +"servants" of their "subjects" thereupon began. The culmination +of this rearrangement of the political atoms of society was the +War for Independence of 1776. Whether the swing from authority +to liberty was for good or for evil is not for the historian to +say.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[62]</a></span></p> + + + +<hr /> +<h2 style="margin-bottom: 1.5em;">BIBLIOGRAPHY</h2> + +<p>Another booklet in this series contains a selected bibliography of works +on seventeenth-century Virginia. The interested student should consult +that booklet for a more detailed listing of works used in preparing this +account of Virginia in the period 1625-1660.</p> + +<p>The best secondary account of Virginia in the period covered by this +booklet is Wesley Frank Craven, <i>The Southern Colonies in the Seventeenth +Century, 1607-1689</i> (Baton Rouge, 1949). Craven skilfully combines +research in Virginia local history with a broad understanding of +developments in England and in other colonies. He points out the social +and political significance of many hitherto ignored aspects of Virginia +history. Other important works include Charles McLean Andrews, <i>The +Colonial Period of American History</i>, I (New Haven, 1934), Thomas +Jefferson Wertenbaker, <i>Virginia under the Stuarts</i> (Princeton, 1914), +Herbert L. Osgood, <i>The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century</i>, +3 vols. (New York, 1904-1907), and Edward D. Neill, <i>Virginia Carolorum: +The Colony under the Rule of Charles the First and Second, A.D. +1625-A.D. 1685</i> (Albany, 1886).</p> + +<p>Any study of colonial Virginia must begin with a perusal of Philip +Alexander Bruce, <i>Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century</i>, +2 vols. (New York, 1895), and his <i>Institutional History of Virginia +in the Seventeenth Century</i>, 2 vols. (New York, 1910). Bruce's work is +the indispensable platform upon which political and social accounts of +the period must rest. Morgan Poitîaux Robinson, <i>Virginia Counties: Those +Resulting from Virginia Legislation</i> [Virginia State Library, Bulletin, IX, +Nos. 1-3] (Richmond, 1916), is a carefully documented study of the +growth of Virginia as evidenced by the formation of its counties. Maps +showing the area of settlement at frequent intervals give a graphic account +of the nature and extent of Virginia's expansion.</p> + +<p>There are a number of local histories chronicling the growth of particular +regions in Virginia. An outstanding local history is Fairfax +Harrison, <i>Landmarks of Old Prince William</i> (Richmond, 1924), which +analyzes the growth of settlement in the Potomac River valley. Histories +of the Eastern Shore are numerous: Susie M. Ames, <i>Studies of the +Virginia Eastern Shore in the Seventeenth Century</i> (Richmond, 1940), +Jennings Cropper Wise, <i>Ye Kingdome of Accawmacke, or the Eastern +Shore of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century</i> (Richmond, 1911), and +Ralph T. Whitelaw, <i>Virginia's Eastern Shore</i>, 2 vols. (Richmond, 1951).</p> + +<p>A reading of but a few works in Virginia history will be enough to +show that the interpretations and conclusions of the authors must be +accepted with extreme caution. There are two conflicting interpretations<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[63]</a></span> +for nearly every important event in Virginia's history. History may be +defined as the attempt to state what happened in the past on the basis +of inadequate evidence existing in the present. The reader should keep +always in mind that historical writing is largely a series of guesses more +or less intelligently elaborated.</p> + +<p>Much of the original manuscript material upon which an account of +the period must be based has been published in the following sources: +William Waller Hening, <i>The Statutes at Large; being a Collection of +all the Laws of Virginia</i>, Vol. I (Richmond, 1809), H. R. McIlwaine, +<i>Minutes of the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia, 1622-1632, +1670-1676</i> (Richmond, 1924), H. R. McIlwaine, <i>Journals of the +House of Burgesses of Virginia, 1619-1658/59</i> (Richmond, 1914), Nell +Marion Nugent, <i>Cavaliers and Pioneers: Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents +and Grants, 1623-1666</i> (Richmond, 1934), <i>Virginia Magazine of +History and Biography</i> (Richmond, 1893 to present), <i>William and Mary +Quarterly</i> (Williamsburg, 1892 to present), <i>The Southern Literary +Messenger</i>, January 1845 (documents on the recall of Governor Berkeley +by the Burgesses and Council of Virginia in 1660), and W. Noel Sainsbury, +<i>Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1574-1660, Preserved +in the State Paper Department of Her Majesty's Public Record Office</i> +(London, 1860). The essential guide to most of this material is Earl G. +Swern, <i>Virginia Historical Index</i>, 2 vols. (Roanoke, 1934).</p> + +<p>The most important unpublished manuscript materials of the period +are the county records, some of which are complete from the earliest +period of settlement. Originals or transcripts of the county records are +available in the Virginia State Library, Richmond. Another important +source of unpublished manuscript material for the period is the "Virginia, +Book No. 43" manuscript in the Library of Congress, Washington, D. C., +which contains numerous commissions and proclamations for the period +1626-1634. Among the Virginia papers of the Barons of Sackville, Knole +Park, are a few documents relating to the period which have not been +printed either in the documentary articles in the <i>American Historical +Review</i>, XXVII (1922), Nos. 3-4, or elsewhere. They are now available +on microfilm in the Library of Congress, having been photographed by +the British Manuscripts Project of the American Council of Learned +Societies.</p> + +<p>Important unpublished dissertations include James Kimbrough Owen, +"The Virginia Vestry: A Study in the Decline of a Ruling Class" (Ph. D. +dissertation, Princeton University, 1947), and Edna Jensen, "Sir John +Harvey: Governor of Virginia" (M. A. thesis, University of Virginia, +1950).</p> +<div class="minispace"> </div> + +<div class="image"><a href="images/end_map_full.jpg"><img src="images/end_map.jpg" width="450" height="370" alt="map 3" title="" /></a><br /><br /> +<span class="caption">Virginia Farrer Map of Virginia, 1651, showing common geographical misconceptions of the period.</span></div> + +<div class="minispace"> </div> + + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Virginia Under Charles I And Cromwell, +1625-1660, by Wilcomb E. Washburn + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK VIRGINIA--1625-1660 *** + +***** This file should be named 29348-h.htm or 29348-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + https://www.gutenberg.org/2/9/3/4/29348/ + +Produced by Mark C. Orton, Meredith Bach, and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +https://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at https://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit https://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + https://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + +</body> +</html> diff --git a/29348-h/images/end_map.jpg b/29348-h/images/end_map.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..96e1ee1 --- /dev/null +++ b/29348-h/images/end_map.jpg diff --git a/29348-h/images/end_map_full.jpg b/29348-h/images/end_map_full.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..f1a1a40 --- /dev/null +++ b/29348-h/images/end_map_full.jpg diff --git a/29348-h/images/i008.jpg b/29348-h/images/i008.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..86ba5ae --- /dev/null +++ b/29348-h/images/i008.jpg diff --git a/29348-h/images/i011.jpg b/29348-h/images/i011.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..c9274da --- /dev/null +++ b/29348-h/images/i011.jpg diff --git a/29348-h/images/i011_full.jpg b/29348-h/images/i011_full.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..b715e04 --- /dev/null +++ b/29348-h/images/i011_full.jpg diff --git a/29348-h/images/i018.jpg b/29348-h/images/i018.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..569a5e0 --- /dev/null +++ b/29348-h/images/i018.jpg diff --git a/29348-h/images/i018_full.jpg b/29348-h/images/i018_full.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..1e5c4dc --- /dev/null +++ b/29348-h/images/i018_full.jpg diff --git a/29348-h/images/i056.jpg b/29348-h/images/i056.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..3e1eca5 --- /dev/null +++ b/29348-h/images/i056.jpg |
