[197] F. R., p. 530.
[198] F. R., p. 529.
[199] F. R., p. 393.
[200] F. R., pp. 436, 437.
[201] F. R., p. 542.
[202] F. R., p. 477.
[203] F. R., p. 478.
[204] F. R., pp. 531, 532.
[205] F. R., p. 524.
[206] F. R., p. 520.
[207] F. R., p. 520.
[208] F. R., p. 521.
[209] F. R., p. 541.
[210] F. R., p. 535.
[211] F. R., pp. 519, 520.
[212] F. R., p. 542.
[213] F. R., p. 551.
[214] F. R., p. 542.
[215] F. R., p. 554.
[216] F. R, pp. 595, 596.
[217] F. R., pp. 597, 598.
[218] F. R., p. 598.
[219] F. R., p. 587.
[220] F. R., pp. 601, 602.
CHAPTER III
THE EXPULSION OF SIR JOHN HARVEY
The people of Virginia sympathized deeply with the London Company in its efforts to prevent the revocation of the charter. The Governor, the Council and the Burgesses gave active a.s.sistance to Sandys and his friends by testifying to the wisdom of the management and contradicting the calumnies of their enemies. In the midst of the controversy the Privy Council had appointed a commission which they sent to Virginia to investigate conditions there and to gather evidence against the Company.
This board consisted of John Harvey, John Pory, Abraham Piersey and Samuel Matthews, men destined to play prominent roles in Virginia history, but then described as "certayne obscure persons".[221] When the commissioners reached the colony they made known to the a.s.sembly the King"s desire to revoke the charter and to take upon himself the direction of the government. They then asked the members to subscribe to a statement expressing their grat.i.tude for the care of the King, and willingness to consent to the contemplated change. The a.s.sembly returned the paper unsigned. "When our consent," they said, "to the surrender of the Pattents, shalbe required, will be the most proper time to make reply: in the mean time wee conceive his Majesties intention of changing the government hath proceeded from much misinformation."[222]
After this they ignored the commissioners, and addressed themselves in direct letters and pet.i.tions to the King and the Privy Council.[223]
They apprehended, they wrote, no danger from the present government, which had converted into freedom the slavery they had endured in former times.[224] They prayed that their liberal inst.i.tutions might not be destroyed or the old Smith faction of the Company placed over them again.[225] These papers they sent to England by one of their number, John Pountis, even refusing to let the commissioners see them. But Pory succeeded in securing copies from the acting secretary, Edward Sharpless.[226] The Council, upon learning of this betrayal, were so incensed against the secretary that they sentenced him to "stand in the Pillory and there to have his Ears nailed to it, and cut off".[227] His punishment was modified, however, so that when he was "sett in the Pillorie", he "lost but a part of one of his eares".[228] The King, upon learning of this incident, which was represented to him "as a b.l.o.o.d.y and barbarous act", became highly incensed against the Council.[229]
In the meanwhile James had appointed a large commission, with Viscount Mandeville at its head, "to confer, consult, resolve and expedite all affaires ... of Virginia, and to take care and give order for the directing and government thereof".[230] This body met weekly at the house of Sir Thomas Smith, and immediately a.s.sumed control of the colony.[231] Their first act was to decide upon a form of government to replace the Virginia Magna Charta. In conformance with the wishes of the King they resolved to return to the plan of 1606. In their recommendations no mention was made of an a.s.sembly. It seemed for a while that the work of Sandys was to be undone, and the seeds of liberty in Virginia destroyed almost before they had taken root. Fortunately, however, this was not to be. The commission, perhaps wishing to allay the fears of the colonists, reappointed Sir Francis Wyatt Governor, and retained most of the old Council. This made it certain that for a while at least the government was to be in the hands of men of lofty character and liberal views.[232] More fortunate still for Virginia was the death of James I. This event removed the most determined enemy of their a.s.sembly, and placed upon the throne a man less hostile to the Sandys faction, less determined to suppress the liberal inst.i.tutions of the colony.
Soon after his accession Charles I abolished the Mandeville commission and appointed in its place a committee of the Privy Council.[233] For a while he seemed inclined to restore the Company, for he consulted with Sandys and requested him to give his opinion "touching the best form of Government".[234] But he finally rejected his proposals, declaring that he had come to the same determination that his father had held. He was resolved, he said, that the government should be immediately dependent upon himself and not be committed to any company or corporation.[235]
But, like his father, he was "pleased to authorise Sir Francis Wyatt knight to be governor there, and such as are now employed for his Majesties Councell there to have authoritie to continue the same employment". No provision was made for a representative body, the power of issuing decrees, ordinances and public orders being a.s.signed to the Council.
But the a.s.sembly was saved by the unselfish conduct of Wyatt and Yeardley and their Councils.[236] Had these men sought their own gain at the expense of the liberty of their fellow colonists, they would have welcomed a change that relieved them from the restraint of the representatives of the people. The elimination of the Burgesses would have left them as absolute as had been Wingfield and the first Council.
But they were most anxious to preserve for Virginia the right of representative government, and wrote to England again and again pleading for the reestablishment of the a.s.sembly.[237] "Above all," they said, "we humbly intreat your Lordships that we may retaine the Libertie of our Generall a.s.semblie, than which nothing can more conduce to our satisfaction or the publique utilitie."[238] In 1625 Yeardley himself crossed the ocean to present a new pet.i.tion. He pleaded with Charles "to avoid the oppression of Governors there, that their liberty of Generall a.s.semblyes may be continued and confirmed, and that they may have a voice in the election of officers, as in other Corporations".[239] After the overthrow of the Company charter, there could be no legal election of Burgesses and no legislation save by proclamation of the Governor and Council. Yet Wyatt, in order to preserve as far as possible some form of representative government, held conventions or informal meetings of leading citizens, to confer with the Council on important matters. They issued papers under the t.i.tle of "Governor, Councell and Collony of Virginia a.s.sembled together",[240] and it is possible that the people elected their delegates just as they had formerly chosen Burgesses.
Since, however, acts pa.s.sed by these a.s.semblages could not be enforced in the courts, all legislation for the time being took the form of proclamations.[241]
Finally Charles yielded to the wishes of the people, and, in the fall of 1627, sent written instructions to the officials in Virginia to hold an election of Burgesses and to summon a General a.s.sembly.[242] The King"s immediate motive for this important step was his desire to gain the planters" acceptance through their representatives of an offer which he made to buy all their tobacco. In the spring of 1628 the Council wrote, "In obedience to his Majesties Commands wee have given order that all the Burgesses of Particular Plantations should shortly be a.s.sembled at James Citty that by the general and unanimous voice of the whole Colony his Majesty may receave a full answere."[243] Although the a.s.sembly must have realized that its very existence might depend upon its compliance with the King"s wishes, it refused to accept his proposition. The planters were willing to sell their tobacco to his Majesty, but only upon more liberal terms than those offered them. Charles rejected the counter-proposals of the Virginians, with some show of anger, but he did not abolish the a.s.sembly, and in ensuing years sessions were held with great regularity.[244]
The apprehensions of the colonists during this trying period were made more acute by the resignation of Sir Francis Wyatt. In the winter of 1625-26 the Council wrote the Virginia commissioners, "The Governor hath long expected a Successor, and the necessity of his private estate compelling him not to put off any longer his return for England, wee hope it is already provided for."[245] Great must have been the relief in the colony when it was learned that Sir George Yeardley had been chosen to succeed Governor Wyatt. Yeardley had been the bearer of the Virginia Magna Charta, under which the first a.s.sembly had been established, and his services had not been forgotten by the people. But he was not destined to see the restoration of the Burgesses, for he died in November, 1627.[246] We have lost, wrote the Council in great grief, "a main pillar of this our building & thereby a support to the whole body".[247]
By virtue of previous appointment, Captain Francis West, brother of the Lord De la Warr who had lost his life in the service of Virginia, at once a.s.sumed the reins of government. Captain West continued in office until March 5th, 1629, when he resigned in order to return to England.[248] John Harvey, a member of the Virginia commission of 1624, was the King"s next choice for Governor, but pending his arrival, the office fell to one of the Council--Dr. John Pott. This man had long been a resident of Virginia, and had acted as Physician-General during the years when the sickness was at the worst. He is described as "a Master of Arts ... well practiced in chirurgery and physic, and expert also in the distilling of waters, (besides) many other ingenious devices".[249]
He had made use of these accomplishments to poison large numbers of Indians after the ma.s.sacre of 1622.[250] This exploit caused the temporary loss of his place in the Council, for when James I settled the government after the fall of the Company, Pott was left out at the request of the Earl of Warwick, because "he was the poysoner of the salvages thear".[251] In 1626 his seat was restored to him. He seems to have been both democratic and convival, and is described as fond of the company of his inferiors, "who hung upon him while his good liquor lasted".[252]
In the spring of 1630 Sir John Harvey arrived in Virginia.[253] This man proved to be one of the worst of the many bad colonial governors.
Concerned only for his own dignity and for the prerogative of the King, he trampled without scruple upon the liberties of the people, and his administration was marked throughout by injustice and oppression.
His first efforts as Governor were to attempt to win the friendship and support of one of the Council and to bring humiliation and ruin upon another. He had been in Virginia but a few weeks when he wrote the King asking especial favors for Captain Samuel Matthews. "This gentleman," he said, "I found most readie to set forward all services propounded for his Majesties honor, ... and without his faithful a.s.sistance perhaps I should not soe soon have brought the busines of this Country to so good effect." It would be a just reward for these services, he thought, to allow him for a year or two to ship the tobacco of his plantation into England free of customs.[254] At the same time Harvey seemed bent upon the utter undoing of Dr. Pott. Claiming that the pleasure loving physician while Governor had been guilty of "pardoninge wilfull Murther, markinge other mens Cattell for his owne, and killing up their hoggs", Harvey suspended him from the Council and, pending the day of his trial, confined him to his plantation.[255]
It seems quite certain that this treatment of the two Councillors was designed to impress upon the people a just appreciation of the Governor"s power. Harvey felt keenly the restriction of the Council. It had been the intention of James and after his death Charles to restore the government of the colony to its original form, in which all matters were determined by the Council. "His Majesties ... pleasure," wrote the Privy Council in 1625, "is that all judgements, decrees, and all important actions be given, determined and undertaken by the advice and voices of the greater part."[256] If these instructions were adhered to, the Governor would become no more than the presiding officer of the Council. To this position Harvey was determined never to be reduced. He would, at the very outset, show that he was master in Virginia, able to reward his friends, or to punish those that incurred his displeasure.
Dr. Pott could not believe that the proceedings against him were intended seriously, and, in defiance of the Governor"s commands, left his plantation to come to Elizabeth City. "Upon which contempt," wrote Harvey, "I committed him close prisoner, attended with a guard." At the earnest request of several gentlemen, the Governor finally consented that he might return to his plantation, but only under bond. Pott, however, refused to avail himself of the kindness of his friends, and so was kept in confinement.[257] On the 9th of July he was brought to trial, found guilty upon two indictments, and his entire estate confiscated.[258]
That Pott was convicted by a jury of thirteen men, three of them Councillors, is by no means conclusive evidence of his guilt. The close connection between the executive and the courts at this time made it quite possible for the Governor to obtain from a jury whatever verdict he desired. In fact it became the custom for a new administration, as soon as it was installed in power, to take revenge upon its enemies by means of the courts.
Pott"s guilt is made still more doubtful by the fact that execution of the sentence was suspended "untill his Majesties pleasure might be signified concerning him", while the Council united in giving their security for his safe keeping.[259] Harvey himself wrote asking the King"s clemency. "For as much," he said, "as he is the only Physician in the Colonie, and skilled in the Epidemicall diseases of the planters, ... I am bound to entreat" your Majesty to pardon him.[260] It would seem quite inexplicable that Harvey should go to so much trouble to convict Dr. Pott, and then write immediately to England for a pardon, did not he himself give the clue to his conduct. "It will be," he said, "a means to bring the people to ... hold a better respect to the Governor than hitherto they have done."[261] Having shown the colonists that he could humble the strongest of them, he now sought to teach them that his intercession with the King could restore even the criminal to his former position.
When Dr. Pott was at Elizabeth City his wife was reported to be ill, but this did not deter her from making the long and dangerous voyage to England to appeal to the King "touching the wrong" done her husband.[262] Charles referred the matter to the Virginia commissioners, who gave her a hearing in the presence of Harvey"s agent. Finding no justification for the proceedings against him, they wrote Harvey that for aught they could tell Pott had demeaned himself well and that there seemed to have been "some hard usage against him".[263] The sentence of confiscation seems never to have been carried out, but Pott was not restored to his seat in the Council.[264]
This arbitrary conduct did not succeed in intimidating the other Councillors. These men must have felt that the attack upon Dr. Pott was aimed partly at the dignity and power of the Council itself. If Harvey could thus ruin those that incurred his displeasure, the Councillors would lose all independence in their relations with him. Soon they were in open hostility to the Governor. Claiming that Harvey could do nothing without their consent, and that all important matters had to be determined "by the greater number of voyces at the Councell Table", they entered upon a policy of obstruction. It was in vain that the Governor declared that he was the King"s subst.i.tute, that they were but his a.s.sistants, and that they were impeding his Majesty"s business; they would yield to him only the position of first among equals. Early in 1631 Harvey was filling his letters to England with complaints of the "waywardness and oppositions of those of the Councell". "For instead of giving me a.s.sistance," he declared, "they stand Contesting and disputing my authoritie, avering that I can doe nothinge but what they shall advise me, and that my power extendeth noe further than a bare casting voice."[265] He had received, he claimed, a letter from the King, strengthening his commission and empowering him to "doe justice to all men, not sparinge those of the Councell", which he had often shown them, but this they would not heed. "I hope," he wrote, "you never held me to be ambitious or vainglorious, as that I should desire to live here as Governor to predominate, or prefer mine owne particular before the generall good." My position in Virginia is most miserable, "chiefly through the aversions of those from whom I expected a.s.sistance". He had often tried to bring peace and amity between them, but all to no purpose, for he was scorned for his efforts. He would be humbly thankful if his Majesty would be pleased to strengthen his commission, "that the place of Governor and the duty of Councellors may be knowne and distinguished".[266]
It is probable that the Councillors also wrote to England, to place before the King their grievances against Harvey, for before the end of the year letters came from the Privy Council, warning both sides to end the dispute and to proceed peacefully with the government of the colony.
In compliance with these commands they drew up and signed a doc.u.ment promising "to swallow up & bury all forepart Complainte and accusations in a generall Reconciliation". They thanked their Lordships for advice that had persuaded their "alienated & distempered" minds to thoughts of love and peace and to the execution of public justice. The Council promised to give the Governor "all the service, honor & due Respect which belongs unto him as his Majesties Subst.i.tute".[267] It is quite evident, however, that this reconciliation, inspired by fear of the anger of the Privy Council, could not be permanent. Soon the Council, under the leadership of Captain Matthews, who had long since forfeited Harvey"s favor, was as refractory as ever.
A new cause for complaint against the Governor arose with the founding of Maryland. In 1623 George Calvert, the first Lord Baltimore, had received a grant of the great southeastern promontory in Newfoundland, and had planted there a colony as an asylum for English Catholics.
Baltimore himself had been detained in England for some years, but in 1627 came with his wife and children to take personal control of his little settlement. His experience with the severe Newfoundland winter persuaded him that it would be wise to transfer his colony to a more congenial clime. "From the middle of October," he wrote Charles I, "to the middle of May there is a sad face of winter upon all the land; both sea and land so frozen for the greater part of the time as they are not penetrable ... besides the air so intolerable cold as it is hardly to be endured.... I am determined to commit this place to fishermen that are able to encounter stormes and hard weather, and to remove myself with some forty persons to your Majesties dominion of Virginia; where, if your Majesty will please to grant me a precinct of land, with such privileges as the King your father ... was pleased to grant me here, I shall endeavour to the utmost of my power, to deserve it."[268]