USA > Washington DC > Washington DC > A new and comprehensive gazetteer of Virginia, and the District of Columbia > Part 78
USA > Virginia > A new and comprehensive gazetteer of Virginia, and the District of Columbia > Part 78
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85
Thus were those free principles established in Virginia, for which the mother country had to struggle for sometime longer ; the colony rose in the estimation of the public, and a thousand new emigrants arrived in one year; which of course much enhanced the price of provision.
Death now closed the career of Yeardley. The character of his ad- Nov. 14, 1627. ministration is exhibited in the history of the colony ; and the estimate placed upon his character by those who were best acquainted with his conduct, and who were little disposed to flatter undeservedly either the living or the dead, is to be found in a eulogy writ- ten by the government of Virginia to the privy council, announcing bis ; death. In obedience to the king's commission to the council, they elected Francis West governor, the day after the burial of Yeardley. He held the commission until the 5th of March 1628, when designing to sail for. England, John Pott was chosen to succeed him.t Pott did not continue long in office, for the king, when the death of Yeardley was known, issued his commission to Sir John Harvey, who arrived some time between Octo -. ber 1628 and March 1629.
In the interval between the death of Yeardley and the arrival of Har- vey, occurred the first act of religious intolerance, which defile the annals of Virginia.
Lord Baltimore, a catholic nobleman, allured by the rising reputation of the colony, abandoned his settlement in Newfoundland and came to Vir -. ginia; where instead of being received with the cheerful welcome of a. friend and a brother, he was greeted with the oath of allegiance and su- premacy, the latter of which it was well known his conscience would not" allow him to take,
Much allowance, is to be made for this trespass upon religious freedom, before we attribute it to a wilful violation of natural liberty. " The times and circumstances ought to be considered. The colony had grown into life while the violent struggles between the Romish and Protestant churches were yet rife. The ancient tyranny and oppression of the Holy See were? yet fresh in the memory of all, its cruelties and harsh intolerance in Eng- land were recent, and yet continuing in the countries in which its votaries. had the control of the civil government. The light of Protestantism itself was the first dawn of religious freedom, and the thraldom in which man- kind had been held by Catholic fetters for so many ages was too. terrible,
* Burk, v. 2. pa. 18.
t Burk, v. 2. p. 23. Hening, v. 1. p. 4 and 13. Burk v. II. p. 23. is at a loss to ac- count for the fate of West.
11
0
2
579
HISTORY OF VIRGINIA.
to risque the possibility of their acquiring any authority in government. Eye-witnesses of the severities of Mary were yet alive in England, and doubtless many of the colonists had heard fearful relations of the religious sufferings during her reign, probably some had suffered in their own fami- lies; most of them had emigrated whilst the excitement against the Papists was still raging in England with its greatest fury, and continually kept in action by the discovery or pretended discovery of Popish plots to obtain possession of the government. Was it wonderful then that a colony which with a remarkable uniformity of sentiment professed a different religion, should be jealous of a. faith which sought by every means in its power to obtain supreme control, and used that control for the extermination, by the harshest means, of all other creeds ?
The colony in Virginia was planted when the incestuous and monstrous connection of church and state had not been severed in any civilized coun- try on the globe ;- at a period when it would have been heresy to attempt such a divorce, because it required all the aid of the civil power to give men sufficient freedom to "profess and by argument to maintain" any other creed than one,-and that one the creed of Rome. The anxiety of the British government upon this subject, so far from being unnatural was highly laudable, since all its efforts were necessary to sustain its new-born power of professing its own creed. The awful effect of Catholic supre- macy, displayed in a neighboring kingdom, afforded a warning too terrible* to be easily forgotten, and it would have been as unwise to allow the Catholics equal civil privileges at that day, as it would be impolitic'and unjust now to exclude them. We find this regard for religious freedom, (for emancipation from the Pope's authority was a great step in religious freedom,) carefully fostered in the colonies. Every charter requires the establishment of the church of England, and authorises the infliction of punishment for drawing off the people from their religion, as a matter of equal importance with their allegiance. For at that period before any im- portant differences between the Protestants had arisen, when but two reli- gions were struggling for existence, not to be of the church of England was to be a Papist, and not to acknowledge the secular supremacy of the King, was to bow to the authority of the Pope. The catholics as the only subject of terror, were the only subjects of intolerance; no sufficient num- ber of dissenters had availed themselves of the great example of Protes- tantism in rejecting any creed which did not precisely satisfy their con- sciences, to become formidable to mother church; nor had she grown so strong and haughty in her new-fledged power as to level her blows at any but her first great antagonist. t
The colony in Virginia consisted of church of England men, and many of the first acts of their Legislature relate to provision for the church. Glebe lands were early laid off, and livings provided. The ministers were considered not as pious and charitable individuals, but as officers of the
* The massacre of the Protestants by the Catholics on St. Bartholomew's day, in France, in 1572.
- t The persecution of the Puritans was an exception to this. " They were persecu- ted with considerable rigor, but their numbers were small, consisting only of two churches, and most of those who then existed went to Holland with their leaders John Robinson and William Brewster, in 1607 and 8, and settled in Amsterdam, whence they removed to Leyden in 1609, whence they sailed to America in 1620, and landed in Cape Cod Harbor on the 7th of November, and settled Plymouth on the 31st of December following .- Holmes' Am. An. 156-203.
. THIRTY 96 Y BOTOMI
n
1
7
680
HISTORY OF VIRGINIA:
state, bound to promote the true faith and sound morality by authority of the community, by which they were paid and to which they were held responsible for the performance of their duty. The very first act of As- sembly, which was passed, required that in every' settlement in which the people met to worship God, a house should be appropriated exclusively to- that purpose ; and a place paled in to be used solely as a burying ground ; the second act imposed the penalty of a pound of tobacco for absence from divine service on Sunday without sufficient excuse, and fifty pounds for a month's absence; the third required uniformity, as near as might be, with the canons in England; the fourth enjoined the observance of the holy days, (adding the 22d March, the day of the Massacre to the number) dis- pensing with some 'by reason of our necessities ;' the fifth punished any minister absenting himself from his church above two months in the year with forfeiture of half of his estate,-and four months, his whole estate and curacy ; the sixth punished disparagement of 'a minister; the seventh prohibited any man from disposing of his tobacco or corn until the minis- ter's portion was first paid .* This sacred duty discharged, the Assembly " next enact salutary regulations for the state. We find at the session of - 1629 the act requiring attendance at church on the : Sabbath specially en- forced, and a clause added forbidding profanation of that day by travelling or work; also an act declaring that all those who work in the ground shall pay tithes to the minister. We find requisition of uniformity with the canons of the English church not only repeated in every new commission from England, but re-enacted by the Legislature of 1629-30, and in 1631-2, as well as in the several revisals of the laws. In the acts of 1631-2, we find many acts conveying the idea advanced of ministers being considered public officers ; and churchwardens required to take an oath to present offences against decency or morality, which made them in effect censors of the public morals. In these aets it is made the duty of ministers to teach children the Lord's prayer, commandments, and the articles of faith; also to attend all persons dangerously sick, to instruct and comfort them in their distress ; to keep registers of christening, marriages and deaths; and to preserve in themselves strict moral conduct, as an advancement to religion and an example to others. We find also frequent acts passed providing for the payment of the ministers, until the session of 1657-8, when church and state seem to have been effectually divorced ; for though no act of re- ligious freedom was passed, but all were still expected, rather than com- pelled, to conform to the church of England, yet the compulsory payment of ministers was abandoned, and all matters relating to the church were left entirely to the control of the people.t
From the review which we have given of the religious condition of England and the colony, it must be manifest that the tender of the oath of supremacy to Lord Baltimore was not only a religious but a civil duty in the council, which they could by no means have omitted without a viola- tion of their own oaths, laws and charters. But if any further proof were necessary, to show that it flowed from this source and not from a disposi- tion to religious intolerance,-it is afforded by the liberal invitation given in the instructions to Captain Bass to the Puritans who had settled at New Plymouth, to desert their cold and barren soil and come and settle . upon Delaware Bay, which was in the limits of Virginia.#
* Hening, v. 1. p. 121-4. t Ist Hening, 433.
1 # Burk, v. II. p. 32, on authority of ancient records.
1
m
5
-
HISTORY OF VIRGINIA.
5811
Harvey met his first General Assembly in March, and its acts as those" 1629. of several succeding sessions, only consist of the usual business acts of the colony. We have now approached a period in our history, upon which the few scattered and glimmering lights which exist, have rather served to mislead than to guide historians. It is a period replete with charges made by historians, of the most heinous character against the governor, with no evidence upon record to support them. The truth is that Sir John Harvey was deposed and sent home by the colony for some improper conduct, but what that was, does not fully appear, and historians seem to have thought it their duty to supply the defect in the record, by abusing his administra- tion as arbitrary and tyrannical from the first; the charge is without evi- dence, and every probability is against its truth. During the whole of his administration the General Assembly met and transacted their business as usual. The fundamental laws which they had passed to which we have before referred, restraining the powers of the governor, and asserting the powers of the Assembly, were passed again as of course. There could manifestly be no oppression from this source. The General Assembly or- dered the building of forts, made the contracts, provided the payments, pro- vided garrisons and soldiers for the field when necessary, and disbanded them when the occasion for their services had ceased .* The Assembly and the soldiers were planters and they could be little disposed to oppress them- selves, their families and friends. The only evidence which exists against Harvey is the fact of his being deposed, and sent home with commissioners to complain of his conduct to the king, but this did not occur until 1635, after the extensive grants had been made to Lord Baltimore and others, ; which dismembered the colony, and were so displeasing to the planters; and we shall see that aid or connivance in these grants were the probable causes of Harvey's unpopularity. Burke supports his charge of attempted speculation and tyranny, upon the fact that the assembly of 1631, provided against the raising or expending of money, or levying men without the consent of the assembly ; but this was a mere re-enactment of the laws of 1623-4, which we have seen, and which were passed under the popular admin: istration of Wyatt, and seem to have been very justly looked upon by the legis: lature as fundamental laws.t The same remark applies to the provision of security for the Burgesses from arrest, -that was provided in the first set of laws of which we have any record. Since Burke has committed such an error, whilst he finds great fault with those who went before him, it will be unnecessary here to notice the wild and unfounded speculations in which his predecessors indulged.#
:. * 1 Hening 140, 1, 2, 3. 150, 130. 171. 2, 5, 7, 9, 180. 202.
t These frequent repetitions so far from being a special blow at Harvey, was a mere matter of course, " it was customary too to repeal all former laws at each ses- sion, and either re-enact them in the very same words of the act repealed, or with, such amendments as experience might suggest." Tening, preface, p. VI.
# Robertson evidently does not perceive the distinction between taxing the produce of the colony upon its arrival in England, which they could not prevent, and laying taxes on them at home to which their legislature never would lend its sanction, or the people peaceably submit. He also includes in his censure the popular Yeardley, as suppressing those very assemblies which he was the first to establish, and which eulo- gised him after his death ;- He says, " from the tenor of the king's commission, as well as from the known spirit of his policy, it is apparent, that he intended to vest every power of government, both legislative and executive in the governor and coun- cil, without recourse to the representatives of the people, as possessing a right to enact laws for the community, or to impose taxes upon it." How can this be said of the commission referring to the executive authority of the " five years last past" during which the Assembly had ruled every thing?
IE
L
582
HISTORY OF VIRGINIA.
The first act of tyranny towards the colony which we find recorded against Charles, was his grant in 1630 to Sir Robert Heath of a large por; tion of the lands of the colony ; commencing at the 36th degree of latitude
" Yeardly and his council, who seem to have been fit instruments for carrying this system of arbitrary rule into execution, did not fail to put such a construction on the words of their commission as was most favorable to their own jurisdiction. During a greater part of Charles's reign, Virginia knew no other law than the will of the so- vereign. Statutes were published, and taxes imposed, without once calling the rep- resentatives of the people to authorize them by their sanction. At the same time that the people were bereaved of political rights which they deemed essential to freemen and citizens, their private property was violently invaded. A proclamation was is- sued, by which under pretexts equally absurd and frivolous, they were prohibited from selling tobacco to any person but certain commissioners appointed by the king to buy it on his account." Robertson's Virginia, p. 107, 8. Again, p. 109, he says " the murmurs and complaints which such a system of administration excited, were aug- mented by the vigour with which Sir John Harvey, who sueeceded Yeardly in the government of the colony, enforced every act of power. Rapacious, unfeeling and hanghty, he added insolence to oppression, and neither regarded the sentiments, nor listened to the remonstrances of the people under his eomand. The colonists, far from the seat of government and overawed by authority derived from a royal com- mission, submitted long to his tyranny and exactions. Their patience was at last ex- hausted, and in a transport of popular rage they seized their governor and sent him a prisoner to England, accompanied by two of their number," &c, To say nothing where there is no authority for saying anything, is not only excusable, but praise- worthy, to give in such cases ingenious conjectures as such may be useful, but to pre- sent a tissue of conjectures as facts cannot be excused in any one, and the less in Dr. Robertson, as his high character would stamp them with an authority which few oth- ers could give. Judge Marshall unfortunately copies Robertson verbatim, thus show- ing at onee that one great mind has been mislead by his standing as a writer, to take that as truth which is not only unfounded, but contradicted by well established facts .. As long as Robertson had Smith and Stith to guide him, he is very good authority, but when he is left by them he is at sea. We will conelude this note by a quotation of an opposite character from a judicious and laborious modern writer, . Bancroft, p. 215, after asserting that the colony enjoyed during this season, represented as so op- pressive, an " independant colonial legislation," he appends the following note : "as an opposite statement has received the sanction, not of Oldmixon, Chalmers and Ro- bertson only, but of Marshall and of Story : (See Story's Commentaries, v. I. p. 28, " without the slighest effort to convene a colonial assembly,") I deem it necessary to state that many of the statutes of Virginia, under IIarvey still exist, and that though many others are lost, the first volume of Hening's Statutes at Large proves, beyond a question, that assemblies were convened at least as often as follows:
1630, March, II. v. I. p. 117, 153.
April,
ibid, 257,
1632, February,
ibid, 153, 177.
1632, Sept.,
ibid,
178, 202.
1633, February,
ibid, .. 202, 209.
August,
ibid, 209, 222,
1635,
ibid,
2223.
1636,
ibid,
299.
1637,
ibid, 237.
1639,
ibid,
229, 230.
1610,
ibid. ibid,
268.
1611, June,
259, 262.
1612, January,
267.
April,
ibid, ibid, ibid,
230.
" 1634,
ibid, 223.
" June, 269. Considering how imperfect are the early records, it is surprising that so considerable a list can be established. The instructions to Sir William Berkeley do not first order assemblies; but speak of them as if a thing established. At an adjourned session of Berkeley's first legislature, the assembly declares "its meeting exceeding customary limits in this place used." Hening, v. I. p. 233. This is a plain declaration, that as- semblies were the custom and use of Virginia at the time of Berkeley's arrival. If any doubts remain, it would be easy to multiply arguments and references."
.
7
583.
HISTORY OF VIRGINIA
and including the whole southern portion of the United States, under the name of Carolina. But as this country was not settled until long after- wards, and the charter became void by non-compliance with its terms, it could not be regarded as injurious by the colony, except as an evidence of the facility with which their chartered rights could be divested. Another instance of a more objectionable character soon occurred.' Cecilius 1632.
Calvert, Lord Baltimore, obtained a grant of that portion of Vir- ginia which is now included in the state of Maryland, and immediately commenced a settlement upon it, notwithstanding the value which the Vir- ginians set upon it, and their having actually made settlements within its limits .* William Claiborne who had been a member of the council and secretary of state for Virginia had obtained a license from the king to "traffic in those parts of America, where there was no license," which had been confirmed by Harvey. In pursuance of this authority he had settled him- self at Kent Island near the city of Annapolis, and seemed by no means in- clined tamely to relinquish his possessions. He resisted the encroachments of Maryland by force. This was the first controversy between the whites which ever took place on the waters of the Chesapeake. Claiborne wasin- dicted and found guilty of murder, piracy and sedition, and to escape pun .. ishment he fled to Virginia. When the Maryland commissioners demand- ed him, Harvey refused to give him up, but sent him to England to be tried, It is highly probable that the conduct of Harvey in giving up instead of protecting Claiborne, incensed the colony against him, for they clearly. thought the Maryland charter an infringement of their rights, and they were little inclined to submit to imposition from any quarter. Burke himself who thinks the colony wished Claiborne to be given up to Maryland, says that in the year 1633 there was a developement of a land speculation on the part of the governor, highly injurious to the colony. "It appears that by a collision with the king's commissioners, large tracts of land were disposed of to absentees, not unfrequently interferring with the rights of actual set- tlers, and involving subjects of future litigation. By this proceeding, the colony was threatened with dismemberment, and the mischiefs were ag -. gravated by the conditions of those grants, which exempted the proprietors from the payment of quit rents. Property conveyed with such absolute and unqualified formalities, seemed to give the proprietors the rights of sovereign authority, instead of the guarded restraints of a fædal tenure ; and an abundant source of litigation was laid up for posterity by establishing an imperium in imperiot within the bosom of the colony." Surely this specu- lation was of itself sufficient cause for dissatisfaction, and renders it unne- cessary to look further to account for the conduct of the colony. To have the lands for which they had fought and struggled with so much persever- ance, and through so many difficulties suddenly wrested from them by an act of arbitrary authority ; and their governor not only conniving, but making a speculation on the alienation of their blood bought territory, was enough to have excited a people to take even more summary vengeance than that afforded by a trial and ejection from the gubernatorial chair. Nor was it any palliation to the evil that few of their actual settlements were within the ceded territory, for they had not struggled so strenuously only for such small portion of ground as they might actually live upon, but upon
* Holme's Am. An. v. I. p. 261, 265.
t Lord Fairfax held a Court Baron,-Burke v. VI. p. 38.
584
HISTORY OF VIRGINIA.
a grant of a vast territory, with all its broad waters, magnificent forests, lofty mountains and fertile plains,-a mighty empire worthy. of the people who had strived so hard to win it. But now the whole south was cut off. at one blow; the jurisdiction of the upper portion of their own beautiful. bay which they actually occupied, was torn from them, their territory was se- vered into two portions by the intrusion of a new power into its centre, and the hardy citizens who had won the country and established the blessings of a free government, were to bend the knee in feudal vassalage, or surren- der their homes and possessions to their new lords, who never struck a blow in the acquisition of their vast estates. Virginia sent a remonstrance in the name of all her planters, against the grant of Maryland; and the privy council unable to deny the manifest justice of their representations, but unwilling to offend the king by a decision against the validity of lord Baltimore's patent, decided that he might retain it, and.the Virginians have their remedy at law. The law at that time in the king's courts, in cases in which he was concerned being the king's will; the Virginians declined entering the tribunal, and making a virtue of necessity, entered into a treaty of com- merce and amity with their new neighbor.
The account which we have of the trial of Harvey is extremely meagre, detailing neither the accusations or the evidence, but only the fact. The manner of proceeding however, as it appears on the record, is as little like" that of an enslaved people as it is like a " transport of popular rage and in- dignation." The whole matter seems to have been conducted with calm de- liberacion, as a free people acting upon the conduct of an unworthy servant.' The first entry upon the subject runs thus :- " an Assembly to be called to- receive complaints against Sir John Harvey, on the petition of many inhab -: itants, to meet 7th. of May.", Could as much coolness, deliberation and publicity be given to action against a tyrant who had already trodden liber- ty under foot, or is a' transport of popular rage so slow in action ? The next entry upon this subject is the following :- " on the 28th of April 1635, Sir John Harvey thrust out of his. government, and Captain John West acts as governor, till the king's pleasure known."* It appears from another ancient recordt that before the assembly met which was to have heard complaints against Harvey, he agreed in council to go to England to an- swer them, and upon that West was elected governor.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.