USA > Virginia > A history of Virginia : from its discovery and settlement by Europeans to the present time. Vol. I > Part 17
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
During the remainder of this year we note little of importance, except another session of the Assem- bly and an irruption of the Pamunky and Chicka- hominy Indians, attended with considerable loss
a See Belknap's Am. Biog. iii. 209, 210; Grahame's Colon. Hist. ii. 3.
266
SIR JOHN HERVEY.
[CHAP. V.
to the English. One of the most gloomy conse- quences of this state of hostility, now permanently established, was the almost entire destruction of good faith between the belligerents. The Indians had never exhibited it; but the whites soon vied with them in perfidy, inviting them to conferences only to cut them off when unprepared, and offer- ing them peace to fall upon them when disarmed. The natives were speedily undeceived, and never again trusted to their enemies' assertions, whatever solemnities might attend them.ª
(1629.) Early in the next year came the new Governor, Sir John Hervey, from England, bring- ing a broad commission and ample powers from his royal master. Concerning this officer's charac- ter and conduct, disputes have arisen and doubts have prevailed, which will probably never be finally determined, until we shall obtain clearer light upon the transactions of this the most obscure period of colonial history.b It is certain, however, that he was one of the commissioners who visited the colony in 1624, to aid King James in his pur- poses against the Company ; and from this we fairly infer, that neither was Hervey very accept-
a Burk's Hist. Va., ii. 26, 27; Campbell, 60, 61, is less violent and Campbell's Va., 59.
b Robertson, i. 419; Marshall, i. 65 ; Burk, ii. 28-31 ; Gordon's Am. i. 50; Grahame, i. 91, and even Keith, 143, 144, condemn Hervey in unmeasured terms. They be- stow upon him every epithet that can apply to the worst of tyrants. sketch of Hervey now attainable.
more accurate. The author of the " Outline," in Howe's Hist. Va., 56, 57, is moderate and cautious. He seems, in the whole of his Outline, to have borrowed much from Mr. Bancroft, who has given us, i. 214- 218, probably, the most faithful
267
GOOD AND EVIL.
1629.]
able to the settlers, nor were his own feelings to- wards them of the most cordial character. During the ten years in which, with few intermissions, he governed the colony, he often adopted stern mea- sures, and encountered opposition from the Assem- blies which frequently sat in the course of his period of dominion. It is probable that he was a man fond of money, and little scrupulous as to the means of obtaining it; for we find bitter complaints of his appropriating fines to his own use, and levy- ing taxes unauthorized by the legislature, and the proceeds of which were turned into his private coffers.ª Another trait, scarcely less odious, was his bigotry, which led him to enforce with abso- lute rule the laws providing for the Church, to re- quire rigid conformity in all, and to revive obsolete demands for religious observances, greatly to the annoyance of the mass of the colonists.b
Yet, with all his faults, Hervey had some quali- ties which made him useful and respectable in his station. He carefully supervised the military plans of the settlement; caused a fort to be erected at Point Comfort, well placed for defending the mouth of the river ; encouraged the manufacture of salt- petre and potash ; revived the salt works at Acco- mac, which had long been neglected ; established semi-monthly courts at Jamestown ; and, notwith- standing his own vices, with an inconsistency but too common to human nature, he sought to in- fuse into the laws most wholesome precepts as to
a Burk, ii. 28, 29, 33.
b Burk's Va., ii. 28.
268
GOOD AND EVIL.
[CHAP. V.
morality and religion.a In the year 1630, we note, with surprise and pain, a prosecution against Dr. John Pott, the late governor, on a charge of steal- ing cattle, which resulted in his conviction, and he was only saved by a reprieve from ignominious punishment.b The governor fostered with care a spirit of maritime enterprise ; sent out an expedi- tion to trade between the thirty-fourth and forty- first degrees of latitude; and most cordially invited the people who had settled in New England, to desert their cold and barren soil, and take refuge in the more genial climes of Virginia and Dela- ware.c
Whatever may have been the wishes of Hervey as to taxation, it is certain that the General Assem- bly never submitted to any claims of this charac- ter not warranted by their own assent. In the session of 1631, we find a bold and lucid declara- tion, denying to the chief executive officer the right to levy any impost without the concurrence of the legislature; and enacting that, in future, the governor should have no power to enforce the services of colonists for his own private benefit, or to levy them for war without the consent of the Council. We have reason to believe, that Hervey gave his constitutional vote for this law, which was too just and too popular to be safely rejected.ª
a Burk's Va., ii. 31; Campbell's
pages; the last is that of Hugh Va., 60; Hening's Stat. at Large, i. Davis, Sept. 17, 1630, which seems 155-160. - highly judicious. Burk, ii. 30.
b Hening's Stat. at Large, i. 145, 146. Sundry other convictions by the Council will be found on these
c Burk, ii. 32; Bancroft, i. 213.
d Burk, ii. 33, 34; Hening's Stat., Acts 24th and 26th, 1631-32, i. 196.
269
SETTLEMENT OF MARYLAND.
1632.]
But the cause which has been urged, with greatest effect, for the odium into which the go- vernor finally fell, seems to have been his culpable coalition with King Charles and his favourites, in encroachments upon the public domain of the co- lony. As early as the year 1630, Charles granted to Sir Robert Heath an immense tract of country, beginning at the thirty-sixth parallel of latitude, and running south so far as to embrace almost the whole of the territory now occupied by the Southern States of our Union. This huge grant compromised many vested rights in Virginia; but, as it was not proceeded upon for several years, it never became a source of discontent.a During Hervey's administration, several patents were · granted by the English sovereign, interfering ma- terially with prior claims under the colonial pa- tents ; and the governor is, with good reason, sup- posed to have derived pecuniary profit from his connivance at these usurpations.b But at length a more serious inroad was made upon the broad lands of Virginia.
George, the first Lord Baltimore, died in April, 1632. But the patent prepared for the father, was immediately assigned to the son, Cecelius Calvert, who inherited the dignity of manner, the purity of morals, and the religious prepossessions of his sire. By this patent, Charles calmly granted the magni- ficent tract of country lying on both sides of the
a Outline, in Howe's Hist. Collec., 57; Grahame's Colon. Hist., ii. 70. b Burk's Va. ii. 38.
270
SETTLEMENT OF MARYLAND. [CHAP. V.
Bay of Chesapeake and north of the Potomac, run- ning up to the fortieth parallel of latitude, from the point where it strikes the first fountain of the river even to the Atlantic Ocean.ª Under this grant, Leonard Calvert prepared for a settlement. The whole tract was clearly within the limits of Virgi- nia; and though it may be that few settlers had yet planted themselves north of the Potomac, yet that fact did not in any manner give to the King the right to dispose of land which could only be lawfully obtained by regular deeds, under the seal of the provincial authorities. Early in the year 1634, Calvert, with two hundred persons of good families, and of the Roman Catholic creed, arrived in America, and proceeded to Jamestown to pay
their respects to existing powers. The Governor
and Council received them courteously, but it was distinctly announced to them that their grant was considered an encroachment upon the rights of Virginia. They then sailed up the Chesapeake, and laid the foundations of a state, upon which, in honour of the Queen, Henrietta Maria, they be- stowed the name of Maryland.b
Difficulties speedily presented themselves. A
a Belknap's Am. Biog., iii. 213; "Crescentia ;" such was Lord Balti- Grahame's Colon. Hist., ii. 3, 4; more's selection, but on referring Bancroft's U. S., i. 259. the question to Charles, the King suggested the name of his much- loved Queen, and, of course, all de- bate was closed .- Ogilby, 183, cited by Belknap, Am. Biog., note to page 212, vol. iii.
b Mr. Campbell, p. 59, appears to be guilty of a ludicrous error. He says, it " was settled in the reign of Queen Mary, and, in honour of that princess, was called Maryland." This state narrowly escaped the title of
271
WILLIAM CLAIBORNE.
1635.]
turbulent character, named William Claiborne, who had at one time been a member of the Virgi- nia Council, had obtained from King Charles a license, authorizing him to traffic in parts of the colony for which no prior license existed. Under this power, he had settled himself with a band of followers upon Kent's Island, near the present site of Annapolis ; and, when summoned by Calvert, he sternly refused to submit to his jurisdiction. Hostilities immediately commenced. Claiborne was captured, and, being brought to trial, he was found guilty upon the grave charges of murder, piracy, and sedition. But, finding means of es- cape, he fled to Virginia, and voluntarily surren- dered himself to Sir John Hervey, who, after some delay and indecision, sent him to England for final trial.ª
The people of Virginia, though willing to extend to the settlers in Maryland the hand of friendship, had always regarded their grant as a serious en- croachment upon their own rights. The Governor was looked upon as secretly favourable to the views of the King. A short time before this we find him paying an amicable visit to Calvert, and com- muning with him freely as to his future plans.b His treatment of Claiborne gave great offence. Many thought that the rights of this agitator ought
a Belknap's . Am. Biog., iii. 216; land. See Grahame's Colon. Hist., Burk's Va., ii. 40, 41; Bancroft's ii. 13, 14, 20, 25. U. S., i.264-266; Outline, in Howe's b Belknap's Am. Biog., iii. 221, 222 Hist., 57. This Claiborne was long a disturber of the peace of Mary-
272
HERVEY DISPLACED.
[CHAP. V.
to be upheld; and that his settlement on Kent's Island, being in accordance with a prior authority from Charles, could not be affected by the subse- quent grant to Maryland. This seems to have been the prominent ground of complaint against Hervey.ª But it is altogether probable that many other sources of dissatisfaction concurred, for we cannot believe that this alone would have produced the violent explosion which soon followed. In 1635, we find an Assembly solemnly convened to receive charges against the governor. Popular feeling had risen high. Whatever causes had ope- rated, it is certain that Hervey was looked upon with universal dislike,-that he was considered the friend of tyranny, and the enemy of the people. In a short time the Assembly met; and, after due de- liberation, they adopted a measure so bold and so unprecedented, that nothing but undoubted testi- mony could convince us of its truth. Sir John Hervey was "thrust out of his government, and Captain John West was to act as governor till the King's pleasure be known."b
When the suspended governor was thus sent
Howe's Hist. Collec. Outline, 57; Hening, a safer guide, gives no Bancroft's U. S., i. 216, 217. countenance to this statement. See
b Hening's Stat. at Large, i. 223; Campbell, 61. Robertson's account, Bancroft's U. S., i. 217. Burk, ii. i. 419, would create the impression 42, intimates that the order of Coun- that Hervey was violently seized by a mob, and sent out of the country ! It is strange that Mr. Frost should countenance this idea; yet I can gather nothing else, either from his words or his picture, in his Pictor. cil suspending Hervey, recited this act as being " by reason of his haughtiness, rapacity, and cruelty, his contempt of the rights of the co- lonists, and his usurpation of the privileges of the Council;" but Mr. Hist. U. S., i. 114.
273
HERVEY REINSTATED.
1635.]
back to his master, the Assembly deemed it expe- dient to send commissioners, selected by themselves, and supplied with a full body of evidence to sus- tain every charge preferred against the accused. But Charles regarded this whole proceeding with unmingled disapprobation .. Already his intracta- ble parliaments at home were entering upon that series of fearless measures which finally arrayed the King and the people in martial order against each other. The unhappy monarch was vacillating between his love of power and his fear of defeat- his need of money and his dependence on his people for aid,-and at such a period, each step of the po- pular spirit in its onward course was regarded with jealousy and pain. The King did not even con- descend to give audience to the commissioners of the colony.ª Their complaints were unheeded, their charges were unheard. Without bringing Hervey to trial, his partial sovereign reinstated him in office, and sent him back to Virginia; giving to the colonists the meagre solace of a commission, in which the government was required to be adminis- tered on the principles of the period during which the Assembly had existed.b
From this time we hear of no complaints against the governor. Experience may have taught him moderation; and the salutary fear of assemblies which regularly sat and acted upon the affairs of
a Burk's Va., ii. 45; Robertson's hame, i. 93, represents this commis- Am., i. 419; Outline in Howe's Hist. sion as less favourable to the colo- Collec., 58; Bancroft's U. S., i. 217.
nists. Gordon, Am., i. 50, sends b Bancroft's U. S., i. 217. Gra. Hervey back in 1637.
VOL. I.
18
274
TOBACCO LAWS EXPLAINED. [CHAP. V.
the settlement, may have restrained his former pro- pensities. In 1639, he was quietly superseded by Sir Francis Wyatt, who had previously governed the colony with much satisfaction to its people and honour to himself. His administration was brief,-so brief, indeed, that it seems to have escaped the notice of many of our most diligent historians.ª Yet, during its progress, certain laws were enacted by the General Assembly, which, in later years, have been misunderstood, misrepre- sented; have drawn upon their authors the con- tempt of some, the censure of others; but which, when fully explained, furnish evidence of wisdom and foresight, rather than of weakness and dis- honesty.
(1639.) Let it be remembered, that at this time Virginia and the Somer Isles enjoyed the exclusive sale of tobacco in Britain. By reason of its exces- sive production the price had fallen so low, that the planters could neither subsist themselves, nor pay their just debts, nor turn their labour to any other staple. (Jan. 6.) Under these circumstances, the Assembly passed a law requiring all the tobacco raised this year to be viewed,-the whole of that decayed and unmerchantable, and one-half of that really good, to be burned. Now, although this weed was valueless to those who had not learned to use it, yet with those who had become its vota-
a This rule between Hervey and Hening, i. 225; Bancroft, i. 218; Berkeley is mentioned by neither Campbell, 61; Grahame, i. 95. Burk, Keith, Chalmers, Beverley, b Hening's Stat., i. 224; Outline, Robertson, nor Marshall. But see in Howe, 59.
275
TOBACCO LAWS EXPLAINED.
1639.]
ries it was almost necessary to existence. They would give any price to obtain its odorous consola- tions. Therefore the withdrawal of one-half the usual quantity from market would immediately enhance the value of the remainder in due propor- tion. Thus far, then, none will object to the law of the Assembly. But they go on, in the same clause, to enact that all creditors, in payment of their debts, should be compelled to receive forty pounds of tobacco for one hundred formerly given; and, immediately afterwards, that no man should be obliged to perform more than half his covenants for freighting tobacco in 1639.ª Upon these pro- visions great obloquy has been heaped. They have been pronounced iniquitous and absurd, but they will bear a rigid scrutiny. Tobacco was at this time the medium of exchange in Virginia. Very little metallic coin had found its way to the colony ; and the settlers did not hesitate to resort to the practice of primitive ages, and to make currency of an article convenient of access, and in universal demand. Hence the necessity for guarding against excess in its production, and against the use of tobacco of inferior quality ; for these causes would affect commerce as injuriously as a plethora of bank paper, or an influx of spurious coin. Now, when the legislature required that more than one-half of the existing supply should be destroyed, the neces- sary effect was to render the remnant more than doubly valuable to the holder ; therefore, had the
a Hening's Stat., Acts I. & II., Sess. 1639, i. 224, 225; Outline in Howe's Hist. Va., 59.
-
276
SIR WILLIAM BERKELEY.
[CHAP. V.
planters still been held to the payment of their debts at par, they would in fact have paid more than double their amount. Thus, if a debtor owed one hundred pounds of tobacco prior to 1639, when the commodity might be worth three shillings per pound, his debt might be estimated at fifteen pounds sterling. But after 1639, the price would be per- haps eight shillings per pound; and had he still been compelled to pay one hundred pounds, he would in fact pay to his creditor the sum of forty pounds sterling in value. The injustice of this must be obvious. The Assembly acted wisely and equitably in their requirements. They did not enhance the value of their coin, and still compel debtors to meet the nominal amount of their dues ; but having really increased its value, they properly adapted to it the corresponding amounts which creditors might claim.a
In August of 1641, Charles appointed to the direction of the affairs of Virginia a gentleman whose name is inseparably interwoven with the early destinies of our state. William Berkeley was a cavalier of the most rigid and approved school then known in the British realm ; pure blood and high connexions gave dignity to his name ; refined manners and the ease imparted by long contact with polite society, rendered his person acceptable to all he encountered. He possessed the singular and scarcely definable art, of enlisting alike the
a A full and impartial view of this perfectly just in his remarks on the question will be found in the Outline subject, i. 218. History prefixed to Howe's Hist. b Biography in Campbell's Va., Collec., 58-60. Mr. Bancroft is not Appendix, 253.
277
SIR WILLIAM BERKELEY.
1639.]
confidence of the high and the low, the mighty and the humble. Imbued with the very spirit of the English gentleman, he knew how to avoid the ex- tremes of forbidding coldness or of dangerous familiarity. He was valued by his friends for his warm affections, and respected by his foes for his upright demeanour. Yet with so much that was excellent, he developed traits which tended power- fully to lower what would otherwise have been a truly lofty character. His loyalty was so excessive that it blinded his eyes to the faults of a crowned head, and steeled his heart against the prayers of oppressed subjects. He could not tolerate the least appearance of opposition to the rights claimed by his King ; and this feeling seems to have been heightened, rather than diminished, by the grow- ing spirit of freedom that he marked among the commons of the mother country. He loved the mo- narchical constitution of England with simple fer- vour ; he venerated her customs, her church, her bi- shops, her liturgy, every thing peculiar to her as a kingdom ; and believing them to be worthy of all ac- ceptation, he enforced conformity with uncompro- mising sternness. Many virtuous propensities, when urged to excess, become the sources of vicious conduct. Had Sir William Berkeley descended to his grave at the time when Charles II. gained the English throne, we might with safety have trusted to those historians who have drawn him as adorned with all that could grace and elevate his species.2
2 Campbell's Va. Biog., 253; Ro- really to admire Sir William; Keith, bertson's Am., i. 419; Marshall's 144, "A worthy, good, and just Am. Colon., 66. Marshall seems man." Even Burk, i. 46.
278
BERKELEY'S COMMISSION.
[CHAP. V.
But he lived long enough to prove that loyalty, when misguided, will make a tyrant; that religi- ous zeal, when devoted to an established church, will beget the most revolting bigotry ; and that an ardent disposition, when driven on by desire for revenge, will give birth to the worst forms of cruelty and malice.
(Aug. 9.) The commission issued by the King to the new governor was, in many respects, liberal and just to the colonists;ª it recognised the exist- ence and rights of the Assembly, which had there- tofore been connived at rather than openly ap- proved; it encouraged the burgesses to unite cor- dially with the governor, and to aid him in pre- paring a new code of laws, and in adopting the most salutary customs of the English realm. We may imagine the pleasure felt by the settlers who had thus guaranteed to them their much-loved form of government, and who were at length blessed with a head, apparently resolved to devote all his energies to their welfare. Joy and harmony prevailed ; the people were full of love to the King, and zeal for his service. Industrious habits had long since become confirmed among them, and though the bias of their origin still operated upon their manners and their morals, yet they were no longer excited to turbulence by want or by discord, in their ruling councils. Amid so much of cheer- fulness and hope, they barely noticed one clause in
a This commission is in Hazard, i. 218; Marshall's Am. Col., 66; i. 477, 480. See Grahame's Colon. Gordon's Am., i. 51. Hist. Am., i. 95 ; Bancroft's U. S.,
1642.]
THE DEAD NOT TO BE REVIVED. 279
the commission to the governor, which savoured strongly of a narrow and unjust policy, afterwards carried into full effect under the Protectorate, and in the reign of the second Charles. The King re- quired that all the commerce of the colony should flow into or through the veins of the mother country. To enforce this provision, Sir William Berkeley, was instructed to demand from the mas- ter of every vessel trading from Virginia, a bond obliging him to land his cargo, either immediately in England, or in some other part of the king's dominions in Europe.a .
(1642.) In February the new governor arrived, and assumed the reins of his colonial province. Nearly his first act was to call a meeting of the General Assembly; and in a short time this body convened at Jamestown, full of joy because of the favourable change in their affairs, and inspired with gratitude to a king whom they believed to be truly their benefactor. It having been repre- sented to them that George Sandys had presented a petition to his majesty, praying the re-establish- ment of the old London Corporation, and, acting as though under the guidance of the colonial As- sembly, they immediately drew up a paper, called " A Declaration against the Company," and trans- mitted it to England, with the signatures of the governor, the council, and nearly all the burgesses. In this paper they protest vigorously against the revival of the Company. Some have supposed
a Grahame's Colon. Hist., i. 96; Bancroft's U. S., i. 219 ; Robertson's Am., i. 420; Gordon's Am., i. 51.
.
280
THE DEAD NOT TO BE REVIVED. [CHAP. V.
that their opposition was caused by their hatred of the measures formerly adopted by this celebrated body;ª but impartial inquiry will convince us, that they were moved rather by their newly-born zeal for their monarch, than by any well-founded arguments against the London Corporation.
With remarkable, perhaps we should add un- grateful, inconsistency, we find them urging as a reason against its revival, the prevalence of assem- blies under Charles, forgetting that to this much- injured body was Virginia indebted for the very privileges that the King had at last so reluctantly confirmed.b We read, too, charges against the " intolerable" tyranny of the very man whom the Court party had caused to be elected ; and we even find what seems to be a bitter complaint against the clause in the first patent of James, requiring all things, for five years, to be held in common,“ although they could not be ignorant that the Com- pany had rejoiced as greatly as the colonists when this unwise restriction expired. Perhaps the clear- est light thrown upon the conduct of the Assembly, is furnished by the clause in which they protest, in the most obsequious style, against " so unnatu- ral a distance as a company will interpose between his sacred majesty and us his subjects."" The time was not far distant when the unhappy colonists would have rejoiced in any intervening shield be-
a Compare Bancroft, i. 220; Gra- c Obj. i., in Dec., in Hening, i. hame, i. 97; Marshall, 66; with 231; Burk, ii. 69. Burk, ii. 72-74.
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.