The History of the Thirteen Colonies of North America 1497-1763 Part 2

The colony seemed prosperous in every way, but there were dark clouds overshadowing the Company on all sides. It was rumoured, and with some truth, that five thousand emigrants had landed in Virginia, and yet only one thousand were actually resident. Men asked themselves the question, "had the settlers returned, or had they died in this so-called land of promise"? The new board of directors, if they had been left to themselves, would have put the Company upon an a.s.sured footing, and success would most certainly have attended their efforts. But this was not to be; the Company was attacked from within and without. Lord Warwick's party, a clique within the Company, showed every sign of hostility to Southampton and Sandys. The external attacks came from three sources, not the least important being that of the Crown. James I.

was jealous of the power of that Company which he himself had created.

His fears were increased by the insidious attacks of the Spanish amba.s.sador, Gondomar, who informed the King that "a seditious Company was but the seminary to a seditious Parliament."[48] Even the English people, little realising the work that the Company was painfully accomplishing for Imperial purposes, now turned against the men whom, for sentimental reasons, they ought to have supported, and used the popular cry against monopolies to bring about the downfall of the founders of a new nation. The dangers of the Company were increased by the perils of the colony itself. The old Indian hostility had for a few years slumbered, but after the death of Powhattan and the succession of Opechancanough in 1618 the horrors of Indian warfare once more threatened the colony. In the following year the death of a famous Indian, Jack the Feather, was a sufficient pretext, and Opechancanough attacked Virginia. The English proved successful in the end, but not before they had lost three hundred and seventy of their number. It is not to be wondered at that the a.s.sembly issued a severe order that "the inhabitants of every plantation should fall upon their adjoining savages";[49] this the planters readily obeyed; and the steps taken, though harsh, appear to have been effectual.

The news of the Indian ma.s.sacres, the action of Spain and the absurd desire of a Spanish marriage, worked upon the mind of James I. to such an extent that he determined to abolish the Company.[50] In 1623 the King demanded the surrender of the charter, which Sandys and his party stoutly refused. A writ of _quo warranto_ was then issued to decide whether the privileges of the Company were purely a monopoly, or whether they were exercised for the public good. The Law Courts gave a verdict against the Company, and the charter was declared null and void. The storm cloud, which had long hung over the Company, had now burst upon the heads of the devoted directors. They were forced to succ.u.mb to the most pernicious of all influences, for they had been crushed by greed and covetousness, together with the intrigues of disgraceful courtiers and disappointed speculators who showed a lack of public spirit that too often marked the early years of the Stuart period. In reviewing the actions of the Company it is universally agreed that they had in almost every case been for good; it is, however, acknowledged with similar unanimity that for the actual benefit of the colony in the future it was as well that the Company's powers should pa.s.s to the Crown. Had the actions of the Company been disliked in the colony itself, it is inexplicable that the colony should have supported the Company at the time of its trial. The settlers could not foresee what might be the outcome of a continuance of the Company's rule. At the time they merely realised with disgust that James had acted as he had done, solely to gain the fickle and grudging favour of the decadent Spain; but they did not understand that the Company must inevitably in the future, if it had not already done so in the past, act as a trammelling influence upon the progress and prosperity of the little settlement. Unwittingly James, by his action, had removed the fetters, and had given an opportunity of free growth to the colony. It was no longer possible for the welfare of the individual planter to be sacrificed to the merely temporary advantage of the English trader and shareholder. "Morally and politically, indeed, the abrogation of the Virginian charter was a crime"; but "the colony, happily for its future, pa.s.sed under the control of the Crown while it was yet plastic, undeveloped and insignificant."[51] Henceforth the const.i.tution of Virginia was of the normal type; the administration was carried on by a governor and two chambers, the one nominated, the other popularly elected.

The first chapter of Virginian history may be said to have closed when the Company ceased to exist, and at the same time the romantic and heroic aspect of the colony was concluded. Although perhaps no individual connected with the foundation of the colony can be compared with the glorious figures of the Elizabethan epoch, yet in the characters of Hakluyt, Southampton, Sandys, and Captain John Smith there was something of the old order. The heroism of the first actors upon the Virginian stage was probably as great as that of their predecessors, but the new order of things did not call upon them to exhibit such feats of strength or of bravery. By the abrogation of the Company's charter a revolution had indeed been effected. From this moment the history of Virginia can only be dealt with in a brief and hasty sketch, for happy is the country that has no history, and such is the case with regard to the later years of England's first great colony. The interests of the settlers are in the future mainly confined to the growth of tobacco, as will be shown in a later chapter, and from 1623 the chroniclers cease to record the story of the terrible struggle for bare existence, but tell rather the tale of a steady but unheroic prosperity amongst a rich cla.s.s of planters employing negro labour.

The first Governor under the Crown was Sir Francis Wyatt, who was of good character and inspired the colonists with a self-reliant temper. He was succeeded in 1626 by Sir George Yeardley, who had already won the affection of many of the settlers in the days of the Company's rule. The following year, however, Yeardley died; and the Crown appointed a creature of its own, Governor Harvey, who quarrelled with the a.s.sembly on every possible occasion. In fact so bitter did these quarrels become that a settler, Mathews by name, as leader of the popular party, seized Harvey in 1635, and placed him upon a vessel where he was kept in honourable confinement until the old country was reached. It is hardly likely that the colonists imagined that the Crown would take their part against the Governor, but their action was probably due to a general desire to impress the Crown with their power. Charles I., who had previously shown good feeling towards the colony, now behaved foolishly in sending Harvey back to Virginia, where he remained for four years, filling up his time by sending numerous petty and querulous complaints to the home country of the misdoings of the settlers. During Harvey's administration the old proprietors made several attempts to obtain a fresh grant of the charter and the reinst.i.tution of the Company. But with the same ardent spirit as the colonists had supported the Company in 1623, so now they opposed its re-establishment and for the same reason. The change that they had imagined must inevitably take place by the abolition of the Company was a loss of their t.i.tles; but having been firmly settled under the Crown they were frightened that if the Company should be again created their t.i.tles would be again endangered. The advocate of the colonists was the pliant and pliable Sandys, who, when he reached England, deserted his const.i.tuents, and pleaded for the restoration of the old rule. The colony immediately on hearing of this sent word to the King that their representative was acting contrary to their wishes, and in 1639 they received the satisfactory reply that Charles had no intention of restoring the Company.

From this time the settlers appear from contemporary records to have been contented. The writers point out how nature gave freely, how beautiful was the land, and how peaceful were the natives. There can be no doubt that this was the content and boastfulness of a young people, and that it was unduly exaggerated. On the other hand it must also be allowed that though Virginia was not quite the paradise represented in some of the letters written by the settlers, yet it was, when the Civil War broke out in England, a land of comparative peace and plenty.

Sir Francis Wyatt was again sent out to succeed Governor Harvey in 1639, but his period of office was short and uneventful. More stirring times came when the colony pa.s.sed under the rule of Sir William Berkeley. He was a typical cavalier, bluff in speech, hot in temper, brave in danger, and contemptuous of learning. He may, in later years, have exercised a merciless tyranny, but it was the hardship of his fortunes together with something closely akin to lunacy that drove him to such actions. On his appointment, his instructions were more carefully formulated than had hitherto been the case. This was only natural as the Court party at home were beginning to see the dangers that were looming ahead, and so they trusted that in Virginia trouble might be checked by the exaction of the strictest oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and by the insistence on the service of the Church of England. This latter was hardly necessary as speaking widely the Church of England was the Church of the Virginians. There were, however, three parishes, the members of which were almost entirely nonconformists until dispersed and scattered by a conformity act between the years 1642 and 1644.

Sir William Berkeley had hardly taken up the reins of government when the history of the colony was marked by a great calamity. Opechancanough was now an old man, enfeebled in body and physically incapable of leading his people; but his mind was still as active as ever, his savage cunning was in no way dimmed by years, and he had ever nursed the hatred he had felt for the settlers since the failure of his attack in the days of the Company. The rumours of the outbreak of the Civil War in England soon reached the ears of the Indians, some of whom had actually seen two ships of the white settlers bombarding each other in the Bay.

Opechancanough seized this opportunity of division and strife among the Virginians, and fell upon the colony. Before the settlers were ready to resist, three hundred men, women and children had been slain. The local militia at last made headway against the savages, and after the capture and death of the old chief in 1646 a treaty was made as to the boundary between the English and the Indians, under which peace reigned for thirty years.

It has been the fashion to regard Virginia as a purely Cavalier colony; this is probably due to an attempt to accentuate the difference between the Southern colony and the New England group. It is, however, an exaggeration to say that Virginia was entirely composed of those supporting cavalier principles. Certainly there were large landowners who sympathised with Charles and his party, but there was a very large and prosperous middle cla.s.s, composed of small landowners and well-to-do tradesmen, amongst whom it was only natural to find various opinions and sympathies. As a whole, however, Virginia may be said to have been Royalist, not from any rooted objection to the Commonwealth, but rather because the Royalist party was temporarily predominant in the settlement. Sir William Berkeley, as a loyal Governor, forbade the showing of any sympathy to the Parliamentary rebels, and he was supported in his action by Charles II., who, in 1650, before he left Breda, despatched a commission empowering Berkeley to act in his name.

The far-reaching power of Cromwell was not to be stayed by any such commission, for the Commonwealth was determined "to grasp the whole of the inheritance of the Stuart Kings,"[52] and so Ayscue was sent in 1651 to reduce the colonies to submission. On March 12 of the following year, Virginia acknowledged the new power in England, much to the rage and discontent of the Governor. Berkeley had indeed done his best, and had issued a stirring declaration which concluded with these words, "But, gentlemen, by the Grace of G.o.d we will not so tamely part with our King and all those blessings we enjoy under him, and if they oppose us, do but follow me, I will either lead you to victory or lose a life which I cannot more gloriously sacrifice than for my loyalty and your security."[53] The settlers, however, were not stirred, and though a thousand men had been collected at Jamestown, the a.s.sembly refused their support, not so much for the love of Cromwell as because they feared material loss if they resisted him. Had the great Protector lived longer the history of the American colonies might have been very different. He was the first Englishman who can really be said to have understood in its fullest sense the word Empire. But the G.o.ds were not generous to this imperialist, and they did not grant to him the necessary time for the achievement of a policy which Cromwell himself cla.s.sed as similar to that of "Queen Elizabeth of famous memory."[54] As it was, the rule of the Commonwealth had little definite effect upon Virginia, except that it necessitated a change in governors. The first was Richard Bennet, who was elected by the a.s.sembly in 1652, and ruled for three years. His successor, Edward Digges, was a worthy and sensible man, under whose administration the colony continued a calm and happy existence for one year. In 1656 Samuel Mathews was chosen, but during his rule Virginian history was unimportant, and the only cloud upon the horizon was an Indian panic which came to nothing.

The submission of Virginia was for the time only, and at the restoration of Charles II. once more the royalist party became supreme.

The King was accepted with perfect quiescence, and it is probable that the Virginians, like the English, rejoiced at the change, looking forward to the return of more mirthful and joyous days. As England learnt to repent the return of the Stuarts, so also Virginia found that she had fallen upon evil times, a fact which is partially shown in Berkeley's report in 1671. "As for the boundaries of our land, it was once great, ten degrees in lat.i.tude, but now it has pleased his Majesty to confine us to halfe a degree. Knowingly I speak this. Pray G.o.d it may be for his Majesty's service, but I much fear the contrary.... I thank G.o.d, there are _no free schools, nor printing_, and I hope we shall not have these hundred years; for _learning_ has brought disobedience, and heresy, and sects into the world, and _printing_ has divulged them, and libels against the best government. G.o.d keep us from both."[55]

The greed of the cavaliers under Charles II. is notorious, and it affected Virginia just as much as it did England. Lord Arlington and Lord Culpeper obtained in 1672 the most monstrous rights, together with a grant by which the whole soil of the colony pa.s.sed into their hands.

An agency was at once sent to England to oppose this discreditable action, at the same time taking with them a charter for which they hoped to obtain ratification from the King. Needless to say in this they were unsuccessful; but the charter is historically important, because it contained a clause stating that the colonists could not be taxed without the consent of their own legislature. The work of the agency partly failed owing to the supineness of Governor Berkeley; chiefly, however, because the people of Virginia were unable to see that agencies could not be sent without expenditure. When a poll-tax was enacted to cover the necessary expenses of their agents, there was a popular outburst.

The inhabitants of Virginia at this time were much divided, and composed of distinct cla.s.ses, the well-to-do planter, the tradesman, the "mean whites," the negro and the criminal. The last cla.s.s had been growing steadily for some years as the colony had been used as a dumping-ground for gaol-birds, and indeed the criminal section would have increased still more had it not been for the better cla.s.s of settlers who determined to stop it. In April 1670, the General Court held at Jamestown issued a notice "because by the great numbers of felons and other desperate villains being sent over from the prisons in England, the horror yet remaining of the barbarous designs of those villains in September 1663, who attempted at once the subversion of our religion, laws, liberties, rights and privileges," we do now prohibit "the landing of any jail-birds from and after the 20th of January next upon pain of being forced to carry them to some other country."[56] Although this law tended to exclude a cheap form of labour, nevertheless between 1669 and 1674 Virginia, commercially, was in a most flourishing condition, raising a greater revenue for the Crown than any other settlement. Sir John Knight informed Lord Shaftesbury that 150,000 in customs on tobacco alone had been paid, "so that Virginia is as of great importance to his Majesty as the Spanish Indies to Spain, and employs more ships and breeds more seamen for his Majesty's service than any other trade."[57]

Commercial success was not the only thing that went to make up Virginian history, for there were signs of external danger only too plainly exhibited by numerous outrages on the part of the Indians. Had Berkeley shown any skill or energy in suppressing these disorders all might have gone well; as it was he did nothing, with dire results. The incapacity of the Governor at last aroused the wrath of a young, honest, courageous, but indiscreet, member of the a.s.sembly, named Nathaniel Bacon. He took up arms and was at first pardoned, but when he once again attempted to seize Jamestown he was taken, and died in so mysterious a manner as to give rise to rumours of poison and treachery, though it was also reported, "that, he dyed by inbibing or taking in two _(sic)_ much Brandy."[58] Bacon's rising had the effect desired in so far as it brought about the recall of Berkeley. So vindictively and cruelly did the Governor punish Bacon's followers that in 1677 the Crown sent three Commissioners, Sir John Berry, Colonel Francis Moryson, and Colonel Herbert Jeffreys to look into the grievances of either side. They almost immediately quarrelled with the Governor, who was anxious to carry on his severe punishments. The King, however, had commanded the Commissioners to show, if possible, the greatest lenience. As a matter of fact out of a population of 15,000, only 500 were on the side of the Governor, and this small party who claimed to be the loyalists, very naturally advocated confiscations and fines. Berkeley obstructed the Commissioners as well as he was able, showing himself reckless of all consequences, and exhibiting gross discourtesy to the King's representatives. The truth was that Berkeley was growing old, and had possessed unlimited power far too long, supported as he had been by a most corrupt a.s.sembly. The end of the quarrel came when the Governor, or more probably, Lady Berkeley, insulted the officials beyond forgiveness.

After a consultation at the Governor's house the Commissioners were sent away in his carriage with "the common hangman" for postillion.[59] This outrage upon the laws of hospitality was too much; and Jeffreys immediately a.s.sumed the reins of government. Sir William Berkeley gave one more snarl, informing the new Governor that he was "utterly unacquainted"[60] with the laws, customs, and nature of the people; he then sailed for England, which he reached just alive, but "so unlikely to live that it had been very inhuman to have troubled him with any interrogations; so he died without any account given of his government."[61]

Sir Herbert Jeffreys had a difficult task before him in trying to purge the a.s.sembly. Within a year of taking up office he died, leaving no lasting memorial of his skill as Governor, but he is "to be remembered as the first of a long series of officers of the standing army who have held the governorship of a colony."[62] Jeffreys' successor, Sir Henry Chicheley, only held office for a few months, and at his departure the old type of governor disappears. The year 1679 is remarkable for the new method of administration, a method which proved injurious to the colony. Thomas, Lord Culpeper, was the first of the new scheme, and though he resided in the colony for four years he did nothing for its inhabitants. The appointment of Culpeper was most ill-advised, as he was already detested owing to the grant of 1672. He took up his office at identically the same time as the burgesses acquired the right of sitting as a separate chamber, and he found the council refractory, the colony unprosperous, and the Company of his Majesty's Guards in "mutinous humours."[63] His tenure of office expired in 1684, and he was succeeded by Lord Howard of Effingham. It cannot be said that the new Governor was idle, but whatever he did was to the disadvantage of Virginia and the Virginians. By a scandalous system of jobbery he inflicted grievous financial injury upon individuals, and at the same time r.e.t.a.r.ded the progress of the colony by a system of new imposts. By his skill he obtained for the Governor and the Council the right of appointing the Secretary to the a.s.sembly, which ought not to have been allowed by a free representative body. From this time the evils of the English colonial system became apparent, and it is now that absentee governors enrich themselves at the expense of their settlements, the actual administration being left to lieutenant governors in the confidence of their chiefs, who remained at home.

The great stumbling-block to colonial prosperity was the lack of unity between the different settlements on the eastern coast of North America.

In 1684 an attempt was made to bring about united action against Indians, who had desolated the western borders of the English colonies.

A conference was called at Albany, and Virginia, like all the other colonies, sent delegates to discuss the possibility of creating the United States under the British Crown. Nothing, however, came of it, for the jealousies and wranglings of the delegates only too well ill.u.s.trated the feelings of the different settlements for each other. The Revolution of 1688 was accepted with tranquillity in Virginia, and two years later Francis Nicholson was appointed King William's lieutenant governor.

Nicholson was a man of much colonial experience, of violent temper, and scandalous private life. He strongly opposed the desire for political freedom, but at the same time he made an excellent governor, and during his rule, which lasted until 1704 (except for a period of six years, 1692-1698), the colony prospered. A desire for education evinced itself at this period, and in 1691 Commissary Blair was sent to England to obtain a patent for the creation of a college. He returned within two years, his labours having been crowned with success, and in 1693 the second university[64] in America was established under the t.i.tle of William and Mary College.

As the seventeenth century drew to a close, Virginian progress was stimulated by the settlement, on the upper waters of the James River, of De Richebourg's colony of Huguenots, which is said to have "infused a stream of pure and rich blood into Virginian society." If the test of a colony is its population, Virginia at this time must have been most flourishing. Less than a century had pa.s.sed since Newport and his one hundred and forty-three settlers had sailed into the James River; the colony had suffered privations, had witnessed many a fluctuation of fortune, but at the dawn of the eighteenth century about one hundred thousand souls were living there in peace, plenty and happiness. During the century that had pa.s.sed, the settlers had won for themselves political rights, and practically, political freedom. They were to a certain extent restricted by the Navigation Acts, but the influence of the Crown or of the English Parliament was hardly felt. Their interest in English political life was meagre; the importance of getting trustworthy lieutenant governors was far greater to the Virginian than whether Whig or Tory was in power at home. Sometimes the colony was fortunate, sometimes the reverse, but in every case the lieutenant governor was opposed to any extension of political rights. The difficulty of united effort on the part of the planters was, to a certain extent, intensified by a want of towns. Hampton was Virginia's chief port, and was composed of a hundred poor houses, while Williamsburg cannot be regarded as a true centre of either economic or intellectual activity. This lack of town life is pointed out by Commissary Blair, who informed the Bishop of London, "even when attempts have been made by the a.s.sembly to erect towns they have been frustrated.

Everyone wants the town near his own house, and the majority of the burgesses have never seen a town, and have no notion of any but a country life."[65] The lieutenant governors during the eighteenth century had not only to contend with the supineness of the settlers, but also with intercolonial discord. Thus Alexander Spotswood, in 1711, attempted to a.s.sist North Carolina against the Tuscarora Indians, but he received no support from either the Council or a.s.sembly of Virginia.

Five years later Spotswood was met with similar bickerings and squabbles when South Carolina was invaded by the Yama.s.sees. In 1741 Oglethorpe begged a.s.sistance to protect the newly established Georgia; instead of sending their best we are told that his officer brought back "all the sc.u.m of Virginia."[66]

The worst feature of Virginian life was the omnipresent and omnipotent slave system, but from the mere commercial aspect this was in favour of the colony at the time. The planters, however, were never ready to leave the colony for imperial purposes owing to the fear of a negro rising at home. This was one of the chief difficulties with which the Governor, Robert Dinwiddie, had to contend, during that trying period of French and Indian attack, which prepared the way for the Seven Years' war. With this period it is not proposed to deal now, but to leave it to a later chapter concerning the struggle between the French colonists in the north and west, and the English settlers upon the eastern seaboard during that period which is peculiarly connected with Britain's imperial story.

FOOTNOTES:

[31] Quoted by Professor Raleigh in Introduction to _Hakluyt's Voyages_ (ed. 1904), xii. p. 24.

[32] _Hakluyt's Voyages_ (ed. 1904), vol. vii. p. 190.

[33] _Hakluyt's Voyages_ (ed. 1904), vol. i. p. xviii.

[34] Quoted by Doyle, _The English in America_, Virginia (1882), p. 145.

[35] _American Historical Review_, vol. iv. No. 4, pp. 678-702.

[36] Quoted by Doyle, _op. cit._, p. 147.

[37] Doyle says 143 colonists; neither Percy nor Newport mention the exact number; Bradley, in his life of _Captain John Smith_, says 105.

[38] _Cf._ footnote, Doyle, _op. cit._, p. 149.

[39] Smith's Letter to the Virginia Company.

[40] Quoted by Bradley, _Captain John Smith_ (1905), p. 144.

[41] Force, _Tracts_ (1836-46), vol. i.

[42] Gates, _A True Declaration of the Estate of the Colonie in Virginia_ (1610).

[43] Force, _Tracts_ (1836-46), vol. iii.

[44] Sir Thomas Dale was Governor 1611 and 1614 to 1616. Sir Thomas Gates as Governor organised the colony 1611 to 1614. See _Dictionary of National Biography_, xxi. p. 64.

[45] Hamor, _A True Discourse of the Present Estate of Virginia_ (ed.

1860).

[46] Hamor, _A True Discourse of the Present Estate of Virginia_ (ed.

1860).

[47] The characters of the two parties is controversial owing to the scarcity of doc.u.mentary evidence.

[48] Doyle, _op. cit._ p. 220.

[49] _Ibid._, p. 226.

[50] There was no question of abandoning the colony itself, which was what Spain desired.

[51] Doyle, _op. cit._ pp. 242, 244.

[52] Gardiner, _History of the Commonwealth_, i. 317.

[53] Neill, _Virginia Carolorum_ (1886), p. 215.

[54] _Cromwell's Speech V._, Sept. 17, 1656.

[55] Hening, _Statutes at Large_ (New York, 1823), ii. p. 517.

[56] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1669-1674, p. 64.