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 administration is exhibited in the history of the colony; Nov. 14, 1627. 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 written by the government of Virginia to the privy council, announcing his 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. 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 October, 1628, and March, 1629.

In the interval between the death of Yeardley and the arrival of Harvey, occurred the first act of religious intolerance which defiles 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 Virginia; where, instead of being received with the cheerful welcome of a friend and a brother, he was greeted with the oath of allegiance and supremacy; 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 England 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 mankind had been held by Catholic fetters for so many ages, was too terrible to risk 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 families: most of them had emigrated while 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 country 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 supremacy, 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

* The massacre of the Protestants by the Catholics on St. Bartholomew's day, in France, in 1572.

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 authorizes 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 important differences between the Protestants had arisen, when but two religions 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 number of dissenters had availed themselves of the great example of Protestantism, in rejecting any creed which did not precisely satisfy their consciences, 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.*

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 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 Assembly 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 a 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 nearly as might be, with the canons in England; the fourth, enjoined the observance of the holy days, (adding the 22d of March, the day of the Massacre, to the number,) dispensing 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 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 minister'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 enforced, 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 1631-32, as well as in the several revisals of the

* The persecution of the Puritans was an exception to this. They were persecuted 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 follow ing.-Holmes Am. An. 156-203.

laws. In the acts of 1631-32, 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 acts, 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 ministers, until the session of 1657-58, when church and state seem to have been effectually divorced; for, though no act of religious freedom was passed, but all were still expected, rather than compelled, 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.

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 violation 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 disposition 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.

Harvey met his first General Assembly in March, and its acts,

as those of several succeeding sessions, only consist of the 1629. 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 administration as arbitrary and tyrannical from the first: the charge is without evidence, 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 ordered the building of forts, made the contracts, provided the payments, provided 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 themselves, 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.

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 portion of the lands of the colony-commencing at the 36th degree of latitude, and including the whole southern portion of the United States, under the name of Carolina. But as this country was not settled until long afterwards, 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. An

other instance of a more objectionable character soon oc1632. curred. Cecilius Calvert, Lord Baltimore, obtained a grant of that portion of Virginia which is now included in the state of Maryland, and immediately commenced a settlement upon it, notwithstanding the value which the Virginians 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 himself at Kent Island, near the city of Annapolis, and seemed by no means inclined 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 was indicted, and found of guilty of murder, piracy, and sedition; and to escape punishment he fled to Virginia. When the Maryland commissioners demanded 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.

The account which we have of the trial of Harvey is extremely meager, detailing neither the accusations nor 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 indignation." The whole

matter seems to have been conducted with calm deliberation, 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 inhabitants, to meet 7th of May." Could as much coolness, deliberation, and publicity be given to action against a tyrant who had already trodden liberty 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 Capt. John West acts as governor, till the king's pleasure known." It appears that before the Assembly met which was to have heard complaints against Harvey, he agreed in council to go to England to answer them; and upon that, West was elected governor.

How long West governed is uncertain; but it appears by a paper among the records, that Harvey was governor again in January, 1636. It appears that Charles regarded the conduct of the colony as an unwarrantable piece of insolence, little short of treason, and would not even hear them, lest the spectacle of so noble an example might inflame the growing discontents in his own kingdom, which finally rose to such a pitch, as not only to take the same unwarrantable liberty of deposing him, but even laid violent hands upon his sacred person. He accordingly sent the commissioners home with their grievances untold, and Harvey was reinstated in his power without undergoing even a trial. The conduct of the colony appears to have been a salutary lesson to him, and he probably feared that for the next offence they would take justice into their own hands; for we hear no complaints of him during his administration, which expired in November, 1639. Sir Francis Wyatt succeeded him.

In 1634 the colony was divided into eight shires,* which were to be governed as the shires in England: lieutenants were to be appointed in the same manner as in England, and it was their especial duty to pay attention to the war against the Indians. Sheriffs, sergeants, and bailiffs, were also to be elected as in England. In 1628-9 commissions were issued to hold monthly courts in the different settlements, which was the origin of our county court system.

At the first assembly which was held after the return of Wyatt, several acts were passed, which, from the inattention of historians to the circumstances of the times, have received universal reprobation, but which, when properly considered, will be found to be marked with great shrewdness, and dictated by the soundest policy.

The act declares that, "tobacco by reason of excessive quantities being made, being so low, that the planters could not subsist by it, or be enabled to raise more staple com

* Viz., James City, Henrico, Charles City, Elizabeth City, Warwick River, Warros quoyoke, Charles River, and Accomack.