for mutual defense and for the interchange of commodities. The climate, soil and natural conditions of Virginia, and the tastes of her landed aristocracy, forbade the growth of such communities, and the large planters became in course of time almost the exclusive holders of land. By what steps or in what time the smaller yeomanry were absorbed and disappeared is uncertain. Just as in earlier English history the free socage tenant often surrendered that position and voluntarily took a dependent place in the feudal chain, so we may believe that in Virginia the small holder would find his position untenable, and seek security and society where alone it could be had, on the plantation of his richer neighbor.

to the crown.

James had already announced his intention of remodeling the government of Virginia and placing the colony under the immeRelations of diate control of the crown. His death nine months the colony after the dissolution of the Company prevented any steps towards the fulfillment of this design. The colony had no reason to regret the change of sovereign. With all Charles's faults, he had a certain kingliness of temper and some dignity of aim and purpose which raised him far above the despicable pedant whom he succeeded. Bigot, autocrat, dissembler though he was, ne did not lack a sense of his duties towards his subjects, and was above sacrificing their interests to enrich men whom it was a crime to endure. If James had lived, the little wealth which could be wrung out of Virginia would probably have gone to reward the vile services of some court favorite, while the task of constructing an elaborate constitution for the colony might have served to vary the ignoble pleasures of a meddlesome pedant. The Virginia colonists never crossed Charles either in his ecclesiastical or civil policy, and as a consequence his dealings with them were marked, not indeed by unswerving fairness or conspicuous wisdom, but on the whole by equity, moderation, and good

sense.

restore the

One of the first results of the change of sovereign was an attempt on the part of the Company to recover its privileges. Attempt to Within a month of the king's death the members of Company. the late Company addressed a memorial to the Privy Council, recounting all the services which the Company had done to the colony, and petitioning that the proceedings of the late commission should be made null and a fresh patent granted with 1 Order of Council, 1623, Oct. 8. Stith, p. 293.

DISTRESSED STATE OF THE COLONY.

189

the same conditions as the old charter. In short, they asked for a complete restitution of their former privileges.1

If any formal answer was given to the memorial it is no longer to be found. A practical answer, however, was given by a royal proclamation issued on the 13th of May. This may be looked on as the formal declaration of the new constitution. It appointed as before two Councils, one resident in England, the other in Virginia. Nothing was said of an Assembly or any form of popular representation. Yet no design ever seems to have been entertained of abrogating it, nor do the colonists seem to have felt any serious fear on that head. The most objectionable part of the new constitution was that it made all public servants dependent on the crown, and thus deprived the colonists of any control over the public expenditures or over the good conduct of officials. Herein lay the seed of an abuse which ever tended to embitter the relations between the colonists and the home government, and which had its share in bringing about the final separation.

state of the

For the present, however, the colonists had more immediate and pressing subjects of alarm. The dissolution of the Company Distressed and its struggle for revival had begotten a feeling of colony. insecurity. The planters also knew that a scheme had been lately on foot for granting a monopoly of tobacco, and they felt that anything which interfered with that one sure source of income would be fatal to the well-being of the colony. The massacre, too, though its immediate results had been comparatively slight, had driven the settlers to adopt a sudden change of life and to concentrate themselves for purposes of defense. Neglected tillage, scarcity of corn, famine and sickness were the consequences. The evil days of Percy and Ratcliffe seemed to have returned. Many took fright and left the colony.3 Fortunately there were a few men at the head of affairs who did not lose heart. The Governor, Sir Francis Wyatt, and certain leading members of the Council, among them Hamor, West, Clayborne, and Mathews, all either already conspicuous in Virginian history or destined soon to become so, addressed a series of memorials to the home government, pointing out the measures which were needful for the security and advancement of the colony. They dwelt on the importance of encouraging other forms

2 Ib., 1625, May 13.

1 Colonial Papers, 1625. 8 Ib., 1625, June 15. These memorials are all to be found in the Colonial Papers for 1626 and 1627.

mistry beside tobacco planting, and mentioned especially muse vindt had been attempted by the Company, iron-works and sk-cubre They showed the necessity for taking vigorous measures against the Indians, and for forming more compact setzemes, both for industrial and for military reasons. They spealy pointed out the necessity of making the colony a desirable Justason, and giving the settlers a lasting interest in its wellbeng, instead of allowing them to regard it merely as a temporary resort for trading purposes. They petitioned strongly against all amps to fetter the tobacco trade of the colony by any monopeir or contract. On the last named, and as it would seem in ther opinion, the most important point, they were successful, and we hear of no further attempt to enrich any favored monopolist at the expense of the Virginian tobacco planter. In other matters Dey were less fortunate. After the temporary panic of the massacre had passed away, the settlers returned to their straggling mode of life. Tobacco still continued to be the staple producton, and as might be expected in a land of boundless fertility, zo attempt was made to establish manufactures. their special recommendations bore little fruit, it is scarcely posscle to overrate the value of the courage and energy which the leading men of the colony displayed in this crisis. The occasion was one on which the whole future of the colony depended. A Lack of spirit now would probably have been fatal to the rising fortunes of the settlement. Whatever may have been the number of those who were leaving the colony, it is clear that a feeling of despondency was abroad, and the action of Wyatt and his supporters must have served to inspire the colonists with that hopeful and self-reliant temper which was needed to surmount their difficulties.

But though

The crisis passed over. The Indians ceased to be a source of pressing fear, and the colony no longer seemed in danger either of extinction or desertion. If it be true that happy Improved condition is the country which has no history, the next ten years of the colony. may be reckoned prosperous ones for Virginia. The change of Governors seems to have had no marked influence on the fortunes of the colony. In 1626 Wyatt was succeeded by Yeardley. Though apparently a man of no great wisdom or vigor, his name was honorably associated with the early days of freedom and self-government. That he commanded the confidence alike of Wyatt and the leading settlers, is shown by the

DEALINGS WITH THE INDIANS.

191

fact that he had been elected as a deputy to lay their views before the English government immediately after the dissolution of the Company. In 1627 Yeardley died, and in the following year Harvey became Governor. His Virginian career was neither a prosperous nor an honorable one. His letters, of which many remain, and the references to him in contemporary documents give us ample material for judging of his character. They present him to us as a weak, commonplace man, with no strongly marked features, either of good or evil; not without shrewdness in perceiving what was for the welfare of the colony, but with a yet quicker eye to his own interest; arbitrary to inferiors, yet an obsequious courtier, and with that lack of political morality which, save for a few honorable exceptions, distinguished the court party in that age. At an earlier day such a ruler might have been fatal to the colony. Happily Virginia had outgrown the stage in which she could be made or marred by the vigor or folly of a single man.

In the even flow of events during the ten years which followed Dealings the dissolution of the Company, two subjects of interIndians. est and importance stand out prominent.

with the

The first of these was the relation of the colony to its savage neighbors. When the troubles which followed the massacre were at an end, we hear of no disturbance for a while. This may be in part due to the fact that the leading men were too fully occupied with the dissolution of the Company and its consequences. to trouble themselves about anything which did not threaten immediate danger. In 1632 it was necessary to pass an Act empowering the colonies to defend themselves in urgent cases, without reference either to the legislative or the executive power.2 In the same year another Act reaffirmed the policy of Dale, and forbade all private trade with the savages.3 Two years later this enactment was reaffirmed at greater length, and with specific penalties.*

Throughout the whole of her history, with a few rare and unimportant exceptions, the policy of Virginia towards the Indians was marked with singular wisdom and justice, and might well serve as an ensample to more highly-educated communities. The rights of the natives were respected, while at the same time there never was any lack of firmness in restraining and punishing their misdeeds. Throughout, the colonists aimed, and for the

1 Colonial Papers, 1625, June 15. ? Hening, i. p. 176.

8 lb., p. 173.

▲ Ib., p. 219.

most part successfly, at avoiding all occasions ix conflict, whether proceeding from the ambitious and rapacious policy of the state, from the unjust aggression of individuals, or from Mjudging benevolence. No lesson is more plainly written in history than this, that all close intercourse between a highly-civilized race and a thoroughly barbarous one is almost sure to end in the oppression of one and the demoralization of both. To have as few dealings as possible, and be sure that these dealings are based on principles of justice, is the only wise policy for a civilized race, and this was throughout the policy of Virginia.

Legislation about tobacco

culture.

The other question which exercised the wisdom of the Virginian legislature was the production and exportation of tobacco. We have already seen how this threatened to absorb the entire energies of the colonists, and to interfere with all other forms of industry, and how anxiously those who wished well to the colony had viewed this danger. The cause of the mischief, in truth, lay too deep for legislation to reach it. If the supply of land had been limited, the need for a change of crops and the dread of exhausting the soil would of itself have restrained the production of tobacco. But the boundless extent of fertile territory, and the easy terms on which it might be acquired, allowed the planter to rack out his ground with tobacco, and then to proceed to virgin soil, leaving that which was exhausted to recover itself. Moreover, though the Virginian laborer was not a slave for life, he was one for the time being; and slave labor is far better fitted for the monotonous task of producing a single crop than for a varied husbandry, which, especially in a new country, requires some skill and versatility. Nor were there any districts which, by enjoying special facilities for carriage, tended to put less favored plantations at a disadvantage. Every planter had equal opportunities of water carriage, and thus what might have been a natural and wholesome check on the production of tobacco was absent. It was but reasonable that this staple product should have been looked upon with some distrust. We know now that tobacco, though not strictly a necessary of life, is one of those articles whose consumption may be looked on as certain and permanent. In the seventeenth century men could hardly be blamed if they regarded the use of tobacco as a precarious fashion. It was felt too, and with reason, that it was dangerous for Virginia to depend for the necessities of life on her import trade, and on the fickle good-will of her savage neighbors