1624.

No plan of government for Virginia was determined upon by the king when the Company was dissolved. He would frame one in his closet, he said. But death interfered before he had matured it. He had, however, issued a royal commission to Sir Francis Wyatt as Governor, and had appointed eleven gentlemen as his Council, or assistants, to administer the government of the colony until he should have perfected a permanent arrangement for the future. The colonists had petitioned his Majesty on three several points, one of which was "that the use of Assemblies might be continued"; but to this prayer the king paid no attention. The fact that in the commission to Wyatt "all mention of Assemblies was omitted," does by no means indicate their suppression. The subject was simply untouched by James. Upon the accession of Charles to the throne, he adopted the same arrangement for the colony which James had left, expressly declaring, however, that it was only an arrangement for the time being, until he could decide upon a permanent one. In his commission for this purpose, he also made no mention of an Assembly.

In the next year, Wyatt leaving Virginia to attend to his estate at home, Sir George

1625.

1626.

Yeardley succeeded him as Governor. By his commission, dated in 1625, the powers of the Governor were expressly limited, "as for the five last years preceding"; during which precise years the executive had been limited by an Assembly.*

1627.

In 1627, King Charles, in a letter to the Governor and Council, proposed to become the purchaser, at certain rates, of the colony's entire crop of tobacco, and in the same paper desired the calling of an Assembly to take into consideration his proposal, and directed that the result of their deliberations should be forwarded to him. This was express acknowledgment of the right of Virginia to legislate for herself, and even an order to her to exercise it."

" an

In November or December Yeardley died, exceedingly lamented by the people whose interests he had assiduously cherished. It was he who had first called upon the Virginians to legislate for themselves, and they honored and loved him accordingly. The Coun

Respecting the uninterrupted continuance of Assemblies in Virginia, historians disagree. Most writers assert that they were not suspended upon the dissolution of the Company. Campbell avers that they were; appeals to Chalmers and Hening, and rejects the emphatic statements of Beverly and Burk. The latter refers for proof to a document in his Appendix; but, as Campbell says, "it is not found there." But Burk would not have appealed to a phantom. Nor is it to be lightly supposed that so careful a writer could have asserted the uninterrupted course of Assemblies so strongly, so positively, and yet erroneously. Add to this, that, in the very next year (1627), Charles himself requested the calling of an Assembly, and in a way which presupposed that body to be necessary to the regular action of the colonial government. Most historians state that the words "for the last five years preceding," limiting the executive by an Assembly, were contained in King James's commission to Wyatt. I trustfully follow Burk. His language on pp. 10, 14, 15, is very strong, decided, and explicit.

cil, upon whom devolved the right and duty, immediately supplied his place by the election of Francis West. This year, one thousand settlers arrived from England.

West left for England on the 5th of March, 1628,* and John Potts was elected Governor

1628.

1629.

by the Council. The Assembly convened on the 20th of March drafted an answer to the king, respectfully, but decidedly, declining his proposal.† Potts continued in office until the close of the year 1629, when he was superseded by Sir John Harvey, bearing the authority of a royal commission. He had been one of the Commissioners of Investigation appointed by King James to visit. and malign Virginia in 1624. He now returned with a rankling remembrance of the mortification which he had then encountered, when vainly attempting to tamper with the Assembly.

1630.

He hated Assemblies, and it was the aim of his policy to bring them into disuse. Yet he convened his first on the 24th of March, 1630. He commenced his administration by proclamation-law, which he permitted the House only to ratify by their act of record, thus absorbing the legislation in himself and his Council. In this way he levied the revenue, and in this way, for innumerable petty offences,

*Hening, as quoted by Campbell, 54.

† Burk, II. 24. Campbell and Bancroft assign this Assembly to 1629. Campbell says that their answer to the king was signed by Francis West, Governor; and yet adds, on the authority of Hening, that Potts was elected March 5th, 1628, a year before (according to him) the letter was drafted, and a year after West had retired from office and from Virginia. Burk, in fixing the meeting of the Assembly in 1628, and under the administration of Potts, is at least consistent with himself.

he imposed arbitrary fines, which were appropriated to his personal use. This course was at first seconded by the Council, who were soon, however, like the Burgesses, reduced to the condition of puppets. Both bodies were probably led, for a while, to submit in silence, from an unwillingness to be found in collision with the representative of their king. But soon the exactions, the inhumanity, and the insolence of the Governor became intolerable. The people became indignant, clamorous, and even inclined to open resistance. The Council now sympathized with the people. The Assembly which was convened

1631. in February, 1631, boldly exercised their rights. After remaining quiet until the month of March, they passed a law forbidding the levying of any tax without the consent of the Assembly; and they also enacted "that the Governor should in future have no power to enforce the services of the colonists for his private benefit, or to levy them for war, without the consent of the Council." Both these acts seem to have been only re-enactments of the laws of 1624 on the same points. The acts of all former Assemblies, this Assembly repealed; hence, doubtless, the passage of these acts at this time. The Governor found it vain to contend with the sturdy spirit which he had roused, and the acts received his official approval.

About this time the king issued to his favorites. grants of land, which lay within the geographical limits of Virginia. A particular notice of these grants belongs more appropriately to the histories of Maryland and Carolina. It is sufficient here to say, that they were resented by the Virginians as encroachments upon their rights; that Governor Harvey sec

1635.

onded the course of the sovereign, and that he even gave away, in conjunction with certain royal commissioners, not only large tracts of the land belonging (according to the ethics of the day) to the crown, but others, belonging to private planters. Thus matters went on until April and May, 1635, when the Council peremptorily deposed Harvey from office, "until the king's pleasure should be known"; and the Assembly, in compliance with a petition from the planters, collected evidence of the charges against him, to be presented to the king by a deputation from their own body. These charges were "haughtiness, rapacity, and cruelty, contempt of the rights of the colonists, and usurpation of the privileges of the Council." He was sent to England with the delegates of the Assembly, that his case might be presented to the king. Charles, viewing the deposition of a royal governor in the light of a treasonable act, was highly incensed, refused audience to the delegates, and immediately ordered the return of Harvey, and his reinstallation in office. He resumed his station in January, 1636, and held it until displaced by Sir Francis Wyatt, in November, 1639. By a law of this year (1639), "Jamestown was fixed upon as the permanent seat of government." Wyatt gave place to Sir William Berkeley, who arrived with the king's commission, and assumed the govern- 1642. ment in February, 1642. Upon the return of

1636.

Harvey to Virginia, and by virtue of his new commission, the Council had been denied the right to fill their own vacancies. The crown had reserved it to itself. But under the commission to Berkeley,