the king waived this right, and restored it to the Council.

In March, Sir William convoked the Assembly. He had been educated at Oxford, where he had taken the degree of Master of Arts in 1629. He had then travelled extensively in Europe, and was "the perfect model of an elegant courtier and a high-minded cavalier." He was remarkable for his high sense of honor, and for his urbanity in the common intercourse of life, and seems to have been, at least at this time, a generous and warm-hearted man. With these qualities and accomplishments, he rendered himself at once personally acceptable to the Virginians; and, although he was a stanch royalist, and largely imbued with the spirit and political sentiments of his sovereign, yet his administration was mild, and "he cordially co-operat ed with the Council and the House of Burgesses in measures calculated to secure the liberties of the colony." Under these circumstances, there was harmony between the Governor and the Assembly; and the colonists, enjoying general prosperity, were content.

An event now occurred of no small political importance. George Sandys had been sent to England as an agent for the colony, "with particular instructions to oppose the re-establishment of the Company"; a project, it seems, for which several attempts had been made in England.* Betraying his trust, Sandys had presented to the House of Commons, and in the name of his constituents, a petition for the restoration of

*For the particulars of this transaction, I rely upon a tract entitled "An Extract from a Manuscript Collection of Annals relating to Virginia," in Force, Vol. III.

the Company. So soon as this was known in Virginia, the Assembly acted upon it with spirit and decision. Although the people had been averse to the dissolution of the Company, yet they had since enjoyed, for the most part, so great tranquillity and prosperity, and were so secure in their rights as freemen, that they were yet more averse to any further change. The Assembly immediately passed an act disavowing the proceeding of Sandys. In their protest, they inveighed severely, and, if we consider only their condition under the Company from 1619 to 1624, singularly; though truthfully enough, if the whole term of the Company's existence be considered. They positively refused to submit to that Company, "or to ANY OTHER"; and gave at large and earnestly their reasons for this refusal. But not content with this, they proceeded further, and issued their solemn declaration and protestation against the measure suggested.

"We, the Governor, Council, and Burgesses, having taken into serious consideration, &c., . . . . . do declare and testify to all THE WORLD, that we will NEVER admit the restoring of said Company, or any for and in their behalf. . . . . . And we do further enact, . . . . . that what person or persons soever either is or shall HEREAFTER..... go about.....to sue for, advise, assist, abet, countenance, or contrive the reducing this colony to a company or corporation,

.....

.....

... shall be held and deemed an enemy to the colony, and shall forfeit his or their whole estate or estates that shall be found within the limits of the colony."

The act was passed April 1st, 1642, was signed by the Governor, the members of the Council and of the

House of Burgesses; and they immediately applied to the king for his confirmation of it.

This transaction was not only highly important and interesting, as marking the noble and determined spirit with which the Virginians met any attempt to interfere with their civil privileges, but as the cause of a most important act on the part of the crown. The Declaration, Protestation, and Act of the Assembly were returned with the royal assent. We give the letter of the king in substance.

"CHARLES, REX.

...

"Trusty and well-beloved, we greet you well. Whereas we have received a Petition from you,. with a Declaration and Protestation against, &c., . . . and against all such as shall go about to alienate you from our immediate protection. . . . . . These are to signify, that your acknowledgment of our grace, bounty, and favor towards you, and your so earnest desire to continue under our immediate protection, is very acceptable to us; and that, as we had not before the least intention to consent to the introduction of ANY company over that our colony, so we are by it much confirmed in our resolution, as thinking it unfit to change a form of government wherein . . . . . our subjects there..... receive so much contentment and satisfaction. And this our approbation of your Petition and Protestation we have thought fit to transmit to you, under our Royal Signet.

"Given at our Court at York, the 5th of July, 1642."

The royal missive was directed, "To our trusty and

well-beloved, our Governor, Council, and Burgesses of the Grand Assembly of Virginia."

Thus the popular form of government in Virginia received the royal acknowledgment and sanction; and "the constitution of the colony was established on a foundation which could not be altered without their own consent."

27*

1644.

THE natives had never abated their hatred or abandoned their hostilities toward the usurpers of their soil. The white men had no sooner begun again to expand their settlements after the slaughter of 1622, than they were compelled to be constantly on the alert against their subtle and untiring foes.

In 1624, even the apathy of Itopatin was laid aside. Near the close of the year, he had led his subjects in person against the English, and displayed a degree of courage and valor which gained him no small consideration in the eyes of his warriors. Sir Francis Wyatt had advanced into the territory of the Pamunkeys at the head of a picked corps, who were inured to fatigue, familiar with the localities, and acquainted with Indian warfare. Against this force, Itopatin opposed himself. He seems to have adopted an organized plan of battle, and to have met his enemy in regular and open array. Eight hundred Pamunkeys formed his main body. His wings of whose numerical force we have no information were composed of warriors from other tribes. The result of the battle - of its incidents we are ignorant was the discomfiture of the Indians, who left behind them "a number" of their own dead, and several wounded Englishmen. Yet the conflict was by no means decisive,