Virginia under the Stuarts 1607-1688 Part 6

Finally the English hit upon the plan of bringing distress upon the savages by destroying their corn. Although the Virginia tribes subsisted partly upon game, their chief support was from their fields of maize, and the entire failure of their crop would have reduced hundreds of them to the verge of starvation.[189] Each year the white men, in small companies, in various parts of the country, brought ruin to the corn fields. Sometimes the savages, in despair at the prospect of famine, made valiant efforts to defend their fields, but were invariably beaten off until the work of destruction was done.

The natives retaliated with many sudden raids upon the more exposed parts of the colony, where they burned, pillaged and murdered. The planter at work in his fields might expect to find them lurking in the high gra.s.s, while their ambushes in the woods made communication from plantation to plantation very dangerous. "The harmes that they do us,"

wrote the a.s.sembly, "is by ambushes and sudden incursions, where they see their advantages."[190] In 1625 Captain John Harvey declared that the two races were "ingaged in a mortall warre and fleshed in each others bloud, of which the Causes have been the late ma.s.sacre on the Salvages parte.... I conceive that by the dispersion of the Plantations the Salvages hath the advantage in this warre, and that by their suddaine a.s.saults they do us more harme than we do them by our set voyages".[191]

When the English had recovered from the first shock of the ma.s.sacre, they planned four expeditions against the tribes living on the river above Jamestown. Mr. George Sandys attacked the Tappahatomaks, Sir George Yeardley the Wyanokes, Captain William Powell the Chickahominies and the Appomatocks, and Captain John West the Tanx-Powhatans. The savages, without attempting to make a stand, deserted their villages and their crops and fled at the approach of the English. Few were killed, for they were "so light and swift" that the white men, laden with their heavy armor, could not overtake them.[192] In the fall Sir George Yeardley led three hundred men down the river against the Nansemonds and against Opechancanough. The natives "set fire to their own houses, and spoiled what they could, and then fled with what they could carry; so that the English did make no slaughter amongst them for revenge. Their Corne fields being newly gathered, they surprised all they found, burnt the houses (that) remained unburnt, and so departed."[193]

It is remarkable that the colonists could continue this war while the sickness was raging among them. At the very time that Yeardley was fighting Opechancanough, hundreds of his comrades were dying "like cats and dogs". "With our small and sicklie forces," wrote Mr. George Sandys, "we have discomforted the Indians round about us, burnt their houses, gathered their corn and slain not a few; though they are as swift as Roebucks, like the violent lightening they are gone as soon as perceived, and not to be destroyed but by surprise or famine."[194]

How bitter was the war is shown by an act of treachery by the English that would have shamed the savages themselves. In 1623, the Indians, discouraged by the destruction of their crops, sent messengers to Jamestown, asking for peace. The colonists determined to take advantage of this overture to recover their prisoners and at the same time to strike a sudden blow at their enemy. Early in June, Captain William Tucker with twelve well armed men was sent "in a shalope under colour to make peace with them". On the arrival of this party at the chief town of Opechancanough, the savages thronged down to the riverside to parley with them, but the English refused to consider any terms until all prisoners had been restored. a.s.senting to this, the savages brought forth seven whites and they were placed aboard the vessel. Having thus accomplished their purpose, the soldiers, at a given signal, let fly a volley into the midst of the crowd, killing "some 40 Indians including 3 of the chiefest".[195]

In 1624 the English won a great victory over the most troublesome of the Indian tribes, the Pamunkeys. Governor Wyatt, in leading an expedition against this people had evidently expected little resistance, for he brought with him but sixty fighting men. The Pamunkeys, however, had planted that year a very large crop of corn, which they needed for the support of themselves and their confederates, and they determined to protect it at all hazards. So Wyatt and his little band were surprised, on approaching their village to find before them more than eight hundred warriors prepared for battle. The English did not falter in the face of this army, and a fierce contest ensued. "Fightinge not only for safeguards of their houses and such a huge quant.i.ty of corn", but for their reputation with the other nations, the Pamunkeys displayed unusual bravery. For two days the battle went on. Whenever the young warriors wavered before the volleys of musketry, they were driven back into the fight by the older men. Twenty-four of the English were detached from the firing line and were employed in destroying the maize. In this they were so successful that enough corn was cut down "as by Estimation of men of good judgment was sufficient to have sustained fower thousand men for a twelvemonth". At last the savages in despair gave up the fight and stood nearby "rufully lookinge on whilst their Corne was cutt down". "In this Expedition," wrote the colonists, "sixteene of the English were hurte our first and seconde day, whereby nyne of the best shott were made unserviceable for that tyme, yett never a man slayne, nor none miscarried of those hurtes, Since when they have not greatly troubled us, nor interrupted our labours."[196]

The series of misfortunes which befel the London Company during the administration of Sir Edwin Sandys culminated in the loss of their charter. For some time King James had been growing more and more hostile to the party that had a.s.sumed control of the colony. It is highly probable that he had had no intimation, when the charter of 1612 was granted, that popular inst.i.tutions would be established in Virginia, and the extension of the English parliamentary system to America must have been distasteful to him. The enemies of Sandys had been whispering to the King that he "aymed at nothing more than to make a free popular state there, and himselfe and his a.s.sured friends to be the leaders of them".[197] James knew that Sandys was not friendly to the prerogative of the Crown. It had been stated "that there was not any man in the world that carried a more malitious heart to the Government of a Monarchie".[198]

In 1621 the controlling party in the London Company was preparing a new charter for Virginia. The contents of this doc.u.ment are not known, but it is exceedingly probable that it was intended as the preface to the establishment of a government in the colony far more liberal than that of England itself. It was proposed to have the charter confirmed by act of Parliament, and to this James had consented, provided it proved satisfactory to the Privy Council.[199] But it is evident that when the Councillors had examined it, they advised the King not to a.s.sent to it or to allow it to appear in Parliament. Indeed the doc.u.ment must have stirred James' anger, for not only did he end all hopes of its pa.s.sage, but he "struck some terrour into most undertakers for Virginia", by imprisoning Sir Edwin Sandys.[200]

Even more distasteful to the King than the establishment of popular inst.i.tutions in the little colony was the spreading of liberal doctrines throughout England by the Sandys faction of the Company. James could no longer tolerate their meetings, if once he began to look upon them as the nursery of discontent and sedition. The party that was so determined in its purpose to plant a republican government in Virginia might stop at nothing to accomplish the same end in England. James knew that national politics were often discussed in the a.s.semblies of the Company and that the parties there were sometimes as "animated one against the other" as had been the "Guelfs and Gebillines" of Italy.[201] He decided that the best way to end these controversies and frustrate the designs of his enemies was to annul the charter of the Company and make Virginia a royal colony.

The first unmistakable sign of his hostility came in June 1622, when he interfered with the election of their treasurer. It was not, he told them, his intention "to infringe their liberty of free election", but he sent a list of names that would be acceptable to him, and asked them to put one of these in nomination. To this the Company a.s.sented readily enough, even nominating two from the list, but when the election was held, the King's candidates were overwhelmingly defeated.[202] When James heard this, he "flung himself away in a furious pa.s.sion", being "not well satisfied that out of so large a number by him recommended they had not made any choice".[203] The incident meant that James had given the Company an unmistakable intimation that it would be well for them to place the management of affairs in the hands of men more in harmony with himself, and that they had scornfully refused.

The Company was now doomed, for the King decided that the charter must be revoked. He could not, of course, annul a grant that had pa.s.sed under the Great Seal, without some presence of legal proceedings, but when once he had determined on the ruin of the Company, means to accomplish his end were not lacking. John Ferrar wrote, "The King, notwithstanding his royal word and honor pledged to the contrary ... was now determined with all his force to make the last a.s.sault, and give the death blow to this ... Company."[204]

James began by hunting evidence of mismanagement and incapacity by the Sandys party. He gave orders to Captain Nathaniel Butler, who had spent some months in Virginia, to write a pamphlet describing the condition of the colony. _The Unmasking of Virginia_, as Butler's work is called was nothing less than a bitter a.s.sault upon the conduct of affairs since the beginning of the Sandys administration. Unfortunately, it was not necessary for the author to exaggerate much in his description of the frightful conditions in the colony; but it was unfair to place the blame upon the Company. The misfortunes of the settlers were due to disease and the Indians and did not result from incapacity or negligence on the part of Sandys. The Company drew up "A True answer to a writing of Information presented to his Majesty by Captain Nathaniel Butler", denying most of the charges and explaining others, but they could not efface the bad impression caused by the _Unmasking_.[205]

In April, 1623, James appointed a commission to make enquiry into the "true estate of ... Virginia".[206] This body was directed to investigate "all abuses and grievances ... all wrongs and injuryes done to any adventurers or planters and the grounds and causes thereof, and to propound after what sort the same may be better managed".[207] It seems quite clear that the commissioners understood that they were expected to give the King "some true ground to work upon", in his attack on the Company's charter.[208] In a few weeks they were busy receiving testimony from both sides, examining records and searching for evidence.

They commanded the Company to deliver to them all "Charters, Books, Letters, Pet.i.tions, Lists of names, of Provisions, Invoyces of Goods, and all other writing whatsoever". They examined the clerk of the Company, the messenger and the keeper of the house in which they held their meetings.[209] They intercepted private letters from Virginia, telling of the horrible suffering there, and made the King aware of their contents.[210]

In July the commission made its report. It found that "the people sent to inhabit there ... were most of them by G.o.d's visitation, sicknes of body, famine, and by ma.s.sacres ... dead and deceased, and those that were living of them lived in miserable and lamentable necessity and want.... That this neglect they conceived, must fall on the Governors and Company here, who had power to direct the Plantations there.... That if his Majesty's first Grant of April 10 1606, and his Majesty's most prudent and princely Instructions given in the beginning ... had been pursued, much better effects had been produced, than had been by the alteration thereof, into so popular a course."[211] James was much pleased with the report, and it confirmed his determination to "resume the government, and to reduce that popular form so as to make it agree with the monarchial form".[212]

Before taking the matter to the courts, the King resolved to offer the Company a compromise. If they would give up the old charter, he said, a new one would be granted them, preserving all private interests, but restoring the active control of the colony to the Crown. The government was to be modelled upon the old plan of 1606, which had already given so much trouble. "His Majesty," the Company was told, "hath ... resolved by a new Charter to appoint a Governor and twelve a.s.sistants, resident here in England, unto whom shall be committed the government.... And his Majesty is pleased that there shall be resident in Virginia a Governor and twelve a.s.sistants, to be nominated by the Governor and a.s.sistants here ... whereby all matters of importance may be directed by his Majesty."[213] The Company was commanded to send its reply immediately, "his Majesty being determined, in default of such submission, to proceed for the recalling of the said former charters".[214]

A special meeting of the stockholders was called, October 30th, 1623, to consider the King's proposal. Every man present must have known that the rejection of the compromise would mean the loss of all the money he had invested in the colony, and that if the King's wishes were acceded to his interests would be preserved. But the Company was fighting for something higher than personal gain--for the maintenance of liberal inst.i.tutions in America, for the defence of the rights of English citizens. After a "hot debate" they put the question to the vote, and the offer was rejected, there being "only nine hands for the delivering up of the Charters, and all the rest (being about three score more) were of a contrary opinion".[215]

As a last hope the Company resolved to seek the a.s.sistance of Parliament. A pet.i.tion was drawn up to be presented to the Commons, and the shareholders that were members of that body were requested to give it their strenuous support when it came up for consideration. The pet.i.tion referred to Virginia as a "child of the Kingdom, exposed as in the wilderness to extreme danger and as it were fainting and labouring for life", and it prayed the House to hear "the grievances of the Colony and Company, and grant them redress".[216] The matter was brought before the Commons in May, 1624, but before it could be considered, a message was received from the King warning them "not to trouble themselves with this pet.i.tion as their doing so could produce nothing but a further increase Schisme and factions in the Company". "Ourself," he announced, "will make it our own work to settle the quiet, and wellfare of the plantations."[217] This was received with some "soft mutterings" by the Commons, but they thought it best to comply, and the Company was left to its fate.[218]

In the meanwhile the King had placed his case in the hands of Attorney-General Coventry, who had prepared a _quo warranto_ against the Company.[219] Although all hope of retaining the charter was gone, the Sandys party were determined to fight to the end. They voted to employ attorneys and to plead their case before the King's Bench. The _quo warranto_ came up June 26th, 1624, and "the Virginia Patent was overthrown", on a mistake in pleading.[220] With this judgment the London Company practically ceased to exist, and Virginia became a royal province.

FOOTNOTES:

[117] F. R., p. 6.

[118] F. R., p. 76.

[119] Gen., p. 1027.

[120] F. R., p. 265.

[121] F. R., p. 271.

[122] Gen., p. 339.

[123] F. R., p. 6.

[124] Gen. p. 236. Compare F. R., pp. 262, 263, 264, 31, 248, 80; Gen., pp. 49, 146.

[125] F. R., p. 80.

[126] F. R., p. 49.

[127] Gen., p. 50.

[128] Gen., p. 355.

[129] F. R., p. 558.

[130] F. R., p. 85.

[131] F. R., p. 237.

[132] F. R., vi.

[133] F. R., p. 251.

[134] F. R., p. 75.

[135] Gen., pp. 60, 61.

[136] Arb. Smith, lx.x.xiii.

[137] F. R., p. 266.

[138] F. R., p. 266.

[139] F. R., pp. 281, 282.

[140] F. R., p. 293.

[141] F. R., p. 312.

[142] F. R., p. 315.

[143] Nar. of Va., pp. 249, 250.

[144] Nar. of Va., p. 251.

[145] F. R., p. 317.

[146] Nar. of Va., pp. 252, 253, 254, 255, 260, 261.