SIR WILLIAM BERKELEY'S ADMINISTRATION. 203 VI. to draw a contrast, not only between Harvey and CHAP the new governor, but between the institutions of Virginia under their respective governments; and 1641 Berkeley is said to have "restored the system of freedom," and to have "effected an essential revolution. 991 I cannot find that his appointment was marked by the slightest concession of new political privileges, except that the council recovered the right of supplying its own vacancies; and the historians, who make an opposite statement, are wholly ignorant of the intermediate administration of Wyatt; a government so suited to the tastes and habits of the planters, that it passed silently away, leaving almost no impression on Virginia history, except in its statutes. The commission of Berkeley was exactly analogous to those of his predecessors. The instructions given him, far from granting franchises to the Virginians, imposed new, severe and unwarrantable restrictions on the liberty of trade; and, for the first time, England claimed that monopoly of colonial commerce, which was ultimately enforced by the navigation act of Charles II., and which never ceased to be a subject of dispute till the war of independence. The nature of those instructions will presently be explained. It was in February, 1642, that Sir William Berke- 1642 ley, arriving in the colony, assumed the government. His arrival must have been nearly simultaneous with the adjournment of the general assembly, which was held in the preceding January. He found the American planters in possession of a large share of the legis 1 Chalmers, 120, 121. 2 Ibid. 131-133. 3 The acts of that session are lost, but are referred to in Hening, 3 i. 267-269, in the acts 49, 50, 51, VI. Mar 2 CHAP. lative authority; and he confirmed them in the enjoyment of franchises which a long and uninterrupted 1642 succession had rendered familiar. Immediately after his arrival, he convened the colonial legislature. The utmost harmony prevailed; the memory of factions was lost in a general amnesty of ancient griefs. The lapse of years had so far effaced the divisions which grew out of the dissolution of the company, that when George Sandys, an agent of the colony, and an opponent of the royal party in England, presented a petition to the commons, praying for the restoration of the ancient patents,' the royalist assembly promptly disavowed the design, and, after a full debate, opApril posed it by a solemn protest. The whole document breathes the tone of a body accustomed to public discussion and the independent exercise of legislative power. They assert the necessity of the freedom of trade, "for freedom of trade," say they, "is the blood and life of a commonwealth." And they defended their preference of self-government through a colonial legislature, by a conclusive argument. "There is more likelyhood, that such as are acquainted with the clime and its accidents may upon better grounds prescribe our advantages, than such as shall sit at the helm in England."3 In reply to their urgent petition, the king immediately declared his purpose not to change a form of government in which they "received so much content and satisfaction."4 The Virginians, aided by Sir William Berkeley," could now deliberately perfect their civil condition. Condemnations to service had been a usual punish SIR WILLIAM BERKELEY'S ADMINISTRATION. 205 VI. ment; these were abolished. In the courts of justice, CHAP a near approach was made to the laws and customs of England. Religion was provided for; the law about 1642 land-titles adjusted; an amicable treaty with Maryland successfully matured; and peace with the Indians confirmed. Taxes were assessed, not in proportion to numbers, but to men's abilities and estates. The spirit of liberty, displayed in the English parliament, was transmitted to America; and the rights of property, the freedom of industry, the solemn exercise of civil franchises, seemed to be secured to themselves and their posterity. "A future immunity from taxes and impositions," except such as should be freely voted for their own wants, "was expected as the fruits of the endeavors of their legislature."1 As the restraints with which colonial navigation was threatened, were not enforced, they attracted no attention; and Virginia enjoyed nearly all the liberties which a monarch could concede, and retain his supremacy. Believing themselves secure of all their privileges, the triumph of the popular party in England did not alter the condition or the affections of the Virginians. The commissioners appointed by parliament, with unlimited authority over the plantations,3 found no favor in Virginia. They promised, indeed, freedom from English taxation; but this immunity was already enjoyed. They gave the colony liberty to choose its own governor; but it had no dislike to Berkeley; and though there was a party for the parliament, yet the king's authority was maintained. The sovereignty of Charles had ever been mildly exercised. 1643 The condition of contending parties in England had Mar 2 Chalmers, 124. 1 Hening, i. 237, 238. 3 Hazard, i. 533-535. 4 Winthrop, ii. 159, 160, and the note of Savage. VI. CHAP. now given to Virginia an opportunity of legislation independent of European control; and the voluntary 1643. act of the assembly, restraining religious liberty, adopt ed from hostility to political innovation, rather than from a spirit of fanaticism, or respect to instructions, proves conclusively the attachment of the representatives of Virginia to the Episcopal church and the cause of royalty. Yet there had been Puritans in the colony almost from the beginning: even the Brownists were freely offered a secure asylum; "here," said the tolerant Whitaker, “neither surplice nor subscription is spoken of," and several Puritan families, and perhaps some even of the Puritan clergy, emigrated to Virginia. They were so content with their reception, that large 1619. numbers were preparing to follow, and were restrained only by the forethought of English intolerance.3 We have seen, that the Pilgrims at Plymouth were invited 1629. to remove within the jurisdiction of Virginia; Puritan 4 merchants planted themselves on the James River 1640. without fear, and emigrants from Massachusetts had recently established themselves in the colony. The honor of Laud had been vindicated by a judicial sentence, and south of the Potomac the decrees of the court of high commission were allowed to be valid; but I find no traces of persecutions in the earliest history of Virginia. The laws were harsh: the administration seems to have been mild. A disposition to nonconformity was soon to show itself even in the council. An invitation, which had been sent to Boston for Puritan ministers, implies a belief that they would be ad 1 Bradford, in Prince. 2 "I muse that so few of our English ministers, that were so hot against the surplice and subscription, come hither, where neither is spoken of." Whitaker, in Purchas, b. ix. c. xi. 3 Compare Grahame, i. 219; Hawks, i. 35. 4 Hening, i. 552. Burk. ii. 67 A SECOND MASSACRE 207 VI. Mar. initted in Virginia. But now the democratic revolution CHAP. in England had given an immediate political importance to religious sects: to tolerate Puritanism was to nurse a republican party. It was, therefore, specially ordered 1643 that no minister should preach or teach, publicly or privately, except in conformity to the constitutions of the church of England,' and non-conformists were banished from the colony. The unsocial spirit of political discord, fostering a mutual intolerance, prevented a frequent intercourse between Virginia and New England. It was in vain that the ministers, invited from Boston by the Puritan settlements in Virginia, carried letters from Winthrop, written to Berkeley and his council by order of the general court of Massachusetts. "The hearts of the people were much inflamed with desire after the ordinances;" but the missionaries were silenced by the government, and ordered to leave the country. Sir William Berkeley was "a courtier, and very malignant towards the way of the churches" in New England. While Virginia thus displayed, though with comparatively little bitterness, the intolerance which for centuries had almost universally prevailed throughout the Christian world, a scene of distress was prepared by the vindictive ferocity of the natives, with whom a state of hostility had been of long continuance. In 1643, it was enacted by the assembly, that no terms of peace should be entertained with the Indians; whom it was usual to distress by sudden marches against their settlements. But the Indians had now heard of 1644 the dissensions in England, and taking counsel of their passions, rather than of their prudence, they re 1 Act 64, Hening, i. 277. 2 Winthrop's Journal, ii. 77, 78. 95, 96, and 164, 165. Hubbard's New England, 410 411. Johnson, |