網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

CYTOK

This is the self same historian who calls the early settlers of Virginia by such terrible hard names and denounces them as under the ban of Providence, because of their unworthiness to become the perpetuators of a race of freemen. "Strange," says Sam, "that a people accursed of God should have been the very originators of the fundamental ideas of freedom."

Although this gracious invitation had, by a special mission sent to Boston for the purpose, been extended in form to the ministers of Puritanism to come and settle in Virginia, yet the breaking out of the democratic revolution in England alarmed the loyalty of the colonists, who now dreaded the well-known meddlesome, prying, mischief-making proclivities of the malignant Calvinists which had procured their extirpation from the old world, and the invitation was withdrawn and such non-conformists with Episcopacy were very properly banished from the colony.

Sam says they did perfectly right in this, for from all the facts of their old world career, the Virginians had the very best reasons for expecting nothing but incendiary agitation at such a crisis, and were justly indisposed to warm a viper in their own bosoms.

The historians of Puritanism are compelled to speak of this justifiable act of self-defense only in such modified terms as the following: "Virginia thus displayed, though with comparatively little bitterness, the intolerance which for centuries had almost universally prevailed throughout the Christian world."

8

CHAPTER XVI.

Repeal of Charter of London Company-The Bacon Rebellion-Death of Bacon and character of same.

BUT the great event of Virginia history was the repeal of the Charter of the London Company about this period, (June, 1624,) and the colony now became dependent upon herselfher own legislative assembly and the king directly. They purchased a confirmation of all those franchises which the liberal prepossessions of the London Company had gradually conceded by the struggle for the surrender of the monopoly of tobacco to the spendthrift monarch Charles I. "The first recognition on the part of a Stuart of a representative assembly in America" was of that called by Charles to consider his offer of a contract for the whole crop of tobacco.

The erring monarch, to obtain the monopoly, carelessly overlooked the dangers of this elective legislature. Fortunate recklessness! though the firmness of the Virginia Assembly defeated him.

Yet this auspicious event has its drawbacks, which proved sufficiently formidable, beyond a doubt. This first attachment of the crown was rapidly followed by other interferences with, and encroachments upon, the liberty of trade, until at last, in 1641, "England claimed that monopoly of colonial commerce which was ultimately enforced by the navigation act of Charles II."

Charles I, although he had pertinaciously expressed his "will and pleasure to have the sole pre-emption of all tobacco," had as yet failed of accomplishing his object. He, however, by a cunning indirection, finally succeeded in achieving what amounted to the same end.

No vessel laden with colonial commodities might sail from the harbors of Virginia for any ports but those of England, that the staple of those commodities might be made in the mother country; and all trade with foreign vessels, except in case of necessity, was forbidden. This ordinance, which constituted the original of the oppressive "Navigation Act," was the cause of infinite and grievous troubles to the Virginia colony.

In 1676, while the Indian war was still going on, complaints were made in England against the colonies for violating the acts of trade. These acts imposed oppressive customs upon certain commodities, if imported from any country beside England, or if transported from one colony to another. The acts were considered by the colonies as unjust, impolitic and cruel. For several years they paid little attention to them, and his majesty at length required that agents should be sent to England to answer in behalf of the colonies for these violations.

By the acts of trade none of the colonies suffered more than Virginia and Maryland, their operation being greatly to lessen the profits on their tobacco trade, from which a great portion of their wealth was derived. In addition to these sufferings, the colony of Virginia, in violation of chartered rights, was divided and conveyed away in proprietary grants. Not only uncultivated woodlands were thus conveyed, but also plantations which had long been possessed, and improved according to law and charter.

The Virginians complained, petitioned, remonstrated, but without effect. Agents were sent to England to lay their grievances at the foot of the throne, but were unsuccessful. At length their oppression became insupportable, and the discontent of the people broke out into open insurrection.

At the head of this insurrection was placed one Nathaniel Bacon, an Englishman, who, soon after his arrival had been appointed a member of the council. He was a young man of commanding person, and great energy and enterprise.

The colony at this time was engaged in war with the Susquehanna Indians. Bacon dispatched a messenger to Governor Berkley, requesting a commission to go against the Indians. This commission the governor refused, and, at the same time, ordered Bacon to dismiss his men, and on penalty

of being declared a rebel, to appear before himself and the council. Exasperated by such treatment, Bacon, without disbanding the rest of his men, proceeded in a sloop with forty of them, to Jamestown. Here a quarrel ensued, and Berkley illegally suspended him from the council. Bacon departed in a rage with his sloop and men, but the governor pursued him, and adopted such measures that he was taken, and brought to Jamestown.

Finding that he had dismissed Bacon from the council illegally, he now admitted him again, and treated him kindly. Soon after, Bacon renewed his importunity for a commission against the Indians. Being unable to effect his purpose, he left Jamestown privately, but soon again appeared with six hundred volunteers, and demanded of the assembly then sitting, the required commission. Being overawed, the assembly advised the governor to grant it. But soon after Bacon had departed, the governor, by the same advice, issued a proclamation, denouncing him as a rebel.

Hearing what the governor had done, Bacon, instead of marching against the Indians, returned to Jamestown, wreaking his vengeance upon all who opposed him. Governor Berkley fled across the bay to Accomac, but the spirit of rebellion had gone before him. He therefore found himself unable to resist Bacon, who now ranged the country at pleasure.

At length, the governor, with a small force under command of major Robert Beverly, crossed the bay to oppose the malcontents. Civil war had now commenced. Jamestown was burnt by Bacon's followers; various parts of the colony were pillaged, and the wives of those that adhered to the governor's party were carried to the camp of the insurgents.

In the midst of these commotions, it pleased the Supreme Ruler to withdraw Bacon by a natural death. The malcontents, thus left to recover their reason, now began to disperse. Two of Bacon's generals surrendered and were pardoned, and the people quietly returned to their homes.

Upon this Berkley resumed the government, and peace was restored. This rebellion formed an era of some note in the history of Virginia, and its unhappy effects were felt for thirty years. During its continuance, husbandry was almost wholly neglected, and such havoc was made among all kinds

« 上一頁繼續 »