Reginald W. Jeffery - The History of the Thirteen Colonies of North America - 1497-1763 (Illustrated)

The great stumbling-block to colonial prosperity was the lack of unity between the different settlements on the eastern coast of North America. In 1684 an attempt was made to bring about united action against Indians, who had desolated the western borders of the English colonies. A conference was called at Albany, and Virginia, like all the other colonies, sent delegates to discuss the possibility of creating the United States under the British Crown. Nothing, however, came of it, for the jealousies and wranglings of the delegates only too well illustrated the feelings of the different settlements for each other. The Revolution of 1688 was accepted with tranquillity in Virginia, and two years later Francis Nicholson was appointed King William's lieutenant governor. Nicholson was a man of much colonial experience, of violent temper, and scandalous private life. He strongly opposed the desire for political freedom, but at the same time he made an excellent governor, and during his rule, which lasted until 1704 (except for a period of six years, 1692-1698), the colony prospered. A desire for education evinced itself at this period, and in 1691 Commissary Blair was sent to England to obtain a patent for the creation of a college. He returned within two years, his labours having been crowned with success, and in 1693 the second university 64in America was established under the title of William and Mary College.

As the seventeenth century drew to a close, Virginian progress was stimulated by the settlement, on the upper waters of the James River, of De Richebourg's colony of Huguenots, which is said to have "infused a stream of pure and rich blood into Virginian society." If the test of a colony is its population, Virginia at this time must have been most flourishing. Less than a century had passed since Newport and his one hundred and forty-three settlers had sailed into the James River; the colony had suffered privations, had witnessed many a fluctuation of fortune, but at the dawn of the eighteenth century about one hundred thousand souls were living there in peace, plenty and happiness. During the century that had passed, the settlers had won for themselves political rights, and practically, political freedom. They were to a certain extent restricted by the Navigation Acts, but the influence of the Crown or of the English Parliament was hardly felt. Their interest in English political life was meagre; the importance of getting trustworthy lieutenant governors was far greater to the Virginian than whether Whig or Tory was in power at home. Sometimes the colony was fortunate, sometimes the reverse, but in every case the lieutenant governor was opposed to any extension of political rights. The difficulty of united effort on the part of the planters was, to a certain extent, intensified by a want of towns. Hampton was Virginia's chief port, and was composed of a hundred poor houses, while Williamsburg cannot be regarded as a true centre of either economic or intellectual activity. This lack of town life is pointed out by Commissary Blair, who informed the Bishop of London, "even when attempts have been made by the Assembly to erect towns they have been frustrated. Everyone wants the town near his own house, and the majority of the burgesses have never seen a town, and have no notion of any but a country life." 65The lieutenant governors during the eighteenth century had not only to contend with the supineness of the settlers, but also with intercolonial discord. Thus Alexander Spotswood, in 1711, attempted to assist North Carolina against the Tuscarora Indians, but he received no support from either the Council or Assembly of Virginia. Five years later Spotswood was met with similar bickerings and squabbles when South Carolina was invaded by the Yamassees. In 1741 Oglethorpe begged assistance to protect the newly established Georgia; instead of sending their best we are told that his officer brought back "all the scum of Virginia." 66

The worst feature of Virginian life was the omnipresent and omnipotent slave system, but from the mere commercial aspect this was in favour of the colony at the time. The planters, however, were never ready to leave the colony for imperial purposes owing to the fear of a negro rising at home. This was one of the chief difficulties with which the Governor, Robert Dinwiddie, had to contend, during that trying period of French and Indian attack, which prepared the way for the Seven Years' war. With this period it is not proposed to deal now, but to leave it to a later chapter concerning the struggle between the French colonists in the north and west, and the English settlers upon the eastern seaboard during that period which is peculiarly connected with Britain's imperial story.

FOOTNOTES:

31.Quoted by Professor Raleigh in Introduction to Hakluyt's Voyages (ed. 1904), xii. p. 24.

32. Hakluyt's Voyages (ed. 1904), vol. vii. p. 190.

33. Hakluyt's Voyages (ed. 1904), vol. i. p. xviii.

34.Quoted by Doyle, The English in America , Virginia (1882), p. 145.

35. American Historical Review , vol. iv. No. 4, pp. 678-702.

36.Quoted by Doyle, op. cit. , p. 147.

37.Doyle says 143 colonists; neither Percy nor Newport mention the exact number; Bradley, in his life of Captain John Smith , says 105.

38. Cf. footnote, Doyle, op. cit. , p. 149.

39.Smith's Letter to the Virginia Company.

40.Quoted by Bradley, Captain John Smith (1905), p. 144.

41.Force, Tracts (1836-46), vol. i.

42.Gates, A True Declaration of the Estate of the Colonie in Virginia (1610).

43.Force, Tracts (1836-46), vol. iii.

44.Sir Thomas Dale was Governor 1611 and 1614 to 1616. Sir Thomas Gates as Governor organised the colony 1611 to 1614. See Dictionary of National Biography , xxi. p. 64.

45.Hamor, A True Discourse of the Present Estate of Virginia (ed. 1860).

46.Hamor, A True Discourse of the Present Estate of Virginia (ed. 1860).

47.The characters of the two parties is controversial owing to the scarcity of documentary evidence.

48.Doyle, op. cit. p. 220.

49. Ibid. , p. 226.

50.There was no question of abandoning the colony itself, which was what Spain desired.

51.Doyle, op. cit. pp. 242, 244.

52.Gardiner, History of the Commonwealth , i. 317.

53.Neill, Virginia Carolorum (1886), p. 215.

54. Cromwell's Speech V. , Sept. 17, 1656.

55.Hening, Statutes at Large (New York, 1823), ii. p. 517.

56. Calendar of State Papers , Colonial, 1669-1674, p. 64.

57. Calendar of State Papers , Colonial, 1669-1674, p. 530.

58. Strange News from Virginia (1677), p. 8.

59. Calendar of State Papers , Colonial, 1677-1680, p. 64.

60. Ibid. , p. 67.

61. Ibid. , p. iv.

62.Fortescue, Introduction to Calendar , 1677-1680, p. v.

63. Calendar of State Papers , Colonial, 1677-1680, p. 589.

64.See p. 93.

65. Calendar of State Papers , Colonial, 1697, p. 642.

66. Itinerant Observations , p. 62.

Table of Contents

"Maryland is a province not commonly knowne in England, because the name of Virginia includes or clouds it, it is a Country wholy belonging to that honorable Gentleman the Lord Baltamore." 67Such is the description of the colony that now comes before us, and at the time it was penned John Hammond, the writer, told the truth. The colony had arisen under rather peculiar circumstances, which neither resembled the foundation of Virginia nor the settlement of the Pilgrim Fathers. In 1632 Charles I. granted to George Calvert, first Lord Baltimore, an ill-defined tract of territory to the north of Virginia. Baltimore was an old hand at colonisation, for he had some years previous attempted to form a settlement in Newfoundland which had not been successful. David Kirke, who took over the Baltimore lands there, said that Newfoundland agreed with all God's creatures except Jesuits and schismatics, and that a great mortality among the former tribe had driven Baltimore away. Whether this was the true reason, or whether, as it has been proposed, Baltimore was practically driven out by the Presbyterians, it is hard to decide. His next trial as a colony founder was made in the more southern lands of Virginia, but here his Roman Catholicism was sternly opposed by the English Church party. Under these circumstances his Maryland colony seemed likely to flourish, for there were neither schismatics nor churchmen, nor Presbyterians, but only Indians to contend against. Before the first Lord Baltimore could accomplish anything he died, but the grant was transferred to his son Cecil. The charter is an important one, for by it the Proprietors gained both territorial and political rights; the freemen or representative assembly were to be consulted, and with their advice the Proprietor could enact laws. All places of worship were to be consecrated according to the Church of England, and so the Roman Catholic faith had only a subordinate position in a colony which owed its foundation to a true upholder of that belief. From the very first Maryland was better off than several of the other colonies, as the Crown divested itself of the right of levying taxes within the province; but in other respects the constitution was normal, consisting of a governor and two chambers, the proprietor possessing the privilege of creating councillors.