This is

XIV.

1.

chancery court, in which he himself was chancellor. CHAP. The councillors might advise, but were without a vote. An arbitrary table of fees followed of course. the period when royal authority was at its height in Virginia. The executive, the council, the judges, the sheriffs, the county commissioners, and local magistrates, were all appointed directly or indirectly by the crown. Virginia had no town-meetings-no village democracies-no free municipal institutions. The custom of colonial assemblies remained, but the assembly was chosen under a restricted franchise; its most confidential officer was ordered to be appointed 1686 Aug. by the governor,' and its power over the revenue was lost by the perpetual levy which it could not recall. The indulgence of liberty of conscience, and the enfranchisement of Papists, were in themselves unexceptionable measures; they could bring no detriment to colonial liberties. Yet Protestantism and popular liberty in that day were identified, and toleration itself was suspected in King James. Is it strange that the colony was agitated by a party favorable to freedom? The year after Bacon's rebellion, when the royal commissioners forcibly seized the records of the assembly, the act had been voted "a violation of privilege," "an outrage never practised by the kings of England," and "never to be offered in future." When the records were again demanded, 1681 that this resolution might be expunged, Beverley, the clerk of the house, refused obedience to the lieutenant-governor and council, saying he might not do it without leave of the burgesses, his masters.2 The same spirit of resistance was manifested by succeeding assemblies. In 1685, the first assembly convened

1 Hening, iii. 40, 41, 550.

2 Ibid. iii. 548. Burk, ii. 215, 236, 242, 243.

254

XIV.

JAMES II. AND VIRGINIA.

CHAP. after the accession of James II., questioned a part of his negative power. Former laws had been repealed by the assembly; the king negatived the repeal, which necessarily revived the earlier law. It marks the determined spirit of the colonists, and their rapid tendency towards demanding self-government as a natural right, that the assembly obstinately refused to acknowledge this exercise of prerogative, and brought upon themselves, from King James, a censure of their "unnecessary debates and contests, touching the negative voice," "the disaffected and unquiet disposition of the members, and their irregular and tumultuous 1686 proceedings." The assembly was dissolved by royal 15 proclamation.' James Collins was imprisoned and

Nov.

loaded with irons for treasonable expressions. The servile counsel imitated Effingham and King James; 1687. they pledged to the king their lives and fortunes, but the April people of Virginia was more intractable than ever. The indomitable spirit of personal independence, nourished by the manners of Virginia, could never be repressed. Unlike ancient Rome, Virginia placed the defence of liberty, not in municipal corporations, but in persons. The liberty of the individual was ever highly prized; and freedom sheltered itself in the collected energy of the public mind. Such was the character of the new 1688. assembly which was convened some months before. April. the British revolution. The turbulent spirit of the

burgesses was greater than ever, and an immediate dissolution of the body seemed to the council the only mode of counteracting their influence. But the awakened spirit of free discussion, banished from the hall of legislation, fled for refuge among the log-houses and plantations that were sprinkled along the streams.

1 Hening, iii. 40, 41,

XIV.

The people ran to arms: general discontent threatened CHAP. an insurrection. The governor, in a new country, without soldiers and without a citadel, was compelled to practise moderation. Tyranny was impossible; it had no powerful instruments. Despotism sought in vain to establish itself in Virginia; when the prerogative of the governor was at its height, he was still too feeble to oppress the colony. Virginia was always "A LAND OF

LIBERTY."

Nor let the first tendencies to union pass unnoticed. In the Bay of the Chesapeake, Smith had encountered warriors of the Five Nations; and others had fearlessly roamed to the shores of Massachusetts Bay, and even invaded the soil of Maine. Some years before Philip's war, the Mohawks committed ravages near Northampton, on Connecticut River; and the General 1667 Court of Massachusetts addressed them a letter:"We never yet did any wrong to you, or any of yours," such was the language of the Puritan diplomatists" neither will we take any from you, but will right our people according to justice." Maryland and Virginia had repeatedly negotiated with the Senecas. In July, 1684, the governor of Virginia and of New York, and the agent of Massachusetts, met the sachems of the Five Nations at Albany, to strengthen and burnish the covenant-chain, and plant the tree of peace, of which the top should reach the sun, and the branches shelter the wide land. The treaty extended from the St. Croix to Albemarle. New York was the bond of New England and Virginia. The north and the south were united by the conquest of NEW NETHERLANDS.

Burk, ii. 302-306.

2

2 Colden's Five Nations, 44, &c. Massachusetts Records, 1667 t

CHAPTER XV.

NEW NETHERLANDS.

CHAP.

XV.

THE spirit of the age was present when the foundations of New York were laid. Every great European event affected the fortunes of America. Did a state prosper, it sought an increase of wealth by plantations in the west. Was a sect persecuted, it escaped to the New World. The reformation, followed by collisions between English dissenters and the Anglican hierarchy, colonized New England; the reformation, emancipating the United Provinces, led to European settlements on the Hudson. The Netherlands divide with England the glory of having planted the first colonies in the United States; they also divide the glory of having set the examples of public freedom. England gave our fathers the idea of a popular representation, Holland originated for them the principle of federal union.

If

At the discovery of America, the Netherlands were in possession of the municipal institutions which had been saved from the wreck of the Roman world, and of the feudal liberties which the middle ages had bequeathed. The power of the people was unknown to the laws; but the landed aristocracy, the hierarchy, and the municipalities, possessed political franchises. The municipal officers, in part appointed by the sovereign, in part perpetuating themselves, had common interests.

XV.

with the industrious citizens, from whom they were CHAP. selected; and the nobles, cherishing the feudal right of resisting arbitrary taxation, joined the citizens in defending national liberty against encroachments.

to

The urgencies of war, the reformation, perhaps also the arrogance of power, often tempted Charles V. to 1517 violate the liberties of the states; Philip II., on his 1559 accession, formed the deliberate purpose of subverting the constitutions of the Netherlands, and found in the church the willing instrument of usurpation. During the middle age, the church was the sole guardian of the people; and the political influence of the clergy rested on gratitude towards the order, which had limited absolute power by invoking the truths of religion, and, indifferent to the claims of birth, had opened for plebeian ambition an avenue to the highest distinctions. In the progress of society, the political influence of the clergy had fulfilled its office. The ward was now of age, and could protect its rights. But would the guardian resign its supremacy? The Roman hierarchy, rigidly asserting authority, refused to subject faith to inquiry, and struggled to establish a spiritual despotism: the sovereigns of Europe, equally refusing to subject their administrations to discussion, aimed at absolute dominion in the state. A new political alliance was the consequence. The Roman church, and the tem⚫poral sovereigns, during the middle age so often and so bitterly opposed, entered into a natural and necessary friendship. By increasing the number of bishops, who, 1559. in right of their office, had a voice in the states, Philip II. destroyed the balance of the constitution.

Thus arbitrary power was arrayed against national liberty. Patriotism and hope were on the side of the provinces; despotism and bigotry on the side of Philip.