CHAPTER XXI.
1635-1639.
Eight Shires—Harvey's Grants of Territory—His Corrupt and Tyrannical Administration—The Crown guarantees to the Virginians the Rights which they enjoyed before the Dissolution of the Charter—Burk's Opinion of Clayborne—Governor Harvey deposed—Returns to England—Charles the First reinstates him—Disturbances in Kent Island—Charles reprimands Lord Baltimore for his Maltreatment of Clayborne—The Lords Commissioners decide in favor of Baltimore—Threatening State of Affairs in England—Harvey recalled—Succeeded by Sir Francis Wyat.
In the year 1634 Virginia was divided into eight shires: James City, Henrico, Charles City, Elizabeth City, Warrasqueake, Charles River, and Accomac. The original name of Pamaunkee, or Pamunkey, had then been superseded by Charles River, which afterwards gave way to the present name of York. Pamunkey, at first the name of the whole river, is now restricted to one of its branches. The word Pamaunkee is said to signify "where we took a sweat."
The grant of Maryland to Lord Baltimore opened the way for similar grants to other court-favorites, of lands lying to the north and to the south of the settled portion of the Ancient Colony and Dominion of Virginia. While Charles the First was lavishing vast tracts of her territory upon his favorites, Sir John Harvey, a worthy pacha of such a sultan, in collusion with the royal commissioners, imitated the royal munificence by giving away large bodies not only of the public, or crown lands, but even of such as belonged to private planters.[193:A] In the contests between Clayborne and the proprietary of Maryland, while the people of Virginia warmly espoused their countryman's cause, Harvey sided with Baltimore, and proved himself altogether a fit instrument of the administration then tyrannizing in England. He was extortionate, proud, unjust, and arbitrary; he issued proclamations in derogation of the legislative powers of the assembly; assessed, levied, held, and disbursed the colonial revenue, without check or responsibility; transplanted into Virginia exotic English statutes; multiplied penalties and exactions, and appropriated fines to his own use; he added the decrees of the court of high commission of England to the ecclesiastical constitutions of Virginia. The assembly, nevertheless, met regularly; and the legislation of the colony expanded itself in accordance with the exigencies of an increasing population. Tobacco was subjected, by royal ordinances, to an oppressive monopoly; and in those days of prerogative, a remonstrance to the Commons for redress proved fruitless.
At length, in July, 1634, the council's committee for the colonies, either from policy or from compassion, transmitted instructions to the governor and council, saying: "That it is not intended that interests which men have settled when you were a corporation, should be impeached; that for the present they may enjoy their estates with the same freedom and privilege as they did before the recalling of their patents," and authorizing the appropriation of lands to the planters, as had been the former custom.[194:A]
Whether these concessions were inadequate in themselves, or were not carried into effect by Harvey, upon the petition of many of the inhabitants, an assembly was called to meet on the 7th of May, 1635, to hear complaints against that obnoxious functionary. There is hardly any point on which a people are more sensitive than in regard to their territory, and it may therefore be concluded, that one of Harvey's chief offences was his having sided with Lord Baltimore in his infraction of the Virginia territory.
Burk, in his History of Virginia, has stigmatized Clayborne as "an unprincipled incendiary" and "execrable villain;" other writers have applied similar epithets to him. It appears to have been only his resolute defence of his own rights and those of Virginia that subjected him to this severe denunciation. He was long a member of the council; long filled the office of secretary; was held in great esteem by the people, and was for many years a leading spirit of the colony. Burk[195:A] denounces Sir John Harvey for refusing to surrender the fugitive Clayborne to the demand of the Maryland Commissioners, and adds: "But the time was at hand when this rapacious and tyrannical prefect (Harvey) would experience how vain and ineffectual are the projects of tyranny when opposed to the indignation of freemen." Thus the governor, who excited the indignation of the Virginians by his collusion with the Marylanders, was afterwards reprobated by historians for sympathizing with Clayborne in his defence of the rights of Virginia, and opposition to the Marylanders. If Harvey, in violation of the royal license granted to Clayborne in 1631, had surrendered him to the Maryland Commissioners, he would have exposed himself to the royal resentment; and nothing could have more inflamed the indignation of freemen than such treatment of the intrepid vindicator of their territorial rights.
