The people of Virginia sympathized deeply with the London Company in its efforts to prevent the revocation of the charter. The Governor, the Council and the Burgesses gave active assistance to Sandys and his friends by testifying to the wisdom of the management and contradicting the calumnies of their enemies. In the midst of the controversy the Privy Council had appointed a commission which they sent to Virginia to investigate conditions there and to gather evidence against the Company. This board consisted of John Harvey, John Pory, Abraham Piersey and Samuel Matthews, men destined to play prominent roles in Virginia history, but then described as “certayne obscure persons". When the commissioners reached the colony they made known to the Assembly the King’s desire to revoke the charter and to take upon himself the direction of the government. They then asked the members to subscribe to a statement expressing their gratitude for the care of the King, and willingness to consent to the contemplated change. The Assembly returned the paper unsigned. “When our consent,” they said, “to the surrender of the Pattents, shalbe required, will be the most proper time to make reply: in the mean time wee conceive his Majesties intention of changing the government hath proceeded from much misinformation."

After this they ignored the commissioners, and addressed themselves in direct letters and petitions to the King and the Privy Council. They apprehended, they wrote, no danger from the present government, which had converted into freedom the slavery they had endured in former times. They prayed that their liberal institutions might not be destroyed or the old Smith faction of the Company placed over them again. These papers they sent to England by one of their number, John Pountis, even refusing to let the commissioners see them. But Pory succeeded in securing copies from the acting secretary, Edward Sharpless. The Council, upon learning of this betrayal, were so incensed against the secretary that they sentenced him to “stand in the Pillory and there to have his Ears nailed to it, and cut off". His punishment was modified, however, so that when he was “sett in the Pillorie”, he “lost but a part of one of his eares". The King, upon learning of this incident, which was represented to him “as a bloody and barbarous act”, became highly incensed against the Council.

In the meanwhile James had appointed a large commission, with Viscount Mandeville at its head, “to confer, consult, resolve and expedite all affaires ... of Virginia, and to take care and give order for the directing and government thereof". This body met weekly at the house of Sir Thomas Smith, and immediately assumed control of the colony. Their first act was to decide upon a form of government to replace the Virginia Magna Charta. In conformance with the wishes of the King they resolved to return to the plan of 1606. In their recommendations no mention was made of an Assembly. It seemed for a while that the work of Sandys was to be undone, and the seeds of liberty in Virginia destroyed almost before they had taken root. Fortunately, however, this was not to be. The commission, perhaps wishing to allay the fears of the colonists, reappointed Sir Francis Wyatt Governor, and retained most of the old Council. This made it certain that for a while at least the government was to be in the hands of men of lofty character and liberal views. More fortunate still for Virginia was the death of James I. This event removed the most determined enemy of their Assembly, and placed upon the throne a man less hostile to the Sandys faction, less determined to suppress the liberal institutions of the colony.

Soon after his accession Charles I abolished the Mandeville commission and appointed in its place a committee of the Privy Council. For a while he seemed inclined to restore the Company, for he consulted with Sandys and requested him to give his opinion “touching the best form of Government". But he finally rejected his proposals, declaring that he had come to the same determination that his father had held. He was resolved, he said, that the government should be immediately dependent upon himself and not be committed to any company or corporation. But, like his father, he was “pleased to authorise Sir Francis Wyatt knight to be governor there, and such as are now employed for his Majesties Councell there to have authoritie to continue the same employment”. No provision was made for a representative body, the power of issuing decrees, ordinances and public orders being assigned to the Council.

But the Assembly was saved by the unselfish conduct of Wyatt and Yeardley and their Councils. Had these men sought their own gain at the expense of the liberty of their fellow colonists, they would have welcomed a change that relieved them from the restraint of the representatives of the people. The elimination of the Burgesses would have left them as absolute as had been Wingfield and the first Council. But they were most anxious to preserve for Virginia the right of representative government, and wrote to England again and again pleading for the reestablishment of the Assembly. “Above all,” they said, “we humbly intreat your Lordships that we may retaine the Libertie of our Generall Assemblie, than which nothing can more conduce to our satisfaction or the publique utilitie." In 1625 Yeardley himself crossed the ocean to present a new petition. He pleaded with Charles “to avoid the oppression of Governors there, that their liberty of Generall Assemblyes may be continued and confirmed, and that they may have a voice in the election of officers, as in other Corporations". After the overthrow of the Company charter, there could be no legal election of Burgesses and no legislation save by proclamation of the Governor and Council. Yet Wyatt, in order to preserve as far as possible some form of representative government, held conventions or informal meetings of leading citizens, to confer with the Council on important matters. They issued papers under the title of “Governor, Councell and Collony of Virginia assembled together", and it is possible that the people elected their delegates just as they had formerly chosen Burgesses. Since, however, acts passed by these assemblages could not be enforced in the courts, all legislation for the time being took the form of proclamations.

Finally Charles yielded to the wishes of the people, and, in the fall of 1627, sent written instructions to the officials in Virginia to hold an election of Burgesses and to summon a General Assembly. The King’s immediate motive for this important step was his desire to gain the planters’ acceptance through their representatives of an offer which he made to buy all their tobacco. In the spring of 1628 the Council wrote, “In obedience to his Majesties Commands wee have given order that all the Burgesses of Particular Plantations should shortly be assembled at James Citty that by the general and unanimous voice of the whole Colony his Majesty may receave a full answere." Although the Assembly must have realized that its very existence might depend upon its compliance with the King’s wishes, it refused to accept his proposition. The planters were willing to sell their tobacco to his Majesty, but only upon more liberal terms than those offered them. Charles rejected the counter-proposals of the Virginians, with some show of anger, but he did not abolish the Assembly, and in ensuing years sessions were held with great regularity.

The apprehensions of the colonists during this trying period were made more acute by the resignation of Sir Francis Wyatt. In the winter of 1625-26 the Council wrote the Virginia commissioners, “The Governor hath long expected a Successor, and the necessity of his private estate compelling him not to put off any longer his return for England, wee hope it is already provided for." Great must have been the relief in the colony when it was learned that Sir George Yeardley had been chosen to succeed Governor Wyatt. Yeardley had been the bearer of the Virginia Magna Charta, under which the first Assembly had been established, and his services had not been forgotten by the people. But he was not destined to see the restoration of the Burgesses, for he died in November, 1627. We have lost, wrote the Council in great grief, “a main pillar of this our building & thereby a support to the whole body".

By virtue of previous appointment, Captain Francis West, brother of the Lord De la Warr who had lost his life in the service of Virginia, at once assumed the reins of government. Captain West continued in office until March 5th, 1629, when he resigned in order to return to England. John Harvey, a member of the Virginia commission of 1624, was the King’s next choice for Governor, but pending his arrival, the office fell to one of the Council Dr. John Pott. This man had long been a resident of Virginia, and had acted as Physician-General during the years when the sickness was at the worst. He is described as “a Master of Arts ... well practiced in chirurgery and physic, and expert also in the distilling of waters, (besides) many other ingenious devices". He had made use of these accomplishments to poison large numbers of Indians after the massacre of 1622. This exploit caused the temporary loss of his place in the Council, for when James I settled the government after the fall of the Company, Pott was left out at the request of the Earl of Warwick, because “he was the poysoner of the salvages thear". In 1626 his seat was restored to him. He seems to have been both democratic and convival, and is described as fond of the company of his inferiors, “who hung upon him while his good liquor lasted".

In the spring of 1630 Sir John Harvey arrived in Virginia. This man proved to be one of the worst of the many bad colonial governors. Concerned only for his own dignity and for the prerogative of the King, he trampled without scruple upon the liberties of the people, and his administration was marked throughout by injustice and oppression.

His first efforts as Governor were to attempt to win the friendship and support of one of the Council and to bring humiliation and ruin upon another. He had been in Virginia but a few weeks when he wrote the King asking especial favors for Captain Samuel Matthews. “This gentleman,” he said, “I found most readie to set forward all services propounded for his Majesties honor, ... and without his faithful assistance perhaps I should not soe soon have brought the busines of this Country to so good effect.” It would be a just reward for these services, he thought, to allow him for a year or two to ship the tobacco of his plantation into England free of customs. At the same time Harvey seemed bent upon the utter undoing of Dr. Pott. Claiming that the pleasure loving physician while Governor had been guilty of “pardoninge wilfull Murther, markinge other mens Cattell for his owne, and killing up their hoggs”, Harvey suspended him from the Council and, pending the day of his trial, confined him to his plantation.

It seems quite certain that this treatment of the two Councillors was designed to impress upon the people a just appreciation of the Governor’s power. Harvey felt keenly the restriction of the Council. It had been the intention of James and after his death Charles to restore the government of the colony to its original form, in which all matters were determined by the Council. “His Majesties ... pleasure,” wrote the Privy Council in 1625, “is that all judgements, decrees, and all important actions be given, determined and undertaken by the advice and voices of the greater part." If these instructions were adhered to, the Governor would become no more than the presiding officer of the Council. To this position Harvey was determined never to be reduced. He would, at the very outset, show that he was master in Virginia, able to reward his friends, or to punish those that incurred his displeasure.

Dr. Pott could not believe that the proceedings against him were intended seriously, and, in defiance of the Governor’s commands, left his plantation to come to Elizabeth City. “Upon which contempt,” wrote Harvey, “I committed him close prisoner, attended with a guard.” At the earnest request of several gentlemen, the Governor finally consented that he might return to his plantation, but only under bond. Pott, however, refused to avail himself of the kindness of his friends, and so was kept in confinement. On the 9th of July he was brought to trial, found guilty upon two indictments, and his entire estate confiscated.

That Pott was convicted by a jury of thirteen men, three of them Councillors, is by no means conclusive evidence of his guilt. The close connection between the executive and the courts at this time made it quite possible for the Governor to obtain from a jury whatever verdict he desired. In fact it became the custom for a new administration, as soon as it was installed in power, to take revenge upon its enemies by means of the courts.

Pott’s guilt is made still more doubtful by the fact that execution of the sentence was suspended “untill his Majesties pleasure might be signified concerning him”, while the Council united in giving their security for his safe keeping. Harvey himself wrote asking the King’s clemency. “For as much,” he said, “as he is the only Physician in the Colonie, and skilled in the Epidemicall diseases of the planters, ... I am bound to entreat” your Majesty to pardon him. It would seem quite inexplicable that Harvey should go to so much trouble to convict Dr. Pott, and then write immediately to England for a pardon, did not he himself give the clue to his conduct. “It will be,” he said, “a means to bring the people to ... hold a better respect to the Governor than hitherto they have done." Having shown the colonists that he could humble the strongest of them, he now sought to teach them that his intercession with the King could restore even the criminal to his former position.

When Dr. Pott was at Elizabeth City his wife was reported to be ill, but this did not deter her from making the long and dangerous voyage to England to appeal to the King “touching the wrong” done her husband. Charles referred the matter to the Virginia commissioners, who gave her a hearing in the presence of Harvey’s agent. Finding no justification for the proceedings against him, they wrote Harvey that for aught they could tell Pott had demeaned himself well and that there seemed to have been “some hard usage against him". The sentence of confiscation seems never to have been carried out, but Pott was not restored to his seat in the Council.

This arbitrary conduct did not succeed in intimidating the other Councillors. These men must have felt that the attack upon Dr. Pott was aimed partly at the dignity and power of the Council itself. If Harvey could thus ruin those that incurred his displeasure, the Councillors would lose all independence in their relations with him. Soon they were in open hostility to the Governor. Claiming that Harvey could do nothing without their consent, and that all important matters had to be determined “by the greater number of voyces at the Councell Table”, they entered upon a policy of obstruction. It was in vain that the Governor declared that he was the King’s substitute, that they were but his assistants, and that they were impeding his Majesty’s business; they would yield to him only the position of first among equals. Early in 1631 Harvey was filling his letters to England with complaints of the “waywardness and oppositions of those of the Councell”. “For instead of giving me assistance,” he declared, “they stand Contesting and disputing my authoritie, avering that I can doe nothinge but what they shall advise me, and that my power extendeth noe further than a bare casting voice." He had received, he claimed, a letter from the King, strengthening his commission and empowering him to “doe justice to all men, not sparinge those of the Councell”, which he had often shown them, but this they would not heed. “I hope,” he wrote, “you never held me to be ambitious or vainglorious, as that I should desire to live here as Governor to predominate, or prefer mine owne particular before the generall good.” My position in Virginia is most miserable, “chiefly through the aversions of those from whom I expected assistance”. He had often tried to bring peace and amity between them, but all to no purpose, for he was scorned for his efforts. He would be humbly thankful if his Majesty would be pleased to strengthen his commission, “that the place of Governor and the duty of Councellors may be knowne and distinguished".

It is probable that the Councillors also wrote to England, to place before the King their grievances against Harvey, for before the end of the year letters came from the Privy Council, warning both sides to end the dispute and to proceed peacefully with the government of the colony. In compliance with these commands they drew up and signed a document promising “to swallow up & bury all forepart Complainte and accusations in a generall Reconciliation”. They thanked their Lordships for advice that had persuaded their “alienated & distempered” minds to thoughts of love and peace and to the execution of public justice. The Council promised to give the Governor “all the service, honor & due Respect which belongs unto him as his Majesties Substitute". It is quite evident, however, that this reconciliation, inspired by fear of the anger of the Privy Council, could not be permanent. Soon the Council, under the leadership of Captain Matthews, who had long since forfeited Harvey’s favor, was as refractory as ever.

A new cause for complaint against the Governor arose with the founding of Maryland. In 1623 George Calvert, the first Lord Baltimore, had received a grant of the great southeastern promontory in Newfoundland, and had planted there a colony as an asylum for English Catholics. Baltimore himself had been detained in England for some years, but in 1627 came with his wife and children to take personal control of his little settlement. His experience with the severe Newfoundland winter persuaded him that it would be wise to transfer his colony to a more congenial clime. “From the middle of October,” he wrote Charles I, “to the middle of May there is a sad face of winter upon all the land; both sea and land so frozen for the greater part of the time as they are not penetrable ... besides the air so intolerable cold as it is hardly to be endured.... I am determined to commit this place to fishermen that are able to encounter stormes and hard weather, and to remove myself with some forty persons to your Majesties dominion of Virginia; where, if your Majesty will please to grant me a precinct of land, with such privileges as the King your father ... was pleased to grant me here, I shall endeavour to the utmost of my power, to deserve it."

In 1629 he sailed for Virginia, with his wife and children, and arrived at Jamestown the first day of October. His reception by Governor Pott and the Council was by no means cordial. The Virginians were loath either to receive a band of Catholics into their midst, or to concede to them a portion of the land that they held under the royal charters. Desiring to be rid of Baltimore as speedily as possible, they tendered him the oath of supremacy. This, of course, as a good Catholic he could not take, for it recognized the English sovereign as the supreme authority in all ecclesiastical matters. Baltimore proposed an alternative oath of allegiance, but the Governor and Council refused to accept it, and requested him to leave at once. Knowing that it was his intention to apply for a tract of land within their borders, the Virginians sent William Claiborne after him to London, to watch him and to thwart his designs.

Despite Claiborne’s efforts a patent was granted Baltimore, making him lord proprietor of a province north of the Potomac river, which received the name of Maryland. Baltimore, with his own hand, drew up the charter, but in April, 1632, before it had passed under the Great Seal, he died. A few weeks later the patent was issued to his eldest son, Cecilius Calvert. The Virginians protested against this grant “within the Limits of the Colony”, claiming that it would interfere with their Indian trade in the Chesapeake, and that the establishment of the Catholics so near their settlements would “give a generall disheartening of the Planters". But their complaints availed nothing. Not only did Charles refuse to revoke the charter, but he wrote the Governor and Council commanding them to give Lord Baltimore every possible assistance in making his settlement. You must, he said, “suffer his servants and Planters to buy and transport such cattle and comodities to their Colonie, as you may conveniently spare ... and give them ... such lawful assistance as may conduce to both your safetyes".

The second Lord Baltimore appointed his brother, Leonard Calvert, Governor of Maryland, and sent him with two vessels and over three hundred men to plant the new colony. In February, 1634, the expedition reached Point Comfort, where it stopped to secure from the Virginians the assistance that the King had promised should be given them.

They met with scant courtesy. The planters thought it a hard matter that they should be ordered to aid in the establishment of this new colony. They resented the encroachment upon their territories, they hated the newcomers because most of them were Catholics, they feared the loss of a part of their Indian trade, and they foresaw the growth of a dangerous rival in the culture of tobacco. Despite the King’s letter they refused to help Calvert and his men. “Many are so averse,” wrote Harvey, “that they crye and make it their familiar talke that they would rather knock their Cattell on the heades than sell them to Maryland." The Governor, however, not daring to disobey his sovereign’s commands, gave the visitors all the assistance in his power. “For their present accomodation,” he said, “I sent unto them some Cowes of myne owne, and will do my best to procure more, or any thinge else they stand in need of." This action secured for Harvey the praise of the Privy Council, but it made him more unpopular with his Council and the people of Virginia.

After a stay of several weeks at Point Comfort, Calvert sailed up the Chesapeake into the Potomac, and founded the town of Saint Mary’s. This, however, was not the first settlement in Maryland. In 1631, William Claiborne, returning from England after his unsuccessful attempt to block the issuing of Baltimore’s charter, had established a settlement upon Kent Island in the Chesapeake Bay. Here he had built dwellings and mills and store houses, and had laid out orchards and gardens. In thus founding a colony within Baltimore’s territory he was sustained by the Council. When Calvert arrived in 1634 he sent word to Claiborne that he would not molest his settlement, but since Kent Island was a part of Maryland, he must hold it as a tenant of Lord Baltimore. Upon receipt of this message Claiborne laid the matter before his colleagues of the Virginia Council, and asked their commands. The answer of the Councillors shows that they considered the new patent an infringement upon their prior rights and therefore of no effect. They could see no reason, they told Claiborne, why they should render up the Isle of Kent any more than the other lands held under their patents. As it was their duty to maintain the rights and privileges of the colony, his settlement must continue under the government and laws of Virginia.

Despite the defiant attitude of the Virginians, it is probable that Calvert would have permitted the Kent Islanders to remain unmolested, had not a report spread abroad that Claiborne was endeavoring to persuade the Indians to attack Saint Mary’s. A joint commission of Virginians and Marylanders declared the charge false, but suspicion and ill will had been aroused, and a conflict could not be avoided. In April, 1635, Governor Calvert, alleging that Claiborne was indulging in illicit trade, fell upon and captured one of his merchantmen. In great indignation the islanders fitted out a vessel, the Cockatrice, to scour the Chesapeake and make reprisals. She was attacked, however, by two pinnaces from Saint Mary’s and, after a severe conflict in which several men were killed, was forced to surrender. A few weeks later Claiborne gained revenge by defeating the Marylanders in a fight at the mouth of the Potomac.

In these encounters the Kent Islanders had the sympathy of the Virginia planters. Excitement ran high in the colony, and there was danger that an expedition might be sent to Saint Mary’s to overpower the intruders and banish them from the country. Resentment against Harvey, who still gave aid and encouragement to Maryland, became more bitter than ever. His espousal of the cause of the enemies of Virginia made the planters regard him as a traitor. In 1635 Samuel Matthews wrote to Sir John Wolstenholme, “The Inhabitants also understood with indignation that the Marylanders had taken Capt. Claibournes Pinnaces and men ... which action of theirs Sir John Harvey upheld contrary to his Majesties express commands." The Councillors held many “meetings and consultations” to devise plans for the overthrow of the new colony, and an active correspondence was carried on with Baltimore’s enemies in England in the vain hope that the charter might yet be revoked.

Matters were now moving rapidly to a crisis. Harvey’s administration became more and more unpopular. Sir John Wolstenholme, who kept in close touch with the colony, declared that the Governor’s misconduct in his government was notorious at Court and in the city of London. When, in the spring of 1635, he was rudely thrust out of his office, the complaints against him were so numerous that it became necessary to convene the Assembly to consider them.

To what extent Harvey usurped the powers of the General Assembly is not clear, but it seems very probable that he frequently made use of proclamations to enforce his will upon the people. It was quite proper and necessary for the Governor, when the houses were not in session, to issue ordinances of a temporary character, but this was a power susceptible of great abuse. And for the Governor to repeal statutes by proclamation would be fatal to the liberties of the people. That Harvey was guilty of this usurpation seems probable from the fact that a law was enacted declaring it the duty of the people to disregard all proclamations that conflicted with any act of Assembly.

Also there is reason to believe that Harvey found ways of imposing illegal taxes upon the people. John Burk, in his History of Virginia, declares unreservedly that it was Harvey’s purpose “to feed his avarice and rapacity, by assessing, levying, and holding the public revenue, without check or responsibility".

In 1634 an event occurred which aroused the anger of the people, widened the breach between the Governor and the Council, and made it evident to all that Harvey would not hesitate upon occasion to disregard property rights and to break the laws of the colony. A certain Captain Young came to Virginia upon a commission for the King. Wishing to build two shallops while in the colony and having need of a ship’s carpenter, Young, with the consent of Harvey, seized a skilled servant of one of the planters. This arbitrary procedure was in direct defiance of a statute of Assembly of March, 1624, that declared that “the Governor shall not withdraw the inhabitants from their private labors to any service of his own upon any colour whatsoever".

Upon hearing of the incident Captain Samuel Matthews and other members of the Council came to Harvey to demand an explanation. The Governor replied that the man had been taken because Young had need of him “to prosecute with speed the King’s service”, and “that his Majesty had given him authority to make use of any persons he found there". This answer did not satisfy the Councillors. Matthews declared “that if things were done on this fashion it would breed ill bloude in Virginia”, and in anger “turning his back, with his truncheon lashed off the heads of certain high weeds that were growing there". Harvey, wishing to appease the Councillors, said, “Come gentlemen, let us goe to supper & for the night leave this discourse”, but their resentment was too great to be smoothed over, and with one accord rejecting his invitation, “they departed from the Governour in a very irreverent manner".

Harvey, in his letters to the English government tried to convey the impression that he was uniformly patient with the Council, and courteous in all the disputes that were constantly arising. That he was not always so self restrained is shown by the fact that on one occasion, he became embroiled with one of the Councillors, Captain Stevens, and knocked out some of his teeth with a cudgel. Samuel Matthews wrote that he had heard the Governor “in open court revile all the Councell and tell them they were to give their attendance as assistants only to advise with him”. The Governor attempted, he declared, to usurp the whole power of the courts, without regard to the rights of the Councillors, “whereby justice was now done but soe farr as suited with his will, to the great losse of many mens estates and a generall feare in all".

In 1634 the King once more made a proposal to the colonists for the purchase of their tobacco, and demanded their assent through the General Assembly. The Burgesses, who dreaded all contracts, drew up an answer which was “in effect a deniall of his Majesties proposition”, and, in order to give the paper the character of a petition, they all signed it. This answer the Governor detained, fearing, he said, that the King “would not take well the matter thereof, and that they should make it a popular business, by subscribing a multitude of hands thereto, as thinking thereby to give it countenance". The Governor’s arbitrary action aroused great anger throughout the colony. Matthews wrote Sir John Wolstenholme, “The Consideration of the wrong done by the Governor to the whole Colony in detayning the foresaid letters to his Majesty did exceedingly perplex them whereby they were made sensible of the condition of the present Government."

The crisis had now come. During the winter of 1634-35 the Councillors and other leading citizens were holding secret meetings to discuss the conduct of the Governor. Soon Dr. John Pott, whose private wrongs made him a leader in the popular discontent, was going from plantation to plantation, denouncing the Governor’s conduct and inciting the people to resistance. Everywhere the angry planters gathered around him, and willingly subscribed to a petition for a redress of grievances. In April, 1635, Pott was holding one of these meetings in York, at the house of one William Warrens, when several friends of the Governor presented themselves for admission. “A servant meeting them told them they must not goe in ... whereupon they desisted and bended themselves to hearken to the discourse among them.” In the confusion of sounds that came out of the house they could distinguish many angry speeches against Harvey and cries against his unjust and arbitrary government. When Pott read his petition, and told the assemblage that it had the support of some of the Councillors, they all rushed forward to sign their names.

When Harvey heard of these proceedings he was greatly enraged. Summoning the Council to meet without delay, he issued warrants for Dr. Pott and several others that had aided in circulating the petition. “After a few days Potts was brought up prisoner, having before his apprehending bin in the lower parts of the Country there also mustering his names at a meeting called for that purpose." He does not seem to have feared the angry threats of the Governor, for when put in irons and brought before the Council, he readily consented to surrender the offending petition. At the same time he asserted “that if he had offended he did appeal to the King, for he was sure of noe justice from Sir John Harvey”. When some of the other prisoners, in their hearing before the Council, asked the cause of their arrest, the Governor told them they should be informed at the gallows.

Shortly after this the Council was summoned to deliberate on the fate of the accused. The Governor, fearing that he might not secure conviction from a jury, “declared it necessary that Marshall law should be executed upon” them. When the Councillors refused to consent to any other than a legal trial, Harvey flew into a furious passion. For a while he paced back and forth in the room hardly able to contain himself. At length he sat down in his chair, and with a dark countenance commanded his colleagues to be seated. A long pause ensued, and then he announced that he had a question that they must answer each in his turn, without deliberation or consultation. “What,” he enquired, “doe you think they deserve that have gone about to persuade the people from their obedience to his Majesties substitute?” “And I begin with you,” he said, turning to Mr. Minifie. “I am but a young lawyer,” Minifie replied, “and dare not uppon the suddain deliver my opinion.” At this point Mr. Farrar began to complain of these strange proceedings, but Harvey commanded him to be silent. Captain Matthews also protested, and the other Councillors soon joined him in refusing to answer the Governor’s question. “Then followed many bitter Languages from him till the sitting ended.”

At the next meeting Harvey asked what the Council thought were the reasons that the petition had been circulated against him, and demanded to know whether they had any knowledge of the matter. Mr. Minifie replied that the chief grievance of the people was the detaining of the letter of the Assembly to the King. This answer seems to have aroused the Governor’s fury, for, arising from his seat, and striking Mr. Minifie a resounding blow upon the shoulder, he cried, “Doe you say soe? I arrest you upon suspicion of treason to his Majesty.” But Harvey found that he could not deal thus arbitrarily with the Councillors. Utie and Matthews rushed up and seizing him cried, “And we you upon suspicion of treason to his Majestie”. Dr. Pott, who was present and had probably been waiting for this crisis, held up his hand as a signal to confederates without, “when straight about 40 musketiers ... which before that time lay hid, came ... running with their peeces presented” towards the house. “Stay here,” commanded Pott, “until there be use of you.”

In the meanwhile the Councillors crowded around Harvey. “Sir,” said Matthews, “there is no harm intended you save only to acquaint you with the grievances of the Inhabitants and to that end I desire you to sit downe in your Chayre.”

And there, with the enraged Governor seated before him, he poured out the recital of the people’s wrongs. When he had finished there came an ominous pause. Finally Matthews spoke again. “Sir,” he said, “the peoples fury is up against you and to appease it, is beyond our power, unlesse you please to goe for England, there to answer their complaints.” But this Harvey refused to do. He had been made Governor of Virginia by the King, he said, and without his command he would not leave his charge.

But before many days the Governor changed his mind. He found himself deserted by all and entirely in the power of the Councillors. As sentinals were placed “in all wayes & passages so that noe man could travell or come from place to place”, he could make no effort to raise troops. Dr. Pott and the other prisoners were set at liberty. A guard was placed around Harvey, ostensibly to protect him, but really with the purpose of restraining him. A letter came from Captain Purifee, a Councillor then in the “lower parts” of the colony, which spoke of designs of the people to bring Harvey to account for his many wrongs. In alarm the Governor consented to take the first ship for England. He endeavored, however, to name his successor, to induce Matthews, Pierce, and Minifie to go with him to England, and to secure a promise from the Council not to molest Maryland. But they would consent to none of these things.

In the meantime an Assembly had been called to consider the innumerable grievances against the Governor. When they met at Jamestown, Harvey sent them a letter, declaring the session illegal and ordering them to disperse to their homes. “Notwithstanding his threats ... the assembly proceeded according to their former intentions.” Harvey then dispatched a letter to the Council, ordering them to send him his royal commission and instructions, but these documents had been intrusted to the keeping of Mr. Minifie with directions not to surrender them. The Council then turned themselves to the task of selecting a successor to Harvey. Their unanimous vote was given to Captain Francis West, the senior member of the board and formerly Governor. Feeling that since the expulsion of Harvey had been primarily a movement to protect the rights of the people, the Burgesses should have some voice in the election of the new Governor, they appealed to the Assembly for the ratification of their choice. West was popular in the colony, and “the people’s suffrages” were cast for him as willingly as had been those of the Council. The Assembly then drew up resolutions setting forth the misconduct of Harvey and justifying their course in sending him back to England. These documents were entrusted to one Thomas Harwood, who was to deliver them to the King. Of what happened after Harvey’s departure we have little record, but it is probable that the colonists revenged themselves upon the deposed Governor by confiscating all his ill gotten possessions.

It was decided that Dr. Pott should go to England to stand trial as his appeal to the King had taken the case beyond the jurisdiction of the Virginia courts. He and Harwood sailed upon the same vessel with Sir John. It is not hard to imagine with what dark looks or angry words Pott and Harvey greeted each other during their long voyage across the Atlantic. Doubtless Harwood and Pott held many a consultation upon what steps should be taken when they reached England to secure a favorable hearing for the colony, and to frustrate Harvey’s plans for revenge. It was Harwood’s intention to hasten to London, in order to forestall the Governor and “to make friends and the case good against him, before he could come". But Sir John was too quick for him. Hardly had the ship touched the dock at Plymouth, than he was off to see the mayor of the city. This officer, upon hearing of the “late mutiny and rebellion” in Virginia, put Pott under arrest, “as a principal author and agent thereof”, and seized all the papers and letters that had been entrusted to Harwood. Having thus gotten his hands upon the important documents, Harvey proceeded to London to complain of the indignities shown him and to ask for the punishment of his enemies.

When Charles I learned that the Virginians had deposed his Governor and sent him back to England, he was surprised and angered. It was, he said, an assumption of regal power to oust thus unceremoniously one of his officers, and he was resolved to send Harvey back, if for one day only. And should the Governor acquit himself of the charges against him, he was to be inflicted upon the colony even longer than had at first been intended. The case came before the Privy Council in December 1635. In the charges that were made against Harvey nothing was said of the illegal and arbitrary measures that had caused the people to depose him. All reference was omitted to the detaining of the Assembly’s letter, to the support given Maryland, to the abuse of the courts, to illegal taxes and proclamations. Possibly the agents of the Virginians felt that such accusations as these would have no weight with the ministers of a monarch so little in sympathy with liberal government, so they trumped up other charges to sustain their cause. Despite the assertion of Harwood that Harvey “had so carryed himself in Virginia, that if ever hee retourned back thither hee would be pistolled or Shott”, he was acquitted and restored to his office. West, Utie, Matthews, Minifie and Pierce, whom Harvey designated as the “chief actors in the munity”, were ordered to come to England, there to answer before the Star Chamber the charge of treason.

As the time approached for him to return to Virginia, Harvey began to show symptoms of nervousness. Feeling possibly that the threats of “pistolling” were not to be taken lightly, he requested the King to furnish him a royal vessel in which to make the journey. The appearance of one of the King’s own ships in the James, he thought, would “much abate the bouldness of the offenders”. This request was granted, and, after some months of delay, Harvey set forth proudly in the Black George. But Charles had not cared to send a really serviceable vessel to Virginia, and for a while it seemed that the Black George would relieve the colonists of their troubles by taking Sir John to the bottom. The vessel, it would appear, sprang a leak before it had been many hours at sea, and was forced to return to port. The Governor then decided that a merchant vessel would suffice for his purposes, and set sail again, upon a ship of the Isle of Wight.

He reached Point Comfort in January, 1637. Not wishing to wait until his ship reached Jamestown before asserting his authority, he landed at once and established a temporary capital at Elizabeth City. He had received instructions to remove from the Council all the members that had taken part in the “thrusting out”, and he brought with him commissions for several new members. Orders were issued immediately for this reconstructed Council to convene in the church at Elizabeth City. There, after the oath had been administered, he published a proclamation of pardon to all persons implicated in the “mutiny”, from which, however, West, Matthews, and the other leaders were excluded. The Governor then proceeded to displace all officials whom he considered hostile to his administration. “Before I removed from Elizabeth City,” he wrote, “I appointed Commissioners and sheriffs for the lower counties, and for the plantation of Accomack, on the other side of the Bay.”

The “thrusting out” did not cause Harvey to become more prudent in the administration of the government. His restoration, which Charles had meant as a vindication of the royal authority, the Governor seems to have interpreted as a license for greater tyranny. If the accusations of his enemies may be credited, he went to the greatest extremes in oppressing the people and in defying their laws. With the Council now completely under his control, he was master of the courts, and inflicted many great wrongs by means of “arbitrary and illegal proceedings in judgment”. Confiscations and other “most cruel oppressions”, it was declared, were used to punish all that showed themselves hostile to his government. He and his officers did not scruple to impose many unjust fines, which they converted “to their own private use”, nor to strike terror into the people with whippings and “cutting of ears".

Nor did Sir John neglect to take revenge upon those old enemies that had so defied and humiliated him. West, Utie, Matthews and Pierce were sent at once to England, and their goods, cattle and servants seized. Beyond doubt it was against Samuel Matthews that Harvey bore the most bitter animosity, and it was his estate that suffered most. The Governor had been heard to say that if one “stood, tother should fall, and if hee swomme, the other should sinke”. Matthews was one of the wealthiest men of the colony, his property consisting largely of cattle, but Sir John now swore that he would not leave him “worth a cow taile”. At the next session of the Quarter Court, suit was entered against Matthews by one John Woodall, for the recovery of certain cattle. The learned judges, upon investigation, found that in the year 1622 Matthews held two cows rightfully belonging to Woodall. It was their opinion that the increase of these cows “unto the year 1628 ... might amount unto the number of fifteen”. “Computing the increase of the said fifteen head from the year 1628 to the time of their inquiry, they did return the number of fiftye head to the said Woodall."

When Matthews heard that his estate had been seized and “havoc made thereof”, he entered complaint with the Privy Council and secured an order requiring Harvey to restore all to his agents in Virginia. But the Governor was most reluctant to give up his revenge upon his old enemy. For seven months he put off the agents and at last told them that he had received new orders from the Privy Council, expressing satisfaction with what had been done and bidding him proceed. Thereupon Secretary Kemp and other friends of the Governor entered Matthews’ house, broke open the doors of several chambers, ransacked all his trunks and chests, examined his papers, and carried away a part of his goods and eight of his servants. Soon after, however, Harvey received positive commands from the Privy Council to make an immediate restoration of all that had been taken. In January, 1639, he wrote that he had obeyed their Lordships exactly, by calling a court and turning over to Matthews’ agents many of his belongings. But Harvey denied that he had ever appropriated the estate to his own use, and claimed that he had been misrepresented by “the Cunning texture of Captain Mathews, his complaint".

Among those that felt most keenly the Governor’s resentment was a certain clergyman, Anthony Panton. This man had quarrelled with Harvey’s best friend and chief advisor in the stormy days of the expulsion, Secretary Matthew Kemp. Panton had incurred Kemp’s undying resentment by calling him a “jackanapes”, “unfit for the place of secretary”, and declaring that “his hair-lock was tied up with ribbon as old as St. Paul’s". The belligerent parson was now brought to trial, charged with “mutinous speeches and disobedience to Sir John Harvey”, and with disrespect to the Archbishop of Canterbury. His judges pronounced him guilty and inflicted a sentence of extreme rigor. A fine of L500 was imposed, he was forced to make public submission in all the parishes of the colony, and was banished “with paynes of death if he returned, and authority to any man whatsoever to execute him."

In the meanwhile the Governor’s enemies in England had not been idle. Matthews, Utie, West and Pierce, upon landing in 1637, had secured their liberty under bail, and had joined with Dr. Pott in an attempt to undermine Harvey’s influence at Court. Had Sir John sent witnesses to England at once to press the charges against them before the Star Chamber, while the matter was still fresh in the memory of the King, he might have brought about their conviction and checked their plots. But he neglected the case, and Charles probably forgot about it, so the whole matter was referred to the Lord Keeper and the Attorney-General where it seems to have rested. The exiles had no difficulty in finding prominent men willing to join in an attack upon Harvey. Before many months had passed they had gained the active support of the “sub-committee” of the Privy Council to which Virginia affairs were usually referred. Harvey afterwards complained that members of this committee were interested in a plan to establish a new Virginia Company and for that reason were anxious to bring discredit upon his government. It was not difficult to find cause enough for removing Sir John. Reports of his misconduct were brought to England by every vessel from the colony. Numerous persons, if we may believe the Governor, were “imployed in all parts of London to be spyes”, and to “invite the meanest of the planters newly come for England into Taverns”, where they made them talkative with wine and invited them to state their grievances.

The English merchants trading to Virginia also entered complaint before the Privy Council against Harvey’s administration. They sought relief from a duty of two pence per hogshead on all tobacco exported from the colony, from a fee of six pence a head on immigrants, and a requisition of powder and shot laid upon vessels entering the James. The Privy Council, always careful of the welfare of British trade, wrote the Governor and the Council, demanding an explanation of these duties and requiring an account of the powder and shot. Harvey replied at great length, justifying the duties and begging their Lordships not to credit “the malitious untruths of such who by all means do goe about and studie to traduce us”.

But the Privy Council, not waiting to receive all of Harvey’s defense, decided to remove him and to appoint in his place Sir Francis Wyatt. The new Governor was directed to retain the old Council and to confirm Kemp as Secretary. But he was authorized to restore to Matthews any part of his estate yet withheld from him, and to reopen in the Virginia courts the case against Anthony Panton. The day of reckoning had now arrived. When Wyatt reached Virginia, he lost no time in bringing Harvey to account for his misdeeds. He was arraigned before the courts, where he was forced to answer countless complaints of injustice and oppression, and to restore to their owners his ill gotten gains. Kemp wrote, in March, 1640, that Sir John was being persecuted with great rigor, that most of his estate had been confiscated, and at the next court would assuredly be swept away. A few weeks later Harvey wrote to Secretary Windebank, to relate his misfortunes. “I am so narrowly watched,” he complained, “that I have scarce time of priviledge for these few lines, which doe humbly crave of you to acquaint his Majesty how much I groan under the oppressions of my prevayling enemies, by whom the King’s honor hath soe much suffered and who are now advanced to be my judges, and have soe farr already proceeded against me as to teare from me my estate by an unusuall way of inviting my creditors to clamour.” He wished to return to England, there to repair his fortunes and seek revenge upon his enemies, but for some time he was detained in Virginia. The new Governor thought best to keep him in the colony where it would be difficult for him to plot against the administration. Harvey wrote, “I am denyed my passage for England notwithstanding my many infirmities and weaknesses of body doe crave advice and help beyond the skill and judgment which this place can give."

“Sir John being ... layed flatt,” the Governor next turned his attention to Kemp. Sir Francis, who had strong reasons for hating the Secretary, summoned him into court to explain his offenses against Anthony Panton. Realizing that he had little hope of clearing himself, Kemp sought to leave for England, but his enemies restrained him. “I am extremely injured,” he wrote in April, 1640, “and shall suffer without guilt, unless my friends now assist me, ... the Governor and Council here ... aim at my ruin."

But Wyatt feared to retain Harvey and Kemp permanently in Virginia. Both had powerful friends who might take the matter before the King or the Privy Council. So, in the end, both made their way to England, taking with them the charter and many important letters and records. It was now their turn to plot and intrigue to overthrow the party in power. And so quickly did their efforts meet success that before Wyatt had been in office two years he was recalled and Sir William Berkeley made Governor in his place.