RECONSTRUCTION AND DESPOTISM
When the news of Bacon's Rebellion reached Charles II he thought it past
belief that "so considerable a body of men, without the least grievance
or oppression, should rise up in arms and overturn the government." He
did not stop to consider that he himself, by giving away huge areas in
the colony to favorites, was in part responsible, or that the passage of
the Navigation Acts and the consequent precipitous break in the price of
tobacco could be called a grievance. As for Berkeley's policy of rule by
placemen, if he knew anything about it, he could but reflect that he
himself had set the example.
But he realized that something had to be done, not only to restore
order, but to remove at least some of the causes of discontent. So he
appointed Colonel Herbert Jeffreys, Sir John Berry, and Colonel Francis
Moryson a committee to go to Virginia to enquire into all grievances and
report back to him. As for Berkeley, though he was to retain the title
of Governor, he was ordered to return to England "with all possible
speed." During his absence Jeffreys was to be Lieutenant Governor, with
all the powers of Governor.[1]
The King then drew up a proclamation, which he directed Jeffreys to
publish in the colony, stating that he was willing to extend his royal
compassion to all except Bacon who would return to their duty and
obedience, and authorizing the Governor in his name to pardon all he
thought "fit and convenient for our service."[2] But he mingled force
with leniency by placing a thousand well-equipped men under Jeffrey's
command. For the second time within twenty-five years an English
expedition set sail to bring the Virginians to "obedience." Berry and
Moryson, with part of the army, arrived in the James River in January,
1677, and Jeffreys soon followed with the rest.[3]
They found the colony in a deplorable condition. With the people bitter
and sullen, with neighbor arrayed against neighbor, with hundreds of
houses and barns in ashes, with trade disrupted, there was need for
unselfish and statesmanlike guidance. There should have been an
immediate restoration of the rule of law, so that no man could be made
to suffer without a trial before his peers. There should have been an
election of Burgesses, in which the people could make their choices
without pressure from the Governor and the Council. There should have
been an honest effort to assuage flaming resentments, to give heed to
the people's grievances, to unite all classes in binding up the wounds
of war and bringing peace and some measure of prosperity to the
distracted colony.
The situation was not unlike that in the South at the close of the War
between the States. And as the South, after the assassination of
President Lincoln, was left a prey to vultures--the so-called
Carpetbaggers and Scaliwags--Virginia after the collapse of Bacon's
Rebellion, was sacrificed to the vindictiveness and greed of Berkeley
and his supporters.
"Two wrongs do not make a right." Though a loyalist may have suffered
severely by the plundering of rebel bands, he was not justified in
trying to make good his losses by robbing a neighbor, even though that
neighbor had sided with Bacon. But the Governor, instead of insisting
that his friends seek restitution only through the courts, himself was
foremost in making illegal seizures. When he returned to Green Spring,
the sight of his plundered house and barns, and the empty meadows where
once hundreds of cattle and sheep had grazed drove him to fury. He
showed "a greedy determination thoroughly to heal himself before he
cared to staunch the bleeding gashes of the woefully lacerated country,"
by seizing men's "estates, cattle, servants, and carrying off their
tobacco."[4] Some of the wretched men who were dragged before him he
threatened with hanging unless they gave him most or all that they
owned. A certain James Barrow was imprisoned at Green Spring, where "by
reason of the extremity of cold, hunger, loathsomeness of vermin," he
was forced to agree to the payment of a ruinous composition.[5]
The King's commissioners received a cool reception from Berkeley. He
wanted no investigation of the causes of the rebellion, he wanted no
interference with his hangings and seizures. He pointed out that he had
suppressed the rebellion before the arrival of the troops, and pretended
to be surprised that the King had thought it necessary to send them.[6]
When the commissioners told him that illegal seizures must stop, he flew
into such a rage that they decided that future communication with him
should be by writing. This would avoid the "loud and fierce speaking"
necessitated by his deafness.[7]
But there must have been "loud and fierce speaking" indeed when the
commissioners went to Green Spring and showed Berkeley the King's
proclamation of pardon, and the order that he return immediately to
England. All his life Berkeley had regarded the King's command as
sacred. To resist his will was as wicked as it was illegal. But now, on
flimsy pretexts, he deliberately disobeyed him. He postponed his
departure for three months, declaring that the word "conveniency" gave
him the right to remain as long as he wished. He did publish the
proclamation, but here again he found an excuse to balk the King's
obvious intent to pardon all save Bacon. Issuing a proclamation of his
own he "saw fit" to exempt from pardon not only a long list by name, but
all persons then in prison charged with rebellion. Since the jails were
overflowing, this left scores of miserable men trembling for their
lives.
So the trials and executions continued. Gyles Bland, despite the
pleading of influential friends in England, was hastened off to the
gallows. When Robert Jones showed the wounds he had received fighting
for the King in the Civil War, Moryson pleaded with Lady Berkeley to
intercede for him. "I would with more easiness of mind have worn the
canvas linen the rebels said they would make me glad of," replied this
proud lady.[8] Yet she weakened, and the Governor did pardon him. Others
were not so fortunate. Not until the Assembly requested him "to hold his
hand from all other sanguinary punishment," after a score or more had
paid the extreme penalty, did he put an end to the executions.[9]
Yet the Assembly was overwhelmingly loyalist. If we may believe William
Sherwood most of the Burgesses were Berkeley's "own creatures and chose
by his appointments before the arrival of the commissioners."[10] In the
elections intimidation and even fraud were used freely. Jeffreys wrote
that the Assembly "by reason of the unsettled condition of the country
was not so legally nor freely elected."[11] In Charles City County a
petition was posted on the courthouse door demanding a new election on
the grounds that there had been illegal voting.[12]
As was to be expected, this Assembly backed Berkeley in all he had done
and was doing. They praised his wisdom, bravery, justice, and integrity.
They did their best to block the commissioners in their inquiry into the
causes of the rebellion. When the people presented their grievances they
were denounced as "libellous, scandalous, and rebellious."[13] Many
former rebels were forced to make humble submission on their knees
before the Governor and Council, with ropes around their necks.[14] Some
were attainted, some were banished. To speak ill of the Governor and
Council was made a high crime punishable by whipping.
The people were deeply angered by the brutality of the Governor and his
puppet Assembly. Governor Notley, of Maryland, thought that, should a
leader appear who was bold enough to risk his neck, "the commons of
Virginia would enmire themselves as deep in rebellion as ever they did
in Bacon's time."[15] Many a sullen planter eyed his fusil longingly, in
the hope that Lawrence might emerge from the forests to head a new
mutiny.[16] "The putrid humor of our unruly inhabitants are not so
allayed, but that they do frequently vent themselves ... and were they
not awed by the overruling hand of his Majesty would soon express
themselves by violent acts," wrote Secretary Nicholas Spencer.[17] That
the Assembly was not unconcerned at the danger is shown by their
re-enacting in much the original form of several of Bacon's reform laws.
Berkeley and his friends treated Jeffreys with contempt. "A pitiful
little fellow with a periwig," Philip Ludwell called him.[18] But it
took a woman's spite to give him the greatest insult. When the
commissioners heard that at last Berkeley was about to leave for
England, they called on him at Green Spring. On leaving they found the
Governor's coach waiting for them at the door. They did not realize that
Lady Berkeley was peeping through "a broken quarrel of glass to observe
how the show looked." But they were horrified to learn on reaching their
destination that the coachman was the "common hangman." "The whole
country rings of ... the public odium and disgrace cast on us, as the
Exchange itself shortly may," they wrote.[19]
It was on May 5, 1677, that Berkeley sailed for England on the
_Rebecca_. The passage, though quick, was a terrible one for him. As he
paced the deck, he could but reflect that the time was at hand when he
must account to his royal master, not only for the failure of his
administration, but for his flagrant disobedience. By the time he
reached England the "tedious passage and grief of mind" had reduced him
to great weakness. But he pleaded for an opportunity to "clear his
innocency." If it is true, as was whispered about, that word reached his
ears that the King had said that that old fool had hanged more men in
that naked country than he for the murder of his father, it must have
broken his heart. He died on July 13, 1677, and was interred at
Twickenham.
Berkeley's departure did not bring peace to the distracted colony. The
loyalist faction had spread the report that Jeffreys was merely Sir
William's deputy, that he could not exercise the full powers of
Governor, and would retire upon his return. To refute these rumors
Jeffreys issued a proclamation a few days before Berkeley left, formally
taking over the government. In it he declared that he had as much power
as any other Governor, and warned all men against belittling his office.
And he put his finger on the very foundation of the Berkelean system
when he declared that he would strive to reform, regulate, and redress
"all apparent abuses, oppressions, excesses, and defects in the power,
practice, and proceedings of all county courts."[20]
But reform was just what the loyalists did not want. They wanted the
grievances of the people suppressed, the county courts to be packed with
their friends; they wished to continue their illegal seizures. The
leader of this group was the colorful and vigorous Lady Berkeley. She
held such frequent meetings at her home that the loyalists became known
as the Green Spring Faction. Here came Colonel Edward Hill, "a great
oppressor, of unparalleled impudence"; Philip Ludwell, Lady Berkeley's
future husband; Robert Beverley, who Jeffreys declared had risen from a
"mean condition" by toadying to Berkeley; and others.[21]
As they sat in the spacious hall where the Assembly had met after the
burning of the statehouse in Jamestown, they denounced Jeffreys as a
nincompoop, who was not worth a groat in England, as a liar, as a "worse
rebel than Bacon." They would secure compensation for their losses
despite all he could do. So they planned their strategy. Lady Berkeley
was to strike terror into the people by threatening dire things when Sir
William returned. Nor did they relax their efforts when word of
Berkeley's death reached the colony. It was known that Lord Culpeper was
his successor, so Lady Berkeley gave it out that he was her close
friend, and promised great favors upon his arrival. To plead their cause
in England they engaged Captain Alexander Culpeper, Lady Berkeley's
brother.[22]
After Berkeley's departure Jeffreys had called for the election of a new
Assembly to meet October 10, 1677. Unfortunately, at this moment, when
he was most needed, he became ill. Early in September a letter from the
Privy Council to the Governor and Council had been received, making void
Berkeley's proclamation of February 10, which had excepted so many
persons from the royal pardon. Had Jeffreys been a well man he would
certainly have published this letter immediately and relieved the people
from their fear. But the Council urged him to conceal it for the
present, and being weak and in bed, he yielded. This daring defiance of
the King's orders had an important effect on the election, for the
people were still trembling for their lives and property, and so were
bullied by the sheriffs into returning loyalist Burgesses. Daniel Parke
reported that there had been illegal elections in James City County,
Kent, and elsewhere.[23]
It was in October that Parke arrived from England and delivered to
Jeffreys a letter from Secretary Coventry, telling him that Berkeley had
died and that Culpeper had kissed the King's hand as Governor. Even then
the Council was opposed to the publication of the King's order to void
Berkeley's proclamation, protesting that it had been procured by
misinformation. But the contents leaked out, and there was bitter
resentment at the delay. Most of the Assembly demanded its publication.
At last, when Jeffreys and Parke had won over a majority of the Council
to the view that it would be unwise to trifle further with the royal
command, the two Ludwells flung themselves away in "a seeming passion."
But there was great relief and widespread rejoicing among the
people.[24]
The Assembly met at Middle Plantation, the site of Williamsburg, in the
house of Captain Otho Thorp. Despite the irregularity of the elections
it showed a far greater spirit of independence than its predecessor. It
passed a law against making unreasonable compositions for injuries done
during the rebellion; it imposed a penalty for the use of such terms as
traitor, rebel, or rogue; it forbade the impressing of cattle, boats, or
provisions without compensation; it regulated fees.[25] But it placed a
crushing burden on the prostrate colony by levying a tax of 100 pounds
of tobacco per tithable. "This, with the county and parish tax is in
some counties 250 pounds, in some 300, and in some 400, which falls very
heavily on the poorer people," Parke reported.[26]
The Thorp house rang with protests when Robert Beverley, who was clerk
of the Assembly, reported that the King's commissioners had taken their
journals, orders, and acts from him by force. In a vigorous protest to
Jeffreys, they declared this a great violation of their privileges. This
seizure we "humbly suppose his Majesty would not ... command, for that
they find not the same to have been practiced by any of the Kings of
England." So they asked Jeffreys to give assurance that such a thing
would not happen again.[27]
When this was reported to Charles II he was surprised at the presumption
of the Assembly in calling in question his authority. Referring the
matter to the Lords of Trade, he asked them what he should do to bring
the Assembly to a sense "of their duty and submission." The Lords
thought that the protest tended to rebellion, and that the Governor
should rebuke the Assembly and punish the "authors and abettors."[28]
Charles issued the order, but later, on the earnest plea of the Virginia
Council, rescinded it. But he insisted that the protest be "razed out of
the books of Virginia."[29] It was a strange twist of fate which caused
an attempt by the King to investigate the grievances of the people to
result in what may be considered the opening act of the Second Stuart
Despotism in Virginia.
In the meanwhile, during Jeffreys' illness, Thomas Ludwell presided over
the meetings of the Council. So the King's commands were ignored, and
the plundering, confiscations, and banishing continued. "Great numbers
of poor men, having wives and children to maintain," faced utter
ruin.[30] The lengths to which the Green Spring Faction was prepared to
go is illustrated by a statement of Colonel Edward Hill at one of their
gatherings. One of those present remarked that William Byrd would
certainly win a case pending in which he was involved because he was in
England and could secure the King's backing. "That will not do," said
Hill, "for if the King should send in his letter, in that case we are
not to take notice of it."[31]
This is just what they did when Charles wrote in behalf of Sarah
Drummond, widow of William Drummond. This poor woman made the long
voyage across the ocean to lay her case before the King. So great was
Governor Berkeley's hatred of her husband, she said, that he had not
only taken his life, but had seized his small plantation for his own use
and forced her to flee with her five small children into the woods,
where they might have starved had not the commissioners befriended
them.[32] Moved by her misfortunes, the King sent an especial command
that her property be returned. But when she brought an action in the
General Court against Lady Berkeley, and the King's letter was read, one
of the Councillors, turning to the crowd in the courtroom, declared in a
loud voice that it was based on nothing but lies. "So they dismissed the
case."[33]
In the meanwhile, Jeffreys had sufficiently recovered his health to
strike back at his enemies. He had tried to win them over by appointing
them to collectors' places and doing them other favors, but without
success. So at last he retaliated upon Beverley by ousting him from his
civil and military offices and "silenced him from pleading in the
courts."[34] When Philip Ludwell's many insults were reported to
Jeffreys he had him arrested and charged him with "scandalizing the
Governor and abusing the authority of his Majesty." This was a serious
matter indeed, for the penalty was whipping or the payment of a fine of
500 pounds of tobacco. The jury pronounced Ludwell guilty, and asked the
Council to fix the punishment. Since most of the Council were Ludwell's
warm friends, Jeffreys appealed the case to the King. Ludwell countered
by appealing to the Assembly. In the end it was decided that the whole
case, including the matter of appeal, should be left to his Majesty.[35]
But in the summer of 1678 Jeffreys again became ill, and the Green
Spring Faction renewed the "old exactions and abuses." William Sherwood
reported: "The colony would be as peaceful as could be wished except for
the malice of some discontented persons of the late Governor's party,
who endeavor by all the cunning contrivances that by their artifice can
be brought about, to bring a contempt of Colonel Jeffreys, our present
good Governor.... It is to be feared unless these fiery spirits are
allayed or removed home, there will not be that settled, happy peace and
unity which otherwise might be, for they are entered into a faction
which is upheld by the expectation of my Lord Culpeper's doing mighty
things for them."[36]
Jeffreys died on December 17, 1678. A well-meaning man, who tried to
rule justly, he lacked the strength of character needed to bring peace
to the colony. With an army at his command, he should have put Governor
Berkeley on board ship and sent him to England when he refused to obey
the King's commands. This would have prevented many hangings, relieved
the fears of the people, and given pause to the Green Spring Faction.
But Jeffreys knew that Berkeley's brother, Lord John Berkeley, was in
high favor with the King, and he dared not offend him.
Jeffreys' wife came from England to join him, but she was just in time
to say a farewell, for he was seized with a violent sickness four hours
after her arrival and died soon after.[37] So bitter were the Green
Spring Faction against him that they tried to prevent the payment to his
widow of L1,200 due him for nine months' salary, and to charge her with
all the perquisites he had received. When, as a consequence, she could
not meet all his obligations, they imprisoned her for debt. It was only
by appealing to Secretary Coventry that she received the arrears due her
and was able to free herself from the power of her enemies.[38]
Upon the death of Jeffreys, Sir Henry Chicheley produced a commission as
Deputy Governor given him in 1674. Chicheley was a "most loyal, worthy
person, and deservedly beloved by the whole country."[39] He had been a
Burgess, a member of the Council, had commanded the Virginia forces in
the Indian war, had remained loyal to Berkeley during the rebellion, and
had been imprisoned by Bacon. But he was now "old, sickly, and crazy,"
and lacked the vigor to force obedience and restore order. During the
eighteen months of his administration the old factions were not
reconciled to one another.[40]
Yet Chicheley, to the extent of his ability, ruled impartially and well.
At the election of 1679 he insisted that the people be protected from
intimidation at the polls. As a result the Assembly showed a spirit of
independence and a desire to rectify the people's grievances. A degree
of democracy was introduced into local government by an act empowering
the voters of each parish to elect two men to sit in the county courts
in the making of by-laws. A limit was put to fees demanded by the
collectors of customs and the clerks of the courts. The claim of the
Green Spring Faction for compensation for their losses was referred to
the next session.[41]
In May, 1680, Lord Culpeper arrived in Virginia after a tedious passage
of two and a half months, in which scurvy and other diseases took a
heavy toll. Chicheley handed over the government to him and the
reconstruction period came to an end.
The patriotic Virginian, as he looked back over the years from the
collapse of Bacon's Rebellion to the arrival of Culpeper must have seen
in them nothing but confusion and disaster. The colony was divided
against itself, the most pressing of the people's grievances had not
been redressed, many families had been reduced to poverty, the right to
vote was denied to hundreds, taxes were higher than ever, and tobacco
was still a drug on the market.
Yet important changes were taking place which gave reason for hope.
During Berkeley's administration the newly created aristocracy, the men
of wealth, the leaders in their own counties--the Ludwells, the Parkes,
the Custises, the Coles--had worked in close alliance with the Governor.
The common people, on the other hand, lacked leaders to guide them in
their struggle for their rights. But with Berkeley's departure the
aristocrats, so far from allying themselves with his successor, came
into violent conflict with him. And the Governor now assumed the role of
the people's friend and protector.
So engrossed were the Virginians in their own disputes that their
attention was diverted from events in England, events that were to
affect them profoundly. For many years Charles II had lived in
comparative peace with his Cavalier Parliament, maintaining his
mistresses in luxury despite the meagerness of his revenue. But the rise
of the Whig Party under the leadership of the able Earl of Shaftesbury
was now threatening to undermine his power. All London was in terror
when Titus Oates came forward with a wild story that the Catholics were
plotting to bring in Irish and French troops, massacre the Protestants,
and murder the King. The Whigs were demanding the exclusion from the
succession of Charles' Roman Catholic brother James, and some actually
proposed that the King divorce his Catholic wife and marry a Protestant.
Faced with the loss of his prerogatives, the indolent King struck back.
His father had tried to free himself from dependence on Parliament by
illegal taxation; he by sacrificing England's foreign interests for
French gold. In March, 1678, Charles negotiated a secret treaty with
Louis XIV in return for L300,000. Now he was in a position to thumb his
nose at the Commons when they tried to control and thwart him. It was
the beginning of the Second Stuart Despotism.[42]
The change was immediately reflected in colonial policies. The old
Council of Plantations, and its successor the Council of Trade and
Plantations had done little to supervise and control the conduct of
affairs in America. But in December, 1674, after the fall of the Cabal
Ministry, the direction of colonial matters was turned over to a
committee of the Privy Council, presided over by the Secretary of State.
In this way the King's most trusted ministers were brought into close
touch with the colonies. Sir Joseph Williamson, Secretary from 1674 to
1678, was a most obedient servant of the King; his fellow Secretary, Sir
Henry Coventry, had defended Charles I on the field of battle, and now
defended his son before the public; Sir Leoline Jenkins was called "the
most faithful drudge of a Secretary that ever the Court had."
We have no way of knowing whether these men, in their assault on liberty
in the colonies, were merely carrying out the commands of Charles II and
James II, or whether on their own initiative they shaped colonial policy
in accord with domestic policy. In either case it was the Second Stuart
Despotism in England which was responsible for the Andros despotism in
New England, and for the equally dangerous attack on liberty in
Virginia.
It was prophetic of what was to come that Secretary Coventry, in
January, 1678, read to the Committee on Foreign Affairs a series of
proposals concerning Virginia. Three companies of soldiers were to be
left in the colony, a fort was to be erected "whereby the King may be
safe from rebellions," all laws were to be sent to England for revision.
The last proposal was an innovation of serious import.[43] The
Virginians had never questioned the right of the King to veto the acts
of Assembly, but never before had he demanded the right to revise laws
already on the statute books.
Of even greater significance was the initiation of bills by the King.
Charles wrote Culpeper that whereas certain laws had been recommended to
him in Council of which he approved, "these bills we have caused to be
under the Great Seal of England, and our will is that the same bills ...
you shall cause to be considered ... in our Assembly of Virginia ... and
to these bills you do give and declare our royal assent." One was an act
of general pardon, one an act for naturalization, and the other an act
for raising a public revenue.[44]
This was accompanied by an attempt to deprive the Assembly of the right
to initiate legislation. Culpeper was commanded to send to the King a
draft of such bills as he and the Council should think fit to be passed,
so that he could go over them and return them in the form he thought
they should be enacted in. "Upon receipt of our commands you shall
summon an Assembly and propose the said laws for their consent."[45]
As though this were not enough, Charles demanded the sole power,
heretofore exercised by the Governor, of calling sessions of the
Assembly. "It is our will and pleasure that for the future no General
Assembly be called without our special directions, but that, upon
occasion, you do acquaint us by letter with the necessity of calling
such an Assembly, and pray our consent and directions for their
meeting."[46]
The King struck a fatal blow at the control of justice in Virginia by
the people, by depriving the Assembly of its privilege of acting as the
supreme court of appeals. "Our pleasure also is that for the better and
more equitable administration of justice in our said colony, appeals be
allowed in cases of error from the courts ... to our Governor and our
Council there, and to no other court or jurisdiction whatsoever."[47]
Although Thomas Culpeper had been too young to fight in the Civil War,
he donned a suit of armor with breastplate, shoulderpieces, and
brassarts, to have his portrait painted. But the face is not that of a
warrior. It is draped by the flowing hair of the Cavalier, has a
prominent nose and a weak mouth with the trace of a sneer. Culpeper had
followed Charles into exile, and with the Restoration had expected
compensation for his losses. But since there was not enough to go round
among all the hungry Cavaliers, the King repaid him at the expense of
his subjects in Virginia, first with the Arlington-Culpeper grant, and
then by making him Governor of Virginia.
The outlook for the colony was gloomy. The King was determined to
override the people's rights and make himself absolute. Culpeper was
interested in filling his pockets. The Green Spring Faction were still
seeking to make good their losses at the expense of the rebels. The
common people were suffering from the high taxes and the low price of
tobacco.
The King had as much trouble in getting Culpeper to sail for Virginia as
he had had in making Berkeley come back to England. My Lord had no
desire to exchange London for the forests of Virginia; he had little
interest in carrying out his instructions. All he wanted was his salary
and anything he could make out of the Northern Neck. At last, after two
years of dillydallying, the King told him that unless he sailed at once
he would remove him as Governor. So in February, 1680, he left the Downs
with the tobacco fleet.[48]
On his arrival at Jamestown, the members of the Council and other
leading planters flocked around him, eager to give their version of the
troubles in the colony and to secure his support. When the Council met,
Culpeper was assured that the King had been misinformed on many points
by Moryson and Berry. Philip Ludwell was a loyal, honest servant of the
King, and should be restored to his place in the Council. Injustice had
been done to Colonel Hill, and they begged the new Governor to intercede
for him.[49]
As for the King's rebuke to the Assembly for questioning his right to
seize their records, the Council advised Culpeper not to present it. To
do so would "unravel and disturb the good and cheerful settlement we are
now in by your Excellency's great prudence and conduct."[50] So they
induced him to suspend the rebuke until the King should order to the
contrary.
Culpeper seems to have brought a degree of peace to the contending
factions. The act of pardon ended the plundering of the estates of the
former rebels, and the aggrieved loyalists were encouraged to seek
redress through the Assembly. Colonel Spencer wrote that the "late
different interests" had been "perfectly united to the general
satisfaction of all."
United the people had to be to defend their liberties. When the wealthy
landholder and the humble owner of but fifty acres, the loyalist and the
former rebel alike realized that Charles was bent on reducing both
Council and Assembly to impotence, their domestic quarrels seemed
unimportant compared to the public danger.
Since the statehouse at Jamestown was still in ashes, the Assembly of
June, 1680, crowded into the house of Mrs. Susanne Fisher. Some of the
Burgesses had come on horseback from their James City or Charles City
plantations, others by shallops from the Upper James, still others from
the far-off Eastern Shore. A sturdy, stubborn group they were, like
other Burgesses before and after them, determined to uphold the rights
of the people.
They were dismayed, then, when Governor Culpeper placed before them the
three bills prepared and signed by the King. What right has he or the
Privy Council to introduce bills in this Assembly? they asked. And they
were especially concerned over the King's demand for a perpetual
revenue.
There had existed since 1661 a law for laying a duty of two shillings
for every hogshead of tobacco exported from the colony. But the revenue
was to be disposed of by the Assembly. It was they who decided whether
it should be used to pay the Governor's salary, or to defend the colony
against the Indians, or for repairing the statehouse, or for paying the
salaries of the Burgesses. Now the Privy Council took it upon themselves
to draw up a similar act, but differing from the old one in one
all-important respect--it specified that the returns should go, not to
the Assembly, but "to the King's most excellent Majesty, his heirs and
successors forever."
The debate which followed was long and bitter. Every man in the
Assembly, whether Burgess or Councillor, knew that the King was
demanding the surrender of their birthright.[51] So they replied to the
Governor: "The House do most humbly desire to be excused if they do not
give their approbation to his Majesty's bill."[52] And when the matter
was brought again before them by the Governor, they refused even to
resume the debate.
But Culpeper knew that he would be severely blamed by Charles if he did
not succeed in forcing this bill through. Returning to the attack he
pointed out that the King claimed the right of disposing of all
revenues. Moreover, they were in no position to defy him, for he had it
in his power to ruin most of them by demanding all arrears of quit
rents. We do not know how many lucrative jobs Culpeper handed out to
bring the reluctant Burgesses around, but he himself tells us that he
won over one influential member by the promise of a seat in the
Council.[53]
In the end the King had his way. The Burgesses made two minor
amendments, and then passed the bill. When it came before Charles again,
he vetoed one of these amendments, and allowed the other. A quarter of a
century later, when the Board of Trade asked Attorney General Simon
Harcourt and Solicitor General James Montague to pass on the validity of
the act, they reported that it had been put through irregularly. "It
would be wise," they said, "if any part of her Majesty's revenue depends
on this act, to have another in its place."[54]
Yet the act was permitted to stand, and the cause of self-government in
colonial Virginia suffered its greatest reverse. No longer could the
Assembly force the Governor to sign this bill or that by refusing to
vote his salary. No longer did they hold a sword over the heads of the
Council. It is true that they still retained in part their grip upon
the purse, since the export duty together with the quit rents seldom met
even the ordinary needs of the government, and were entirely inadequate
in times of emergency. It is this which explains why such notable gains
for liberty were made during the colonial wars. Yet from this time until
the Declaration of Independence the Virginia Assembly had to fight the
royal prerogative with one hand tied behind its back.[55]
Having secured the passage of the King's three laws, Culpeper rested on
his laurels. He seems to have yielded to the plea of the Council not to
deliver the King's rebuke to the Assembly. If he ever told the Council
of his instruction to initiate bills with their advice and secure the
King's approval before sending them to the House, they must have argued
that it was impractical. They had no desire to have representative
government in the colony made a mockery. Were the Burgesses to have the
right of amending bills? they must have asked. If so, would the amended
bills have to go back to England for the King's approval? Under such
conditions, it might take years to enact the simplest laws. So this
instruction was ignored.
Equally impractical was it to secure the King's permission before
calling an Assembly. In case of a sudden emergency it might be fatal to
wait until the Governor had written to Secretary Coventry, until he had
taken the matter up with his Majesty, until some vessel sailed and had
made the tedious voyage to Virginia. If the need were the outbreak of
war with the Indians, half the colony might be scalped before the
Assembly could meet to raise men and money for arms and forts. So
Culpeper ignored this instruction also.
As for the instruction to forbid appeals from the General Court to the
Assembly, the Governor kept it to himself. Three years later, at an
inquiry held on his neglect of his office, he explained: "Having some
thoughts of getting a revenue bill to pass, I was unwilling actually to
repeal the laws relating thereunto till the next session of Assembly
should be over, well knowing how infinitely it would trouble them."[56]
As soon as the Assembly had been dismissed Culpeper made ready to return
to England, after having been in Virginia only a few weeks. Yet for his
supposed services he had been receiving L2,000 a year from the revenues
of the colony ever since the death of Berkeley.[57] Not content with
this, he contrived to rob the English soldiers who had remained in
Virginia after Bacon's Rebellion of more than L1,000. These men had
received no pay for many months, and were discontented and mutinous.[58]
So the Privy Council gave Culpeper money to satisfy them and the
families on whom they had been quartered. On his arrival he bought up
all the worn Spanish pieces of eight he could find, arbitrarily
proclaimed them legal tender at six shillings, which was a shilling more
than they were worth, and then paid the soldiers and landlords. But
before his salary became due, he restored the ratio to five to one.[59]
In 1682 news reached England of a series of tobacco-cutting riots in
Virginia. The glut of tobacco in the English warehouses and its
consequent low price had convinced the people that a restriction on the
output was necessary. It was to be a kind of soil bank, though without
the subsidy. When this failed because Maryland refused to join in, angry
mobs went from plantation to plantation, cutting down the tender plants.
Fearing that this might be the beginning of a new rebellion, the Privy
Council ordered the reluctant Culpeper to go back at once to suppress
the riots and punish the ringleaders.[60]
Culpeper arrived in December, 1682. Finding that the riots were over, he
contented himself with hanging two of the most notorious of the plant
cutters, and then hastened back to England. By this time Charles had
lost patience with him for his neglect of his government, the Attorney
General was ordered to take action against him, and his commission as
Governor of Virginia was declared void. In September, 1683, Lord Howard
of Effingham was made Governor in his place.
Effingham was well fitted to carry out the King's attack on liberty in
Virginia. Deceitful, persistent, unscrupulous, he would have ridden
roughshod over the people's rights had he not encountered the determined
resistance of the House of Burgesses. No sooner had he arrived than the
struggle began.
When the Assembly met in April, 1684, he put on his peer's coronet and
velvet and ermine robes, and told the Burgesses that he intended to
enforce the King's order to prohibit appeals to the Assembly. This was
received with dismay. They appealed to Effingham and the Council to join
them in an address to the King imploring him to restore a privilege
enjoyed from the earliest times. But in vain. "It is what I can in no
part admit of," was Effingham's curt reply. Since this made the General
Court the last court of appeals in Virginia, the structure of justice
became aristocratic rather than democratic.
Future Governors had reason to regret this change, for it added greatly
to the influence of the Council, and the day was not distant when the
Council was to become so powerful as to threaten to make the Governor a
mere figurehead. It was the Council which was to be responsible for the
dismissal of Andros and Nicholson. Governor Spotswood, in his bitter
quarrels with the Councillors tried to undermine their power by striking
at their judicial privileges, but he failed, and he too was forced out
of office by their influence.
Even more alarming to the people than the ending of appeals to the
Assembly was an order from the King that certain causes arising in the
courts be referred to England for decision. The Burgesses protested.
Such a thing would be "grievous and ruinous," they said, and would
involve delays and great expense. Moreover, they could not find that
appeals to England had been allowed "from the first settling of the
colony." When Effingham and the Council refused to join them, they sent
their petition to the King as the protest of the Lower House alone.[61]
But James II, who had succeeded to the throne on the death of Charles in
February, received their appeal with contempt. In the new instructions
to Effingham drawn up in October, 1685, he wrote: "Whereas ... our
Committee of Trade and Plantations ... have received from some unknown
persons a paper entitled An Address and Supplication of the General
Assembly of Virginia to the late King ... which you have refused to
recommend as being unfit ... we cannot but approve of your
proceedings.... And we do further direct you to discountenance such
undue practices for the future, as also the contrivers and promoters
thereof."[62]
At this dark hour, when American liberty hung in the balance, the
Burgesses were quick to repel any attempt to tax the people without
their consent. In May, 1688, they stated that they had received "many
grievous complaints" that unlawful fees had "under color of his
Majesty's royal authority" been unjustly imposed upon the people. They
protested especially against a fee of 200 pounds of tobacco for affixing
the great seal of the colony, a fee of 30 pounds of tobacco for
recording surveys of land, and a fee of L5 for escheats.[63]
And they were adamant in refusing repeated demands for permission for
the Governor and Council by themselves to levy a tax even though a very
small one. "Your Lordships will ... find their total denial that the
Governor and Council should have any power to lay the least levy to ease
the necessity for so frequent Assemblys," Effingham wrote the Committee
of Trade and Plantations in February, 1686. "This was propounded by me
to them before his Majesty's instructions came to hand ... but nothing
would prevail, nor I believe will, unless his Majesty's special command
therein."[64]
There was consternation in the Assembly when they learned that the King
was attempting to build up a revenue independent of the Burgesses by
increasing the returns from the quit rents. This tax on land, for such
it really was, had always been paid in tobacco. In 1662 the Assembly had
fixed the rate of payment at twopence a pound, which at that time
approximated the current price. But the decline in the value of the leaf
had greatly lessened the value of the returns. So in 1684 the King
ordered Effingham to accept only specie, "that is to say in money and
not in tobacco or in any other commodity."[65] Since tobacco was then
selling at a halfpenny a pound, this would have quadrupled the value of
the quit rents, imposed a heavy burden on the impoverished country, and
strengthened the authority of the Governor.
The controversy over this matter led to another and a more serious
encroachment on the rights of the people, for when the Assembly refused
to repeal the law of 1662, the King voided it by proclamation. Having
heard that "persons go about ... imposing bad tobacco upon our
collectors at the rate of 2d per pound, under pretence of an act of
Assembly ... we have thought fit to repeal the said act."[66] Upon
receipt of this order Effingham sent for the Burgesses to meet him in
the Council Chamber. When they filed in he soon found that they were in
no mood to yield. Not only did they again refuse to repeal the law of
1662, but they "rudely and boldly disputed the King's authority in
repealing laws by proclamation."[67] Moreover, they pointed out, it was
impossible to pay in pounds or shillings since there were not enough in
the entire colony. This argument was unanswerable, and in the end the
Governor was forced to assent to a compromise by which the tax was to be
paid in tobacco, but at the rate of one penny per pound instead of two.
The difference in the theories of government held by Charles and James
on the one hand, and the people of the colony on the other was brought
into focus by a dispute over the King's right to revive a law by
repealing a law which had repealed it. When James revived a law of 1680
concerning attorneys by annulling the repealing law of 1682, the
Burgesses rose as one man in angry protest. "A law may as well receive
its beginning by proclamation as such a revival," they said. "Some
Governor may be sent to govern us who under the pretence of the liberty
he hath to construe prerogative and stretch it as far as he pleaseth,
may by proclamation revive all the laws that for their great
inconveniences to the country have been repealed through forty years
since."[68]
The Councillors as well as the Burgesses must have been startled when
Effingham in reply told them that the King had the right to nullify or
revive what laws he pleased, since the only authority the Assembly had
to legislate at all rested on a grant from the Throne. They had been
under the impression that the right of the people to make laws through
their representatives was inherent in all Englishmen. If it were a grant
from the King, which the King might at will withdraw, liberty in America
rested on a shaky basis indeed. In an address to Effingham they stated
that they did not dare "to say what is prerogative and what is not,"[69]
but they made it clear that when prerogative was stretched so far that
it threatened to enslave them, they would resist by every means within
their power.
Despots throughout the years have feared a free press, and have either
prohibited printing or controlled it for their own purposes. So it was
in keeping with the spirit of the Second Stuart Despotism that Charles
and James would allow no press in Virginia. It was in 1682 that John
Buckner, a prominent merchant and landowner of Gloucester County, and a
member of the House of Burgesses, employed William Nuthead to set up a
printing establishment at Jamestown. But they had picked an inauspicious
time for their venture. Nuthead was ordered to appear before the Council
"to answer for his presumption in printing the acts of Assembly ... and
several other papers without licence." The Council ordered that "for
prevention of all troubles and inconveniences that may be occasioned
through the liberty of a press ... Mr. John Buckner and William Nuthead
the printer enter into bond for one hundred pounds sterling ... that
from and after the date hereof nothing be printed by either of them ...
in this colony until the signification of his Majesty's pleasure shall
be known."[70]
His Majesty's pleasure therein was a foregone conclusion. "Whereas we
have taken notice of the inconvenience that may arise by the liberty of
printing in Virginia," stated Charles in his instructions to Effingham,
"no person is to be permitted to use any press for printing upon any
occasion whatsoever."[71] So Nuthead took the press to Maryland and for
nearly half a century Virginia was without a printer.[72]
The quartering of troops upon the people has been a serious grievance
wherever it has been practiced. People object to having rough soldiers
thrust into their homes, to disrupt their daily life, or perhaps to
create disorders. When the British troops sent over to suppress Bacon's
Rebellion were quartered on the people, there were bitter complaints.
"Instead of being a guard and safety" to us as was intended, "they have
by their long stay and ill behavior not only been totally useless, but
dangerous," and the greatest of our terrors.[73] To make matters worse,
complaints came in to the Assembly from Isle of Wight, York, James City,
and Nansemond Counties that payments for quarters were in arrears by six
months or more. So it was with thanksgiving that the people received the
announcement that the money to pay for the quarters had arrived from
England together with orders to disband the troops.[74]
Effingham was even more brazen than Berkeley in using the patronage
openly to force obedience to the King. Berkeley ruled chiefly by
rewarding those who did as he told them; Effingham by punishing all who
opposed him. To acquiesce in everything he proposed was the only way for
one to retain one's job. William Sherwood and Colonel Thomas Milner, for
forwarding an address of the Burgesses to the Privy Council, were
dismissed from office. Mr. Arthur Allen was "turned out of all
employment, civil and military" to his great loss, "he being a surveyor
of land at that time."[75] Effingham himself explains why. He was "a
great promoter of those differences between me and the Assembly
concerning the King's negative voice ... as not thinking it fit that
those who are peevishly opposite to his Majesty's interest should have
any advantage by his favor."[76]
Another prominent member of the House of Burgesses, Mr. Charles
Scarburgh, was "turned out of all employment, and as a mark of his
Lordship's displeasure, a command was sent to the clerk of the county to
raze his name out of the records as a justice of peace."[77] Mr. William
Anderson, Scarburgh's colleague from Accomac County, must have been even
more active in opposing the Governor, for when the session of 1688 was
over he had him "put in the common jail," where he was "detained seven
months without trial, though often prayed for.... Nor could he obtain
the benefit of habeas corpus."[78]
"From whence the people conclude these severities are inflicted rather
as a terror to others than for any personal crimes of their own," it was
said, "and is of such ruinous consequence that either the public or
particular interests must fall, for if none oppose, the country must
languish under the severity of the government, or fly into mutiny to
save themselves from starving. If any do appear more zealous in
prosecuting the country's complaints they know what to expect. It being
observable that none has been thus punished but those who were forward
in the Assembly to oppose the encroachments on the people, and promote
the complaint to England, being out of hope of relief on the
place."[79]
In Virginia, as in England, there was much dissatisfaction at the
accession of the Roman Catholic James II. Many would have preferred
Charles' illegitimate son, the Duke of Monmouth. When news came that he
had raised the standard of revolt, had landed in Dorset, had gathered an
army of rustics, and was marching on London, some did not hesitate to
express their sympathy. Effingham wrote that "so many took liberty of
speech upon the rebellion ... that I was fearful it would have produced
the same here."[80] But when he issued a proclamation forbidding "false,
seditious, and factious discourse and rumors," and made "some examples,"
quiet was restored. The defeat of the rebels at Sedgemoor, the bloody
revenge taken by James, and the execution of Monmouth ended all hope for
the time being.
But Effingham's proclamation could not prevent news of what was
happening in England from reaching the people. In Ireland James was
recruiting a Catholic army under a Catholic general. At home he was
replacing civil and military officers by Catholics. To remove all
restrictions on Catholics he issued declarations of indulgence, giving
freedom of worship to dissenters and Catholics. He converted two Oxford
colleges into Catholic seminaries, and ousted the Fellows of Magdalen to
make room for Catholic successors.
These events were soon reflected in Virginia. It was noted that when
important offices in the government became vacant, Effingham filled them
with Catholics. Both of his appointees to the Council were members of
the Roman Catholic Church--Colonel Isaac Allerton and Colonel John
Armistead. That several justices of the peace refused to take the oath
of allegiance "through scruple of conscience" in 1691, after James had
been deposed, shows that the Governor tried also to pack the county
courts with Catholics.
The people watched these developments with resentment, mixed with fear.
The shudder of horror which had gone through England a few years before,
when Titus Oates accused the Jesuits of a "hellish plot" to fire London,
conquer the country with Irish and French armies, and massacre the
Protestants, was still fresh in men's minds. Perhaps his story is not
false after all, it was whispered. Perhaps the plan may still be carried
out. Think of what has just happened in France, where thousands of men
and women, for refusing to give up their faith were driven into exile or
thrown into loathsome prisons with criminals, starved, and beaten. Are
we sure that it will not be our turn next?
The Assembly which met in April, 1688, reflected the ugly mood of the
people. They were determined to redress the grievances which poured in
from one county after another. The Governor's appeal for aid for New
York and for a bill to prohibit the exportation of loose tobacco
received scant consideration. "Debates of grievances jostled out most
other matters," reported Nicholas Spencer.[81] When the Council
requested a conference on the tobacco bill, the House countered with a
proposal for a conference on the people's wrongs. But their message was
couched in such bitter terms that the Council thought "no success could
be expected from a conference agitated with heat and resolvedness."[82]
Nor would the Council join the Burgesses in an address to Effingham for
redress of "the many grievous oppressions this poor country at present
groans under." Thereupon the House drew up a petition to the King which
they entrusted to Philip Ludwell to deliver. Before James could reply,
he was forced to flee from England, and it was only in February, 1689,
that the petition came before the Council of State.
Such was the situation when Effingham left Virginia "for recovery of his
health by change of air." He may have realized also that the air of
Virginia was becoming unhealthful for him in more sense than one, for
had he not left it is possible that the people might have risen in arms
and sent him home. Several years later, when Francis Nicholson asked the
Council whether "if his Excellency my Lord Effingham had stayed" the
country would not have been in trouble? they replied in the affirmative.
"The country were in great dissatisfaction ...and there was great cause
to doubt that some disturbance would have been."[83]
But it was only in the spring of 1689, some months after his departure,
that an uprising actually occurred. Then it was touched off by a weird
story told by a stray Indian to some of the settlers on the northern
frontier of a plot by Jesuits and Indians to attack Virginia and
Maryland. No less than 10,000 Senecas and 9,000 Nanticocks were under
arms, he said, ready to cut off all the Protestants. As the report
spread from plantation to plantation, the outlying families fled in
terror, while men gathered volunteers by beat of drum. We must defend
ourselves in arms, they said, since no reliance can be placed on the
Council or even on the county magistrates, for most of them are
Catholics.
The Council thought the story of the Catholic plot "only a gloss to
their rebellious purposes." In October, 1688, James had sent word to
Effingham that William of Orange was preparing to invade England, and
had ordered him to place the colony in a posture of defence.[84] It was
to seize this opportunity to rise against the government, rather than
the imaginary Indian plot, that had made them take up arms, the Council
thought. Preferring not to take sides in a matter which could be settled
only in England, they arrested some of the ringleaders.[85] But when,
apparently on the same day, a letter came to hand from the Privy
Council, announcing that William and Mary had been proclaimed joint
monarchs of England, order was instantly restored. On April 26, 1688,
their Majesties were proclaimed before the courthouse door at Jamestown.
There were two things which the colonial Virginians dreaded--despotism
and the tomahawk. And it is significant that both were factors in the
two uprisings of the seventeenth century. In Bacon's Rebellion the
people demanded, not only protection from the savages, but an end to
Berkeley's misgovernment. If the Council was right in their
interpretation of the disorders of 1688, they, like the ousting of
Andros in New England, were a part of the Glorious Revolution. The
Council afterwards took great credit for suppressing the disorders, but
one can only surmise whether the people would have remained quiet had
not James been overthrown. We must not permit the Indian terror to blind
us to the fact that the rebellions of 1676 and 1688 were both in defense
of liberty.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] CO389.6, pp. 113, 137.
[2] H. W. Hening, _Statutes at large_ 2: 423, 424.
[3] CO389.6, p. 116.
[4] CO1-40, p. 23.
[5] CO1-40, p. 23.
[6] CO5-1371, pp. 27, 33.
[7] CO5-1371, pp. 55, 60.
[8] _Ibid._, p. 152.
[9] CO5-1371, p. 152.
[10] CO1-40, p. 43.
[11] _Bath papers_ 3: 155.
[12] CO1-40, pp. 73, 106.
[13] CO1-39, p. 38.
[14] W. W. Hening, _Virginia statutes at large_ 2: 366, 386.
[15] CO1-40, p. 88.
[16] CO5-1371, p. 132.
[17] CO1-40, p. 89.
[18] _Virginia Magazine_ 18: 12.
[19] CO5-1371, pp. 220-231.
[20] CO1-40, Doc. 53.
[21] _Bath papers_ 3: 187-198.
[22] _Ibid._
[23] CO1-42, p. 17.
[24] _Bath papers_ 3: 206.
[25] W. W. Hening, _Statutes at large_ 2: 407-432.
[26] CO1-42, Doc. 1.
[27] CO1-41, Doc. 87.
[28] CO1-42, Doc. 11.
[29] Sainsbury, 18: 129.
[30] CO1-42, Doc. 23.
[31] _Ibid._, Doc. 107.
[32] _Virginia Magazine_ 18: 2-5.
[33] _Bath papers_, 3: 168, 169.
[34] _Virginia Magazine_, XVIII, p. 20.
[35] _Bath papers_ 3: 214.
[36] CO1-42, Doc. 117.
[37] _Bath papers_ 3: 295.
[38] CO5-1355, Docs. 304, 305, 309, 370.
[39] CO1-41, Doc. 121.
[40] Sainsbury, 14: 230.
[41] W. W. Hening, _Statutes at large_ 2: 441, 443, 456.
[42] G. M. Trevelyan, _England under the Stuarts_, 396.
[43] CO1-42, Doc. 152.
[44] CO1-43, Doc. 165.
[45] _Ibid._, p. 313.
[46] _Ibid._, p. 334.
[47] _Ibid._, p. 349.
[48] CO5-1355, p. 378.
[49] CO5-1376, p. 265.
[50] CO5-1355, p. 384.
[51] _Journals of the House of Burgesses_, 1659-1693: 126.
[52] _Ibid._
[53] CO5-1356, pp. 125, 126.
[54] CO5-1315, Dec. 23, 1707.
[55] _Journals of the House of Burgesses_, 1659-1693: 134.
[56] CO5-1356, p. 142.
[57] _Ibid._, p. 56.
[58] CO1-42, p. 152.
[59] Robert Beverley, _The present state of Virginia_, ed. L. B. Wright,
89, 90.
[60] CO5-1356, p. 76.
[61] _Journals of the House of Burgesses_, 1659-1693: 228.
[62] CO5-1357, p. 58.
[63] _Journals of the House of Burgesses_, 1659-1693: 316, 317.
[64] CO5-1357, p. 95.
[65] CO5-1356, p. 282.
[66] CO5-1357, p. 113.
[67] _Ibid._, p. 126.
[68] _Journals of the House of Burgesses_, 1659-1693: 305.
[69] _Ibid._, 308.
[70] _Executive journals of the Council_ I: 493.
[71] CO5-1356, p. 271.
[72] D. C. McMurtrie, _A history of printing in the United States_,
276-279.
[73] CO5-1376, p. 285.
[74] CO5-1356.
[75] _McDonald papers_ 7: 26.
[76] CO5-1357, p. 129.
[77] _McDonald papers_ 7: 437-441.
[78] _Ibid._
[79] _Ibid._
[80] _Executive journals of the Council_ 1: 75.
[81] CO5-1357, p. 214.
[82] _Ibid._, p. 216.
[83] CO5-1306, Doc. 114.
[84] CO5-1357, p. 229.
[85] _Executive journals of the Council_ 1: 105.