THE VIRGINIA HOUSE OF LORDS
Though the members of the Council must have been surprised when
Nicholson read Secretary Hedges' letter, they did not let it disturb
them. They were rid of him, and that was what really mattered. No more
could he bully them in the Council meetings, no more could he thwart
them in the General Court by packing juries, no more could he ignore
them in appointing officers, no more could he insult and revile them. As
they sat around the table with the mild-mannered Nott, they realized
with satisfaction that his personality was in strong contrast with that
of his predecessor. Perhaps it would be easy to control him and keep the
power in their own hands.
To a large extent this is just what they did. Though Nott was no
weakling, he was anxious to live in peace with both Council and
Assembly. It was said of him that his "whole study was to do everybody
justice."[1] Like other Governors when they first arrived and were
unacquainted with men and conditions in the colony, he was dependent
upon the Councillors for advice and guidance. Before he could learn the
ropes, he died. Since four years elapsed before a new Governor arrived
to take his place, the Council remained for half a decade the
controlling power in the colony. From August, 1705, to July, 1710, the
government was neither despotic nor democratic, but aristocratic.
Nathaniel Bacon, Nicholson, Spotswood, and others derided the "mighty
dons" of the Council, pointing out that they came from humble families
in England. These critics did not stop to consider that it was more to
their credit to have won by their own efforts positions of wealth and
power than to have inherited them. Virginia itself offered them the
opportunity, but it was they who seized it.
The group of well-to-do planters whom the Council represented, in the
early years of the eighteenth century were far from numerous. "In every
river there are from ten to thirty men who by trade and industry have
gotten very competent estates," wrote Colonel Quary. "Out of this number
are chosen her Majesty's Council, the Assembly, the justices, and
officers of the government."[2]
It must have been a humiliation to such proud men as William Byrd II,
"King" Carter, and Benjamin Harrison that they were not admitted to the
English peerage. But though there were no dukes, nor lords, nor knights
among the Councillors, they had the right to certain titles which
carried great distinction. The term "esquire" was given to members of
the Council, and was invariably used by them in signing legal documents.
If a man were not a Councillor, yet was prominent and wealthy, he had
the right to sign himself "gentleman." The holders of high office in the
militia--colonels, lieutenant colonels, majors, and captains--prized
their titles highly and used them in conjunction with "esquire," or
"gentleman."[3]
Nor did the English nobility command greater respect than did the
members of the Council in Virginia. When a certain Humphrey
Chamberlaine, of Henrico County, became angry with William Byrd I, and,
stripping off his coat, drew his sword as if to attack him, he was
arrested and clapped into jail. At his trial he excused himself by
saying he was a stranger in the country and ignorant of its laws and
customs. But the court, ruling that no one "could be insensible of the
respect and reverence due so honorable a person as Colonel Byrd," fined
him five pounds sterling.[4]
Although the basis of the wealth of the aristocracy was land, the
holding of large tracts did not in itself bring riches unless the owner
could find the labor necessary to work them. During most of the
seventeenth century indentured workers were used extensively. But their
cost and the fact that they served but four or five years limited the
return they brought their masters. With the importing of slaves in large
numbers in the last two decades of the seventeenth century and the first
third of the eighteenth century, the cost of raising tobacco was greatly
lowered. This not only doubled or tripled existing fortunes, but created
many new ones. It is this which explains why the Virginia aristocracy,
which so late as the last decade of the seventeenth century was little
more than a group, by the mid-eighteenth century had become a numerous
class.[5]
In their mode of life the aristocracy consciously imitated the English
country squires. The large libraries which they accumulated served
practical as well as cultural ends. The wealthy man who wished to build
a residence pored over James Gibbs' _A Book of Architecture_, or Abraham
Swan's _The British Architect_. In laying out his garden he consulted
Kip's _English Houses and Gardens_, or John James' _The Theory and
Practice of Gardening_. On his shelves were English books on law,
medicine, religion, agriculture.
Fortunately some of the mansions of colonial Virginia have survived the
ravages of time, fires, and wars, to bear witness to the charm and
dignity of the plantation life of two centuries ago. Carter's Grove,
Mount Airy, Gunston Hall, Westover, Brandon, and others constitute
history in brick and wood. The lovely gardens, some of which have been
restored in recent years, are in the formal style of Le Notre and Rose.
The mansions were furnished with tables, chairs, bookcases by the
English masters; on the tables were pitchers, goblets, and candlesticks
by English silversmiths. The aristocrat dressed himself and his family
in the latest English fashions, owned an English-made coach, imported
English race horses, perhaps sent his son to Oxford, when he visited
England had his portrait painted by Lely or Kneller.
It was inevitable that in so small a group as the early Virginia
aristocracy there should be frequent intermarriages. In 1717 half of the
members of the Council were related to each other by blood or marriage.
James Blair and Philip Ludwell were brothers-in-law of Nathaniel
Harrison; William Byrd's wife was the niece of Ludwell; William Bassett
and Edmund Berkeley had married half-nieces of Ludwell; Ludwell's wife
was Harrison's sister. Governor Spotswood habitually referred to them as
"the family."
It was wrong, Spotswood pointed out, that a group of relatives should
wield such power. Since they all sat on the General Court, it was to be
expected that they would vote as a unit if the interests of any one of
them were involved. "Whoever has lived here and frequented the General
Courts held of late in Virginia, has abundant reason to know that there
is a strong link of relatives on the bench, who by their majority have
the determination of all causes," he wrote in 1718. "When one of their
kindred is charged with enormous crimes, clerks may safely keep back the
examination, and sheriffs keep back the witnesses.... When the King has
been plaintiff in a civil action against one of that family, the cause
could not be tried for want of judges to make up a bench exclusive of
those who were akin to the defendant."[6]
One wonders how long Governor Nott would have put up with this kind of
thing had not death overtaken him. Despite his desire to work in harmony
with the Council, there is evidence that he had no intention of letting
them ride over him roughshod. This became evident when they tried to
take the patronage out of his hands. "I do believe the Council have a
mind to dispute with me the making of the collectors of the two
shillings per hogshead," he wrote the Lords of Trade. "Their pretence is
that it is said in my instructions I shall not make them but by advice
of Council. Now they have a mind to turn several out and put in their
own relatives. And that is not my turn of temper."[7]
When he asked the advice of the Council before reappointing naval
officers, they objected to Major Arthur Allen, Colonel Miles Gary, and
Colonel William Wilson. But when nothing of consequence was brought
against them, the Governor insisted on continuing them. At the same time
he shook off responsibility by refusing to renew their commissions until
he had instructions to do so from the Lord Treasurer.[8]
Whatever resentment the Councillors bore him for this was forgotten when
he championed their plea that they should not be forbidden to become
naval officers. "I think this instruction very strange," he wrote the
Lords of Trade. "To be deprived of those few places of profit ... brings
the consequence that the good men are very indifferent to being one of
the Council. I hope you are of opinion that this restriction may be
taken off."[9]
The Governor thought it his duty to defer to the Council in most of his
appointments to lesser offices. "I have directed new commissioners of
peace," he wrote the Lords of Trade, "and not knowing persons yet, I
left the nomination of justices solely to the Council. I have continued
the former escheators since there was no objection to them."[10]
When Nott first took over the government, he found the colony divided
against itself. The people as a whole were overjoyed to get rid of
Nicholson, but a group made up no doubt of men who had received favors
at his hands, resented his removal. When an election was held for a new
Assembly, opposing candidates were put up by the pro-Nicholson and
anti-Nicholson factions. Although the latter won an overwhelming
victory, enough Nicholson men were returned to continue the old feuds
and hatreds. Governor Nott made his opening address an appeal for peace.
It was his earnest hope, he said, that all animosities be laid aside,
and that the only contention be as to who should be most obedient to the
Queen and most serviceable to the country.[11]
Despite this plea the pro-Nicholson faction presented under the guise of
a grievance a resolution which was in reality a reproof of the six
members of the Council who had presented the charges against the
Governor. No one should take upon himself to represent to the Queen the
grievances of the colony without the consent of the House of Burgesses,
it said. No thanks, but rather a check should be given to those that had
done so against the late Governor. But they met with a severe rebuff. So
far from approving, the House ordered the so-called grievance to "be
burnt under the gallows by the sheriff of York County as a mutinous,
seditious, and scandalous paper."[12]
Though there is no evidence that Nott tried to render the Burgesses
submissive to his will by bribing them with offices, the Assembly
thought this a golden opportunity to weaken the Governor's appointive
power. Some could recall Berkeley's Long Assembly, and all had been
witnesses of the shameless way in which Nicholson had handed out jobs.
So they passed a bill requiring each county court to nominate three men,
all of them justices, from whom the Governor was to select one as
sheriff, who was to serve not more than two years. Had not Nott been so
anxious to avoid any conflict with the Assembly, he would certainly have
vetoed this bill, for not only did it restrict his power of appointment,
but it infringed upon the royal prerogative.
But he balked when the House sent up a bill to require the Governor, in
appointing the justices of the peace, to secure the assent of the
Council, or at least five of them. He thought they were going too far in
this attempt to deprive the Governor of the patronage, leave him at the
mercy of the Council and Assembly, and make him a mere figurehead. When
the Lords of Trade heard that he had vetoed this bill, they wrote
congratulating him. "The restraining Governors from making justices ...
is entrenching on prerogative, and you may be assured it will not be
approved here. In all other plantations the power of appointing and
removing justices of the peace is solely in the Governor.... But it
would be prudence in the Governor to advise for his better
information."[13]
When the Assembly met again, in April, 1706, they made a daring attempt
to weaken the Governor's power by passing a substitute law for the
famous Act of 1680 which gave a perpetual revenue to the Crown. The new
bill bore the disarming title of "An Act for raising a public revenue
for the better support of the government ... and for ascertaining the
salary of the Council." Nott apparently saw nothing alarming in it, but
Colonel Quary at once suspected that it was intended to weaken the Act
of 1680, and perhaps set a precedent which would eventually give the
House control of the revenue from the export duty on tobacco.
"These topping men" were merely waiting an opportunity to have the old
law damned, he wrote the Lords of Trade. "Had the Assembly only designed
to have augmented and added to the Queen's revenue, why could they not
make an act of it without damning and destroying the former act? And
that your Lordships may see the snake in the grass, please observe that
the Assembly are pleased to appropriate the Queen's revenue as they
think fit, a thing never pretended to before, and to limit and confine
her Majesty from disposing of her own money.... Whereas in a former act
the Queen was graciously pleased to appropriate L370 to be divided among
the Council for attendance, in this act they have ordered otherwise ...
by which they have tied up the Queen's hands from giving any part of her
bounty but according to their pleasure."[14]
When this bill came before the Board of Trade they referred it to
Attorney General Harcourt and Solicitor General Montague. Although these
astute men, as we have seen, gave it as their opinion that the old act
had been passed in a way "contrary to the present method," and should be
superseded by a new one, the Board decided to let sleeping dogs lie. So
they advised the Queen to veto the Act of 1716. "'Tis hoped it will
never be revived by any Governor who has at heart the interests of the
Crown, and wishes that people should distinguish between what they owe
to the indulgence of the Sovereign and what they may claim as their
right by the laws of Virginia," wrote Governor Spotswood several years
later.[15]
The climate of Virginia, which was fatal to so many newcomers from
England, took a heavy toll of Governors. Lord De la Warr fell a victim
to the Virginia sickness; Herbert Jeffreys died after having been in the
colony only a few months. Now, on August 23, 1706, death ended the brief
administration of Governor Nott. He was mourned by the people, and was
buried in Bruton Parish churchyard with all the solemnity the colony was
capable of. "Had it pleased God to have spared him but a little time
longer amongst us, he would have healed all those unhappy differences
that have of late made us uneasy, and united us again to be one people,"
wrote William Bassett.[16]
When the Council met after Nott's death they opened his commission and
listened intently as it was read. And there was great satisfaction when
they found that in the event of a Governor's death the Council was to
take on themselves the administration of the government. But they were
far from happy that Colonel Edmund Jenings, as the senior Councillor,
was to preside at their meetings with such powers as were necessary in
"carrying on the public service." They insisted that the Attorney
General of the colony, in drawing up the first proclamation under the
new government, should issue it, not under the name of the President
alone, but of the President and Council.[17]
Jenings wrote to the Lords of Trade to ask just what his status should
be. Their answer was decisive. The instruction that the Council should
take over the government upon the death of a Governor had caused many
controversies between the President and the Councillors and had greatly
hindered public business. So they altered it to read: "The eldest
Councillor do take upon him the administration of the government ... in
the same manner ... as other our Governor should do."[18]
Francis Nicholson had written the Lords of Trade some years previously
expressing doubts as to the wisdom of making any member of the Council
the chief executive. "There may happen great disputes about the person
of the President and his powers. And may be when the President and the
Council are all natives or else entirely settled here, nature and
self-interest may sway them to do some things and pass some acts that
may be (as they will imagine) for the good of their country and make and
secure an interest with the people. This may be prejudicial to their
Majesties' service."[19] No doubt the Lords of Trade saw the force of
this reasoning, but they were not prepared to keep a Lieutenant Governor
in Virginia whose only function it would be to wait around ready to step
in when the Governor died or was recalled.
Although the other members of the Council seem to have regarded Jenings
with something like scorn, and one of them had spoken of him as "the
right noble little Colonel Jenings," the man had had a distinguished
career. He had been clerk of the York County court, collector of the
York River district, commissioner for the College of William and Mary,
member of the Council, Attorney General, and Secretary. And now, as
President of the Council, he seems to have laid aside former
animosities, and considered himself merely first among equals.
It was taken for granted that Jenings' administration would be brief,
and that a new Governor would come over as soon as one could be
appointed. Word had come that a commission had been drawn up for Colonel
Robert Hunter, and that he had sailed from Portsmouth in June, 1707. But
month after month passed and he failed to appear. As late as March,
1708, the Council was wondering what had become of him. At last they
heard that the vessel in which he had shipped had been taken by the
French, and that he was held captive in France. So they had to wait two
more years before a Governor arrived.[20]
This suited President Jenings and the Council, for it left them in
undisputed control of the government. They even refused to hold an
Assembly for fear it might question their proceedings. It is true that
six times they set the date for a meeting of the Assembly, but six times
they postponed it. At last, when people began to question whether these
frequent postponements did not put an end to the Assembly, the Council
settled all doubts by dissolving them by proclamation.
This was a dangerous thing to do, for it was in the midst of the War of
the Spanish Succession, and an Assembly was needed to provide funds for
the defense of the colony. But the Council gambled that no French fleet
would appear in the Chesapeake Bay. The normal expenses of the
government--their own salaries and those of the President, Auditor,
Attorney General, and other officials--they paid out of the export duty
on tobacco and the quit rent fund. In September, 1708, Jenings wrote
that privateers had come in between the capes and had chased a merchant
vessel up the York River, that the Indians were threatening the
frontier, that the Governor's house was unfinished, and that the quit
rent fund was "much drained," but that despite all, the Council would
not call an Assembly.[21]
In December, 1709, Lord George Hamilton, Earl of Orkney, was appointed
Governor General of Virginia. Orkney had been trained as a soldier, and
had distinguished himself at Namur, Blenheim, Malplaquet, and elsewhere.
It is probable that it was intended from the first that the office
should be a sinecure, and though Orkney held it for years he never set
foot on Virginia soil. But Virginia had to pay his salary, for his
L1,000 a year was taken out of the export duty on tobacco. To carry on
the administration in the colony Colonel Alexander Spotswood was made
Lieutenant Governor.
It would seem that in the years from the recall of Nicholson to the
arrival of Spotswood, the danger to liberty in Virginia came less from
the Throne than from the Council. A free people could not be quiet under
the rule of a body of twelve men, not chosen by the voters but appointed
by the sovereign.
The average planter, not only the owner of only a few acres, but the man
of means had reason to be alarmed. Was it consistent with the principles
of English liberty, they must have asked, for a clique of wealthy men,
many of them united in one family, to have such power over their lives
and their property? If the people were to rule, final authority must be
vested in the House of Burgesses, not the Council.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] CO5-1315, Bassett to Perry & Co., Aug. 30, 1706.
[2] CO5-1314, Doc. 63iv.
[3] Hugh Jones, _The present state of Virginia_, ed. R. L. Morton, 93.
[4] P. A. Bruce, _Social life of Virginia_, 133
[5] T. J. Wertenbaker, _The planters of colonial Virginia_, 155-160.
[6] CO5-1318, Spotswood to Lords of Trade, March 20, 1718.
[7] CO5-1340, Doc. 15.
[8] _Ibid._
[9] _Ibid._, Doc. 19.
[10] CO5-1316, p. 450.
[11] _Journals of the House of Burgesses_, 1702-1712: 131.
[12] _Ibid._, 147.
[13] CO5-1362, March 26, 1707.
[14] CO5-1315, Quary to Lordships, Sept. 1, 1706.
[15] CO5-1317.
[16] CO5-1315, Aug. 30, 1706.
[17] _Executive journals of the Council_ 3: 119, 120.
[18] CO5-1362, p. 121.
[19] CO5-1314, Doc. 15.
[20] CO5-1362, pp. 336-340.
[21] CO5-1362, pp. 318, 325.