THE CAUSES OF BACON'S REBELLION
There were many who hailed the restoration of the monarchy as the dawn
of an era of prosperity and happiness for Virginia. The colony, despite
the efforts of some of its people, had remained loyal to the Crown until
overpowered by force of arms. It might well expect especial favor and
care from its prince, now that he was firmly established upon his
throne.[381] Of the ability and justice of the Governor Virginia had had
ample experience during the ten years of his first administration.
Never was a people doomed to more bitter disappointment. The years which
followed the Restoration were crowded with misfortunes greater than any
that had befallen the colony since the ghastly days of the Great
Sickness. Charles II, far from showing gratitude to his Old Dominion,
overwhelmed it with injustice and oppression. The Virginians were
crushed with tremendous duties on their tobacco and with ruinous
restrictions upon their trade. The titles to their plantations were
threatened by a grant of the entire colony to two unworthy favorites of
the King. Governor Berkeley, embittered by the humiliation of the
Commonwealth period, and growing avaricious and crabbed with advancing
years, soon forfeited that respect and love which his former good
conduct had gained him. His second administration was marred by
partiality, oppression and inefficiency. The people were deprived of
their right of suffrage by continued prorogation of the Assembly. Local
government fell into the hands of small aristocratic cliques, while the
poor were ground down with unequal and excessive taxes. Two wars with
Holland added to the misfortunes of the colonists. Even the Heavens
seemed to join with their enemies, for the country was visited by a
terrific hurricane which swept over the plantations, destroying crops
and wrecking houses. These accumulated misfortunes brought such deep
suffering upon the colony that hundreds of families were reduced to
poverty and many were forced into debt and ruin. No wonder that the
commons, finally driven to desperation, should have risen in
insurrection against the Governor and the King.
First among the causes of distress during this unhappy period must be
placed the Navigation Acts. England, in the middle of the 17th century,
was engaged in an unsuccessful contest with Holland for the carrying
trade of the world. The merchantmen of Amsterdam and Flushing found
their way even to Maryland and Virginia, where their low freight rates
and the liberal prices they gave for tobacco, assured them a hearty
welcome. The exports of the colonies to England itself were not
infrequently carried in Dutch bottoms. This was a source of much anxiety
and annoyance to the British government. It seemed unjust that the
American colonies, which had been founded at such tremendous cost,
should now prove as great a source of wealth to Holland as to the mother
country. And it could not but anger the English shippers to find
themselves elbowed by these foreigners in the ports of the Bermudas or
the rivers of Virginia.
In 1651, the British Parliament, thinking it necessary to give their
merchants some protection from this lively competition, passed the first
of the Navigation Acts. Under its provisions no goods of the growth or
manufacture of Asia, America or Africa should be introduced into England
in any but English ships, of which the owner, master and three-fourths
of the sailors were English subjects; and all foreign commodities
imported to England should be conveyed directly thither from the place
of growth or manufacture.[382] This law injured the Virginians by
excluding the Dutch carriers from the tobacco trade with England and
thus causing a sharp rise in freight rates. During the early years of
the Commonwealth period it was frequently avoided, but before 1660 the
English government began to enforce it more strictly.
Nor did the people get relief with the restoration of the monarchy.
Charles II proved more solicitous that Parliament for the welfare of the
English merchants; even more indifferent to the complaints of the
colonists. A new Navigation Act was passed in 1660 which struck a deadly
blow at the prosperity of Virginia. Under its provisions all goods sent
to the colonies, even though of foreign growth or manufacture, were to
be exported from England, and all tobacco, sugar, wool, etc., produced
in the colonies, must be shipped only to England or to her
dominions.[383]
Thus were the colonies sacrificed upon the altar of greed. The new act
injured the Virginia planters in several ways. Since all their tobacco
must now be brought to English ports, they could no longer seek the most
advantageous markets. Had the demand for the commodity in England been
more elastic, the consequences of this provision might not have been
disastrous. Declining prices would have so stimulated the demand that
the English could have consumed the entire crop. But the King's customs
kept up the price to the consumer, and made it impossible for the
merchants to dispose of the vast quantities of the leaf that had
formerly gone to Holland and other countries.[384] Moreover, the
varieties sold to the Dutch were not popular in England, and could not
be disposed of at any price. Soon the market became so glutted that the
merchants refused to take more than half the crop, leaving the remainder
to rot upon the hands of the planters.
There followed in Virginia a sharp decline in prices. The Dutch had
given the colonists three pence a pound for their tobacco.[385] A few
years after the Restoration the planters considered themselves fortunate
if they could dispose of their crops at a half penny a pound. Much was
sold at a farthing.[386] Now since tobacco was the staple product of
Virginia and the main support of the people, this rapid decline in its
value was disastrous. Frequent complaints were sent to England that the
colonists could not maintain themselves and their families upon the
meagre returns from their tobacco. "Twelve hundred pounds is the medium
of men's yearly crops," wrote Secretary Ludwell in 1667, "and a half
penny per pound is certainly the full medium of the price given for it."
This made an average income for each planter of but fifty shillings.
When the poor man had paid his taxes for the necessary support of the
government, very little remained to him to clothe his wife and children.
"So much too little," he adds, "that I can attribute it to nothing but
the mercy of God, that he has not fallen into mutiny and
confusion."[387] In 1673 the Governor and the Council declared that the
colony was full of indigent persons, who could barely support themselves
with their utmost exertions.[388]
Not only did the act of 1660 depress the price of tobacco, but it
increased the already excessive freight rates. Since the bulk of the
colonial exports had now to be brought directly to England, in English
ships, the masters of Plymouth or London could double or triple their
charges. Simultaneously there occurred a pronounced rise in the cost of
manufactured goods. The far-famed skill of the Dutch workmen had made it
possible for them to produce many articles more cheaply than the
English, and to underbid them in their own colonies. But now that all
foreign goods were excluded, the planters were forced to purchase the
more expensive product of the English workshops.
Thus were the Virginians cut with a two-edged sword. At the very time
that their incomes were being diminished, they were confronted by an
increase in the cost of living. Nor could they, as Lord Baltimore
declared they might, alleviate these evils by industry and thrift. For
the more strenuous were their efforts to increase the tobacco crop, the
greater would be the glut in the English market and the more disastrous
the drop in prices.
The poor colonists found an able, but an unsuccessful advocate, in a
London merchant named John Bland. "If the Hollanders," he wrote in a
paper addressed to the King, "must not trade to Virginia how shall the
Planters dispose of their Tobacco? The English will not buy it, for what
the Hollander carried thence was a sort of Tobacco, not desired by any
other people, ... the Tobacco will not vend in England, the Hollanders
will not fetch it from England; what must become thereof?" But Charles
II, who knew little of economic matters, and cared nothing for the
welfare of the colonists, ignored Bland's convincing appeal. No
alleviation was given Virginia, and she was allowed to drift on through
poverty and desperation to rebellion.
In a vain attempt to make the colony independent of the English
manufacturers and to turn the people from the excessive planting of
tobacco, the Assembly passed a series of acts designed to encourage
local industrial establishments. It was especially desired that Virginia
should make her own cloth, for the cost of the English fabrics was
excessive.[389] To stimulate the art of spinning and weaving the
Assembly offered rewards for the best pieces of linen and woollen goods
produced in the country. A bounty was placed on the manufacture of
silk.[390] In 1666, the establishment of cloth works in each county was
made compulsory by act of Assembly.[391] "Whereas," it was declared,
"the present obstruction of trade and the nakedness of the country doe
suffitiently evidence the necessity of provideing supply of our wants by
improveing all meanes of raysing and promoteing manufactures amonge
ourselves, ... Be it enacted ... that within two yeares at furthest ...
the commissioners of each county court shall provide and sett up a loome
and weaver in each of the respective counties."[392] Nor were other
industries neglected. Tan-houses were erected in various places "to
tanne, curry and make the hides of the country into leather and
shoes".[393] Bounties were offered for the construction of vessels, in
the hope that Virginia might rival the prosperous ship-builders of New
England.[394]
These experiments added a heavy burden to the poor taxpayer, while they
accomplished little for the relief of the colony. Virginia, with its
scattered plantations and its lack of skilled artisans, could not hope
to compete with the workshops of England. The commissioners, whether
from corruption or from lack of ability, proved poor business managers,
and their ill success occasioned loud and bitter complaints.
In May, 1661, Governor Berkeley sailed for England to combat a new
design to revive the Virginia Company. It is quite probable that he took
occasion during his stay at court to protest against the Navigation
Acts.[395] But he found it impossible to turn the King and Parliament
from what had become their settled colonial policy. Ten years later,
when the Lords of Trade and Plantations asked him what impediments there
were to the improvement of trade in the colony, the Governor blurted out
the truth with his accustomed vigor. "Mighty and destructive by that
severe act of Parliament which excludes us from haveing any Commerce
with any Nacon in Europe but our owne, Soe that wee cannot add to our
plantacon any Comodity that growes out of itt ... ffor it is not lawfull
for us to carry a pipe-staff or a Bushel of Corne to any place in Europe
out of the King's dominions. If this were for his Majesty's Service or
the good of his Subjects wee should not repine what ever our Sufferings
are for it. But on my Soule it is the Contrary for both."[396]
In seeking relief from the evil consequences of the Navigation Acts the
Virginians turned to their cousins of New England.[397] And the hardy
sailors of Massachusetts and Connecticut, tempted by the high prices of
manufactured goods in the southern colonies, brought their wares into
the James, the York and the Potomac, where they entered into lively
competition with the English merchants. Nor did they hesitate, when
occasion offered, to defy the law by transporting the Virginia tobacco
to foreign markets.[398] But England was unwilling to leave the
colonists even this small loophole. Parliament decided, in 1672, to
place a duty of one penny a pound upon tobacco shipped from one colony
to another, and the payment of this duty did not give liberty to the
owners to transport it to a foreign country. This act completely
crippled the intercolonial trade. A few years later, after Bacon's
Rebellion, when the Virginia counties were presenting their grievances
to the King's commissioners, the people of Lower Norfolk requested that
the act of 1672 might be repealed. The only notice taken of their
petition was the contemptuous comment of the commissioners that it was
wholly mutinous for them "to desire a thing contrary to his Majesty's
Royall pleasure & benefitt and also against an Act of Parliament".[399]
It had been suggested, when the price of tobacco began to fall, that the
evil might be remedied by governmental restraint upon the annual crop.
The diminution of the demand for the leaf, brought about by the loss of
the foreign market, was to be met by a corresponding limitation upon the
supply. Prices would thus be restored and the planter would receive a
greater return for a much smaller output. But for this remedy to be
effective, it would be necessary to secure the coöperation of Maryland
and perhaps North Carolina, as a cessation in Virginia would accomplish
little, if no restraint were put upon the planters of the other
colonies. Moreover, since the proposed step might diminish the revenue
from the customs, it would be necessary to obtain the consent of the
King.
In 1662 many of the planters and merchants petitioned Charles II to
forbid the planting of tobacco in Maryland and Virginia for one
year.[400] At first this appeal was rejected and the colonists were
commanded to refrain from presenting similar petitions in the future.
Later, however, the Privy Council secured a reversal of this decision
and an order was issued authorizing the Assembly to appoint
commissioners to confer with the Marylanders upon the best means of
lessening the excessive crops.[401] Accordingly a meeting was held at
Wiccocomico, May 12, 1664, which recommended that the planting of
tobacco after the twentieth of June each year should be prohibited. The
report met with the approval of the Virginians and was promptly ratified
by the Assembly, but the Marylanders believed that a partial cessation
would be detrimental to their interests and their legislature refused to
give its consent.
But as prices sank lower and lower, and poverty became more general, the
Virginians once more appealed to Maryland, this time for a total
cessation for one year. Numerous letters were exchanged upon the
subject, but at first nothing was accomplished. After many months had
been consumed in useless negotiations Governor Berkeley, in the dead of
winter, himself journeyed to Maryland and at last succeeded in
convincing the leading men of that colony of the necessity of the
measure. As a result, the Maryland Assembly passed an act prohibiting
all tobacco planting in their province from February 1666 to February
1667, provided Virginia and North Carolina should do likewise.[402] The
Assembly at Jamestown promptly passed a similar law, but the North
Carolinians, owing to Indian troubles, delayed their action so long that
the Marylanders repudiated the entire agreement.
Somewhat discouraged the colonists again sent commissioners, this time
to Saint Mary's, to resume the broken thread of negotiations. Here at
last success seemed to crown their efforts, for all differences were
adjusted, and the cessation was agreed upon by the three colonies.[403]
But the joy of Virginia at this happy outcome was soon turned to grief
and indignation, for the Marylanders received a letter from Lord
Baltimore, "in absolute and princely terms prohibiting the execution of
the ... articles of cessation".
"This overtook us," wrote Governor Berkeley, "like a storm and enforced
us like distressed marriners to throw our dear bought commodities into
the sea, when we were in sight of our harbour, & with them so drown'd
not only our present reliefs but all future hopes of being able to do
ourselves good, whilst we are thus divided and enforced to steere by
anothers compasse, whose needle is too often touched with particular
interest. This unlimited and independent power ... of the Lord Baltimore
doth like an impetuous wind blow from us all those seasonable showers of
your Majesty's Royall cares and favours, and leaves us, and his own
province withering and decaying in distress and poverty.... This
unreasonable and unfortunate prohibition ... hath not only increased the
discontent of many of the inhabitants of his province, but hath raised
the grief and anger of allmost all your ... subjects of this colony to
such a height as required great care to prevent those disturbances which
were like to arise from their eluded hopes and vain expences."[404]
Can there be any doubt that the Navigation Acts and the futility of all
attempts to escape their baleful effects, were largely instrumental in
bringing on Bacon's Rebellion? As prosperity and contentment are the
greatest safeguards of the public peace, so poverty, nakedness and
distress are breeders of sedition. Philip Ludwell spoke of Bacon's army
as "a Rabble of the basest sort of People; whose Condicion was such as
by a chaunge could not admitt of worse".[405] Had England been less
selfish in her treatment of Virginia, there would not have been so many
indigent men in the colony eager to join in this wild uprising against
the government. Berkeley himself admitted, in 1673, that at least one
third of the freemen had been rendered so desperate by poverty and debt
that in times of foreign war their loyalty to England could not be
relied upon.[406]
But Charles II was indifferent to the welfare of these distant subjects
and blind to their growing dissatisfaction. Just when the situation was
most critical, he aroused their anger and grief to the highest pitch, by
making a gift of the entire colony to Lord Culpeper and the Earl of
Arlington. Previously he had granted that portion of Virginia which
lies between the Potomac and the Rappahannock rivers, known as the
Northern Neck, to Lord Hopton and several other noblemen. These
patentees were to receive fees, remainders, reversions and escheats, and
were given power to grant patents for all land that had not been taken
up. This had caused the people of Virginia, and especially those
residing in the Northern Neck, great uneasiness, and had proved a
serious hindrance to the settling of that region. The Assembly, dreading
the clash of jurisdiction which this grant made almost inevitable, had
sent agents to England to persuade the King to annul the patent, or
permit the purchase of the tract by the colony. While they were working
to this end, there came the unexpected news that Arlington and Culpeper
had received a grant of the entire colony. Without consulting in the
least the desires of the people, Charles had given them over to two
unscrupulous favorites, with the indifference he might have shown in
presenting a necklace to his mistress. The colonists, "to their
unspeakable griefe and Astonishment", felt now that they were "reduced
to a far worse condition than that wherein they had adventured their
lives and fortunes for the planting that Country under the
Company".[407]
The privileges and powers granted in this patent, had they ever been
exercised by Arlington and Culpeper, would have rendered the government
at Jamestown almost a nullity. The two lords were to receive all
escheats, quit-rents, duties and reservations belonging to the Crown;
they were given power to divide the territory into counties, hundreds
and parishes; to erect churches and present ministers to them; to make
manors, fairs, and markets; to appoint sheriffs, surveyors, and other
important officers; to issue patents for land; to appropriate to their
own use all arrears of "rents and other profits", accruing since the
year 1669.
In great alarm the Virginia Assembly directed the agents in England to
use their utmost endeavors to have this grant recalled. At the same time
they drew up a statement of their objections to the patent, showing how
unjust and ruinous were its provisions. It was in direct conflict with
numerous royal concessions and patents, given them from time to time
under the Great Seal. There was good reason to fear that the lords, by
their deputies, might impose upon them new rents and services. They
might demand new surveys and new patents for land which had long been
occupied. They might, in fact, completely devastate the government of
all its "just powers and authorities".
The agents, upon receiving these instructions, went to the Lords
Patentees to request them to resign the most obnoxious of their new
powers.[408] In case they refused, the agents threatened to appeal at
once to the King. Arlington and Culpeper received them courteously, and,
after numerous delays, consented to relinquish the patent, provided
Virginia would offer no objection to the passing of a new grant,
assuring them the quit-rents and escheated property. The agents were
well satisfied with this settlement, for it would relieve the colony of
its fear of proprietary government, while the grant of the rents and
escheats would impose little additional burden.[409]
In order, however, to prevent the giving away of such disturbing powers
in the future, they petitioned the King to grant "Letters Pattents for
the incorporacon" of the colony.[410] In this new charter they desired
first that permission be given Virginia to purchase the Northern Neck.
They next requested the King to promise that Virginia should have no
other dependence than upon the Crown of England, "nor in the future be
cantonized into parcells by grants made to particular persons". "And for
the prevention of surreptitious grants" they desired his Majesty to
promise in the charter that nothing should again pass concerning
Virginia until a hearing had been given to some person impowered by the
colony to represent their interests. Of even greater importance was
their desire, "That there shall bee no Taxe or Imposition layd on the
people of Virginia, but by their owne Consente, and that Express'd by
the Representatives in Assembly."[411]
The whole matter came before the King in Council, June 23, 1675, and was
referred to the judgment of Attorney-General William Jones and
Solicitor-General Francis Winnington.[412] In October these officers
reported that in their opinion the patent of incorporation would be
beneficial both to the colony and the King's service, and ought to be
granted. Charles thereupon gave directions that the papers be drawn up
for his signature. But here, for some unknown reason, the matter came to
a halt. Several months passed and the patent had not been issued.[413]
At last, April 19, 1676, at the urgent request of the agents, his
Majesty directed that the Lord Chancellor cause the papers to pass the
Great Seal at once. But before this could be done, news came to England
of Bacon's Rebellion, and the King immediately reversed his order.
Later, other Letters Patent were granted, but they were very different
from those sought by the agents, and contained little more than a bare
declaration of the colony's direct dependence upon the Crown of
England.[414]
This unsatisfactory business caused great irritation among the
colonists. The heavy expense of carrying on the negotiations in England
"made them desperately uneasie, especially when, after a whole Year's
Patience ... they had no Encouragement from their Agents".[415] A tax of
fifty pounds of tobacco per poll, imposed for the purchase of the
Northern Neck, aroused widespread dissatisfaction. In April, 1676,
Governor Berkeley, fully conscious of the mutterings of revolution, was
awaiting with anxiety the arrival of favorable news from the agents.
"There are divers," he wrote, "that would fain persuade the people that
al their high taxes will bring them no benefit, so that if the most
advantageous terms had been proposed to us it would have been impossible
to have persuaded the people to have parted with more tobacco til a
more certain demonstration had been given them of what is already done.
I appeased two mutinies this last year raysed by some secret villaines
that whispered amongst the people that there was nothing intended by the
fifty pounds levy but the enriching of some few people."[416] In 1677,
after Bacon's Rebellion, the King's commissioners heard from all sides
that the imposition of this tax was one of the main causes of
discontent.[417]
The wars of 1664 and 1672 with Holland added much to the distress in
Virginia. The bold Dutch mariners, angered at the injury done them by
the Navigation Acts, preyed upon the English merchantmen in every sea.
Woe to the tobacco ship that encountered a hostile privateer, in its
journey across the Atlantic! The English vessels were not safe even in
the Virginia rivers, under the guns of their forts. Twice the daring
Dutch came through the capes and into the James River itself, where they
wrought great damage to the shipping.
It was the custom, during these times of danger, for the merchant
vessels of Virginia and Maryland to cross the Atlantic in large fleets,
under the protection of English men-of-war. In May 1667, some twenty
vessels were anchored in the mouth of James River, near Newport News,
awaiting the remainder of their fleet before sailing. Three leagues
above them lay the _Elizabeth_, a frigate of forty-six guns, sent by the
King for the protection of the colony. She was undergoing repairs,
however, having become "soe disabled in her Maste and Leaky in her Hull
as that she could not keep at sea", and for the moment afforded little
proctection to the merchantmen riding below.[418]
At this juncture, a fleet of five Dutch warships, under the command of
Abraham Crimson, appeared off the coast, bent on mischief to the English
shipping. The Hollanders, learning of the exposed position of the
tobacco fleet from the crew of a shallop which fell into their hands,
determined upon a bold attack. On their way to the capes they
encountered a ship of London bound from Tangier to Virginia. The
English master, Captain Conway, "fought them very well for two hours,
but at last being wounded himself and over powered with men, was taken
by them".[419]
The Dutchmen came into Chesapeake Bay June 4, and anchored there over
night. The next morning, taking advantage of a fair easterly breeze,
they sailed boldly into the mouth of the James. In order to take their
prey entirely by surprise they flew the English colors, and as they
passed the merchantmen, hailed them in English and sang out their
soundings in English. Proceeding directly up to the unsuspecting
frigate, they threw aside their disguise with the roar of three volleys.
The captain of the _Elizabeth_ had gone ashore, to attend a wedding it
was said, and had left but thirty men on board.[420] Without officers,
and surprised by superior numbers, the sailors could make no effective
resistance. Several rushed to their guns, but they fired only one piece
of ordnance before they were forced to surrender. While some of the
Dutchmen were securing the _Elizabeth_, the others turned upon the
helpless merchantmen and succeeded in capturing the entire fleet.
Several of the ships might have saved themselves by running into the
Elizabeth River, where the enemy would not have dared to follow them,
but they seemed paralyzed with surprise and fell an unresisting
prey.[421]
Great was the grief and rage of Sir William Berkeley when news of this
disaster reached him. How could he answer to the King for the loss of
the royal frigate and twenty English merchantmen? With great promptness
and resolution he decided to fit out all available vessels in the colony
for a sally upon the enemy. In the upper James were three merchantmen
and in the York nine. If these could be supplied quickly with guns and
men, there might yet be time to defeat the Dutch and rescue the captured
ships. The Governor, who was ever reckless in exposing his person,
resolved to direct the attack himself in the good ship _Admirall_. But
some of the masters by no means relished the thought of risking their
vessels and their cargoes in a battle with the Dutch. When the Governor
impressed them into the King's service by putting the broad arrow upon
their masts, they pretended obedience, but used such delays that the
fleet could not be prepared in time. Captain Lightfoot, of the
_Elizabeth_, grieved by the loss of his ship, "very passionately
resolved to hazard himself in the _Admirall_", while several members of
the Council and forty other gentlemen volunteered their services. Upon
the shore were assembled four regiments of militia, ready to embark
should they be needed. Yet the masters continued their procrastination
day after day until the Dutch escaped.
Nor had Admiral Crimson shown any haste to be off. Soon after the battle
he had burned five or six of the merchantmen, "for want of men to man
them". It had also been necessary for him to destroy the frigate, which
was still out of repair and far from seaworthy. He had sent parties
ashore several times to secure water, which he greatly needed, but they
had been driven back with ease. After a stay of five or six days in
James River, he sailed away with his prizes, leaving the Governor to
dismiss his militia and write home his accusations against the
masters.[422]
Warned by this experience, the English government, upon the outbreak of
the war of 1672, sent two men-of-war to Virginia. These vessels, in July
1673, were stationed at the mouth of the James guarding a large fleet of
merchantmen, when news came that nine Dutch warships were approaching
the capes. Instantly preparations were made to fight them. Several of
the tobacco ships were forced into service and fitted with guns. Sailors
were taken from the smaller vessels to help man the larger. But before
all could be put in readiness the enemy came through the capes and
anchored at Lynhaven Bay.[423]
The English had as yet little apprehension for the safety of their
merchantmen, for they could at any time run under the guns of a fort at
Nansemond, or could retreat up the James while their men-of-war held
back the enemy. At this moment, however, there appeared across the
waters of the Chesapeake eight sail of the Maryland fleet, unconscious
of their danger and bearing down upon the Dutch. The English commanders
realized that only instant action could save them. Taking with them six
of the tobacco ships they sailed out to give battle.
"But before they came within reach of gun shot 4 of the merchant ships
came on ground." One turned back to the James. But the other three ships
went on, and unaided fought six of the largest Dutchmen. For three hours
the battle continued with great fury. At last Captain Gardner, one of
the English commanders, "judging that the enemy (if he checkt them not)
would be in with (the) merchant ships riding in James river ... tacked
alone upon them with Extra ordinary courage, and for at least one houre
fought them all.... But, having all his greate maste and his fore
topmast desperately wounded, and most of his rigging shot", he was at
last forced to retire. "With as much courage as conduct (and beyond the
hopes or expectation of those who saw that brave action) (he) disengaged
himselfe ... and brought off all the Marylanders but one." The Virginia
fleet, "which were neere 40 sail", secured "almost a tides way before
the enemy, which undoubtedly saved many which otherwise would have bin
lost". Some of the merchantmen took refuge at Fort Nansemond, where the
enemy dared not attack them, others retreated up the river towards
Jamestown. Unfortunately five of them, in the confusion of the flight,
ran aground and were afterwards captured. The four ships which had
grounded before the battle also fell into the hands of the Dutch. Thus,
despite the gallant conduct of the English, the enemy succeeded in
capturing a large part of the tobacco fleet.[424]
Great as was the distress caused by the depredations of the Dutch, the
planters suffered even more during these wars by the stagnation of
trade. The great risk incurred in crossing the ocean necessarily brought
an increase both in freight rates and in the cost of manufactured
goods. In 1667 the Governor and Council declared that the planters were
"inforced to pay 12 pounds to £17 per ton freight" on their tobacco,
"which usually was but at seven pounds".[425] Conditions were even worse
during the second war. In 1673 Berkeley complained that the number of
vessels that dared come to Virginia was so small, that they had "not
brought goods and tools enough for one part of five of the people to go
on with their necessary labor". "And those few goods that are brought,"
he added "have Soe few (and these hard Dealing) Sellers and Soe many
Indigent and necessitous buyors that the Poore Planter gets not the
fourth part ... for his tobacco which he usually has had in other
times."[426]
In this period, so full of suffering and misfortune, the year 1667 was
especially noteworthy for its long series of disasters. In November
Secretary Thomas Ludwell wrote Lord Berkeley, "This poore Country ... is
now reduced to a very miserable Condicon by a continuall course of
misfortune. In Aprill ... we had a most prodigeous Storme of haile, many
of them as bigg as Turkey Eggs, which destroyed most of our younge Mast
and Cattell. On the fifth of June following came the Dutch upon us, and
did soe much mischiefe that we shall never recover our reputations....
They were not gone before it fell to raineing and continued for 40 dayes
together, which Spoiled much of what the haile had left of our English
Graine. But on the 27th of August followed the most Dreadful Hurry Cane
that ever the colony groaned under. It lasted 24 hours, began at North
East and went round northerly till it came to west and soe on till it
came to South East where it ceased. It was accompanied with a most
violent raine, but no Thunder. The night of it was the most Dismall tyme
that ever I knew or heard off, for the wind and rain raised soe Confused
a noise, mixt with the continuall Cracks of falling houses.... The waves
(were) impetuously beaten against the Shoares and by that violence
forced and as it were crowded up into all Creeks, Rivers and bayes to
that prodigeous height that it hazarded the drownding many people who
lived not in sight of the Rivers, yet were then forced to climbe to the
topp of their houses to keep them selves above water. (The waves)
carryed all the foundation of the fort at point Comfort into the River
and most of our Timber which was very chargably brought thither to
perfect it. Had it been finished and a garison in it, they had been
Stormed by such an enemy as noe power but Gods can restraine.... Had the
Lightning accompanied it we could have beleeved nothing else from such a
confusion but that all the elements were at Strife, which of them should
doe most towards the reduction of the creation into a Second Chaos. It
was wonderful to consider the contrary effects of that Storme, for it
blew some shipps from their Anchors and carryed them safe over shelves
of Sand where a wherry could Difficultly passe, and yet knockt out the
bottome of a ship ... in eight foot water more than she drew. But when
the morning came and the Sun risen it would have comforted us after such
a night, had it not lighted us to ye Ruines of our plantations, of which
I thinke not one escaped. The nearest computation is at least 10,000
houses blowne downe, all the Indian Graine laid flatt upon the ground,
all the Tobacco in the fields torne to pieces and most of that which was
in the houses perished with them. The fences about the Corne fields
(were) either blown down or beaten to the ground by trees which fell
upon them & before the owners could repaire them the hoggs & Cattell
gott in and in most places devoured much of what the Storme had
left."[427]
In the midst of the second Dutch war came another scourge no less
distressing than the great hurricane. Throughout the 17th century cattle
raising was one of the most important industries of the small Virginia
proprietors. No planter, however insignificant his holdings, was without
his cow and his calf.[428] They constituted a most important portion of
his wealth, and an indispensable source of support. In the winter of
1672-3 occurred an epidemic which destroyed more than half the cattle
of Virginia. The mortality was increased by the cold, which was
unusually severe. Many men, in an effort to preserve the poor beasts,
gave them all their corn and thus brought hunger upon themselves. Before
relief came with the spring, fifty thousand cattle had perished.[429]
Perhaps the people of Virginia might have borne patiently all these
misfortunes, had their Governor ruled them with wisdom and justice.
Certain it is they would never have turned in wild anger to strike down
his government, had that government not done much to make their
condition intolerable. Sir William Berkeley was accused of destroying
the representative character of the Assembly, of initiating a notorious
spoils system, of intimidating Burgesses, of winking at embezzlement of
public funds. And, although most of these charges were brought by the
Governor's bitter enemies, some of them were undoubtedly true.
In Virginia, during this period, the commons could guard their interests
only by means of the House of Burgesses. All other organs of government
were controlled by Berkeley and his friends. The people had no voice in
the selection of vestrymen, or sheriffs, or justices of the peace, and
no control over their actions. The Council was entirely submissive to
the Governor's will. Its members not only held their seats at Sir
William's pleasure, but were the recipients of numerous other favors
that bound them closely to his interest. Thus in the executive, in all
branches of the judiciary, and in the upper house of Assembly the
Governor was all-powerful.
If then he could control the Burgesses and make them subservient to his
desires, he would remove the only obstacle to almost complete despotism.
Nor was it a matter of very great difficulty for him to gain a mastery
of the House. In every county he could nominate government candidates,
and exert tremendous pressure to secure their election. If necessary,
they might be seated by fraud at the polls or false returns by the
sheriff.[430] "It is true," Bacon declared, "that the people's hopes of
redemption did ly in the Assembly, as their Trusts, and Sanctuary to fly
to, but I would have all men consider first how poore people are
debarred of their fair election, the great men in many places haveing
the Country in their debte and consequently in their aw. Secondly how
meanly we are provided of men of Learning, ability and courage, nay
indeed of honesty, to stand up in the people's behalf and oppose the
oppressing party."[431]
And if ever, despite these difficulties, the candidates of the people
were elected, the Governor might still win their support in the House,
by a judicious use of the patronage. He controlled enough offices of
honor and profit to reward richly his friends in the Assembly. If the
Burgess was careful never to thwart the wishes of the Governor, or to
vote against his measures, he might reasonably expect a collectorship, a
sheriff's place, a commission in the militia, or possibly a seat in the
Council. A large percentage of the members of the House were
office-holders.[432]
If half the charges brought against Berkeley are to be believed, he was
guilty of instituting a system of political corruption as effective as
that maintained in France by Guizot during the reign of Louis Philippe.
He has assumed to himself, it was declared, "the sole nominating,
appointing and commissionating of all ... officers both civil and
military amongst us ... (they) being ... (the better to increase ... his
party) multiplied to a greate number.... All which offices he bestowed
on such persons (how unfitt or unskillfull soever) as he conceived would
be most for his designs. And that the more firmely to binde and oblige
them thereunto and allure others to his party, he ... permitted or
connived at the persons soe commissionated by him ... unwarrantably ...
to lay and impose what levies and imposicons upon us they should or did
please, which they would often extort from us by force and violence, and
which for the most part they converted to their owne private lucre and
gaine. And ... Sir William Berkeley, haveing by these wayes and meanes,
and by takeing upon him contrary to law the granting collectors places,
sherifs, and other offices of profitt to whome he best pleased, he soe
gained uppon and obliged all the greatest number of the men of parts
and estates in the whole country (out of which it was necessary our
representatives and Burgesses should be elected) hath there by soe
fortifyed his power over us, as of himselfe without respect to our laws,
to doe what soever he best pleased, and from time to time ... to gaine
and procure great quantities of Tobacco and mony from us to his proper
use over and besides the Thousand pounds yearly salary ... and over and
besides the fees, profitts and per quisites to the place of Governour
belonging."[433]
Bacon himself declared, in justification of his rebellion, that
oppression and injustice were rife in the colony, and that it was
useless to appeal to the Assembly for redress. "The poverty of the
Country is such," he said, "that all the power and sway is got into the
hands of the rich, who by extortious advantages, having the common
people in their debt, have always curbed and oppressed them in all
manner of wayes." The poor, he declared, were kept in such perpetual
bondage that it was not possible for labor or industry to extricate
them. The great men of the colony had brought misery and ruin upon the
common people by perverting all equity and right. The perpetual breach
of laws, remiss prosecutions, excuses and evasions, but too plainly
attested that things were carried by the men at the helm, "as if it were
but to play a booty, game or divide a spoile". "Now consider," he adds,
"what hope there is of redress in appealing to the very persons our
complaints do accuse."[434]
And when once the Governor had obtained a House that was subservient to
his will, he might, by his power of prorogation, continue it
indefinitely. During the years from the Restoration to Bacon's
Rebellion, there were not more than two general elections, and probably
only one--that of 1661.[435] Under these circumstances the Assembly
could no longer be said to represent the voters of the colony. The
Burgesses might defy or betray the people as they chose, they could not
be made to answer at the polls for their misconduct. And their is ample
proof that this Long Assembly attended more to the commands of the
Governor than to the wishes of electors that could no longer elect. Even
Sir William's best friends admitted that his authority in Virginia was
almost despotic. Secretary Thomas Ludwell, writing in 1666, declared
that the Governor was "the sole author of the most substantial part" of
the government, "either for Lawes or other inferior institutions".[436]
"Our representatives," complained the Charles City commons eleven years
later "(of which for this county in nine yeares time last past there
hath been a verry doubtful election as we conceive) have been overswayed
by the power and prevalency of ... Sir Wm. Berkeley and his councell,
divers instances of which wee conceive might be given, and have
neglected our grievances made knowne to them."[437]
That this overthrow of representative government in the colony and the
substitution of the Governor's despotic sway contributed greatly to the
anger and desperation of the people, there can be no doubt. The evidence
comes not only from the rebels and from the county grievances, but from
disinterested persons, and even Berkeley's friends. "Whatever
palliations," wrote Governor Thomas Notley, of Maryland, in 1677, "the
grate men of Virginia may use at the Councell board in England, ... yett
you may be sure ... much ... if not every tittle" of the accusations
against them are true. "If the ould Course be taken and Coll: Jeoffreys
build his proceedings upon the ould ffoundation, its neither him nor all
his Majesties Souldiers in Virginia, will either satisfye or Rule those
people. They have been strangely dealt with by their former
Magistracy."[438] William Sherwood, if we may believe his own statement,
forfeited Sir William's favor by reporting in England that "the general
cry of the country was against ye Governour". And "it is most true", he
added, "that the great oppressions & abuse of ye people by ye Governours
arbitrary will hath been ye cause of the late troubles here".[439]
The illegitimate influence of Berkeley over the Assembly was the more
galling to the people inasmuch as they had no voice in local government.
The justices of the peace, who exercised the most important powers in
the counties, received their commissions, not by popular election, but
by executive appointment. And the Governor, although often influenced in
his selections by the advice of the Council, gave little heed to the
wishes of the commons. His appointees were invariably men of means and
influence, and could be relied upon to uphold the interests of the
aristocracy and the Governor.
The justices were members of the county courts, and as such exercised
judicial, executive and legislative functions in local affairs. The
courts met every second month, and were empowered to settle cases
involving not more than ten pounds sterling.[440] Individual justices
could "try and determine any cause to the value of twenty shillings or
two hundred pounds of tobacco".[441] Far more important was the power of
the courts to impose direct taxes. The county levy was usually very
heavy. In fact, during the Restoration period, it often exceeded the
public levy voted by the Assembly. In Lower Norfolk county, during the
years from 1666 to 1683, the local assessment amounted to 188,809 pounds
of tobacco.[442] This sum seems to us now almost insignificant, but it
proved a very real burden to the indigent freemen of that unhappy
period. Yet perhaps the people would not have complained had the
assessments been voted by a body elected by themselves or representative
of their interests. They were bitterly angered, however, that they
should be taxed without their own consent and against their wishes, by
appointees of the Governor; and the sense of wrong was aggravated by the
fact that the taxes were often voted by the courts in secret session,
not without grave suspicions of abuses and fraud.[443] "It has been the
custome," it was declared in the Surry grievances, "of the County Courts
att the laying of the levy to withdraw into a private Roome by which the
poor people not knowing for what they paid their levy did allways admire
how their taxes could be so high."[444] "Wee desire," declared the
people of the Isle of Wight, "to know for what wee doe pay our Leavies
everie year and that it may noe more be layd in private."[445] From
Charles City came the most startling charges of fraud and oppression.
"The Commisoners or Justices of peace of this county," it was declared,
"heretofore have illegally and unwarrantably taken upon them without our
consent from time to time to impose, rayse, assess and levy what taxes,
levies and imposicons upon us they have at any time thought good or best
liked, great part of which they have converted to theire own use, as in
bearing their expense at the ordinary, allowing themselves wages for
severall businesses which ex officio they ought to do, and other wayes,
as by account of the same on the booke for levies may appeare."[446] The
people were even deprived, during Berkeley's second administration, of
the right of electing the vestries. These bodies had always been
composed of the foremost men in each parish. At this period they
succeeded in shaking off entirely the control of the commons by
themselves filling all vacancies in their ranks.[447] Since they
exercised the power of imposing a tax to pay the ministers' salaries and
meet other obligations of the parishes, this attempt to make themselves
self-perpetuating was a matter of no little importance.[448] The people
expressed their disapproval in the most emphatic terms, and after
Bacon's Rebellion requests came from many counties that the vestrymen
might be chosen, as formerly, by the whole body of parishioners.[449]
The unjust poll-tax, which was then used in the public, county and
parish levies, was an unending source of discontent. There can be no
doubt that it bore with too great weight upon the poor people. "They
complain," wrote Gyles Bland, on the eve of the Rebellion, "that great
Taxes are imposed upon them every yeare, by wayes very unequall, Laying
them very heavily, by the Poll, whereby the Poorer sort are in the
hardest Condition."[450] It must be remembered, however, that many of
the servants and slaves were listed as tithables, or persons subject to
the poll tax. This of course tended to increase the share of the
wealthy. Yet the inequality was very real and the burden upon the poor
very heavy. The number of tithables assessed of a man was by no means an
accurate gage of his wealth. Later in the century, with the great influx
of negro slaves, the burden upon the rich planters increased and became
more nearly proportionate to their ability to pay.
Bland suggested that all inequality might be eliminated by adopting a
land-tax. "Which," he said, "seems to be the most equal imposition and
will generally take off the complaint of the people, although perhaps
some of the richest sort will not like it, who hold greater proportions
of land than they actually plant."[451] The King's commissioners also
thought the land tax just, but considered it "impracticable there".
When the people of Warwick county asked, "That all persons may be rated
and taxed according to their Estates", the commissioners reported that
this was "a thing to be wish'd but never to be granted them". If the
King should command it, they knew not how it would be relished by the
landed men, since the common usage had been always taxing by poll.[452]
The universal discontent was still further increased by the wasteful and
lax use of public funds. The money which was wrung from the poor people
by these unequal taxes, was seldom wisely or economically expended. Much
was squandered upon foolish projects, costly in the extreme, and
impossible of accomplishment. Such was the attempt to build a city at
Jamestown. For many years it had been a matter of regret to the English
government that Virginia should remain so entirely a rural country. Not
realizing that this was but the result of exceptional economic
conditions and not a sign of weakness or decay, they sought more than
once to force the building of towns by legislative enactments. Thus, in
1662, in accordance with the King's wishes, the Assembly passed an act
providing for the erection of thirty-two brick houses at Jamestown.[453]
Each county was required to build one of these houses, a levy of thirty
pounds of tobacco per poll being laid for that purpose. This attempt was
foredoomed to failure, for if economic conditions could not develop
cities in the colony, the mere erection of houses upon the unhealthful
Jamestown peninsula could accomplish nothing. We learn from Bacon's
Proceedings that the town at the time of the Rebellion consisted of "som
16 or 18 howses, ... and in them about a dozen families (for all the
howses are not inhabited) getting their liveings by keeping ordnaries,
at extraordnary rates". That there was corruption or inefficiency in
carrying out the orders of the Assembly seems certain. The people of
Isle of Wight county complained of "the great Quantities of Tobacco
levyed for Building Houses of publick use and reception at Jamestown,
which were not habitable, but fell downe before the Finishing of
them".[454]
There were also accusations of laxness and fraud in the erecting and
management of the public industrial plants. Very grievous taxes have
been laid on the poor people, it was claimed, "for building work houses
and stoare houses and other houses for the propogating & encouragem't of
handicraft and manufactury, which were by our Burgesses to our great
charge and burthen by their long and frequent sitting invented and
proposed. Yet for want of due care the said houses were never finished
or made useful, and the propagating & manufactury wholy in a short time
neglected, and noe good ever effected ... save the particular profitt of
the Undertakers, who (as is usually in such cases) were largely rewarded
for thus defrauding us."[455]
Even more frequent and bitter complaints originated with the
construction of forts upon the various rivers to protect the colony and
the merchant ships from foreign foes. At the outbreak of the war of 1664
it was resolved to build a fortress at Jamestown. The ships' masters
were not satisfied with the selection of this site, for obviously it
afforded no protection to vessels trading upon the Potomac, York or
Rappahannock, and very little to those upon the lower James. After one
hundred pounds sterling had been expended at Jamestown, the structure
partly completed and fourteen guns brought up, the merchants procured
orders from the English government that the fort be transferred to Old
Point. The Governor and Council were most reluctant to make this change,
but the commands were so positive they dared not disobey. So the guns
were conveyed back down the river and the work begun again. But many
serious difficulties were encountered. "We have been at 70,000lb tobacco
charge," wrote Thomas Ludwell in 1667, "and have lost several men in the
worke and many of the materials by storms breaking our rafts whereon we
float the timber to that place.... After all (we) were forced to quit
the work as of impossible manage, for great were the difficulties, and
so insupportable would the charge have been."[456] A few months after,
when the Dutch captured the tobacco fleet in the mouth of the James,
this fort seems to have been deserted. It was utterly destroyed by the
great hurricane of the following August.
Thereupon it was decided to build five new forts, two on the James and
one upon each of the other great rivers. The charges for these
structures were to be borne entirely by the counties upon the rivers
they were to defend. Whether from mismanagement or dishonesty large sums
of money were expended in this undertaking with but little good effect.
Berkeley wrote that the colony lacked the skill either to construct or
maintain the forts, "We are at continuall charge," he declared, "to
repaire unskilfull & inartificall buildings." The King's commissioners
in 1677, testified that the forts were made of "mudd and dirt", and
could be of little service against the enemy.[457] At the beginning of
the Dutch war of 1672 the Assembly found them in poor condition and
incapable of offering resistance to the enemy. "For as much," it was
declared, "as the materials ... were not substantial or lasting, some
have suffered an utter demolition, some very ruinous and some capable of
repair." It was thereupon ordered that the forts be at once restored and
authority was given for new taxes to cover the cost.[458]
One at least of the reconstructed forts proved of service in the hour of
need, for it was under the guns of Nansemond that many of the
merchantmen ran in July 1673, from the pursuing Dutch men-of-war. But
the people could see in them only a pretext for increasing their taxes.
And it was quite impossible to make them believe that such sums could be
expended to so little purpose save by fraud or embezzlement. The Charles
City commons declared that great quantities of tobacco had been raised
for building forts "which were never finished but suffered to goe to
ruine, the artillery buried in sand and spoyled with rust for want of
care".[459] From James City county came the complaint that although
heavy taxes had been paid for fortifications, there was in 1677 "noe
Place of defence in ye Country sufficient to secure his Majestys
Subjects against any Forreign Invasion". The King's commissioners
substantiated this statement. "We are well assured," they said, "of the
Truth of this Complaint, and doe know that the Forts erected could be of
noe use, Endurance or defence.... Yet were they of great Expence to the
People who paid Excessively for Building them."[460]
The Assembly had from time to time sought to make the merchants trading
to Virginia aid in the defense of the colony, by imposing upon them
Castle Duties, in the form of a toll of powder and shot. The masters had
more than once complained of this duty, but as it was not very
burdensome it was allowed to remain. Had all the ammunition thus
received been used as intended by law, the people would have been saved
great expense, and the forts made more serviceable. But the
contributions, if we may believe the complaints of the people, were
often stolen by the collectors. "Notwithstanding," said the Isle of
Wight commons, "the great quantities of ammunition payd by ships for
fort duties for the countries service ... wee are forced to provide
powder and shott at our proper charges."[461] The Nansemond grievances
were more explicit in their accusations of fraud. "They Complayne that
the Castle duties, accustomed to be paid by the Masters of Shipps in
Powder & Shott for the service and security of the Country, is now
converted into Shoes and stockings &c as best liketh the Collectors of
it and disposed to their own private advantage."[462]
It would not be just to give credence to all the accusations made
against Berkeley. The King's commissioners who conducted the
investigation into his conduct, were his enemies; while many of the
charges were brought by those who had taken part in the Rebellion. Thus
the testimony against him is in most cases distinctly partisan. Moreover
those that were closely associated with Sir William often expressed
extravagant admiration for his ability and energy, and love for his
character.[463] "He hath," wrote the Council in 1673, "for neare 30
years governed this colony with that prudence and justice which hath
gained him both love and reverence from all the Inhabitants here."[464]
Singularly enough Berkeley seems to have prided himself upon his ability
as a ruler. He never forgot the compliment paid him by the people in
1660, when they insisted, even against his will, upon making him their
Governor. And long after he had forfeited their confidence and esteem he
imagined himself as popular as in his first administration. It was a
bitter blow to his pride when the commons rose against his government in
1676. His proclamations bear testimony to his pain that the youthful
Bacon should have usurped his place in the affections of the
people.[465] His letter to the King asking to be recalled from his
government was undoubtedly dictated by wounded pride. Upon the eve of
his final departure for England he did not scruple to write Colonel
Jeffreys, "I will confesse to you that I beleeve that the Inhabitants of
this Colony wil quickly find a difference betweene your management and
mine."[466]
It would be difficult to reconcile this attitude of mind with Berkeley's
oppressive administration, did we not know his views upon governmental
matters. He had never been in sympathy with republican institutions. It
was the height of folly, he thought, to allow the people to participate
either in administrative or legislative affairs. The King alone should
rule; the people's duty was to obey. It was but five years before the
Rebellion that he wrote to the Lords of Trade and Plantations, "I thanke
God there is noe ffree schooles nor printing (in Virginia)[467] and I
hope wee shall not have these hundred yeares, for learning has brought
disobedience & heresaye and sects into the world and printing has
divulged them, and libells against the best Government: God keepe us
from both."[468] A man that could utter such sentiments as these would
not scruple to throttle, if he could, all representative institutions in
his government. If he intimidated voters and corrupted the Burgesses, it
was perhaps because he thought himself justified in any measures that
would render the Governor, the King's substitute, supreme in the
government.
But whatever is the verdict of posterity upon the conduct and motives of
Sir William Berkeley, the causes of the Rebellion stand out with great
clearness:--England's selfish commercial policy, the Culpeper-Arlington
grant, the Dutch wars, storms and pestilence, inefficient if not corrupt
government, excessive taxes. The only wonder is that the insurrection
did not occur earlier. In fact two mutinies did break out in 1674, when
the excessively heavy taxes of that year were announced, but the rebels
lacked leaders and were suppressed without great difficulty.[469] As
early as 1673 the defection of the planters was so great that it was
feared many might attempt to deliver the colony into the hands of the
Dutch. Berkeley wrote that a large part of the people were so
desperately poor that they might reasonably be expected upon any small
advantage of the enemy to "revolt to them in hopes of bettering their
Condition by Shareing the Plunder of the Country with them".[470] A
certain John Knight reported "that the planters there doe generally
desire a trade with the Dutch and all other nations and would not be
singly bound to the trade of England, and speake openly there that they
are in the nature of slaves, soe that the hearts of the greatest part of
them are taken away from his Majesty".[471] Thus the downtrodden
planters, alienated from England, angered at the Governor, even
distrusting their own Assembly, waited but an occasion and a leader to
rise in open rebellion. A new Indian war offered the occasion, and they
found their leader in young Nathaniel Bacon.
FOOTNOTES:
[381] P. R. O., CO1-34-95.
[382] Scobell, Vol. II, p. 132.
[383] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, p. 357.
[384] Governor Berkeley wrote in 1666 that the King's customs from the
Virginia and Maryland tobacco would amount "unto about £100,000".
[385] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, p. 354.
[386] P. R. O., CO1-21.
[387] P. R. O., CO1-21.
[388] P. R. O., CO1-30-51. Compare Petition of Governor Berkeley, Aug.
22, 1662, CO1-16.
[389] Hen., Vol. II, pp. 120, 121.
[390] P. R. O., CO1-19; Hen., Vol. II, p. 272.
[391] Hen., Vol. II, p. 238.
[392] Ibid.
[393] Hen., Vol. II, p. 123.
[394] P. R. O., CO1-19; Hen., Vol. II, p. 178.
[395] P. R. O., CO1-16; Hen., Vol. II, p. 17.
[396] P. R. O., CO1-26-77; Hen., Vol. II, p. 315.
[397] P. R. O., CO1-24.
[398] P. R, O., CO1-30; Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, p. 357.
[399] P. R. O., CO5-1371-328; Va. Mag., Vol. III, p. 38.
[400] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, p. 389.
[401] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, p. 390.
[402] P. R. O., CO1-20.
[403] P. R. O., CO1-20. Ludwell to Arlington.
[404] P. R. O., CO1-21. Governor and Council to the King.
[405] P. R. O., CO1-37-16.
[406] P. R. O., CO1-80-51.
[407] P. R. O., CO1-34-101.
[408] P. R. O., CO1-28-20; Burk, Vol. II, Appendix XXXVI.
[409] Hen., Vol. II, pp. 518-543; Burk, Vol. II, Appendix XXXIII-LXII.
[410] P. R. O., CO1-34-95.
[411] P. R. O., CO1-34-96; CO1-34-100; CO1-33-108; CO1-34-95; Hen., Vol.
II, p. 529.
[412] P. R. O., CO1-34-100.
[413] P. R. O., CO1-36-48; Hen. Vol. II, p. 534.
[414] P. R. O., CO389.6-133 to 137; Burk, Vol. II, Appendix LXI.
[415] Beverley.
[416] P. R. O., CO1-36-37.
[417] P. R. O., CO5-1371-292, 331.
[418] P. R. O., CO1-21-61.
[419] P. R. O., CO1-21-61.
[420] P. R. O., CO1-21-63.
[421] P. R. O., CO1-21-61, 62.
[422] P. R. O., CO1-21-61, 62, 63.
[423] P. R. O., CO1-30-51, 53, 71.
[424] P. R. O., CO1-30-51, 53.
[425] P. R. O., CO1-21-61.
[426] P. R. O., CO1-30-17.
[427] P. R. O., CO1-21.
[428] This is shown by the wills of this period, many of which have been
published in the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography.
[429] P. R. O., CO1-30-17; CO1-30-51.
[430] Hen., II, p. 356.
[431] P. R. O., CO5-1371-241, 246.
[432] Bruce, Inst. Hist., Vol. I, p. 489.
[433] Va. Mag., Vol. III, pp. 135, 136.
[434] P. R. O., CO5-1371-241.
[435] P. R. O., CO5-1371-316, 319. The Assembly which met in March,
1661, was continued by successive prorogations until October, 1665. This
fact is placed beyond question by the copies of the Acts of Assembly now
preserved in the British Public Record Office. But there is no statement
in these copies that the session of June 5, 1666, had been prorogued
from an earlier date. Nor is there any indication given in Hening's
Statutes that this was not a new Assembly. (Hen., Vol. II, p. 224.)
These two omissions, then, might lead us to infer that there was a
general election in 1666. But there is other evidence tending to show
that the Assembly of 1661 was not dissolved until 1676. Thus William
Sherwood wrote during Bacon's Rebellion that the rabble had risen
against the Assembly and seemed weary of it, "in that itt was of 14
years continuance". (P. R. O., CO1-37-17; Va. Mag., Vol. I, p. 170.) The
account of the Rebellion given in the Collections of the Massachusetts
Historical Society also declares that the session had "continued
fowerteene yeares". (Mass. S. IV, Vol. IX, p. 169.) The Isle of Wight
grievances state that the people of that county had not had an election
of Burgesses for twelve years. (Va. Mag., Vol. II, p. 380.) Lists of the
members at the sessions of September, 1663, and of October, 1666, have
been preserved by Hening. Nineteen Burgesses of the Assembly of 1663
appear also in 1666; eleven have lost their seats and in their places
are fifteen new members. But this settles nothing, for it is quite
possible that if an election was held in 1666, the Governor's influence
might have secured the return of many old Burgesses. There was no
election from June 1666 to June 1676. It must remain, then, undetermined
whether the Long Assembly continued for ten or for fifteen years.
[436] P. R. O., CO1-20.
[437] Va. Mag., Vol. III, pp. 141, 142.
[438] P. R. O., CO1-40-88.
[439] P. R. O., CO1-40-43.
[440] Bruce, Inst. Hist., Vol. I, p. 542.
[441] P. R. O., CO1-20.
[442] Bruce, Inst. Hist., Vol. II, 566.
[443] Hen., Vol. II, 357.
[444] Va. Mag., Vol. II, p. 172.
[445] Va. Mag., Vol. II, p. 389.
[446] Va. Mag., Vol. III, p. 142.
[447] Bruce, Inst. Hist., Vol. I, p. 67.
[448] Bruce, Inst. Hist., Vol. I, p. 77; Hen. Vol. II, p. 356.
[449] Va. Mag., Vol. II, pp. 172, 289, 388.
[450] P. R. O., CO1-36-54.
[451] P. R. O., CO1-36-54.
[452] P. R. O., CO5-1371-315.
[453] Hen., Vol. II, p. 172.
[454] P. R. O., CO5-1371-316-19, 304-5.
[455] Va. Mag., Vol. III, p. 142; P. R. O., CO1-37-41.
[456] P. R. O., CO1-21.
[457] P. R. O., CO5-1371-292, 7.
[458] P. R. O., CO1-29-31.
[459] Va. Mag., Vol. III, p. 142.
[460] P. R. O., CO5-1371-292, 7; CO1-21.
[461] Va. Mag., Vol. II, p. 387.
[462] P. R. O., CO5-1371-330, 331.
[463] P. R. O., CO1-20, 21.
[464] P. R. O., CO1-30-71.
[465] P. R. O., CO1-37-1.
[466] P. R. O., CO1-40-54.
[467] Mr. P. A. Bruce, in his Institutional History of Virginia in the
Seventeenth Century, has shown that this statement is incorrect.
[468] P. R. O., CO1-26-77.
[469] P. R. O., CO1-36-37; CO1-36-54.
[470] P. R. O., CO1-30-51.
[471] P. R. O., CO1-30-78.