1766-1768.
Bland's Inquiry--Duties imposed by Parliament--Death of
Fauquier--Succeeded by Blair--Baptists persecuted--Blair's
Letter.
IN the year 1766 there was published at Williamsburg "An Inquiry into
the Rights of the British Colonies," from the pen of Richard
Bland.[549:A] In discussing the question, "Whether the colonies are
represented in the British Parliament?" he traces the English
constitution to its Saxon origin, when every freeholder was a member of
the Wittenagemote or Parliament. This appears from the statutes 1st
Henry the Fifth, and 8th Henry the Sixth, limiting the elective
franchise, that is, depriving many of the right of representation in
parliament. How could they have been thus deprived, if, as was
contended, all the people of England were still virtually represented?
He acknowledged that a very large portion of the people of Great Britain
were not entitled to representation, and were, nevertheless, bound to
obey the laws of the realm, but then the obligation of these laws does
not arise from their being virtually represented. The American colonies,
excepting the few planted in the eighteenth century, were founded by
private adventurers, who established themselves, without any expense to
the nation, in this uncultivated and almost uninhabited country, so that
they stand on a different foot from the Roman or any ancient colonies.
Men have a natural right to quit their own country and retire to
another, and set up there an independent government for themselves. But
if they have this so absolute a right, they must have the lesser right
to remove, by compact with their sovereign, to a new country, and to
form a civil establishment upon the terms of the compact. The first
Virginia charter was granted to Raleigh by Queen Elizabeth, in 1584, and
by it the new country was granted to him, his heirs and assigns, in
perpetual sovereignty, as fully as the crown could grant, with full
power of legislation and the establishment of a government. The country
was to be united to the realm of England in perfect league and amity;
was to be within the allegiance of the crown, and to be held by homage
and the payment of one-fifth of all gold and silver ore. In the
thirty-first year of Elizabeth's reign, Raleigh assigned the plantation
of Virginia to a company, who afterwards associating other adventurers
with them, procured new charters from James the First, in whom Raleigh's
rights became vested upon his attainder. The charter of James was of the
same character with that of Elizabeth, with an express clause of
exemption forever from all taxation or impost upon their imports or
exports. Under this charter, and the auspices of the company, the colony
of Virginia was settled, after struggling through immense difficulties,
and without receiving the least aid from the British government. In 1621
a government was established, consisting of a governor, council, and
house of burgesses, elected by the freeholders. In 1624 James the First
dissolved the company, and assumed the control of the colony, which,
upon his demise, devolved upon Charles the First, who, in 1625, asserted
his royal claim of authority over it. To quiet the dissatisfaction of
the colonists at the loss of their chartered rights, the privy council
afterwards, in the year 1634, communicated the king's assurance that
"all their estates and trade, freedom and privileges, should be enjoyed
by them in as extensive a manner as they enjoyed them before the
recalling of the company's patent." Moreover, Charles the First, in
1644, assured the Virginians that they should always be immediately
dependent upon the crown. After the king's death Virginia displayed her
loyalty by resisting the parliamentary forces sent out to reduce the
colony, and by exacting the most honorable terms of surrender. Here the
author of "the Inquiry," although exceedingly well informed in general
as to the history of the colony, falls into the common error that
Charles the Second was proclaimed in Virginia some time before he was
restored to the throne in England.
Thus Virginia was, as to her internal affairs, a distinct, independent
state, but united with the parent state by the closest league and amity,
and under the same allegiance. If the crown had indeed no prerogative to
form such a compact, then the royal engagements wherein "the freedom and
other benefits of the British constitution" were secured to them, could
not be made good: and a people who are liable to taxation without
representation, cannot be held to enjoy "the freedom and benefits of the
British constitution." Even in the arbitrary reign of Charles the First,
when it was thought necessary to establish a permanent revenue for the
support of the government in Virginia, the king did not apply to the
British parliament, but to the assembly of Virginia, and sent over an
act under the great seal, by which it was enacted, "By the king's most
excellent majesty, by and with the consent of the general assembly,"
etc. After the restoration, indeed, the colonies lost the freedom of
trade which they had before enjoyed, and the navigation act of 25th
Charles the Second not only circumscribed the trade of the colonies with
foreign nations within very narrow limits, but imposed duties on goods
manufactured in the colonies and exported from one to another. The right
to impose these duties was disputed by Virginia; and her agents, in
April, 1676, procured from Charles the Second a declaration, under his
privy seal, that "taxes ought not to be laid upon the inhabitants and
proprietors of the colony but by the common consent of the general
assembly, except such impositions as the parliament should lay on the
commodities imported into England from the colony." But if no protest
had been made against the navigation act, that forbearance could in no
way justify an additional act of injustice. If the people of the
colonies had in patience endured the oppressions of the English
commercial restrictions, could that endurance afford any ground for new
oppressions in the shape of direct taxes? If the people of England and
of the colonies stood, as was contended, on the same foot, being both
equally and alike subjects of the British government, why was the trade
of the colonies subject to restrictions not imposed on the mother
country? If parliament had a right to lay taxes of every kind on the
colonies, the commerce of the colonies ought to be as free as that of
England, "otherwise it will be loading them with burdens, at the same
time that they are deprived of strength to sustain them; it will be
forcing them to make bricks without straw." When colonies are deprived
of their natural rights, resistance is at once justifiable; but when
deprived of their civil rights, when great oppressions are imposed upon
them, their remedy is "to lay their complaints at the foot of the
throne, and to suffer patiently rather than disturb the public peace,
which nothing but a denial of justice can excuse them in breaking." But
a colony "treated with injury and violence is become an alien. They were
not sent out to be slaves, but to be the equals of those that remain
behind." It was a great error in the supporters of the British ministry
to count upon the sectional jealousies and clashing interests of the
colonies. Their real interests were the same, and they would not allow
minor differences to divide them, when union was become necessary to
maintain in a constitutional way their rights. How was England to
prevent this union? Was it by quartering armed soldiers in their
families? by depriving the colonists of legal trials in the courts of
common law? or by harassing them by tax-gatherers, and prerogative
judges, and inquisitorial courts? A petty people united in the cause of
liberty is capable of glorious actions--such as adorn the annals of
Switzerland and Holland.
The news of the repeal of the stamp act was joyfully welcomed in
America, but the joy was premature; for, simultaneously with the repeal,
parliament had declared that "it had, and of right ought to have, power
to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever." Townshend,[552:A]
afterwards chancellor of the exchequer, brought into parliament a bill
to levy duties in the colonies on glass, paper, painters' colors, and
tea, and it became a law. The duties were external, and did not exceed
in amount twenty thousand pounds; but the colonies suspected the
mildness of the measure to be only a lure to inveigle them into the net.
The new act was to take effect in November, 1767. The flame of
resistance, smothered for awhile by the repeal of the stamp act, now
burst forth afresh: associations were everywhere organized to defeat the
duties; altercations between the people and the king's officers grew
frequent; the passions of the conflicting parties were exasperated. Two
British regiments and some armed vessels arrived at Boston.
In Virginia, the assembly, encountering no opposition from the mild and
patriotic Blair, remonstrated loudly against the new oppressions.
Opposition to the arbitrary measures of the British administration broke
forth in England, and in London the fury of civil discord shook the
pillars of the government.
Francis Fauquier, lieutenant-governor, died early in 1768, at the age of
sixty-five years, ten of which he had passed in Virginia. He brought
with him the frivolous tastes and dissipated habits of a man of fashion
and a courtier; he was addicted to gaming, and by his example diffused a
rage for play. He was generous and elegant, an accomplished scholar,
and, in Mr. Jefferson's opinion, the ablest of the governors of
Virginia. A county is named after him. His death devolved the duties of
government upon John Blair, president of the council. He was a nephew of
Commissary Blair, whom he had succeeded in the council. He had long
represented Williamsburg in the house of burgesses, having been a member
as early as 1736. During the trying period of his presidency, his
vigilance and discretion were displayed in protecting the frontier from
Indian invasion.[553:A]
In 1714 some English emigrant Baptists settled in southeast Virginia,
and in 1743 another party settled in the northwest; but the most
important accession came from New England, about the period of "the New
Light stir." Those who had left the established church were called
Separates, the rest Regulars. Their preachers, not unfrequently
illiterate, were characterized by an impassioned manner, vehement
gesticulation, and a singular tone of voice. The hearers often gave way
to tears, trembling, screams, and acclamations. The number of converts
increased rapidly in some counties. The preachers were imprisoned and
maltreated by magistrates and mobs; but persecution stimulated their
zeal and redoubled their influence: they sang hymns while on the way to
the prison, and addressed crowds congregated before the windows of the
jails. At this time Deputy-Governor Blair addressed the following letter
to the king's attorney in Spotsylvania:--
"SIR:--I lately received a letter, signed by a good number of worthy
gentlemen, who are not here, complaining of the Baptists; the
particulars of their misbehavior are not told, any further than their
running into private houses and making dissensions. Mr. Craig and Mr.
Benjamin Waller are now with me, and deny the charge; they tell me they
are willing to take the oaths as others have: I told them I had
consulted the attorney-general, who is of opinion that the general court
only have a right to grant licenses, and therefore I referred them to
the court; but on their application to the attorney-general,[554:A] they
brought me his letter, advising me to write to you that their petition
was a matter of right, and that you may not molest these conscientious
people, so long as they behave themselves in a manner becoming pious
Christians and in obedience to the laws, till the court, when they
intend to apply for license, and when the gentlemen who complain may
make their objections and be heard. The act of toleration (it being
found by experience that persecuting dissenters increases their numbers)
has given them a right to apply in a proper manner for licensed houses
for the worship of God, according to their consciences, and I persuade
myself the gentlemen will quietly overlook their meetings till the
court. I am told they administer the sacrament of the Lord's Supper near
the manner we do, and differ in nothing from our church but in that of
baptism and their renewing the ancient discipline, by which they have
reformed some sinners and brought them to be truly penitent; nay, if a
man of theirs is idle and neglects to labor and provide for his family
as he ought, he incurs their censures, which have had good effects. If
this be their behavior, it were to be wished we had some of it among us;
but at least I hope all may remain quiet till the court." This letter
was dated at Williamsburg, July the 16th, 1768.
The persecution of the Baptists commenced in Chesterfield, in 1770, and
in no county was it carried farther. According to tradition, Colonel
Archibald Cary, of Ampthill, was the arch-persecutor. In few counties
have the Baptists been more numerous than in Chesterfield.
While many of the preachers were men of exemplary character, yet by the
facility of admission into their pulpits impostors sometimes brought
scandal upon the name of religion. Schisms, too, interrupted the harmony
of their associations. Nevertheless, by the striking earnestness and the
pious example of many of them, the Baptists gained ground rapidly in
Virginia. In their efforts to avail themselves of the toleration act,
they found Patrick Henry ever ready to step forward in their behalf, and
he remained through life their unwavering friend. They still cherish his
memory with grateful affection.
The Baptists, having suffered persecution under the establishment, were,
of all others, the most inimical to it, and the most active in its
subversion.[555:A]
FOOTNOTES:
[549:A] The title-page is as follows: "An Inquiry into the Rights of the
British Colonies, intended as an Answer to 'The Regulations lately made
concerning the Colonies, and the Taxes imposed upon them, considered.'
In a Letter addressed to the Author of that Pamphlet, by Richard Bland,
of Virginia. Dedit omnibus Deus pro virili portione sapientiam, ut et
inaudita investigare possent et audita perpendere. Lactantius."
Williamsburg: printed by Alexander Purdie & Co., MDCCLXVI.
[552:A] 1767.
[553:A] Hugh Blair Grigsby's Discourse on Convention of 1776, pp. 69,
70; Old Churches, i. 160.
[554:A] John Randolph.
[555:A] Semple's Hist. of Va. Baptists, 16, 24; Hawks, 120.