280

CHAPTER IX

THE ROYAL COMMISSION OF 1677. VIRGINIA AT THE CLOSE OF THE STUART REGIME

The frequent changes in the ministries which succeeded the downfall of Clarendon in 1667 were in a way reflected in the organization of the administrative boards which had charge of plantation affairs. During the five or six years which followed 1670 a number of additional experiments were made in the organization of these boards. The fact will be recalled that in 1660 both a council of trade and a council of foreign plantations were created. But experience seems to have proven that one or the other of these was a superfluous piece of machinery. The membership of the councils may also have seemed too large. In July, 1670,¹ the number of members composing the council for foreign plantations was reduced to ten. Though the dignity of the board was somewhat lowered by the omission from it of the great officers of state, still it was provided that these officers might attend and vote, if they desired. The members of the council, as thus organized, were the Earl of Sandwich, president, Richard Lord Gorges, William Lord Allington, Thomas Grey, Henry Brouncker, Sir Humphrey Winch, Sir John Finch, Silus Titus, Edmund Waller, Henry Slingesby. The last named was secretary, and the quorum was five.

The ten members were salaried, and were instructed to secure minute information of the condition and government of the colonies and how the commissions which had been issued had been executed. They were also to ascertain the number of free inhabitants and of servants in the colonies, to see if any colonies were overstocked with servants or slaves;

281

to order that care be taken to encourage the best native products, the breeding of cattle, and the production of materials for shipbuilding. They should see that the Indians were treated justly and received no provocation.

In March, 1671,¹ six leaders of the nobility were added to the council—the Duke of York, Prince Rupert, the Duke of Buckingham, the Duke of Ormond, the Earl of Lauderdale, and Thomas Lord Culpeper. John Evelyn was made a salaried member. In August, 1671, Sir Richard Temple was also added to the board.

On September 27, 1672, a new commission was issued to the Earl of Shaftesbury and others to be a council for trade and foreign plantations.² This is understood to have been a consolidation of the two councils,—the one for domestic trade and the other for foreign plantations,—which had existed since 1660. Though it simplified matters, the arrangement which was made in 1672 continued for only two years. In December, 1674, after the fall of the Cabal ministry, the existing commission was revoked, and all the papers of the board were ordered to be passed over to the clerk of the privy council. On the 12th of the following March³ (1675) the care of trade and plantations was intrusted to a committee of the privy council of twenty-one members. This brought the leading statesmen in the council into close connection with plantation affairs, including especially the Earl of Danby, Secretary Coventry, and Secretary Williamson. The immediate charge of the business was given to the Earl of Anglesey, who was lord privy seal, the Earl of Bridgewater, the Earl of Carlisle, the Earl of Craven, Viscount Fauconberg, Viscount Halifax, Lord John Berkeley, the chancellor of the exchequer, and the vice chamberlain, or any five of them, these men having been conversant with plantation affairs. Sir Robert Southwell was ordered constantly to attend the committee. The body, thus organized,

282

was ordered to meet weekly and report to the privy council. It was known as the Lords of the Committee of Trade and Plantations.

The committee, about six months after its appointment, sent a¹ circular letter to the governors of the royal provinces, commanding them to transmit a full account of the condition of their respective provinces, their laws, officials, military population, course of trade, the condition of neighboring countries, and a statement of all other facts which seemed important. They should continue at intervals thereafter to send a journal of occurrences under the heads just designated.² Elaborate reports were submitted by governors of the island colonies, and correspondence was steadily maintained with them. Considerable information about New York was obtained by the examination of Andros in 1678, while Governor Dongan sent a very full report in 1687.³ In 1671 Berkeley had reported for Virginia,⁴ but we have no record of any later report during his administration. Culpeper reported in 1681 and again in 1683.⁵ The only reply of Lord Baltimore to inquiries by the government concerning Maryland was in 1678.⁶ But only in a few instances during the period under review did the reports of the English governors contain the systematic detail which the circular letter implied. The committee of trade and plantations was retained, as the instrument through which the privy council did much of its colonial business, until the board of trade was created in 1696. While the committee was in existence the system of executive control over the colonies was developed until it resulted, under James II, in the attempt to unite or consolidate them into a vast governor-generalship or presidency. The first stage of the process, so far chiefly as it affected the governmental system of Virginia, must now be described.

283

In September, 1676, the news of Bacon’s rebellion reached England, and the attention of the home government was at once diverted from the preparation of a charter for Virginia to measures for the restoration of order and quiet. Secretary Coventry and the other officials concerned realized that the administration of Berkeley must be brought to an end, though in such way as to inflict the least humiliation on the aged governor. The course of action adopted was to order Berkeley to return to England and report on the condition of the province, while provision should be made for the appointment of a lieutenant governor to serve in his place during his absence. A royal proclamation of pardon was issued in favor of Berkeley and the assembly for their share in granting the commission to Bacon to be general of the forces against the Indians, it being held that the act was done under intimidation. Pardon was also extended to all subjects who had been induced by false representations to join the rebels, if within twenty days after the proclamation was published they should make full submission and give security for good behavior. Letters were also sent to Maryland, New York, and Massachusetts for the arrest of Bacon, in case he should have fled thither, for he was excluded from all chance of pardon. The necessity of sending a royal commission to Virginia to inquire and report on the troubles was also realized from the first. While the composition and powers of that body were under consideration it was proposed to appoint Sir Henry Chicheley, one of the councillors of Virginia, lieutenant governor. But as the seriousness of the situation became more evident, this feature of the plan was dropped, and Colonel Herbert Jeffreys, one of the commissioners, was appointed instead.¹

The commission itself consisted of Herbert Jeffreys, Sir John Berry,² and Francis Moryson. Of these Moryson was a Virginian, had long served as agent for the province, and was the only member of the board who was specially

284

acquainted with local conditions. But he later wrote in the highest terms of both his colleagues, stating that no fitter person than Colonel Jeffreys could have been found to quell the rebellion, while Berry he commended as a man of unbiassed principles, prudent conduct, and unwearied industry.¹ Moryson’s knowledge of Indian warfare and the resources of Virginia at once convinced him of the inexpediency of sending many troops with the commissioners, while he was convinced that the natural loyalty of the people would assert itself if their real grievances were redressed. But it was decided that the commissioners should take a force of about a thousand soldiers with them, and of the entire expedition, while at sea, Sir John Berry was appointed commander. Jeffreys, as head of the commission and himself a military officer, was intrusted with the duty of raising a part of the force, which were designated as “volunteers,” and with the keeping of their accounts.²

The general view of the government,³ as shown in its commission to Jeffreys, Berry, and Moryson, was that the disorders in Virginia were due to grievances which, because of the remoteness of the province from England, its inhabitants could not easily make known to the king. The duty of the commissioners should be to ascertain, by the examination of witnesses or in other ways, what those grievances were and report them to his Majesty, to the end that they might be redressed. They were to acquaint themselves with the laws of the colony and its political conditions, and report the same to the king. They also carried with them a royal proclamation which declared that those among Bacon’s adherents who within twenty days after its publication should submit, take the oath of allegiance, and give security for good behavior, should be pardoned; while the servants and slaves

285

of those who held out, if they would take arms under the governor or commander-in-chief, should be freed from service to their former masters. As it was supposed that the insurrection and the Indian war would both be in progress on their arrival, the commissioners were instructed to use their best efforts to bring them to an end. Bacon, if caught, they were to bring to trial and then send to England with proofs of his crimes. Certain additional instructions were sent to Berkeley, but their effect was largely nullified by a positive order that, because of his age, he should return to England and report the circumstances of the rebellion. Jeffreys, as lieutenant governor, should take his place.

In some respects the duties of this commission were much less important, as they were less difficult, than those of the body which was sent to New England in 1664. They had to do with only one colony and not with an entire group of colonies. They were not intrusted with the task of subduing an alien people. They were not empowered to hear appeals or to settle boundary disputes. They were to aid in subduing the Indians and in pacifying a naturally loyal people, and were to report the facts to the king. Diligence and an open mind were the chief requirements for such a task. But they had an enraged governor to deal with, a man made arrogant by long years of undisputed authority. His supporters in the council and assembly might easily make trouble. The commissioners were also bringing a considerable body of troops into a province which was distracted and impoverished by prolonged civil strife, and the finding of support for these men soon proved to be one of the most difficult tasks which the commissioners had to face. And yet their errand was one from which success and fruitful results might fairly be expected.¹

The commission reached Virginia about the beginning of February, 1677. It found Bacon dead, his friends dispersed, and twenty or more executed. Jamestown was in ruins. Berkeley was in the midst of his reprisals. Not only were executions still in progress, but the governor,

286

whose plantation at Green Spring had been plundered, with the consent of the council was confiscating the property of the insurgents. He declared that the rebels had left him no corn and but one or and one cow, and yet he had to support some two hundred men at his house. How then, he demanded, could he provide quarters for a thousand soldiers and a magazine of food and ammunition for their use? He had supposed that the commissioners would bring only a frigate or two with them and never desired any soldiers. The people also were startled by their presence.¹ It is not surprising, therefore, that the commissioners found great difficulty in quartering the troops, and that their presence raised as many obstacles as it relieved. It soon became apparent that their services against the Indians would not be required; while, now that the rebellion was ended, the province most needed quiet and an opportunity to recover from its half ruined condition.

On the other hand, the attitude of hostility and obstruction which Berkeley and the majority whom he controlled in the council and assembly, at once assumed toward the commissioners, makes it pretty clear that, if it had not been for the moral influence of the soldiery, the royal agents would have accomplished even less than they did. Since Bacon was dead, the governor considered it improper to publish the king’s proclamation of amnesty which the commissioners had brought with them, but, contrary to their advice, issued one of his own instead. From the benefit of his proclamation he excluded eighteen of the rebels.² To a variety of questions about the general condition of the province and reforms which were immediately needed the commissioners could obtain no replies from Berkeley.³ His pique was shown at times by the assumption of an air of mock humility, but more often by stubborn persistence in his chosen course of action.⁴

287

At first the commissioners were careful to assume the attitude of advisers, but, as Berkeley continued the seizure of the persons and property of delinquents without trial, their tone was changed to one of protest. At the outset they had told the governor that they thought he should refer to the king the whole question of the transfer of the estates of delinquents as a form of restitution to loyal sufferers. But a crowd of impoverished supporters were clamoring for relief, while Berkeley desired as well to make his own losses good. Therefore the process of confiscation continued. The commissioners condemned this course of action as wholly illegal and unjustifiable, but Berkeley sought to clear himself by citing instances of seizures which had been made by order of the king during the Civil War in England.¹ The commissioners finally demanded that he should furnish them with a list of all seizures, compositions, fines, and forfeitures which as the result of the rebellion devolved to the crown; also a list of all the insurgents who had been indicted, convicted, and punished, in order that a strict account thereof might be rendered in England. But this the governor neglected to do, and the commissioners had to make such inquiry of their own as was possible.²

In February the session of the assembly, to which reference has already been made, was held. This was in harmony with the instructions of the commissioners, and they submitted to it the measures of reform which seemed to them adequate or at least most important. But as these most directly concerned the alleged large salaries and perquisites of members, they naturally did not find a place in the legislation of the body. The assembly was also told that the conclusion of peace with the Indians was the king’s affair, and in reference to this they were to do no more than offer advice. To the passage of a general act of oblivion the body was opposed, and in this the commissioners saw convincing evidence that the understanding between the members and Berkeley was fully maintained. Councillors and assemblymen, as well as the governor, in the opinion of

288

Jeffreys and his associates, were interested in the continuance of reprisals.¹ To the letter of the commissioners the assembly made no reply.

Under these conditions it naturally became a prime object of effort on the part of the commissioners to get Berkeley out of the province. But in the royal instruction on this point it was stated that the governor might suit his conveniency in the choice of a date for his departure. Of this, on advice of the council, full advantage was taken. Jeffreys also had brought with him a commission of oyer and terminer to the governor, to be used in the trial of the rebels. The effect of this—as also interpreted by the council—was to continue Berkeley in his office, while diligent use was made of the commission in the trials which followed.² Berkeley also insisted that, when he should go, Jeffreys would be but his deputy and that the next year he should return and be governor again. By these tactics he was able to postpone his departure till the beginning of May. Shortly before he went he, or some of his family, attempted to insult the commissioners by ordering the common hangman to drive them home after a call; while, as his final message, he assured Jeffreys that the people would soon see the difference between the rule of one who knew their laws, customs, and nature and one who totally lacked acquaintance with these subjects. In a few weeks after his arrival in England Berkeley died, and such inquiry as would otherwise have been made into his conduct was by that event prevented.³

The commissioners, whose most trying relations had been with the governor, found the rest of their task somewhat simplified by his removal. On May 29 they concluded a treaty with the Indians of lower Virginia, in the benefits of which the English of Maryland were also to share. The terms of this agreement fittingly summed up and concluded the development of Indian relations within the settled regions

289

of the province during the seventeenth century.¹ They are also in marked contrast to the policy of extermination which was advocated by Bacon and his followers.² The Indians acknowledged immediate subjection to the king of England, paying yearly in lieu of a quit rent three Indian arrows, and in March of every year tendering to the governor at his residence twenty beaver skins. By these acts the chiefs acknowledged that they held their dignities and lands of the king. Their lands were also to be confirmed to them under the seal of Virginia as freely “as others his Majesty’s subjects.” Finally, Indians who had not sufficient lands were to have such laid out and confirmed to them and were to keep them as long as they maintained due obedience to the king and his government. No Englishmen were to settle within three miles of an Indian town, and if any should encroach on the land of natives, they should be removed. The Indians should enjoy under license their accustomed hunting, fishing, and oystering grounds, and by means of licenses all their intercourse with the whites should be regulated. They were to give notice of the approach of enemies and should be supplied with ammunition to enable them to actively aid the English. If any cause of difference with the whites should arise, they should resort to the governor and try to have the dispute adjusted. Subject to these limitations, the government of the chiefs over their tribesmen should continue. Subsequently the lords of trade found that steps had not actually been taken to include Maryland in this treaty, and therefore an order in council was issued³ to the effect that an Indian policy in which the colonies generally would be included should be initiated. To the consequences which followed from this, not only in Maryland and Virginia, but in New York, reference has elsewhere been made.⁴

In obedience to their instruction to report upon the grievances of the people against the government of Virginia,

290

the commissioners had early called upon Governor Berkeley for assistance. He had caused orders to be issued to the justices of the counties to call sessions of the county courts and summon the people thither to state their complaints.¹ Reports have been preserved from seventeen counties and two parishes. In most cases they are certified by the county justices and the local burgesses, and return of them was made to the assembly of February, 1677, as well as to the royal commissioners. From both Nansemond and the Isle of Wight counties came two sets of grievances, one in each case being a genuine expression of Baconist sentiment.² The statements from the upper counties were filled with references to the Indian war. To evils of this kind the tidewater counties were for the most part oblivious. Accomac and Northampton³ were wholly loyal and asked only for a few local reforms. Several of the counties (even Charles City) referred to Bacon as an impostor or rebel, and none expressed sympathy with what were supposed to have been his later aims. Several condemned the doings of certain resident councillors or other officials, as Charles City county in reference to Edward Hill, Gloucester county in reference to Robert Beverley, the Baconists of Isle of Wight against Joseph Bridger, and those of Nansemond against John Lear and David Lear.⁴ The plundering of estates by both parties during the later stage of the rebellion

291

was generally condemned, and restitution to innocent parties was demanded.

How far these statements of grievances were the genuine expression of popular feeling and how far they were colored by the influence of officials who had a hand in drafting them, it is not easy to decide. In the case of some of the counties the statements are pretty clearly official and perfunctory. At the other extreme stand the Baconist protests from Nansemond and Isle of Wight, which were repudiated by the county authorities and contain the only expression of distinctly lower class opinion among the tidewater counties which has survived. But the general agreement between the measures urged in these “grievances” and the legislation which was enacted by the assembly of June, 1676, is perfectly clear.¹ The acts of that assembly did not include all or nearly all of the reforms which were suggested by the counties, but some of them were there and the rest were similar in purpose. The demand was general for low taxes, for a stricter accounting and control over expenditure, for a general regulation of fees, for a reduction of the cost necessitated by sessions of the assembly even though that should lead to the lessening of their number. The recurrence of complaints about the expenditure on forts and the tax for buying up the Arlington-Culpeper claim shows how deeply they had offended the colonists; but they were matters in which Berkeley and his advisers were not so seriously at fault. It is true that the province was almost practically defenceless; but that was a condition which it shared with all the other colonies, while against the waste at Point Comfort the Virginia officials had always protested. Some pretence of having instituted an improved system of audit and accounting was made by the assembly of 1677; ² but methods in such matters were crude in all the colonies, and the demand was probably for a reform that was more thorough than practice either in England or America would then have justified. The complaints that county levies were made in secret sessions

292

of the justices, that favoritism often determined appointments, that sheriffs held office beyond their legal terms; the insistence that there should be no exemptions from taxation, that taxes should be levied on land rather than by poll, that county records should be made more accessible,—were somewhat less general, but were aimed at real evils in the political system. Many of the demands were for the remedy of wrongs which had been committed by one party or the other during the lath civil troubles and called for no change of policy.

The view therefore seems justified that the “grievances” fairly expressed the prevailing opinion concerning the evils from which the province was suffering. As the commissioners were well aware, they did not indicate the existence of a dangerous spirit of revolt. “You should acquiesce in the laws passed by your assemblies,” was the answer made to most of the complaints by the assembly of February,¹ 1677; and, now that the Indian war was over and Bacon was dead, the disposition to do this was general. But this sounded the knell of further sweeping reforms. That the tone of assemblies would be greatly changed, was in no way probable. Now that the struggle with the Dutch was over, Virginia waters were not again visited by hostile and destructive squadrons. The unity of the province was not again imperilled by proprietary grants. For some years the quiet of the border settlements was disturbed by occasional Indian raids from the north. For a time they were referred to with anxiety in the official communications to the home government, and they occasioned the stationing of troops of horse on the upper courses of the principal rivers. Because of them, as we have seen, a more comprehensive Indian policy was adopted, and that at the instance of the English government and its appointees. But after the outbreak of the French wars, the Indians gave Virginia very little trouble. Her peace was scarcely disturbed. Her easy-going methods of defence were not again brought seriously to the test till the middle of the next century. The tobacco industry slowly adjusted itself to requirements of the acts

293

of trade. A fair degree of general prosperity was maintained. Though the complaints and agitations which appear at large through the colonies were reflected in Virginia, no organic change occurred there, and the trend of its legislation was not seriously modified. The crust of social and official privilege formed again, or rather it had never really been broken through, and Virginia easily and naturally took its place within the growing circle of royal provinces.

Berry and Moryson returned to England in the summer of 1677, taking with them the ships and all of the troops except two companies. Jeffreys was left as lieutenant governor, a post which, with declining health, he held till his death, early in 1679. It was inevitable that for some years affairs in Virginia should continue in an unsettled state. Though the Indians of lower Virginia were effectually pacified, the northern tribes continued their raids. Some outrages were committed and fears were entertained that there might be another Indian¹ war. In many quarters acute poverty and distress followed in the wake of the rebellion. The competition of Maryland and of the Albemarle settlements in the production of tobacco continued as serious as ever, and as a result the prices of that staple ranged low. The sensitiveness of the taxpayer continued, and it was now shown particularly in his insistence that quit rents should be remitted. This brought up the question of the claims of Lord Culpeper under the grant of the Northern neck, a matter which was not yet adjusted. The home government was also slow in sending remittances for the two companies which had been left in the province, and especially to pay for their quarters. In 1679 the counties in which they were stationed complained of this to the assembly, and on its representation to the home government sums for the payment of arrears were sent over.²

Jeffreys, moreover, was left in the midst of a violent controversy

294

with the assembly over the charge that Berry and Moryson, before they returned to England, had forced Robert Beverley, the clerk, to surrender into their keeping the journals and other papers of that body for the sessions of 1676 and of February, 1677. This Berry and Moryson claimed they were empowered by their commission to do; but the assembly denounced the act as an outrage, as inconsistent with their privileges as a legislative body; and they were ready to affirm that no king of England had ever treated parliament in such fashion. Jeffreys charged Beverley with trying to bring the entire work of the commission into contempt, and put Philip Ludwell under restraint. This was evidently a continuation of the quarrel with Berkeley and his party, and several years passed before Virginia and the home government heard the last of it.¹ It thus appears that the situation in Virginia called for wise and prompt action on the part of the home government, for such an adjustment of affairs as would facilitate the healing of the wounds which had been inflicted during the lath rebellion. In the first place the commissioners were of course looked to for light on the situation.

At the close of the elaborate report² which the commissioners on their return presented to the committee for foreign plantations, they recommended that the property which had been forcibly seized during the late rebellion, and especially since the laying down of arms, should be restored; that a general act of oblivion be prepared in England and sent to the assembly, with the injunction that it be passed; likewise, that the act of attainder passed at the last session of the assembly be repealed. It was also recommended that his Majesty order a good fort and a state house to be built at Jamestown and a garrison to be maintained there. The expense of this should be paid out of the colonial quit rents and a tax on imported liquors, similar to that levied in Barbadoes. This suggested a defect in the fiscal system of Virginia which had occasioned not a little of the complaint

295

before and after the uprising; namely, the oppressiveness of the poll tax, which was due in part to the fact that the revenue was derived to so large an extent from this source. The commissioners suggested that the tithables be relieved by the introduction of another form of tax, the import duty, a form in use in most of the other colonies, but which it had not yet occurred to the Virginians to adopt. The commissioners also thought that in future, till the country should be fully and peacefully settled, the Virginia ships should go each year in fleets under the convoy of a royal frigate. It was finally their opinion that the growth of independent settlements in Maryland and Carolina would in time result in the political and economic ruin of Virginia. “Therefore,” they say, “we propose that (with a salvo of right to the Proprietors) the jurisdiction and power of government may so reside in your Majesty, that they may be obedient to all orders, rules and processes of your Majesty and Council, else you will find you have not only given away so much land but so many subjects also, and the next generation will not know or own the royal power, if their writs, trial, and processes be permitted to continue in the name of the Proprietors, and their oath of fealty without any salvo of allegiance to your Majesty. It not only ruins servants, but runaway rogues and rebels fly to Carolina on the south as their common subterfuge and lurking place, and when we remanded some of the late rebels by letters, we could not have them sent back to us.” In these words the commissioners registered their opinion against the policy of creating more chartered colonies and in favor of restricting the independence of those which were already in existence.

The lords of trade examined the report of the commissioners and the statements of grievances from the Virginia counties in considerable detail and expressed satisfaction with their conduct.¹ They necessarily accepted a view of the origin of the trouble which was in general harmony with that of the commissioners. They held that Berkeley and the assembly had exceeded their powers in the granting of pardons

296

as well as the issue of attainders, and reported that all laws which had been passed contrary to the royal instructions and proclamation should be annulled.¹ Efforts on the part of Lord John Berkeley and Alexander Culpeper to clear away the charges against the memory of the late governor met with² no encouragement. A marked willingness, on the other hand, was shown to do justice to such petitioners as the widow of William Drummond, and to any who, like Captain Gardner, had done the king a good service.

As Jeffreys had died and Sir Henry Chicheley, who succeeded him, was far from competent, steps were taken in 1679 to send over a governor of full rank who should carry with him the final orders of the king and, if possible, complete the pacification of the province. Thomas, Lord Culpeper, was selected for the place. Though he appears to have been a man of some ability, the selection was an unfortunate one because of his earlier connection with Virginia as its would-be proprietor, and because, as the events proved, he was not at all inclined to remain in the province and discharge his duties there. His interest in Virginia seems to have been limited chiefly to securing a favorable settlement of his claims. But his commission and instructions were prepared with care, being modelled in part after those of the governor³ of Jamaica, and were more elaborate than any which had previously been issued to a governor of a continental colony. The issue of these instructions, followed as they soon were by those of Lord Howard of Effingham in Virginia and Governor Dongan in New York, marks the time when the form used by British officials for this purpose in the royal provinces became fixed as it was to remain for the century to come. Like the pretorian edict of Rome, the commissions and instructions of the governors of the British provinces henceforth conform to one model or type, and differ from it only in special details. In this, as in so many other respects, uniformity was taking the place of the variety which had existed among the chartered colonies. Another

297

stage was thus reached in the process by which Virginia fully assumed its place within the group of royal provinces.

Considerable attention was paid by the lords of trade to the selection of Culpeper’s council, and their names were inserted in his instructions.¹ He was ordered not to appoint to office any who had belonged to the Bacon faction without good reason. Vacancies in the council should be filled with men of “estates and abilities,” and their names should be sent to England for confirmation. All colonists should be required to take the oath of allegiance. No officials should be removed without good cause. With the advice of the council, fees should be regulated and fixed at moderate rates. Land which had lain seven years unimproved should be granted to new patentees, and no more should be granted than would probably be improved. Quit rents should be collected from the time of the grant, instead of seven years later, and should be used for the building of a fort and the support of the colony government in general. The building of towns should be encouraged, and colonists obliged to settle there if possible. A more equitable form of tax than the capitation should, if possible, be found; while all revenue acts should mention the king and all writs should run in his name. Indian affairs should be carefully regulated. No minister should be appointed without a certificate from the bishop of London, and adequate provision should be made for their support. The governor should see to it that the burgesses were chosen exclusively by freeholders. The government in this connection introduced a requirement which was very characteristic of tendencies operative at that time, but one that was destined to be short-lived. It involved an application of the principle of the Poynings act to a colony by requiring that no assembly should be called without previous order from the king, and that all bills which it might be found desirable to pass should first be sent to the king, that they might be returned in approved form. Three bills had already been prepared, which were given to Culpeper, and he was ordered, as soon as possible after his arrival to call

298

an assembly and have them passed. One of these was intended to secure indemnity and oblivion for acts done during the rebellion, another was a revenue bill, and a third was intended to grant the governor power to naturalize aliens. Culpeper was also instructed to reprove the assembly for its attitude on the question of granting commissioners access to its records. Robert Beverley and Edward Hill should be removed from all places of trust and not readmitted till the king’s pleasure should be further known. Finally, he was required to report the manner in which he executed each several instruction. At the beginning of 1680 circular letters were sent to the governors and secretaries of Virginia, Barbadoes, Leeward islands, and Jamaica, ordering them to send regularly to England copies of their journals and all important papers which came before them, with accounts of debates and other events, those affecting trade being specially mentioned.¹

Owing to the Popish Plot and various other causes, the departure of Culpeper for Virginia was delayed till almost the close² of 1679, and at his final going he was threatened with the high displeasure of the king at his neglect of duty, to be shown by the possible appointment of another to his place. But the courtier-governor carried with him a letter from the king granting him full permission to return as soon as in his discretion the state of affairs in Virginia should seem to permit, during which visit to England he should not only report on Virginia but attend to his own long neglected interests.³

At the beginning of May, 1680, Culpeper arrived in Virginia. In June he called the assembly together and laid before it the bills which he had brought over, but he refrained from administering the reproof concerning the records. Robert Beverley also retained his position as clerk of the assembly. Two of the bills which the governor submitted were passed without change, while to the revenue⁴

299

act a proviso or two for the repeal of previous acts was added. After the close of the session the governor by proclamation declared the repeal of six of the laws which had been passed by the assembly of February, 1677, among them both the act of pardon and that of attainder.¹ The object of this was to restore, as far as possible, the conditions as to pardon which had been laid down in the royal proclamation of October 27, 1676, which, with some additions to the list of excepted parties, had just been enacted into law by Culpeper’s assembly. This assembly also passed an elaborate, but futile,² act to encourage the building of towns and another for the maintenance of forts and garrisons on the principal rivers.

This work completed, before the end of August Culpeper started, via Boston, for England. At the same time a petition from the assembly was sent to the home government, asking that some means might be taken for reducing and permanently limiting the stock of tobacco. This was accompanied with the oft-repeated representations concerning the low price of the staple and the consequent discouragement which prevailed in the province.³ When the petition was laid before the commissioners of the customs, they thought, as always, of the revenue (averaging £100,000 per year) which tobacco yielded to the British exchequer; they reflected also on the loss to shipping which would result from a cessation, and on the possibility that the Dutch, French, or Spaniards would thereby be encouraged to increase their output; they were also inclined to discount the cry, so often raised, that tobacco was unsalable, while they professed to hope for some beneficial change from the building of so many new towns. The result was that the plan of a cessation received no support from the English authorities, and before many months had passed serious consequences followed from this in Virginia.

300

After he left the province, Culpeper, in a letter to Councillor Bacon, signified his desire that the assembly should be prorogued to meet in April, 1681. But later an order was issued by the king that it should not meet until the following November, it being expected that by that time Culpeper would have returned to Virginia. A proviso, however, was introduced into the order to the effect that, if it became necessary in the interval to call the assembly together, it should be done only with the consent of seven of the council.¹ Unfortunately the royal command did not reach Lieutenant Governor Chicheley till after the evil had been done. On the strength of the letter which Culpeper had sent to Councillor Bacon, and without consulting the council, Chicheley permitted the assembly to meet on the 18th of April.² By that time the royal order that there should be a further prorogation had arrived and was communicated to the assembly. With it came also a command, issued contrary to the advice of the lords of trade and the testimony of all whom they heard on Virginia affairs, that the arrears due the two independent companies should be paid and they disbanded unless the province was ready to bear the cost of their maintenance.³

As the members had come together, the council advised that they be kept long enough to decide what course should be taken in regard to the soldiers. Therefore the two royal orders were laid before the burgesses and their reply was awaited. But the influence of Beverley was as great as ever, and the minds of the members were filled with the futile idea of cessation. They gave no indication of agreement with the governor and council, and after several secret sessions, during which they were thought to be preparing a tobacco act, the lieutenant governor prorogued them till November. Within a week thereafter rioters gathered, and the destruction of tobacco plants began in Gloucester county. It rapidly extended to New Kent and other

301

counties.¹ Proclamations were issued, the militia called out, patrols organized; but thousands of plants were destroyed by the rioters. The disturbances were continued through May, and did not entirely cease till August. Among the many who were arrested was Beverley himself.

Information that trouble was likely to follow reached the lords of trade before the middle of June,² and Lord Culpeper was hurried off on his second voyage to Virginia. He was furnished with a revised set of instructions,³ by which he was required to insist again on the repeal of the obnoxious resolution of 1677 and on the passage of an act declaring the right of the king to command the records of the assembly; he should recommend the addition to the fiscal system of the province of an import duty on liquors, and should settle a more certain and reasonable tax on tobacco; that he should reduce the salaries of burgesses; that laws for permanent objects should be made indefinite in duration; that appeals to the king in council should be allowed in suits involving £100 and over. The possibility, with the consent of the council, for a restraint on the planting of tobacco was also suggested.

When Culpeper arrived, the session of the assembly for November, 1682, was near its close. He at once removed Beverley from his offices and brought four persons who had been concerned in the riots of May to trial on the charge of treason.⁴ Three were found guilty and of these two were executed. As the offenders generally were not conscious of treasonable intent, the reprisals were not carried further. Indeed, Chicheley had already issued a general pardon, and Culpeper considered that the offences in no case really involved treason.⁵ The

302

acts of the assembly Culpeper passed, though he did not approve them, preferring that the odium of their veto should rest on the authorities in England. Of his instructions which called for legislation he made no attempt to enforce any, for the session was too near its close. In general he interpreted his instructions as freely as possible, in the interest of the peace of the province and his own quiet. In May, 1683, after appointing Nicholas Spencer president of the council and leaving the government in the hands of that body, Culpeper started again for England. On his arrival’ a second report was duly submitted, but his lordship’s indifference towards his office and the province was now too apparent to be longer ignored, and Francis, Lord Howard of Effingham was appointed as his successor.

In religion he was a Catholic, and thus was ready to fall in with the declaration of indulgence when it was issued. But his religion does not seem to have affected the discharge of his official duties more than did that of Governor Dongan of New York. In fact, as we have seen, the two were honorably associated in the effort to develop joint action on the part of the colonies in Indian affairs. Lord Howard made it a condition of his accepting the appointment, that he should be permitted to spend the hot seasons in the north; and his visits to New York were well utilized in the way just indicated. In Virginia itself he faithfully reflected the autocratic tendencies of the time, upholding on all occasions the crown and the colonial executive and becoming involved, as a result, in frequent controversies with the burgesses.

Though the majority of the council acted in general agreement with the governor, the burgesses showed a considerable vigor and independence. It was at this time that the separation between the two houses became complete. This was apparently effected by the abandonment, at the instance of the governor, of the custom of appointing committees of the council to meet with the burgesses. Henceforth only committees of conference were appointed. In the session of 1684 the burgesses demanded an accounting in the case of the export duty of 2s. per hogshead on tobacco. The governor told them that the tax was in arrears, but that the

303

accounting was a matter for the lords of the treasury to attend to. But he gave them the good advice to lay a duty on imported liquors, which they did by the passage of a temporary act, that was later reenacted, to the evident relief of the tithables throughout the province. The desirability of building a residence for the governor was generally admitted, but the funds were not easy to be found; and the discussion later drifted off to the idea of erecting a province house instead, where the court and assembly might sit, but this also finally ended in nothing. In accordance with his instruction, the governor firmly insisted that fines and forfeitures should go to the king, and not into the treasury to be used for the purpose of meeting the expenses of the province. At the close of the session the governor refused to join with the burgesses in an address to the king on the subject of appeals. The burgesses then sent it separately, and although, because of certain improper expressions which it contained, it did not actually reach the king, it doubtless helped to establish the rule that £300 should be the minimum limit above which civil suits became appealable to the king in council.¹

In the autumn of 1685 a long session was held, in which the burgesses came to an issue with the governor on several questions. Beverley had to an extent regained power, and was again elected clerk of the assembly. The most important controversy arose in connection with the passage of a new bill designating ports and wharves. This passed through the ordinary course of legislation, being amended by the council and the amendments agreed to by the burgesses, and the whole ordered to be signed by the clerk of the council and engrossed. But on perusing the bill before it was finally to be read, the governor found that no provision had been made for fees for the collectors of dues at the ports. He insisted that a clause providing for this should be inserted; the burgesses refused assent on the ground that the bill was already passed and a law. Lord Howard insisted that it was not a law till publicly signed by himself.

304

He also claimed that after bills had been assented to by himself and the council, through the negative voice or veto power which he had from the king he could refuse to sign them if he found them objectionable. He sent the burgesses the clause in his instructions which bore on this matter and offered to lay the bill aside till the pleasure of the king could be known. But to all this the burgesses refused their assent. They declared that the veto power of the governor must be exercised, if at all, by his action in the council. The fact seems to be that usage varied, conforming in some cases and in some provinces to the custom insisted upon by the governor, and in others to that which was urged by the assembly. The occasion of the difficulty lay in the fact that the governor held a seat in the council when it was engaged in legislative business. That point, however, does not seem to have been raised on this occasion. When the case was reported to the home government, it supported the governor, and at his suggestion it ordered that the clerk of the burgesses should thereafter be appointed by the executive of the province. As Beverley was suspected to have been responsible for the omission of the clause, he was declared incapable of holding any public office and threatened with prosecution for defacing the records.¹ In view of the fact that the burgesses had some show of right for their contention, both of these penalties must be regarded as unduly severe and arbitrary.

In order to relieve the province from the expense of frequent sessions, of which there had been so much complaint at the time of Bacon’s rebellion, the governor asked that authority be given him and the council to impose a levy to meet incidental charges; but the concession was refused. He told the burgesses that he was raising twenty-four men for defence, and asked them to raise as many men at the expense of the colony; but this also on the plea of poverty they refused. On the strength of the treaty which the governor had concluded at Albany, they even went so far as to repeal

305

the militia act of the previous session and to remove the horsemen who had been stationed near the heads of the rivers.¹ He also brought forward his instruction that quit rents be paid in sterling and that the law making them payable in tobacco be repealed; to this an emphatic negative was returned. The burgesses objected to a fee which had recently been imposed for attesting public documents and affixing the seal to them, a duty which was connected with the governor’s power as chancellor. Claims from the counties and from individuals against the treasury were also scanned with attention by the burgesses, though not till 1691 was the control of the assembly over expenditures confirmed by their securing the right of electing the province treasurer.²

The instructions of the king in reference to this assembly had closed with the command that it should be dissolved. But before this reached Lord Howard he had called it together again—in October, 1686—and its session³ was well advanced. Though at the outset the governor expressed the hope that they might have a short and happy session, the assembly revived the questions that were formerly at issue and wholly failed to confine themselves to the measures which he initiated. The question of the governor’s seat in the council as bearing on his exercise of the veto power was mooted. Objection was made to the fixing of attorneys’ fees by proclamation. Notwithstanding the king’s proclamation, they continued to object to the payment of quit rents in money. Protest was still made against the levy of the new fees for the passing of instruments under the province seal, because it had not been approved by the assembly. Against giving the governor and council authority to impose levies during recesses of the assembly they were as firmly opposed as ever. Neither could they and the governor agree upon the terms of a militia bill. Over a bill prohibiting the planting of tobacco after the last day of June in every year, in the hope thereby to check its excessive production, we are told that the governor hesitated long; but he passed it and

306

it became law. At the close of a session which was distinguished by persistent criticism of the executive and its claims, the governor announced to the assembly that it was dissolved by express order of the king, a circumstance which he hoped would not soon be repeated.

The newly elected assembly, which met in May, 1688, proved no more tractable than its predecessor.¹ The immediate object of the governor in calling this session was to procure the passage of an act against the export of tobacco in bulk, and the repeal of the act of 1686 which prohibited the planting of tobacco after the close of June. A revised copy of the laws was also submitted to the burgesses for their consideration. But, wrote Secretary Spencer, after the session, “this most necessary work was not considered, for debates of grievances jostled out all matters of importance.” The governor, in the hope of allaying hate, tried to bring about a conference with the council; but the burgesses presented in reply to this a sharp arraignment of the government and would not consent to a conference unless it was devoted to the discussion of grievances. The project was dropped. The complaints were the same in substance as those which had agitated the previous assemblies, though they were increased by the appearance of a new fee for the escheators and apparently by the fact that an act concerning attorneys, passed as far back as 1682, had recently been repealed by royal proclamation. The effect of this on the status of colonial laws in general was brought into discussion, and questions which had agitated Maryland and were to disturb other provinces were raised thereby. The demand was again made that fines and forfeitures should go toward the general expenditures of the province.

An explanation of the determined attitude of the assembly is found not only in the strides which the executive was making through the extension of fees and the issue of proclamations, enlarging its functions and employing the dispensing power as in England, but in the number of what were believed to be arbitrary removals from office which were resorted to as punishments of political opposition.

307

During or after the session of 1686 the governor removed Philip Ludwell from his seat in the council and from a collectorship, because he believed him to be fomenting disputes in the assembly¹ and because of the evidence which he found of an active alliance between him and Beverley. Ludwell had also favored the “undutiful” address which was sent to the king in 1684. Ludwell is also authority for the statement that several members of the assembly, naming William Sherwood, Thomas Milner, Arthur Allen, John Smith, William Anderson, and Charles Scarborough, had been suspended from their offices because they were concerned in legitimate political opposition. One of their number, Anderson, he declared, had been committed to jail for months without trial or habeas corpus. In general no reasons had been given for these suspensions, and the accused had been given no opportunity for defence. The king’s declaration of indulgence had also been proclaimed and certain papists appointed to office.

These and other charges Ludwell carried to England and submitted to the king in council in the fall of 1689. Lord Howard in the meantime had returned to England,² and during the hearings on the case submitted a reply to the charges. He stated that Anderson had been imprisoned because he had incited the people to mutiny and had refused to give security for good behavior. Smith and Allen had been displaced, not because of their doings in assembly, but because as justices they had openly opposed the appointment of sheriffs by the governor and had insisted that the matter should be settled according to a law which had long before been repealed. The other cases he traversed by the general statement that, when reorganizing the militia, he had displaced a few and appointed others in their room. The cases of Ludwell himself and of others he had fully reported to the king. As to his dispensing with the oath of supremacy and his appointment of papists to office, he could appeal to the instructions of the king. The reply of Lord Howard

308

was accepted by the government as sufficient for its purpose, for in November, 1690, though he was a Catholic and a confessed place-hunter, a new commission was issued to him as governor, with a sinecure and half the salary; while Francis Nicholson was appointed as his lieutenant and sent over to actively perform the duties of the office.

← Vol. III, Pt. IV, Ch. VIII   Table of Contents   Vol. III, Pt. IV, Ch. X →