They passed resolutions praising the wisdom, the bravery, the justice and integrity of the Governor, and exonerating him for all blame for the outbreak of the Rebellion.[782] "The distempered humor predominant in the Common people", which had occasioned the insurrection, they declared the result of false rumors "inspired by ill affected persons, provoking an itching desire in them to pry into the secrets of the grand assembly".[783] They snubbed the King's commissioners, replying to their request for assistance in discovering the common grievances that the Assembly alone was the proper body to correct the people's wrongs.[784] Yet when the commons did come to the Burgesses with their complaints they were repulsed with harsh reproofs and even severe punishment. Certain grievances from Isle of Wight county were denounced as "libellous, Scandalous and rebellious" and "the chiefe persons in the Subscriptions" were to be punished "to the merits of their Crymes".[785] A petition from Gloucester county was declared to savor so strongly of the "old leaven of rebellion" that it must be expunged from the records. When the people of Nansemond appealed for a more just method of taxation, they were answered briefly, "It is conceived the pole is the equallest way."[786]

One is inclined to wonder why the people, thus finding the Assembly but an instrument of oppression in the Governor's hands, did not turn eagerly for support and relief to the King's commissioners. These men had invited them to bring in all their pressures, without restraint or fear of punishment. His Majesty, they announced, was anxious to know what had caused them to rise against his authority. All just complaints would be carefully considered and all grievances redressed.[787] But dread of Sir William's anger held the people back. Their chief grievance was the old Governor himself, but there were few that dared say so, even with the promise of the King's protection. The commissioners wrote Secretary Coventry that until "the awe of his stay" was removed, they could "never thoroughly search and penetrate into the bottome of the Businesse".[788] Berkeley, they said, continually impeded their investigations and prevented the people from testifying. It might be necessary for Colonel Jeffreys to send him home, before the mists he cast before them could be dispelled.[789] When he was gone, a short time would show boldly those things that as yet only cautiously peeped forth.[790]

The violent opposition which the commissioners encountered from the Governor and the loyalists soon forced them to become the leaders of the defeated party. The poor people looked forward with hope to the day when Sir William would leave and Colonel Jeffreys assume control of the executive. Then, they were sure, the persecutions would end and justice be done them.

The hatred and contempt of the Governor's friends for Colonel Jeffreys and his colleagues is shown by an interesting and unique incident. Having heard that Sir William was at last preparing to sail for England, they went to Green Spring, on the twenty-second of April, to bid him farewell.[791] This they thought due his dignity and rank, even though their relations with him had been far from cordial.[792] As they left the house, after paying their respects to the Governor and his lady, they found Sir William's coach waiting at the door to convey them to their landing.[793] But before they rode away a strange man came forward, boldly putting aside the "Postillion that used to Ryde" and got up himself in his place. The Governor, several Councillors, and others saw what occurred, but did not offer to interfere. Lady Berkeley went "into her Chamber, and peep'd through a broken quarrell of the Glass, to observe how the Show look'd".[794] After reaching their boat, the commissioners found to their horror that the strange postilion was none other than the "Common Hangman that ... put the Halters about the Prisoner's Necks in Court when they were to make their submission". This seemed to them so gross an insult, not only to the "Great Seal", but to their "persons as Gentlemen", that they were resolved to make his Majesty himself acquainted with it.[795] "The whole country rings of ... the public Odium and disgrace cast upon us," they said, "as the Exchange itselfe shortly may."[796]

It is probable that Lady Berkeley alone was responsible for this incident, which, as the commissioners themselves said, looked "more like a woman's than a man's malice".[797] The Governor denied with passionate vehemence that he was in any way guilty. "I have sent the Negro[798] to be Rebuked, Tortur'd or whipt, till he confesse how this dire misfortune happen'd," he wrote the commissioners, "but I am soe distracted that I scarce know what I doe."[799]

Even before Berkeley left the colony Colonel Jeffreys issued a proclamation, formally taking possession of the government.[800] For some time it had been apparent that the Lieutenant-Governor's long delay in entering upon his duties was greatly weakening him in the estimation of the people. Since he had been forced to sit idly by for several months while Sir William carried to completion matters of the utmost importance, and had not dared to take his office so long as it pleased the old man to linger in the colony, many thought, quite naturally, that he could not have been entrusted with full authority to act as Governor. And this opinion had been industriously furthered by the loyal party. The departure of Sir William, they declared, did not mean a permanent change of administration. Jeffreys was to act only as his deputy during his absence and would retire upon his return.[801] Feeling that these views, if universally accepted, would undermine his influence and authority, Jeffreys entered a vigorous denial in his proclamation. He had been appointed, he declared, to exercise the power of Governor, as fully as Berkeley or any of his predecessors had done. No man should dare to belittle his office or authority. Berkeley was going home at his own request because his great age and infirmities rendered him unfit to sustain further the burdens of his position. The new executive had refrained from assuming his duties earlier, "because an Assembly being ... ready to convene, the issueing forth a new Summons ... must needs have greatly retarded the publique Weale".[802] Nor did he scruple to claim the full title of "Governour and Captain Generall of Virginia".

This proclamation aroused Berkeley's deepest ire. "Your ejecting me," he wrote Jeffreys, "from having any share in the Government whilst yet I am in the Countrey ... I beleeve can neither be justified by your Comision nor mine." "You say that his Majesty out of the knowledge of my inability to govern did surrogate so able a man as Coll: Jeffreys to supply my defects. I wish from my heart Coll: Jeffreys were as well known to the King and Counsel as Sir William Berkeley is, for then the difference would be quickly decided." The letter was addressed to the "Right honorable Coll: Herbert Jeffreys, his Majesty's Lieutenant Governor of Virginia", and was signed "William Berkeley, Governor of Virginia till his most Sacred Majesty shall please to determine otherwise".[803]

In the meanwhile the letters of the commissioners, reporting Berkeley's disobedience to the King's commands, had arrived in England. Charles was angered, not only at his delay in surrendering the government, but also at his presumption in disregarding the royal proclamation of pardon. "You may well think," he wrote Berkeley, "we are not a little surprised to understand that you make difficulty to yield obedience to our commands, being so clear and plain that we thought no man could have raised any dispute about them. Therefore ... we do ... command you forthwith ... without further delay or excuse (to) repair unto our Presence as We formerly required you."[804]

Secretary Coventry wrote even more severely. We understand, he said, that to the King's clear and positive orders for you to resign the government to Colonel Jeffreys, "upon certain pretences which are no wayes understood here, you have delayed at least if not refused obedience.... His Majesty ... seemeth not a little surprised as well as troubled to find a person that had for so many years served his Royal Father and himself through ye worst of times with so unshaken a loyalty, and so absolute obedience and resignation, should now at one time fall into two such great errors as to affront his Proclamation by putting out one of his owne at ye same time with his, and in that to exempt several persons from pardon, which were by the King's owne Proclamation made capable of Pardon; then after positive orders given for your immediate return ... you yet stay there ... and continually dispute with his Majesty's commissioners. I will assure you, Sir, his Majesty is very sensible of these miscarriages, and hath very little hopes that ye people of Virginia shall be brought to a right sense of their duty to obey their Governours when the Governours themselves will not obey the King. I pray you, Sir, ... take not councell from your owne nor any other body's passion or resentment, to take upon you to judge either conveniency or not conveniency of the King's orders, but obey them, and come over; and whatever you have to say ... you will be heard at large."[805]

Even before these letters were written Sir William had left the colony. He had embarked for England, May the fifth, in Captain Larrimore's sturdy ship which had stood him in such good stead in the hour of need.[806] But the old man, worn out by his violent passions and unusual exertions, was physically unfit for the long voyage across the Atlantic. He became very ill on shipboard, and reached England a dying man. "He came here alive," wrote Secretary Coventry, "but so unlike to live that it had been very inhumane to have troubled him with any interrogacons."[807] The news of the King's displeasure at his conduct added much to his suffering. He pleaded for an opportunity "to clear his Innocency" even though the "tedious passage & griefe of mind" had reduced him "to extreame weaknesse".[808] That Charles did not refuse him this privilege is attested by a letter written to Berkeley by Secretary Coventry. "I am commanded by his Majesty," he said, "to let you know that his Majesty would speake with you as soone as you can, because there are some ships now going to Virginia, and his Majesty would see what further Instructions may be necessary to be sent by them."[809] But Berkeley could not attend the King, either to give information or to plead his own cause. His condition rapidly became critical, and a few days later he died.[810]

Hardly had Sir William breathed his last than Thomas Lord Culpeper "kissed the King's hand as Governour".[811] This nobleman had received a commission, July 8, 1675, which was to take effect immediately upon the death, surrender or forfeiture of the office by Berkeley.[812] It had never been Charles' intention that Colonel Jeffreys should remain permanently at the head of the government of Virginia, and he now notified him to prepare to surrender his office to the new Governor.[813] The King, who felt that the unsettled condition of Virginia required Culpeper's immediate presence, ordered him to depart "with all speed", and told the colonists they might expect him by Christmas "without fayle".[814] But this pampered lord, accustomed to the luxury of the court, had no desire to be exiled in the wilderness of the New World. By various excuses he succeeded in postponing his departure for over two years, and it was not until the spring of 1680 that he landed in Virginia.[815] Thus, for a while, Colonel Jeffreys was left as the chief executive of the colony.

In the meanwhile the commissioners, freed from the baleful presence of the old Governor, were continuing their investigation into the causes of the Rebellion. Berkeley had advised them, when they first announced their mission, to carry out their work through the county courts.[816] But they had refused to accept this plan. The justices were almost all henchmen of Sir William, many were hated by the people and some were the objects of their chief accusations. Had the investigation been intrusted to their hands, they would most certainly have suppressed the principal complaints.[817] The commissioners, therefore, appointed especial officers in the counties to hear the people's grievances, draw them up in writing and bring them in for presentation to the King.[818] Even then the loyal party attempted, by intimidation, to prevent the commons from explaining without reserve what had caused them to take up arms against the government. Sir William, they were careful to report, would most certainly return, and any that dared charge him or his friends with corruption might expect the severest punishment.[819] But the announcement by the commissioners that his Majesty himself had promised his protection to all informants relieved the fears of the people and many came forward with the story of their wrongs.[820] These seem to have been faithfully drawn up by the officers and in time presented to the King.

The loyal party complained loudly that the commissioners used in this matter none but the enemies of the Governor.[821] Lord John Berkeley declared that they had sought information from such only as were known "to be notorious actors in the rebellion".[822] But the commissioners were undoubtedly right in insisting that all grievances should come from those that had been aggrieved. They themselves, they declared, were not responsible for the truth of the charges; their function was only to receive and report them. The King had sent them to Virginia to make the royal ear accessible to the humblest citizen. This could be done only by brushing aside the usual channels of information and going directly to the commons themselves. That some of the accusations were exaggerated or even entirely false seems not improbable; many were undoubtedly true. Posterity must accept them, not as the relation of established truth, but as the charges of a defeated and exasperated party.

In their work of investigation the commissioners found that they had need of the records of the House of Burgesses. In April, 1677, after the adjournment of the session at Green Spring, they came to Major Robert Beverley, the clerk of the Assembly, and demanded "all the Originall Journals, Orders, Acts", etc., then in his custody.[823] Beverley required them to show their authority, and this they did, by giving him a sight of that part of their commission which concerned his delivery of the records.[824] He then offered to allow them to examine any of the papers necessary to the investigation, but he refused absolutely to relinquish their custody.[825] The commissioners, who distrusted Beverley and perhaps feared that he might conceal the records, "took them from him by violence".[826]

When the Assembly met in October, 1677, the House of Burgesses sent a vigorous protest to Colonel Jeffreys against these proceedings of the commissioners. Their action, they declared, "we take to be a great violation of our privileges". The power to command the records which the commissioners claim to have received from the King, "this House humbly suppose His Majesty would not grant or Comand, for that they find not the same to have been practiced by any of the Kings of England in the likewise.... The House do humbly pray your Honour ... will please to give the House such satisfaction, that they may be assured no such violation of their privileges shall be offered for the future."[827]

When Charles II heard of this bold protest he was surprised and angered. It seemed to him a "great presumption of ye said Assembly ... to call in Question" his authority.[828] Referring their representation to the Lords of Trade and Plantations, he directed them "to examine ye same, & to Report" what they thought "fitt to be done in Vindication of ... (the) Royall Authority, & for bringing the said Assembly to a due sence & acknowledgement of their Duty & Submission".[829] The Lords gave it as their opinion that the declaration was so "Seditious, even tending to Rebellion", that the new Governor should be directed to rebuke the Assembly and punish the "authors and abettors of this presumption".[830] The King commanded Lord Culpeper to carry these recommendations into effect. On the third of July, 1680, Culpeper brought the matter before the Virginia Council, preparatory to delivering the rebuke. But the Councillors made a vigorous defense of the action of the Assembly, and unanimously advised the Governor to suspend the execution of the King's command.[831] After some hesitation, Culpeper yielded, and the matter was referred back to the Privy Council. Charles was finally induced to rescind the order, but he insisted that all reference to the declaration "be taken off the file and razed out of the books of Virginia".[832]

The work of the commission being completed, Berry and Moryson, in July, 1677, sailed with the royal squadron for England.[833] Their report, which was so damaging to the Virginia loyalists, was not allowed to go unchallenged. Sir William Berkeley, upon his death bed, had told his brother, Lord John Berkeley, of the hostility of the commissioners, and charged him to defend his conduct and character. And Lord Berkeley, who was a member of the Privy Council and a man of great influence, did his best to refute their evidence and to discredit them before the King.[834] Their entire report, he declared, was "a scandalous lible and invective of Sir William ... and the royal party in Virginia".[835] His brother's conduct had been always prudent and just, and it was noticeable that not one private grievance had ever been brought against him before this rebellion.[836] The meetings of Lord Berkeley with the commissioners in the Council chamber were sometimes stormy. On one occasion he told Berry, "with an angry voice and a Berklean look, ... that he and Morryson had murdered his brother". "Sir John as sharply returned again" that they had done nothing but what they "durst justify".[837]

As the other members of the Privy Council protected the commissioners, and upheld their report, the attacks of the angry nobleman availed nothing. Secretary Coventry averred that Berry and Moryson had been most faithful in carrying out the King's directions, and he showed his confidence in their honesty and their judgment by consulting them upon all important matters relating to the colony.[838] And for a while, their influence in shaping the policy of the Privy Council in regard to Virginia was almost unlimited.

Nor did they scruple to use this great power to avenge themselves upon those men that had so antagonized them and hindered their investigation. Robert Beverley they represented to the Privy Council as a man of low education and mean parts, bred a vulgar seaman and utterly unfit for high office.[839] Colonel Edward Hill was the most hated man in Charles City county.[840] Ballard, Bray and some of the other Councillors were rash and fiery, active in opposing the King's orders and unjust to the poor people.[841] The Privy Council was so greatly influenced by these representations that they determined to reconstruct the Virginia Council, upon lines suggested by Berry and Moryson. Colonel Philip Ludwell, Colonel Ballard and Colonel Bray were expressly excluded from the Council, while Colonel Hill and Major Beverley as "men of evil fame and behavior" were deprived of all governmental employment whatsoever, and "declared unfit to serve His Majesty".[842] On the other hand, Colonel Thomas Swann, who had been excluded from the Council by Governor Berkeley, was now, for his kindness to the commissioners, restored to his seat.[843]

The departure of Sir William Berkeley by no means ended the opposition to Colonel Jeffreys. A part of the Council, realizing that continued hostility could result only in harm to themselves, made their peace with the new administration, and were received into favor, but the more violent of the loyal party remained defiant and abusive. Philip Ludwell, Beverley, Hill, Ballard and others openly denounced Jeffreys as a weakling, entirely unsuited for the important office he now occupied, and did their best to render him unpopular with the people.[844] The Lieutenant-Governor retaliated with considerable spirit, depriving some of their lucrative offices, and suspending others from the Council. Ludwell, whose conduct had been especially obnoxious, was ousted from the collectorship of York River.[845] Ballard was expelled from a similar office.[846] And many months before the changes in the Council ordered by the English government became known in Virginia, no less than six of the most active loyalists had been suspended by the Lieutenant-Governor.[847]

But events soon took a more favorable turn for the Berkeley party. The departure of Berry and Moryson deprived Jeffreys of his staunchest friends and advisors. And, before the end of the summer, he was prostrated by the Virginia sickness, which was still deadly to those unaccustomed to the climate of the colony. For several months he was too ill to attend properly to his duties or to resist the machinations of his enemies, and the government fell into the hands of the Council.[848] And since this body, despite its pretended support of the Lieutenant-Governor, was at heart in full sympathy with Beverley and Ludwell and the other loyalists, the policy of the administration was once more changed. The work of extortion was actively resumed and the courts again busied themselves with suits against the former rebels.[849]

But consternation seized the Green Spring faction, as the loyalists were now called, upon the arrival of the King's order, annulling Berkeley's proclamation of February 10, 1677, and reaffirming the general pardon.[850] If this command were put into effect, most of the confiscations secured since the Rebellion, would become illegal, and restitution would have to be made. So desperately opposed to this were the loyalists that they resolved to suppress the King's letter. They believed that it had been obtained by the influence of the commissioners, and this, they hoped, would soon be rendered nugatory by the presence at court of Sir William Berkeley. If they could keep the order secret for a few weeks, new instructions, dictated by the Governor, might arrive to render its execution unnecessary. Colonel Jeffreys protested against their disobedience, but he was too weak to oppose the will of the Council.[851] So, for six weeks, his Majesty's grace "was unknown to ye poore Inhabitants", while the innumerable suits and prosecutions were pushed vigorously. Not until October the twenty-sixth, when all hope of its revocation had been dispelled by fresh information from England, did the Council consent to the publication of the letter.[852]

In September, 1677, writs were issued for an election of Burgesses.[853] Had Jeffreys not been ill, he would perhaps have refused to allow a new session of the Assembly. The contest at the polls could but result in a victory for the Green Spring faction, as the electoral machinery was in their hands. The Lieutenant-Governor, although he had removed some of the higher colonial officials, had made few changes in the personnel of the county courts.[854] The sheriffs, by resorting to the old methods, made sure of the election of most of the nominees of the loyal party. Complaints came from James City county, New Kent county and other places that intimidation and fraud had been used to deprive the people of a fair election.[855] If we may believe the testimony of William Sherwood, the Berkeley faction carried things with a high hand. "The Inhabitants of James City County," he wrote, "did unanimously elect me a Burgess ... but several of my professed enemies ... procured another writt for a new election, with a positive command not to choose me. The people then being under amazement consented to whome soever the Sheriffe would returne, & so my enemies to make their party the stronger in ye house ... causd three Burgesses to serve for James City County."[856]

"By this means," wrote Colonel Daniel Parke, "and by persuading the burgesses that Sir William Berkeley was coming in Governour again, (the loyal party) got all confirmed that was done at the Assembly before held at Greene Spring."[857] In order to compensate themselves for their great losses and to fulfil the promises made by Berkeley to his followers during the Rebellion, they levied a tax upon the people of one hundred and ten pounds of tobacco per poll. "This with the county tax and parish tax," said Parke, "is in some counties 250lbs, in some 300, and in some 400lbs, which falls very heavie upon the poorer people." The county grievances were again rejected by the Burgesses as false and scandalous, and the persons presenting them were severely punished.[858] But the Assembly expressed an earnest desire to bring about a reconciliation between the hostile factions in the colony, and prescribed a heavy penalty for the use of such opprobrious epithets as "traytor, Rebell Rougue, Rebell", etc.[859]

The news of Berkeley's death was a severe blow to the Green Spring party. All the hope they had entertained that he would accomplish the overthrow of the work of the commissioners, at once fell to the ground. But they were somewhat consoled by the appointment of Lord Culpeper. This nobleman was related to Lady Berkeley, and they had good reason to believe he would reverse the policy of the present administration and ally himself with the loyalists.[860]

In the meanwhile the Lieutenant-Governor was regaining his health and spirits, and was taking a more active part in public affairs. He had been deeply angered with Colonel Philip Ludwell for his many insults, and he now determined to prosecute him "for scandalizing the Governor, and abusing the Authority of his Majesty".[861] Ludwell's unpardonable crime, it would seem, consisted in calling Jeffreys "a pitiful little Fellow with a perriwig".[862] He had also been heard to say that the Lieutenant-Governor was "a worse Rebel than Bacon", that he had broken the laws of Virginia, that he had perjured himself, that he "was not worth a Groat in England". Nor was it considered a sufficient excuse that Ludwell had made those remarks immediately after consuming "part of a Flaggon of Syder".[863] The jury found him guilty of "scandalizing the Governor", but acquitted him of any intention of abusing his Majesty's authority. The General Court, upon the motion of Colonel Jeffreys, referred the case to the King and Privy Council, that they might "advise a punishment proportionable to the offence".[864] Against this decision the defendant, as he had an undoubted right to do, appealed to the General Assembly. Ludwell felt, no doubt, that should the appeal be allowed, his great influence in the House of Burgesses would secure him a light sentence. But the court declared the case so unprecedented that the whole matter, including the question of appeal, must be decided by the King.

With the return of hot weather, Colonel Jeffreys, not yet being acclimated, or "seasoned", as the Virginians expressed it, again became seriously ill.[865] The Council elected a president to act in his place and once more assumed control of the administration.[866] The Green Spring faction, whom only the Lieutenant-Governor could restrain, again lifted its head and endeavored "to continue their old exactions & abuses".[867] Feeling, perhaps, a sense of security in their remoteness from the King, which made it impossible for him to watch their actions closely, or to mete out to them prompt punishment, they still disregarded his pardon and his reiterated commands.[868] "The colony would be as peaceful as could be wished," wrote William Sherwood in August, 1678, "except for the malice of some discontented persons of the late Governor's party, who endeavour by all ye cunning contrivances that by their artifice can be brought about, to bring a Contempt of Colonel Jeffreys, our present good Governor.... Those persons who are the troublers of the peace ... are ... Lady Berkeley, Colonel Philip Ludwell, Colonel Thomas Ballard, Colonel Edward Hill, Major Robert Beverley, all of which are cherished by Mr. Secretary Ludwell (who acts severely.) It is to be feared, unless these fiery Spiritts are allayed or removed home, there will not be that settled, happy peace and unity which otherwise might be, for they are entered into a faction, which is upheld by the expectation of my Lord Culpeper's doing mighty things for them & their interest."[869]

Colonel Jeffreys died in November, 1678.[870] It was the fortune of this Governor to come to the colony in one of the greatest crises of its history. Had he been a man of ability and firmness he could have rendered the people services of great value. He might have put an end to the reign of terror inaugurated by Berkeley, prevented the unending law suits, confiscations and compositions, reorganized the county courts and assured to the people a fair election of Burgesses. He seems to have wished to rule justly and well, but he was too weak to quell the strife between the rival factions and bring quiet to the distracted colony.

So bitter was the loyal party against Colonel Jeffreys, that after his death they sought to revenge themselves upon his widow. The Lieutenant-Governor had received no part of his salary from March, 1678, to the day of his death, and had, as a result, incurred considerable debt. As Mrs. Jeffreys was unable to meet all her husband's obligations, she was detained in Virginia, and, according to one account, thrown into prison.[871] "'Tis plain," she wrote Secretary Coventry, "they seek my Life in malice to my husband, though none of them can tax him with any injustice.... I cannot hope to outlive this persecution, but I most humbly beseech you to intercede for me to his Majesty, that my child may not be ruined."[872] Mrs. Jeffreys later received the arrears due her husband, and was thus enabled to free herself from the power of her enemies.[873]

Upon the death of Colonel Jeffreys, Sir Henry Chicheley, by virtue of a commission granted in 1674, assumed control of the government.[874] The new Governor had long served with distinction in the Council, and seems to have been a "most loyal, worthy person and deservedly beloved by the whole country".[875] But he was now too "old, sickly and crazy" to govern the colony with the vigor and firmness that were so greatly needed.[876] During the eighteen months of his administration the people were "not reconciled to one another", and "ill blood" only too often was manifested by both factions.[877]

Sir Henry had himself been a severe sufferer by the Rebellion. He had fallen into Bacon's hands and had even, it would seem, been threatened with death, in retaliation for Berkeley's execution of Captain Carver. Yet he attempted to rule impartially and well. Writs were issued in the spring of 1679 for an election of Burgesses, and the people were protected from intimidation at the polls. The Assembly, as a result, showed itself more sane, more sensitive to the wishes of the commons, than had been either of the sessions of 1677.[878] Several laws were enacted redressing some of the most flagrant evils of the old governmental system of Berkeley. The voters of each parish were empowered to elect two men "to sitt in the severall county courts and have their equall votes with the severall justices for the makeing of by lawes".[879] An act was passed putting a limit upon the excessive fees charged by the collectors of the customs.[880] And the clamor of the loyalists for the payment of their claims upon the treasury were unheeded, and all public debts were referred for settlement to the next session.[881]

Chicheley's administration came temporarily to an end with the arrival of Lord Culpeper. The period from the close of the Rebellion to May, 1680, when the new Governor-General took the oath of office, seems, at first sight, characterized only by confusion and disaster. The violent animosities, the uncertainty of property rights, the lack of a firm and settled government kept the people in constant uneasiness and discontent. The numerous banishments and executions had deprived the colony of some of its most intelligent and useful citizens, while the plundering of both parties during the Rebellion, and the numberless forfeitures that followed the establishment of peace, had reduced many men to poverty. Nor had the most pressing of the grievances that had caused the people to rise against the government been redressed. The Navigation Acts were still in force, the commons were yet excluded from their rightful share in the government, the taxes were more oppressive than ever.

Yet amid the melancholy confusion of the times, important changes for the better were taking place. Never again was an English Governor to exercise the despotic power that had been Sir William Berkeley's. This was not due to the greater leniency of the British government, or to lack of ambition in the later Governors. But the Rebellion and the events following it, had weakened the loyalty of the people and shown them the possibility of resisting the King's commands. The commons, angered at the severity of the punishment inflicted upon the rebel leaders, and disappointed in the royal promise that their grievances should be redressed, regarded the government with sullen hostility. The wealthy planters resented what they considered Charles' ingratitude for their loyal support in the hour of need, and complained bitterly of his interference with their attempts to restore their ruined fortunes. Throughout Berkeley's administration their interests had seemed to be identical with those of the Governor, and they had ever worked in harmony with him. With the advent of Colonel Jeffreys, however, they had been thrown into violent opposition to the executive. Their success in thwarting the policies of the Lieutenant-Governor, and in evading and disobeying the King's commands gave them a keen appreciation of their own influence and power. They were to become more and more impatient of the control of the Governors, more and more prone to defy the commands of the English government.

The awakened spirit of resistance bore rich fruit for the cause of liberty. The chief difficulty heretofore experienced by the commons in defending their rights was the lack of intelligent and forceful leaders. These they now secured through the frequent quarrels of the wealthy planters with the Governors. More than once Councillors, suspended from their seats for disobedience, came forward as leaders in the struggle to preserve the rights of the people. In this capacity they rendered services of the highest importance. Strangely enough some of the leading spirits of the old Berkeley party became, by their continued opposition to the executive, champions of representative government in the colony. Had it not been for the active leadership of Robert Beverley and Philip Ludwell the cause of liberty might well have perished under the assaults of Charles II and James II.

The House of Burgesses was gradually becoming more representative of the people. The intimidation of voters practiced by the loyal party immediately after the Rebellion could not be continued indefinitely. As the terror inspired by Berkeley's revenge upon the rebels began to wane, the commons insisted more upon following their own inclinations at the polls. Moreover, the incessant quarrels of the Governors with the members of the aristocracy made it impossible for any clique to control again the electoral machinery. As the sheriffs and justices were no longer so closely allied with the executive as they had been in the Restoration period, false returns of Burgesses and other electoral frauds were apt to be of less frequent occurrence.

Thus, during the years immediately following the Rebellion, forces were shaping themselves which were to make it possible for the colony to resist those encroachments of the Crown upon its liberties that marked the last decade of the rule of the Stuart kings, and to pass safely through what may well be called the Critical Period of Virginia history.

FOOTNOTES:

[720] P. R. O., CO389.6-177.

[721] Ibid.

[722] The commission had consisted at first of Sir John Berry, Colonel Francis Moryson and Thomas Fairfax. P. R. O., CO1-37-53.

[723] P. R. O., CO389.6-113, 174.

[724] P. R. O., CO389.6-113.

[725] P. R. O., CO389.6-121, 174, 175.

[726] P. R. O., CO389.6-113.

[727] P. R. O., CO389.6-137, 139, 140, 144; CO1-38-7.

[728] P. R. O., CO389.6-116.

[729] P. R. O., CO5-1371-149, 154.

[730] P. R. O., CO1-40-110; CO5-1371-27, 33, 62, 63, 64.

[731] P. R. O., CO1-39-11, 17; CO5-1371-68, 69, 62, 63, 64, 78, 79, 81, 82, 132.

[732] P. R. O., CO5-1371-152.

[733] P. R. O., CO5-1371-132.

[734] CO1-40-1 to 37; CO1-40-43; CO5-1371-81, 82.

[735] P. R. O., CO1-40-23.

[736] P. R. O., CO5-1371-27, 33.

[737] P. R. O., CO1-39-38.

[738] P. R. O., CO5-1371-17, 20.

[739] Ibid.

[740] P. R. O., CO5-1371-27, 33.

[741] Ibid.

[742] P. R. O., CO5-1371-55, 60.

[743] P. R. O., CO5-1371-90, 94.

[744] P. R. O., CO391.2-173, 178.

[745] P. R. O., CO5-1371-90, 94.

[746] P. R. O., CO5-1371-83, 85, 90, 94.

[747] P. R. O., CO289.6-121.

[748] P. R. O., CO5-1371-50, 83.

[749] P. R. O., CO5-1371-93, 94.

[750] P. R. O., CO1-40-88.

[751] P. R. O., CO1-39-24.

[752] P. R. O., CO5-1371-32.

[753] P. R. O., CO5-1371-55, 60.

[754] P. R. O., CO5-1371-32, 38.

[755] P. R. O., CO5-1371-276, 286.

[756] This Thomas Mathews was probably the author of the T. M. account of Bacon's Rebellion.

[757] P. R. O., CO2-39-31; CO5-1371-276, 286.

[758] P. R. O., CO5-1371-125, 127.

[759] P. R. O., CO1-39-38; CO1-41-79.

[760] T. M., p. 24.

[761] P. R. O., CO1-39-35; Hen., Vol. II, p. 550.

[762] P. R. O., CO1-39-35; Hen., Vol. II, p. 553.

[763] P. R. O., CO5-1371-152.

[764] P. R. O., CO5-1371-178, 179.

[765] P. R. O., CO5-1371-180, 181.

[766] P. R. O., CO1-45-3.

[767] P. R. O., CO5-1371-152.

[768] P. R. O., CO5-1371-152; Hen., Vol. II, p. 550.

[769] P. R. O., CO5-1371-32, 152.

[770] P. R. O., CO5-1371-152.

[771] P. R. O., CO5-1371-152.

[772] P. R. O., CO1-40-88.

[773] P. R. O., CO5-1371-132.

[774] P. R. O., CO5-1371-32.

[775] P. R. O., CO1-39-35.

[776] P. R. O., CO1-40-43.

[777] P. R. O., CO1-40-73, 106.

[778] P. R. O., CO1-40-114.

[779] P. R. O., CO1-39-35.

[780] P. R. O., CO1-39-35.

[781] P. R. O., CO5-1371-168 to 175; CO1-39-35.

[782] P. R. O., CO1-39-38.

[783] P. R. O., CO1-39-38.

[784] P. R. O., CO1-39-39.

[785] P. R. O., CO1-39-38.

[786] P. R. O., CO1-39-38.

[787] P. R. O., CO5-1371-39 to 44.

[788] P. R. O., CO5-1371-132.

[789] P. R. O., CO5-1371-182, 187

[790] P. R. O., CO5-1371-193 to 198.

[791] P. R. O., CO5-1371-208 to 211

[792] P. R. O., CO5-1371-212, 213.

[793] P. R. O., CO5-1371-220, 231.

[794] P. R. O., CO5-1371-220, 231.

[795] P. R. O., CO5-1371-212, 213.

[796] P. R. O., CO5-1371-220, 231.

[797] P. R. O., CO5-1371-220, 231.

[798] Probably the real postilion.

[799] P. R. O., CO5-1371-214 to 217.

[800] This proclamation was issued April 27, 1677. P. R. O., CO1-40-53.

[801] P. R. O., CO1-41-121; CO1-42-23.

[802] P. R. O., CO1-40-53.

[803] P. R. O., CO1-40-54.

[804] This letter was written May 13, 1677.

[805] P. R. O., CO389.6-195 to 198.

[806] P. R. O., CO1-40-88.

[807] P. R. O., CO389.6.

[808] P. R. O., CO1-40-110.

[809] P. R. O., CO389.6-207.

[810] P. R. O., CO389.6-210.

[811] P. R. O., CO389.6-212.

[812] P. R. O., CO5-1355-299; CO389.6-271 to 273.

[813] P. R. O., CO389.6-210, 215.

[814] P. R. O., CO389.6-210.

[815] P. R. O., CO5-1355-377.

[816] P. R. O., CO5-1371-45.

[817] Nothing can show this more clearly than the reception in the Assembly, which was largely composed of justices of the peace, of the county grievances.

[818] P. R. O., CO391.2-180.

[819] P. R. O., CO5-1371-132.

[820] P. R. O., CO5-1371-132.

[821] P. R. O., CO391.2-180; Burk, Vol. II, pp. 259, 260.

[822] P. R. O., CO391.2-173 to 178; Burk, Vol. II, p. 260.

[823] P. R. O., CO1-41-87.

[824] P. R. O., CO1-42-138.

[825] P. R. O., CO5-1376-273.

[826] P. R. O., CO5-1376-273.

[827] P. R. O., CO1-41-87.

[828] P. R. O., CO1-42-141.

[829] P. R. O., CO1-42-141.

[830] P. R. O., CO391.2-300, 301.

[831] P. R. O., CO5-1355-354.

[832] Sains., Vol. XVIII, p. 129.

[833] P. R. O., CO1-41-17.

[834] Burk, Vol. II, p. 263.

[835] Burk, Vol. II, p. 259; P. R. O., CO391.2-180.

[836] Burk, Vol. II, p. 264.

[837] Burk, Vol. II, p. 266.

[838] P. R. O., CO391.2-180.

[839] P. R. O., CO1-41-121. Major Beverley was of good family. His military leadership in Bacon's Rebellion, and his services as clerk of the Assembly, testify to his ability. Va. Mag., Vol. II, p. 405.

[840] P. R. O., CO1-41-121.

[841] P. R. O., CO391.2-173 to 178.

[842] P. R. O., C039I.2-305.

[843] P. R. O., CO391.2-173 to 178.

[844] P. R. O., CO1-41-138; CO1-42-117.

[845] Va. Mag., Vol. XVIII, p. 18; P. R. O., CO1-42-55.

[846] Sains., Vol. XVII, p. 19.

[847] P. R. O., CO1-41-121.

[848] P. R. O., CO1-42-17.1, 23.

[849] P. R. O., CO1-42-23.

[850] P. R. O., CO1-42-17.1, 23.

[851] P. R. O., CO1-42-17.1, 23.

[852] P. R. O., CO1-42-17.1.

[853] P. R. O., CO1-42-23.

[854] P. R. O., CO1-42-23.

[855] P. R. O., CO1-42-17.1.

[856] P. R. O., CO1-42-23.

[857] P. R. O., CO1-42-17.1.

[858] P. R. O., CO5-1376.

[859] P. R. O., CO5-1376.

[860] P. R. O., CO1-42-55; Va. Mag., Vol. II, p. 408.

[861] Va. Mag., Vol. XVIII, p. 20.

[862] Va. Mag., Vol. XVIII, p. 12.

[863] Va. Mag., Vol. XVIII, p. 11.

[864] Va. Mag., Vol. XVIII, p. 23.

[865] P. R. O., CO1-42-103.

[866] Va. Mag., Vol. IX, p. 307.

[867] P. R. O., CO1-42-103.

[868] P. R. O., CO1-42-107.

[869] P. R. O., CO1-42-117.

[870] Va. Mag., Vol. IX, p. 307.

[871] P. R. O., CO5-1355-304, 305, 309.

[872] P. R. O., CO5-1355-305.

[873] P. R. O., CO5-1355-370.

[874] Va. Mag., Vol. IX, p. 307.

[875] P. R. O., CO1-41-121.

[876] Sains., Vol. XVII, p. 230.

[877] Sains., Vol. XVII, p. 230.

[878] Hen., Vol. II, p. 433.

[879] Hen., Vol. II, p. 441.

[880] Hen., Vol. II, p. 443.

[881] Hen., Vol. II, p. 456.



CHAPTER VIII

THE CRITICAL PERIOD

For some years after the Restoration the administration of English colonial affairs had been very lax. The Council of Plantations, which had served as a Colonial Office during the period from 1660 to 1672, had done little to control the Governors or to supervise and direct their policies. With the exception of one list of questions sent to Virginia in 1670, they had left Sir William Berkeley almost entirely to his own devices. September 27, 1672, the Council of Plantations was united with the Board of Domestic Trade to form the Council of Trade and Plantations. This new arrangement seems not to have been productive of good results, for in December, 1674, after the fall of the Cabal ministry, it was discontinued and the direction of colonial affairs entrusted to the King's Privy Council. This important body, finding its new duties very onerous, created a committee of twenty-one members, to whom the supervision of trade and plantations was assigned. In this way the King's most trusted ministers were brought into close touch with colonial affairs. We find now such prominent statesmen as Secretary Coventry, Secretary Williamson and Sir Lionel Jenkins carrying on extensive correspondence with the Governors, becoming interested in all their problems and needs, and demanding copies of all journals of Assembly and other state papers.[882]

This closer intimacy with the colonial governments led inevitably to a feeling of intolerance for local autonomy and for representative institutions, and to a determination to force upon the colonists a conformity with the policies and desires of the English government. Charles II and James II, instituted, in the decade preceding the English Revolution, a series of measures designed to curb the independence of the colonists. Some of the Assembly's long-established and most important rights were attacked. Many of its statutes were annulled by proclamation; its judicial powers were forever abolished; its control over taxation and expenditure was threatened; the privilege of selecting the Assembly clerk was taken from it; while even the right to initiate legislation was assailed.

The intolerant mood of the King and Privy Council is reflected in the instructions given Lord Culpeper upon his departure for Virginia. They included orders depriving him of the power, exercised freely by all former Governors, of calling sessions of the Assembly. "It is Our Will and pleasure," Charles declared, "that for the future noe General Assembly be called without Our special directions, but that, upon occasion, you doe acquaint us by letter, with the necessity of calling such an Assembly, and pray Our consent, and directions for their meeting."[883]

Even more dangerous to the liberties of the people was the attempt to deprive the Assembly of the right to initiate legislation. "You shall transmit unto us," Culpeper was commanded, "with the advice and consent of the Council, a draught of such Acts, as you shall think fit and necessary to bee passed, that wee may take the same into Our consideration, and return them in the forme wee shall think fit they bee enacted in. And, upon receipt of Our commands, you shall then summon an Assembly, and propose the said Laws for their consent."[884]

Most fortunately neither of these instructions could be enforced. The great distance of England from Virginia, and the time required to communicate with the King, made the summoning of the Assembly and the initiation of legislation without the royal assent a matter of absolute necessity. Lord Culpeper, with his Majesty's especial permission, disregarded these orders during his first visit to the colony, and later, to his great satisfaction, the Committee of Trade and Plantations "altered their measures therein".[885]

Culpeper was directed to secure in the colony a permanent revenue for the King. It was rightly judged that the representatives of royal authority could never be entirely masters of the government while they were dependent for their salaries upon the votes of the Assembly. Sir William Berkeley, it is true, had rendered his position secure by obliging all "the men of parts and estates", but similar methods might be impossible for other Governors. The King and Privy Council did not, however, attempt to raise the desired revenue by imposing a tax upon the people without their own consent. An act levying a duty of two shillings a hogshead upon all tobacco exported from Virginia was drawn up by the Attorney-General for ratification by the Assembly.[886] The consent of the King in Council was duly received and the bill, with an act concerning naturalization and another for a general pardon, were sent to Virginia by Lord Culpeper. "These bills," the King told him, "we have caused to be under the Greate Seale of England, and our will is that the same ... you shall cause to be considered and treated upon in our Assembly of Virginia."[887]

The revenue bill was quite similar to an act of Assembly still in force, which had imposed a duty upon exported tobacco, but an all-important difference lay in the disposal of the funds thus raised. The former statute had given the proceeds of this tax to the Assembly, "for the defraying the publique necessary charges",[888] but the new act was to grant the money "to the King's most excellent Majesty his heires and Successors for ever to and for the better support of the Government".[889]

In order to carry out these new designs for the government of the colony, the King ordered Lord Culpeper to prepare to sail at once. The Governor, however, was most reluctant to leave the pleasures of the court for a life in the American wilderness. His departure had already been long delayed, more than two years having elapsed since Charles had told the colonists to expect his speedy arrival. Yet he still delayed and procrastinated. On the third of December, 1679, an order was issued giving his Lordship "liberty to stay in Towne about his affaires until Monday next, and noe longer, and then to proceed forthwith" to the Downs, where "the Oxford frigat" was waiting to convey him to Virginia.[890] But as he still lingered in London, the Captain of the frigate was ordered to sail up the Thames to take him on board.[891] No sooner had he left his moorings, however, than Culpeper, probably in order to gain time, hastened away to the Downs. This so aroused the King's anger that he was pleased to direct one of his principal secretaries to signify by letter to Lord Culpeper his high displeasure at his delay and neglect of duty, and that his intentions were to appoint another Governor of Virginia unless he embarked as soon as the frigate returned to the Downs.[892] But now adverse winds set in, and Culpeper, with the tobacco fleet which had waited for him, was unable to sail until February 13, 1680.[893]

He arrived off the capes May the second, and eight days later took formal possession of his government. Immediately the Councillors and other leading planters flocked around him, eager to secure his support against the old rebellious party. Nor was their presentation of their cause ineffectual in winning the Governor's sympathy. "All things," he wrote Secretary Coventry, "are ... far otherwise than I supposed in England, and I beleeve ye Council, at least I have seen through a mist."[894] It was to be expected then, that in settling the dispute that had so long troubled the colony he would favor the Berkeley faction. And this, so far as the King's commands would permit, he seems to have done. The wealthy planters expressed their satisfaction with his measures, and the commons, if they disapproved, feared to reveal their resentment. "His Excellency," wrote Colonel Spencer, "has with soe great prudence settled all the Affairs of the Country that our late different Interests are perfectly united to the general satisfaction of all his Majesty's Subjects in this colony."[895]

The Berkeley party was deeply displeased at the King's command to exclude Colonel Philip Ludwell from the Council. Recognizing in the order the influence of Colonel Jeffreys and the other commissioners, they assured the Governor that it had been secured by false representations. The Councillors declared "that they were very sencible of ye want of that Assistance they for many Years" had had from Colonel Ludwell, "whose good abilities, Knowne Integrity and approved Loyalty" rendered him most necessary to his Majesty's service. They therefore earnestly requested "his Excellency to Readmitt & Receive him to be one of ye Councill".[896] Culpeper yielded readily, and Ludwell was restored to his seat.

The Burgesses were chagrined at the order to oust Major Robert Beverley from all public employment. He was again the clerk of Assembly, for which office he was "their Unanimous Choyce", and his disgrace was regarded as a rebuke to the House.[897] Upon their earnest petition Culpeper consented that he should retain that important post in which he was soon to render signal service to the people and to incur again the anger of the King and his ministers.[898]

When the Assembly convened the Governor at once laid before it the Act of General Pardon, the Act of Naturalization and the Act for a Public Revenue. To the first and the second he obtained a prompt assent, but the third was strenuously resisted. The House of Burgesses was filled with gentlemen of the best families, men closely allied with the Council in position and interest, yet they were unwilling to permit any part of the public revenue to pass out of the control of the people.[899] "The House," they declared, "doe most humbly desire to be Excused if they doe not give their approbacon of his Majesties bill."[900] And so determined were they, that when the matter was again brought before them by the Governor they refused even to resume the debate.[901]

But Culpeper, fearful of the King's displeasure, and uneasy for the payment of his own salary, made strenuous efforts to secure the passage of the bill. He did not scruple to resort to bribery and intimidation to force obedience from the stubborn Burgesses. We have the testimony of the Governor himself to one notorious case of the misuse of the patronage. Among the leaders of the House of Burgesses was Isaac Allerton, a man of wealth and education, and an excellent speaker.[902] "He did assure me," Culpeper reported to the Privy Council, "of his utmost services in whatsoever the King should command him by his Governor, particularly as to a further Bill of Revenue for the support of ye Government, And I did engage to move his Majesty that hee should bee of the Council ... though not to be declared till after the Session of next Assembly, when I am sure he can bee as serviceable if not more than any other person whatsoever."[903] This bargain was faithfully kept and in time Allerton, for thus betraying his trust, received his seat in the Council.[904]

Nor did Lord Culpeper hesitate to intimidate the Burgesses by threatening to demand the payment of all arrears of quit-rents. This tax, although belonging to the King from the first settlement of the colony, had not, for many years, been duly collected. It was now rumored, however, that the Privy Council intended, not only to enforce for the future a strict payment, but to demand a settlement for the accumulated arrears. In 1679 Sir Henry Chicheley had forwarded to his Majesty a petition from the Assembly asking relief from this great burden. If this be not granted, he wrote, the payments which have been so long due and amount to so vast a sum, will fall heavily upon all, but especially upon the poor.[905] Culpeper, knowing well the anxiety of the Burgesses upon this point, told them that if they expected the King to grant their petition, they must yield to his desire for a royal revenue in the colony.

Calling the Assembly before him, he urged them to resume their debate. "It looks," he said, "as if you could give noe reasons or as if you were affraid to be convinced.... I desire you to lay aside that irregular proceeding ... and resume the debate." The Council, he added, had given their unanimous consent to the bill. "Consider the affaires of the Quitt Rents, Consider the King's favour in every thing you may aske even to a cessacon ... and reflect if it be tante for you not to concurr in a thing that, I am assured, ye King ... judges his owne and will soe use it and the more fully then if this Act pass."[906]

Thus threatened, the Burgesses finally yielded, and the bill became law. But they insisted upon adding to it two provisos: that the former export duty upon tobacco be repealed, and that the exemption of Virginia ship owners from the payment of the tax, which had been a provision of the former law, should be continued.[907] When some months later the matter came before the Committee of Trade and Plantations, their Lordships expressed much dissatisfaction at these amendments, declaring that the bill should have passed "in Terminis". Since, however, the first proviso in no way changed the sense of the act, and had been added only to prevent a double imposition, they recommended that it should be continued. But the second was declared null and void by order of the King, as "irregular and unfit to be allowed of".[908]

Lord Culpeper, immediately after the dismissal of the Assembly made ready to return to England. August 3, 1680, he read to the Council an order from the King granting him permission to leave the colony, and a few days later he set sail in The James.[909] The government was again left in the hands of the infirm Chicheley.[910]

Culpeper, upon his arrival in England, told the King that all was well in the colony, that the old contentions had been forgotten, and the people were happy and prosperous. But this favorable report, which was made by the Governor to palliate his desertion of his post, was far from being true. There was, as he well knew, a deep-seated cause of discontent in Virginia, that threatened constantly to drive the people again into mutiny and disorder. This was the continued low price of tobacco. In the years which had elapsed since Bacon's Rebellion, the people, despite their bitter quarrels, had produced several large crops, and the English market was again glutted. "What doth quite overwhelm both us and Maryland," complained the colonists, "is the extreme low price of our only commodity ... and consequently our vast poverty and infinite necessity."[911] The Burgesses, in 1682, spoke of the worthlessness of tobacco as an "ineffable Calamity". "Wee are," they said, "noe wayes able to force a miserable subsistance from the same.... If force of penne, witt, or words Could truely represent (our condition) as it is, the sad resentments would force blood from any Christian Loyall Subjects heart."[912] Some months later the Council wrote, "The people of Virginia are generally, some few excepted, extremely poor, ... not being able to provide against the pressing necessities of their families."[913] That the Privy Council was aware, as early as October, 1681, that these conditions might lead to another insurrection, is attested by a letter of the Committee of Trade and Plantations to Lord Culpeper. "We are informed," they wrote, "that Virginia is in great danger of disturbance ... by reason of the extreme poverty of the People, occasioned by the low price of tobacco which, tis feared may induce the servants to plunder the Stores of the Planters and the Ships arriving there and to commit other outrages and disorders as in the late Rebellion."[914]

This universal distress created a strong sentiment throughout the colony in favor of governmental restriction upon the planting of tobacco. Unless something were done to limit the annual crop, prices would continue to decline. Many merchants, who had bought up large quantities of tobacco in England with the expectation that its value would eventually rise, "fell to insinuate with the easiest sort People how advantageous it would bee ... if an Act of Assembly could be procured to cease planting tobacco for one whole year".[915] When, in the spring of 1682, it became apparent that another large crop must be expected, an almost universal demand arose for the immediate convening of the Assembly for the passage of a law of cessation.

The Councillors, although themselves in favor of some restraint upon the huge output, advised the aged Deputy-Governor not to consent to a session at this juncture.[916] But Chicheley, persuaded, it was claimed, by the insistent arguments of Major Beverley, yielded to the desires of the people, and upon his own responsibility, issued writs summoning the Burgesses to convene at Jamestown, April 18, 1682.[917] Five days before the date of meeting, however, a letter arrived from the King, expressly forbidding an Assembly until November the tenth, when, it was hoped, Lord Culpeper would have returned to his government.[918] The letter also informed the Deputy-Governor that two companies of troops that had remained in Virginia ever since the Rebellion, could no longer be maintained at the expense of the royal Exchequer. Since many of the Burgesses were already on their way to Jamestown, Sir Henry decided to hold a brief session, in order to permit them, if they so desired, to continue the companies at the charge of the colony.[919] But he expressed his determination, in obedience to the King's commands, to forbid the consideration of any other matter whatsoever.

The Burgesses met "big with expectation to enact a Cessation".[920] The appeals of their constituents and the smart of their own purses made them desperately resolute to give the country relief from the present depressing conditions. When they learned that after all their session was to be in vain, and that they were to be allowed to vote only on the matter of continuing the companies, they were deeply concerned and angered. Addressing the Deputy Governor, they declared themselves overwhelmed with grief at the expectation of adjournment. They had, from all parts of the drooping country, passionately wended their way to Jamestown, to attend this Assembly, upon which the "last expiring hopes" of the "miserably indigent poor Country" were reposed. Should they be compelled to return to their homes, having accomplished nothing, the people would be struck with amazement, "like an unexpected death wound".[921]

The Deputy Governor, not daring to disobey the King, ignored their appeal, and bade them decide without delay whether or not they would continue the two companies. But the Burgesses would give no definite answer upon this matter, hoping by a policy of delay to win, in the end, Chicheley's consent to the cessation. After seven days of fruitless bickering Sir Henry, in anger at their obstinacy, prorogued the Assembly to November the tenth.[922] Before their dismissal, however, the Burgesses, in order to show that they had not been remiss in endeavoring to secure relief for the people, voted that the journal of their proceedings should be read publicly in every county.

Nor had they misjudged the desperate humor of the people. When it became known throughout the colony that the Assembly had done nothing to restrict the planting of tobacco, the anger of the poor planters could not be restrained. Some bold spirits proposed that the people should assemble in various parts of the country, and, in defiance of law and order, cut to pieces the tobacco then in the fields. If the King would not permit a cessation by law, they would bring about a cessation by force. A few days after the close of the Assembly, parties of men in Gloucester began the work of destruction. It required but little exertion to ruin the tender plants, and the rioters, passing from plantation to plantation, in an incredibly short time accomplished enormous havoc. Many men, filled with the contagion, cut up their own tobacco, and then joined the mob in the destruction of the crops of their neighbors.[923]

As soon as the news of this strange insurrection reached Jamestown, Chicheley dispatched Colonel Kemp to Gloucester with directions to muster the militia and to restore order by force of arms. This officer, with a troop of horse, fell upon one party of plant-cutters, and captured twenty-two of their number. "Two of the principal and incorrigible rogues" he held for trial, but "the rest submitting and giving assurances of their quiet and peacable behavior were remitted".[924] Other parties, intimidated by these vigorous measures, dispersed, and soon peace was restored throughout all Gloucester. But now news reached the Deputy-Governor "that the next adjacent county, being new Kent, was lately broke forth, committing the like spoyles on plants". And no sooner had the troops suppressed the rioters here than the disorders spread to Middlesex and other counties. It became necessary to issue orders to the commanders of the militia in each county to keep parties of horse in continual motion, to prevent the designs of the plant-cutters and arrest their leaders.[925] And then the rioters, who had at first carried on their work in the open day, "went in great companys by night, destroying and pulling up whole fields of tobacco after it was well grown".[926] Not until August were the disorders finally suppressed.

These troubles, coming so soon after Bacon's Rebellion, caused great apprehension, both to the colonial government and to the Privy Council. "I know," wrote Secretary Spencer, "the necessities of the inhabitants to be such ... their low estate makes them desperate.... If they goe forward the only destroying Tobacco plants will not satiate their rebellious appatites who, if they increase and find the strength of their own arms, will not bound themselves."[927] And, although the actual rioters were "inconsiderable people", yet it was thought they had been instigated by men of position and wealth.[928]

Grave suspicion rested upon Major Robert Beverley.[929] It had been the importunities of "the over-active Clerk" that had persuaded Chicheley, against the advice of the Council, to convene the Assembly. It was he that had been the most industrious advocate of a cessation, that had fomented the disputes in the Assembly, that had most strenuously opposed adjournment. And it was he, the Council believed, that had "instilled into the multitude ... the right of making a Cessation by cutting up Plants".[930] Moreover, they thought it not improbable that he would lead the people into a new insurrection. The rabble regarded him with veneration and love. His activity in suppressing the Rebellion and his opposition to the county grievances of 1677 had been forgotten, and they saw in him now only the defender of the poor and helpless. Were he to assume the role of a Bacon and place himself at the head of the commons, he might easily make himself master of the colony. Although there was no evidence against him, "but only rudeness and sauciness", it was thought advisable to render him powerless to accomplish harm, by placing him under arrest.[931] He was taken without resistance by Major-General Smith, "though to his own great loss of 2 or 300 pounds, by the Rabbles cutting up his Tobacco plants within two days after out of Spight".[932]

Beverley was kept in strict confinement on board an English ship, the Duke of York, where for the time, he was safe from rescue by the people. But so fearful was the Council that he might plot for a general insurrection, that they issued orders forbidding him to send or to receive letters, and permitting him to speak only in the presence of the captain of the ship.[933] Even these harsh measures did not reassure them, and it was decided to send him to the Eastern Shore, where the people were most loyal to the government, and where rescue would be impossible.[934] As preparations were being made to effect his transfer, he escaped from the custody of the sheriff, and returned to his home in Middlesex. But he was soon recaptured, and conveyed to Northampton. Here, despite all the efforts of his friends and his own violent protests, he was kept in confinement for months. In the fall he applied for a writ of habeas corpus, but this was denied him under the pretext that the whole matter had been referred to the King, and was no longer within the jurisdiction of the Deputy-Governor and Council.[935] Since, however, all fear of a rebellion was now passed, he was permitted, upon giving bail to the sum of L2,000, to return to his home. But he was still restricted to the counties of Middlesex and Gloucester, was declared ineligible to public office and was forbidden to plead as an attorney in any colonial court.[936]

When the Privy Council learned of the plant-cutting in Virginia, they ordered Lord Culpeper "to repair to the Government with all possible speed, in order to find out, by the strictest enquiry, the abbetors and instruments of this commotion". And since they too were fearful of a new insurrection, they gave directions "that some person who shall be found most faulty may be forthwith punished".[937] "After which," the Privy Council advised, "and not before the Governor may be directed to consider of and propose, with the advice of the Council and the Assembly, ... some temperament in relation to the Planting of Tobacco and raising the price of that commodity."[938]

Culpeper left England in October, 1682, upon "the Mermaid frigat", and, after a tedious and dangerous voyage of eleven weeks, arrived safely in Virginia. He was resolved that the persons responsible for the plant-cutting should be brought immediately to trial, and punished with the utmost rigor of the law. The strictest inquiry was made into the conduct of Major Beverley, and had there been evidence sufficient to convict him, the unfortunate Clerk would undoubtedly have suffered death upon the gallows. But since only the most trivial offenses could be adduced against him, Culpeper was forced to turn elsewhere for the victims demanded by the English government.

So the prosecution was now directed against some of the actual plant-cutters. In this, however, Culpeper found himself greatly embarrassed by Chicheley's previous treatment of the matter. The Deputy-Governor had, some months before, issued pardons to many of the chief offenders, and had permitted the others to give bail, thus treating their crime as "Ryot and noe more", and making the affair seem "as slight as possible to the people".[939] But Culpeper, despite this action of Sir Henry, ordered the arrest of four of the most notorious plant-cutters and charged them with high treason. Their trial created great excitement throughout the colony, but "despite the high words and threats" of the rabble, three of them were convicted. Two were executed—Somerset Davies at Jamestown, and Black Austin "before the Court-house in Glocester county, where the Insurrection first broke out".[940] The third was pardoned by the Governor. "Hee was extremely young," Culpeper wrote, "not past 19, meerely drawn in and very penitent, and therefore ... I thought fit to mingle mercy with Justice and Repreeved him ... to the end the whole country might be convinced that there was no other motive in the thing but purely to maintain Government."[941]

But although Culpeper was thus vigorous in punishing the disorders of the poor people, he did nothing to remove the cause of their turbulence—the low price of tobacco. By an order in Council of June 17, 1682, he had been directed to grant a cessation, should it seem expedient, and had been given a letter from Secretary Jenkins to Lord Baltimore, requiring the cooeperation of Maryland.[942] But, upon finding the colony in peace and quiet, and the Assembly busy with other concerns, he "took advantage thereof", and kept secret this unexpected concession. Culpeper pretended to believe that the desired cessation would be of no real benefit to the planters, but it is clear that he was consciously betraying the colony to the greed of the royal Exchequer.[943] "I soe encouraged the planting of tobacco," he reported to the Privy Council, "that if the season continue to be favorable ... there will bee a greater cropp by far than ever grew since its first seating. And I am confident that Customs next year from thence will be L50,000 more than ever heretofore in any one year."[944] Immediately after, he declared that he well knew "that the great Cropp then in hand would most certainly bring that place into the utmost exigencies again", and he promised to be prepared to quell the disturbances that would result.[945]

Before Lord Culpeper left England an order had been delivered to him "commanding that noe Governour of his Majesty's Plantations, doe come into England from his Government", without first obtaining leave from the King.[946] But so loath was he to remain long in Virginia, that as soon as he had dispatched the business of the April court, he once more set sail for England. "I judged it a proper time," he said, "to make a step home this easy quiet year, not out of any fondness to bee in England, ... but for the King's service only."[947]

But Charles and the Privy Council were weary of Culpeper's neglect of duty. They decided to rid themselves of so untrustworthy an officer and to appoint in his place a man that would remain in the colony and carry out their wishes and policies. An inquisition was held upon his conduct, and his letters patent as Governor-General were declared void.[948] On the 28th of September, 1683, a commission as Lieutenant- and Governor-General of Virginia was granted to Lord Howard of Effingham.[949]

Few British colonial Governors are less deserving of respect than Thomas Lord Culpeper. He was insensible of any obligation to guard the welfare of the people of Virginia, and was negligent in executing the commands of the King. He seems to have regarded his office only as an easy means of securing a large income, and he was untiring in his efforts to extort money from the exhausted and impoverished colony. Sir William Berkeley's salary as Governor had been L1,000, but Culpeper demanded and received no less than L2,000.[950] In addition, he was allowed L150 a year in lieu of a residence, received pay as captain of infantry and claimed large sums under the provisions of the Arlington-Culpeper grant.

Nor did he scruple to resort to open fraud in satisfying his greed. There were, in 1680, two companies remaining in Virginia of the troops sent over to suppress Bacon's Rebellion. Having received no pay for many months, the soldiers were discontented and mutinous.[951] The Privy Council entrusted to Culpeper, upon his first departure for the colony, money to satisfy them, and to compensate the householders with whom they had been quartered.[952] At this period, as always in the seventeenth century, there was a great scarcity of specie in Virginia. But there circulated, usually by weight, various foreign coins, the most common of which was the Spanish piece of eight, about equal in value to five shillings in English money. My Lord, upon his arrival, industriously bought up all the worn coins he could secure, arbitrarily proclaimed them legal tender at the ratio of six shillings to one piece of eight, and then paid the soldiers and the landlords. This ingenious trick probably netted him over L1,000. Later he restored the ratio to five to one, so that he would lose nothing when his own salary became due. Of such stuff were some of the Virginia colonial governors.[953]

But Culpeper's many defects were not wholly unfortunate for the colony, for they rendered him unfit to carry out the designs of the King. His frequent absences from his government made it impossible for him to become thoroughly acquainted with conditions in the colony, or to bind the wealthy to him by a judicious use of the patronage. He was too weak, too careless to pursue a long continued attack upon the established privileges of the people.

It boded ill, therefore, for Virginia, when he was removed, and a commission granted to Lord Howard. The new Governor was well fitted for the task of oppression and coercion. Unscrupulous, deceitful, overbearing, resentful, persistent, he proved a dangerous foe to the representative institutions of the colony, and an able defender of royal prerogative. Had he not encountered throughout his entire administration, the united and determined resistance of the Burgesses, he might have overthrown all constitutional government. Well it was for Virginia that at this moment of imminent danger, the Burgesses should have been so conscious of their duty and so resolute in executing it. They were still, as in most periods of colonial history, men of high social position, but they represented, not their own class, but the entire colony. And they were ever watchful to guard the interests of the commons.

Effingham took the oath of office in England, October 24, 1683,[954] and a few months later sailed for the colony.[955] No sooner had he set foot in Virginia than the struggle with the Burgesses began. The session of Assembly of April, 1684, was filled with their bitter disputes.

Consternation reigned in the House when Lord Howard produced an instruction from the King forbidding appeals from the inferior courts to the Assembly.[956] As early as October, 1678, Colonel Francis Moryson had advised the Privy Council to abolish the judicial powers of the Assembly, claiming that they were the source of the great influence and "arrogancy" of that body.[957] Their Lordships did not awaken at once to the importance of this matter, but before long they became convinced that Moryson was right. Accordingly Lord Culpeper, in his commission of 1682, was directed to procure the immediate repeal of all laws "allowing appeals to the Assembly".[958] But Culpeper, interested only in securing money from the Burgesses, failed to put this instruction into operation. "As to what concerns Appeals," he declared, "I have never once permitted any one to come to the Assembly, soe that the thing is in effect done. But having some thoughts of getting a Revenue Bill to pass, I was unwilling actually to repeal ye Laws relating thereunto till the next session of Assembly should be over, well knowing how infinitely it would trouble them."[959]

But Effingham had no such scruples, and told the Burgesses plainly the commands he bore from the King.[960] The House, in great dismay, requested the Governor and the Council to join them in an address to his Majesty, imploring him to restore a privilege which had so long been enjoyed "according to ye Laws and antient Practice of the Country".[961] But Lord Howard replied coldly, "It is what I can in noe parte admitt of, his Majesty haveing been pleased by his Royal instruccons to direct & command that noe appeales be open to the General Assembly."[962]

Nor did the Assembly ever regain this important power. As late as 1691 we find the agent of the Burgesses in England asking in vain for the restoration of the right of appeals.[963] The change threw into the hands of the Governor and Council extraordinary power over the judiciary of the colony. The county justices, who sat in the lower courts, were the appointees of the Governor, and could not effectually resist his will. Moreover, as appeals lay from them to the General Court, they were powerless before the decisions of the superior tribunal. Thus the judiciary of the colony lost its only democratic feature.

The Burgesses, undismayed by their defeat in this matter, at this same session entered a vigorous protest against the King's right to annul acts of Assembly. During Berkeley's administration his Majesty had seldom exercised this power, but of late many acts had been repealed by proclamation without the consent or knowledge of the Assembly. This, the Burgesses claimed, was an unwarranted infringement upon the privileges granted them "by sundry Comissions, Letters and Instructions", that was most destructive of their cherished liberties and rights. And they demanded that henceforth their statutes should have the force of law until they had been "Repealed by the same Authority of Generall Assembly".[964] But they received no encouragement from the Governor. What you ask, he told them, "is soe great an entrenchment upon ye Royall authority that I cannot but wonder you would offer at it".[965]

Thereupon the House determined to appeal directly to the King, petitioning him not only to give up the right of repealing laws by proclamation, but to permit the continuation of appeals to the Assembly. Since the Governor refused to transmit their address to his Majesty, they forwarded copies to Secretary Jenkins by two of their own members—Thomas Milner and William Sherwood.[966]

This address received scant consideration from the King and the Privy Council. "Whereas," James II wrote Effingham in October, 1685, "it hath been represented unto us by our Committee for Trade and Plantations, that they have received from some unknown persons a paper entitled an address and supplication of the General Assembly of Virginia ... which you had refused to recommend as being unfit to be presented.... Wee cannot but approve of your proceedings.... And wee doe further direct you to discountenance such undue practices for the future as alsoe the Contrivers and Promoters thereof."[967] For their activity in this matter Sherwood and Milner "in ye following year were both turned out of all imployments to their great damage and disgrace".[968]

In the spring of 1685 Effingham received notification from the Privy Council of the death of Charles II and the accession of the Duke of York as James II.[969] He replied a few days later, "I have, with the greatest solemnity this place is capable of proclaimed his Majesty King James II in all the considerable places of this colony, where the great Acclamations and Prayers of the People gave a universal Testimony of their Obedience."[970] Despite these outward manifestations of joy, the people were by no means pleased to have a Roman Catholic monarch upon the English throne. When news reached Virginia that the Duke of Monmouth was in open rebellion, and had gained important successes over his Majesty's forces, there was grave danger that the commons of the colony might espouse his cause.[971] Many were so emboldened, wrote Effingham, "that their tongues ran at large and demonstrated the wickedness of their hearts, till I secured some and deterred others from spreading such false reports by my Proclamation".[972] The defeat and execution of the Duke of Monmouth for a time ended all thought of resistance to the King.

But Effingham found the people sullen and discontented and the Burgesses more stubborn than ever. The session of Assembly of 1685 was, perhaps, the most stormy ever held in Virginia. The House made a strenuous and successful resistance to a vigorous attempt to deprive it of its control over taxation. In 1662, when the Assembly was dominated by Sir William Berkeley, an act had been passed empowering the Governor and Council to levy annually for three years a tax of not more than twenty pounds of tobacco per poll.[973] In 1680 the Council had requested Lord Culpeper to represent to the King the disadvantages of leaving taxation entirely in the hands of the Assembly, hoping that his Majesty would by proclamation revive the law of 1662.[974] The greatest item of expense to the government, they argued, arose from the Assembly itself, "ye charge of which hath been too often found to be twice as much as would have satisfied all publiq dues".[975] The matter was presented to the consideration of the Burgesses in 1680, but was lost in the committee room.[976]