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 appat.i.tes 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 a.s.sembly. It was he that had been the most industrious advocate of a cessation, that had fomented the disputes in the a.s.sembly, that had most strenuously opposed adjournment. And it was he, the Council believed, that had "instilled into the mult.i.tude ... 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 a.s.sume 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 rea.s.sure them, and it was decided to send him to the Eastern Sh.o.r.e, 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 Middles.e.x. 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 pa.s.sed, he was permitted, upon giving bail to the sum of 2,000, to return to his home. But he was still restricted to the counties of Middles.e.x 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 a.s.sembly, ... 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 embarra.s.sed 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 cooperation of Maryland.[942] But, upon finding the colony in peace and quiet, and the a.s.sembly 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 50,000 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 1,000, but Culpeper demanded and received no less than 2,000.[950] In addition, he was allowed 150 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 1,000. 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 inst.i.tutions 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 const.i.tutional 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 cla.s.s, 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 a.s.sembly 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 a.s.sembly.[956] As early as October, 1678, Colonel Francis Moryson had advised the Privy Council to abolish the judicial powers of the a.s.sembly, 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 a.s.sembly".[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 a.s.sembly, soe that the thing is in effect done.
But having some thoughts of getting a Revenue Bill to pa.s.s, I was unwilling actually to repeal ye Laws relating thereunto till the next session of a.s.sembly 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 a.s.sembly."[962]
Nor did the a.s.sembly 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 a.s.sembly. 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 a.s.sembly. 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 a.s.sembly".[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, pet.i.tioning him not only to give up the right of repealing laws by proclamation, but to permit the continuation of appeals to the a.s.sembly.
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 ent.i.tled an address and supplication of the General a.s.sembly 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 a.s.sembly 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 a.s.sembly was dominated by Sir William Berkeley, an act had been pa.s.sed 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 a.s.sembly, 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 a.s.sembly 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]
The King and Privy Council, although they approved of the levy by the Governor and the Council, did not venture to grant them that power by royal proclamation. They instructed Lord Howard, however, in his commission of 1683, to propose for pa.s.sage in the a.s.sembly a law similar to that of 1662.[977] Accordingly, in 1684, Effingham placed the matter before the Burgesses and told them that it was the King"s desire that they give their consent. But they ignored his message, and the Governor could not press the matter at that time. In the next session, however, he became more insistent. "I must remind you," he told the Burgesses, "of what was omitted in ye last a.s.sembly ... that a Law may pa.s.se whereby His Majesty"s Governor with ye advice of ye Council may be empowered to lay a levy."[978] But the Burgesses would not yield. "The House," they replied, "... do humbly signifye to your Excellency, that they can noe waies concede to or comply with that proposition, without apparent and signal violation of ye great trust with them reposed."[979]
And when Effingham urged them to reconsider their action, they pa.s.sed a resolution unanimously refusing to relinquish this their greatest privilege.
After the prorogation of the a.s.sembly, Lord Howard wrote home his complaints against the stubborn Burgesses. "Your Lordships," he said, "will ... find their total denyal that the Governor and Council should have any power to lay the least Levy to ease the necessity of soe frequent a.s.semblys.... This was propounded by mee to them before his Majesty"s Instructions came to my hand that I should,... but nothing would prevail nor I beleeve will, unless his Majesty"s special command therein."[980]
A long and acrimonious quarrel occurred over the quit-rents. Because of the lack of specie in the colony, it had always been necessary to collect this tax, when it was collected at all, in tobacco. In March, 1662, the a.s.sembly had pa.s.sed a law fixing the rate of payment at two pence a pound, which was then not far from the current price. But the decline in value of the commodity which had occurred since 1662, had resulted in a great diminution in the tax.
In July, 1684, the King wrote Effingham that he had taken over all the rights of Arlington and Culpeper to the quit-rents, and announced it his intention to use them for the support of the Virginia government. He directed the Governor to secure the repeal of the law of 1662 and to forbid all payments in tobacco. "You must ... impower," he wrote, "the Officers of our Revenue to collect (them) ... according to ye reservation of 2s per every hundred acres ... to be paid in specie, that is in Mony."[981]
As tobacco sold, in 1684, at a half penny a pound, this order, had it been put into operation, would have quadrupled the value of the quit-rents, and increased materially the burdens of the planters. The Burgesses, in alarm, pet.i.tioned the Governor to allow the old arrangement to continue, declaring that the lack of specie made it impossible to comply with the King"s order. And they refused to repeal the law of March, 1662.
Displeased at their obstinacy, the King, in August, 1686, nullified the law by proclamation. "Being now informed," he declared, "that several persons goe about to impede our Service ... by imposing bad tobacco upon our collectors at the rate of 2d per llb, under pretence of an Act of a.s.sembly of March 30, 1662, ... Wee have thought fit to Repeal the said Act."[982]
Even then the Burgesses resisted. At the session of 1686 they pet.i.tioned on behalf of all the freeholders of the colony that the quit-rents should be paid as formerly. To make payment in specie, they declared, would not only be ruinous, but utterly impossible.[983] So angered were they and so determined not to obey, that Effingham found it expedient to consent to a compromise. It was agreed that the tax should be collected in tobacco as before, but at the rate of one penny per pound, which, as Effingham said, was not ad valorum. Thus the only result of this long quarrel was to double the value of the quit-rents, and to add greatly to the burdens of the impoverished and discontented people.[984]
Even more bitter was the contest over the so-called Bill of Ports. This measure was designed to remedy the scattered mode of living in Virginia, by appointing certain places as ports of landing and shipment, and confining to them all foreign trade. Throughout the seventeenth century almost all shipping was done from private wharves. The country was so interspersed with rivers, inlets and creeks, deep enough to float the largest vessels, that ports were entirely unnecessary. Each planter dealt directly with the merchants, receiving English manufactured goods almost at his front door, and lading the ships with tobacco from his own warehouse. This system, so natural and advantageous, seemed to the English Kings, and even to the colonists, a sign of unhealthful conditions. More than once attempts had been made to force the people to build towns and to discontinue the desultory plantation trade.
In 1679, Culpeper was ordered to propose a law in the a.s.sembly requiring the erection of towns on each great river, to which all foreign trade should be confined. Accordingly, in 1680, a Bill of Ports was pa.s.sed.
"Wee are now grown sensible," wrote Secretary Spencer, "that our present necessities, and too much to be doubted future miseries, are much heightened by our wild and rambling way of living, therefore are desirous of cohabitation, in order whereunto in ye late a.s.sembly an Act was made appointing a town in every County, where all Goods imported are to be landed, and all Goods exported to be shipt off. And if this takes effect, as its hoped it may, Virginia will then go forward which of late years hath made a retrograde motion."[985]
But this attempt ended in dismal failure. In 1681, when the shipmasters came to the appointed ports, they found that no shelter had been constructed for their goods. Thinking the law nullified, or not yet in operation, they traded as usual from private wharves. For this breach of the law, some of them were prosecuted in the colonial courts, to their own great loss and to the inconvenience of many of the planters.[986]
Loud wrangling and bitter animosities resulted throughout the colony, and at length the King was compelled to suspend the law.[987]
In the a.s.sembly of 1685 it was proposed to enact another Bill of Ports.
Accordingly an act was drafted in the House of Burgesses and, in due time, sent up for the approval of the Council. The upper house, after making several alterations, consented to the bill and returned it to the Burgesses. The latter agreed to most of the changes, but struck out a clause restricting the towns to two upon each river, and added an amendment permitting one port to a county.[988] The Council in turn yielded, but inserted a new clause, "That there should bee ffees ascertained on Goods exported and imported for the support of those Officers which should bee obliged to reside in those Ports".[989] As "there was noe room in ye margint to write ye alteration ... it was wrote in a piece of paper and affixt to ye Act".[990] When the bill came back to the House, Major Robert Beverley, who was again the clerk of the a.s.sembly, acting it would seem upon his own initiative, tore off the paper containing this amendment. The bill then came before the House apparently a.s.sented to without change and was returned by them for the signature of the Governor and the Councillors. Neither Effingham nor any of the Council noticed the omission, and thinking their amendment had been accepted, signed the bill.[991] Thereupon it was engrossed, and sent up for the final signature of the Governor. But Effingham in reading the engrossed copy, discovered the omission, and refused to affix his name to the bill, claiming that it "was not engrost as a.s.sented to" by him and the Council.[992] "To which," wrote the Governor, "they sent mee word that the Bill could admit of noe alteration or amendment after it was attested by the Clerk of the General a.s.sembly as a.s.sented to, and that it had by that the force of a Law.... I sent them word again that though any bill was a.s.sented to by mee and the Council, yet if I should afterwards perseive it would prove prejudicial ... I had power to refuse the signing of it by vertue of His Majesty"s negative voice.... But all would not persuade them out of their obstinacy, nay tho" I offered to lay that Bill aside till His Majesty"s pleasure should bee known therein; And to sign all the others.... But nothing would please them but Invading, if not destroying, His Majesty"s Prerogative." The Burgesses declared that they did not contest the Governor"s right to the veto, but contended that when once he signed a bill, "it could not faile of having ye force of a Law".[993] Effingham, they complained, was claiming a "double negative Voice". So angry did they become that they refused to apportion the levy for defraying the public charges, and after many days of bitter contention the Governor was forced to prorogue them.
"I did not disolve them," he wrote the Privy Council, "for these reasons. Because if his Majesty shall think fitt to have them dissolved, it will bee soe great a rebuke to them, when done by his Majesty"s special command, that I hope it will deter them for the future to bee soe obstinate and peevish."[994] Accordingly, in August, 1686, the King wrote the Governor, "Whereas, we have been informed of ye irregular and tumultuous proceedings of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, at their late meeting, the members thereof having ... presumed so far as to raise contests touching ye power of ye Negative Voice ... which wee cannot attribute to any other Cause then the disaffected & unquiet Dispositions of those Members.... Wee have thought fitt hereby as a mark of our displeasure ... to Charge ... you forthwith to Dissolve the present a.s.sembly."[995]
When this order reached Virginia the a.s.sembly was again in session.
"After I had pa.s.sed the Acts," wrote Effingham, "I ordered His Majesty"s Letter to bee publickly read to them, and then Dissolved them ... and told them they were the first a.s.sembly which had been soe dissolved and I hoped they would bee the last that should deserve it. I ordered copies of his Majesty"s Letter to bee sent to the several County-Courts, that all the Inhabitants might know how displeasing such proceedings were to his Majesty."[996] "And now," he added, "the public debts being paid,...
I shall not for the future have soe frequent a.s.semblys."[997]
More damaging to the Burgesses than this rebuke was the loss of the right to elect their own clerk. "I was severely angry with their Clerk,"
declared Effingham, "that he durst omit ye least clause, especially soe material an one ... I sent to the a.s.sembly to make him an example for it, But they rather maintained him."[998] Some months later the King sent orders that Beverley be tried for defacing the records and that he be once more deprived of all offices. Probably because of his great popularity, Beverley was never brought to trial, but he was forced to relinquish his lucrative governmental posts.[999] In May, 1686, Nicholas Spencer wrote the Committee of Trade and Plantations, advocating the appointment of the clerk by the Governor. "I ... beg leave to present,"
he said, "how necessary it is ... that the clerk of the House ... bee commissionated by his Majesty"s Governour ... and that his salary be appointed unto him out of his Majesty"s revenue. This will take off his dependency on his great masters the House of Burgesses, and leave noe room for designed omissions."[1000] Nothing loath, the King, in August, 1686, wrote Lord Howard, "Wee ... require you ... upon the Convening of the a.s.sembly to appoint a fit person to execute the Office of Clerk of the House of Burgesses, & not to permit upon any pretense whatsoever any other person to execute ye said Office but such as shall bee soe chosen by you."[1001]
Accordingly, at the session of April, 1688, the Governor, with the approbation of the Council, appointed Captain Francis Page as clerk of the House.[1002] The Burgesses could but yield, but they told Effingham that the clerk was still their servant and ought to take the usual oath of secrecy. "I do declare," replied the Governor, "it was never my intention nor my desire that the Clerk should be as a spy upon your Actions and to declare to me your private Debates." It was therefore agreed that he should take the following oath: "You shall keep secret all private Debates of the said House of Burgesses."[1003] Despite this, it was quite evident that the House was no longer to be master of its own clerk, and that he was to be in the future, to some extent at least, an emissary of the enemy seated in their midst.
The resolute and vigilant defense of the const.i.tutional rights of Virginia made by the House in this the critical period of her history is deserving of the highest praise, because it was made in the face of vigorous personal attacks by Effingham upon the most active of the members. Every Burgess that voted against the measures proposed by the King or advocated by his Governor, exposed himself not only to removal from office, but to active persecution. As we have seen, Mr. William Sherwood and Colonel Thomas Milner, for forwarding to the Privy Council the address of the Burgesses in 1684, had been dismissed from office.[1004] "In ye year 1686 Mr. Arthur Allen & Mr. John Smith, who were Burgesses in ye year 1685, were turned out of all imployment Civill & Military to Mr. Allen"s great damage, he being a surveyor of land at that tyme."[1005] I have displaced Allen, wrote Effingham, because he was "a great promoter of those differences between mee and the a.s.sembly concerning the King"s negative Voice ... as not thinking it fitt that those who are peevishly opposite to his Majesty"s interest should have any advantage by his favor".[1006] "In the year 1688 Mr. William Anderson, a member of ye a.s.sembly in that year was soon after the a.s.sembly by the Governor"s order and Command put in ye Common goale and there detained 7 months, without Tryal, though often prayed for, and several courts past in ye time of his imprisonment. Nor could he obtain ye benefit of habeas corpus upon his humble pet.i.tion.... Mr. Charles Scarburgh, a member of that a.s.sembly, alsoe was, soon after ye a.s.sembly, turned out of all imployment and as a mark of his Lordship"s displeasure, a command was sent to ye clerk of ye county to raze his name out of ye records as a Justice of Peace."[1007] "From whence," it was declared, "the people conclude these severities are inflicted rather as a terrour to others than for any personall crimes of their owne, and is of such ruinous consequence that either the public or particular interests must fall, for if none oppose, the country must languish under the severity of the government, or fly into a mutiny to save themselves from starving. If any do appear more zealous in prosecuting the countries complaints they know what to expect. It being observable that none has been thus punisht but those who were forward in the a.s.sembly to oppose the encroachments on the people, and promote the complaint to England, being out of hope of relief on the place."[1008]
One is inclined to ask, when considering the incessant quarrels of the Governor and the Burgesses, why Lord Howard was less successful than Governor Berkeley had been in gaining an ascendency over the a.s.sembly.
During the Restoration Period the Burgesses had worked in entire harmony with Sir William, even when he advocated the oppressive measures that were so instrumental in bringing on Bacon"s Rebellion. Effingham, on the other hand, found himself continually embroiled with the a.s.semblymen, and unable to force them into submission even with rebukes and persecution.
The explanation must be sought partly in the different characters of the two Governors. Berkeley was an abler man than Lord Howard, more tactful, more capable of utilizing the weapons at hand. His method of overwhelming the legislators with favors was more effective in winning their support than intimidation and threats. Moreover, Sir William, himself a Virginian by his long residence in the colony, carried out only his own policies, and by methods that did not openly a.s.sail the charter rights of the people. Effingham, on the other hand, was the instrument of the English King and his Councillors in an a.s.sault upon representative government in the colony. It was but natural that all cla.s.ses, even the wealthy planters, should resist him with stubborn resolution. Nor was it possible for Effingham to control, as Sir William had done, the elections of Burgesses. The opposition of many sheriffs, whose duty it was to preside at the polls, to the administration, the greater vigilance of the House, and the independent spirit of the commons conspired to render the returns more accurate and the House more responsive to the will of the people. Finally, the poor planters found now, what they had lacked during the Restoration Period, cultured and able men to represent them in the a.s.sembly. Without the aggressive leadership of Major Robert Beverley, Thomas Milner, Colonel Ballard, and other prominent planters, the cause of the people might have been lost.
Even in the Council the commons had one staunch friend--Colonel Philip Ludwell. This restless man, who was unable to work in harmony with any Governor save Sir William Berkeley, sympathized with his old friends of the Green Spring faction in their resistance to Effingham. As early as 1684 he had aroused the Governor"s suspicion by arguing in Council "for the undutiful Address which was sent to his Majesty",[1009] and during the sessions of 1685 and 1686 it was thought that he was "an Instrument in Abbetting and formenting those Disputes & Exceptions the a.s.sembly soe insisted on".[1010]