Part 32 (1/2)

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 s.h.i.+p, 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 s.h.i.+p.[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 punis.h.i.+ng 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 s.h.i.+llings 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 s.h.i.+llings 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 Lords.h.i.+ps 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.