FOOTNOTES:

But Effingham's proclamation could not prevent news of what was happening in England from reaching the people. In Ireland James was recruiting a Catholic army under a Catholic general. At home he was replacing civil and military officers by Catholics. To remove all restrictions on Catholics he issued declarations of indulgence, giving freedom of worship to dissenters and Catholics. He converted two Oxford colleges into Catholic seminaries, and ousted the Fellows of Magdalen to make room for Catholic successors.

These events were soon reflected in Virginia. It was noted that when important offices in the government became vacant, Effingham filled them with Catholics. Both of his appointees to the Council were members of the Roman Catholic Churchâ€”Colonel Isaac Allerton and Colonel John Armistead. That several justices of the peace refused to take the oath of allegiance "through scruple of conscience" in 1691, after James had been deposed, shows that the Governor tried also to pack the county courts with Catholics.

The people watched these developments with resentment, mixed with fear. The shudder of horror which had gone through England a few years before, when Titus Oates accused the Jesuits of a "hellish plot" to fire London, conquer the country with Irish and French armies, and massacre the Protestants, was still fresh in men's minds. Perhaps his story is not false after all, it was whispered. Perhaps the plan may still be carried out. Think of what has just happened in France, wherethousands of men and women, for refusing to give up their faith were driven into exile or thrown into loathsome prisons with criminals, starved, and beaten. Are we sure that it will not be our turn next?

The Assembly which met in April, 1688, reflected the ugly mood of the people. They were determined to redress the grievances which poured in from one county after another. The Governor's appeal for aid for New York and for a bill to prohibit the exportation of loose tobacco received scant consideration. "Debates of grievances jostled out most other matters," reported Nicholas Spencer.[81]When the Council requested a conference on the tobacco bill, the House countered with a proposal for a conference on the people's wrongs. But their message was couched in such bitter terms that the Council thought "no success could be expected from a conference agitated with heat and resolvedness."[82]

Nor would the Council join the Burgesses in an address to Effingham for redress of "the many grievous oppressions this poor country at present groans under." Thereupon the House drew up a petition to the King which they entrusted to Philip Ludwell to deliver. Before James could reply, he was forced to flee from England, and it was only in February, 1689, that the petition came before the Council of State.

Such was the situation when Effingham left Virginia "for recovery of his health by change of air." He may have realized also that the air of Virginia was becoming unhealthful for him in more sense than one, for had he not left it is possible that the people might have risen in arms and sent him home. Several years later, when Francis Nicholson asked the Council whether "if his Excellency my Lord Effingham had stayed" the country would not have been in trouble? they replied in the affirmative. "The country were in great dissatisfaction ...and there was great cause to doubt that some disturbance would have been."[83]

But it was only in the spring of 1689, some months after his departure, that an uprising actually occurred. Then it was touched off by a weird story told by a stray Indian to some of the settlers on the northern frontier of a plot by Jesuits and Indians to attack Virginia and Maryland. No less than 10,000Senecas and 9,000 Nanticocks were under arms, he said, ready to cut off all the Protestants. As the report spread from plantation to plantation, the outlying families fled in terror, while men gathered volunteers by beat of drum. We must defend ourselves in arms, they said, since no reliance can be placed on the Council or even on the county magistrates, for most of them are Catholics.

The Council thought the story of the Catholic plot "only a gloss to their rebellious purposes." In October, 1688, James had sent word to Effingham that William of Orange was preparing to invade England, and had ordered him to place the colony in a posture of defence.[84]It was to seize this opportunity to rise against the government, rather than the imaginary Indian plot, that had made them take up arms, the Council thought. Preferring not to take sides in a matter which could be settled only in England, they arrested some of the ringleaders.[85]But when, apparently on the same day, a letter came to hand from the Privy Council, announcing that William and Mary had been proclaimed joint monarchs of England, order was instantly restored. On April 26, 1688, their Majesties were proclaimed before the courthouse door at Jamestown.

There were two things which the colonial Virginians dreadedâ€”despotism and the tomahawk. And it is significant that both were factors in the two uprisings of the seventeenth century. In Bacon's Rebellion the people demanded, not only protection from the savages, but an end to Berkeley's misgovernment. If the Council was right in their interpretation of the disorders of 1688, they, like the ousting of Andros in New England, were a part of the Glorious Revolution. The Council afterwards took great credit for suppressing the disorders, but one can only surmise whether the people would have remained quiet had not James been overthrown. We must not permit the Indian terror to blind us to the fact that the rebellions of 1676 and 1688 were both in defense of liberty.

FOOTNOTES:[1]CO389.6, pp. 113, 137.[2]H. W. Hening,Statutes at large2: 423, 424.[3]CO389.6, p. 116.[4]CO1-40, p. 23.[5]CO1-40, p. 23.[6]CO5-1371, pp. 27, 33.[7]CO5-1371, pp. 55, 60.[8]Ibid., p. 152.[9]CO5-1371, p. 152.[10]CO1-40, p. 43.[11]Bath papers3: 155.[12]CO1-40, pp. 73, 106.[13]CO1-39, p. 38.[14]W. W. Hening,Virginia statutes at large2: 366, 386.[15]CO1-40, p. 88.[16]CO5-1371, p. 132.[17]CO1-40, p. 89.[18]Virginia Magazine18: 12.[19]CO5-1371, pp. 220-231.[20]CO1-40, Doc. 53.[21]Bath papers3: 187-198.[22]Ibid.[23]CO1-42, p. 17.[24]Bath papers3: 206.[25]W. W. Hening,Statutes at large2: 407-432.[26]CO1-42, Doc. 1.[27]CO1-41, Doc. 87.[28]CO1-42, Doc. 11.[29]Sainsbury, 18: 129.[30]CO1-42, Doc. 23.[31]Ibid., Doc. 107.[32]Virginia Magazine18: 2-5.[33]Bath papers, 3: 168, 169.[34]Virginia Magazine, XVIII, p. 20.[35]Bath papers3: 214.[36]CO1-42, Doc. 117.[37]Bath papers3: 295.[38]CO5-1355, Docs. 304, 305, 309, 370.[39]CO1-41, Doc. 121.[40]Sainsbury, 14: 230.[41]W. W. Hening,Statutes at large2: 441, 443, 456.[42]G. M. Trevelyan,England under the Stuarts, 396.[43]CO1-42, Doc. 152.[44]CO1-43, Doc. 165.[45]Ibid., p. 313.[46]Ibid., p. 334.[47]Ibid., p. 349.[48]CO5-1355, p. 378.[49]CO5-1376, p. 265.[50]CO5-1355, p. 384.[51]Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1659-1693: 126.[52]Ibid.[53]CO5-1356, pp. 125, 126.[54]CO5-1315, Dec. 23, 1707.[55]Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1659-1693: 134.[56]CO5-1356, p. 142.[57]Ibid., p. 56.[58]CO1-42, p. 152.[59]Robert Beverley,The present state of Virginia, ed. L. B. Wright, 89, 90.[60]CO5-1356, p. 76.[61]Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1659-1693: 228.[62]CO5-1357, p. 58.[63]Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1659-1693: 316, 317.[64]CO5-1357, p. 95.[65]CO5-1356, p. 282.[66]CO5-1357, p. 113.[67]Ibid., p. 126.[68]Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1659-1693: 305.[69]Ibid., 308.[70]Executive journals of the CouncilI: 493.[71]CO5-1356, p. 271.[72]D. C. McMurtrie,A history of printing in the United States, 276-279.[73]CO5-1376, p. 285.[74]CO5-1356.[75]McDonald papers7: 26.[76]CO5-1357, p. 129.[77]McDonald papers7: 437-441.[78]Ibid.[79]Ibid.[80]Executive journals of the Council1: 75.[81]CO5-1357, p. 214.[82]Ibid., p. 216.[83]CO5-1306, Doc. 114.[84]CO5-1357, p. 229.[85]Executive journals of the Council1: 105.

[1]CO389.6, pp. 113, 137.

[2]H. W. Hening,Statutes at large2: 423, 424.

[3]CO389.6, p. 116.

[4]CO1-40, p. 23.

[5]CO1-40, p. 23.

[6]CO5-1371, pp. 27, 33.

[7]CO5-1371, pp. 55, 60.

[8]Ibid., p. 152.

[9]CO5-1371, p. 152.

[10]CO1-40, p. 43.

[11]Bath papers3: 155.

[12]CO1-40, pp. 73, 106.

[13]CO1-39, p. 38.

[14]W. W. Hening,Virginia statutes at large2: 366, 386.

[15]CO1-40, p. 88.

[16]CO5-1371, p. 132.

[17]CO1-40, p. 89.

[18]Virginia Magazine18: 12.

[19]CO5-1371, pp. 220-231.

[20]CO1-40, Doc. 53.

[21]Bath papers3: 187-198.

[22]Ibid.

[23]CO1-42, p. 17.

[24]Bath papers3: 206.

[25]W. W. Hening,Statutes at large2: 407-432.

[26]CO1-42, Doc. 1.

[27]CO1-41, Doc. 87.

[28]CO1-42, Doc. 11.

[29]Sainsbury, 18: 129.

[30]CO1-42, Doc. 23.

[31]Ibid., Doc. 107.

[32]Virginia Magazine18: 2-5.

[33]Bath papers, 3: 168, 169.

[34]Virginia Magazine, XVIII, p. 20.

[35]Bath papers3: 214.

[36]CO1-42, Doc. 117.

[37]Bath papers3: 295.

[38]CO5-1355, Docs. 304, 305, 309, 370.

[39]CO1-41, Doc. 121.

[40]Sainsbury, 14: 230.

[41]W. W. Hening,Statutes at large2: 441, 443, 456.

[42]G. M. Trevelyan,England under the Stuarts, 396.

[43]CO1-42, Doc. 152.

[44]CO1-43, Doc. 165.

[45]Ibid., p. 313.

[46]Ibid., p. 334.

[47]Ibid., p. 349.

[48]CO5-1355, p. 378.

[49]CO5-1376, p. 265.

[50]CO5-1355, p. 384.

[51]Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1659-1693: 126.

[52]Ibid.

[53]CO5-1356, pp. 125, 126.

[54]CO5-1315, Dec. 23, 1707.

[55]Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1659-1693: 134.

[56]CO5-1356, p. 142.

[57]Ibid., p. 56.

[58]CO1-42, p. 152.

[59]Robert Beverley,The present state of Virginia, ed. L. B. Wright, 89, 90.

[60]CO5-1356, p. 76.

[61]Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1659-1693: 228.

[62]CO5-1357, p. 58.

[63]Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1659-1693: 316, 317.

[64]CO5-1357, p. 95.

[65]CO5-1356, p. 282.

[66]CO5-1357, p. 113.

[67]Ibid., p. 126.

[68]Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1659-1693: 305.

[69]Ibid., 308.

[70]Executive journals of the CouncilI: 493.

[71]CO5-1356, p. 271.

[72]D. C. McMurtrie,A history of printing in the United States, 276-279.

[73]CO5-1376, p. 285.

[74]CO5-1356.

[75]McDonald papers7: 26.

[76]CO5-1357, p. 129.

[77]McDonald papers7: 437-441.

[78]Ibid.

[79]Ibid.

[80]Executive journals of the Council1: 75.

[81]CO5-1357, p. 214.

[82]Ibid., p. 216.

[83]CO5-1306, Doc. 114.

[84]CO5-1357, p. 229.

[85]Executive journals of the Council1: 105.

The Glorious Revolution completely changed the relations between the English people and the King. No sooner had James fled than a committee of the Commons drew up a "Declaration of Rights," to secure the liberty of the subjects and the power of Parliament, which was accepted by both Houses and by William. Parliament then declared William and Mary joint monarchs. Mary could argue that as the child of James II she was the rightful heir to the Throne, but William could make no such claim. So the old Tory doctrine of divine right was officially repudiated, and the monarch henceforth ruled by the consent of the nation. The Revolution opened a new epoch of liberty.

The people of Virginia were well aware that they were to share in this liberty. In an address to the King and Queen, the Assembly gave them heartfelt thanks for "so magnanimously exposing" their persons in rescuing them, their religion, laws, and liberties from the twin evils of slavery and popery. They begged them, while extending their justice and goodness over the English nation, not to forget their faithful subjects in Virginia. They, too, were "descended of Englishmen," and had the right to enjoy "the just and lawful liberties and privileges of free born" Englishmen.[1]

In this they were not disappointed. During the next seventy-five years they advanced steadily along the road to liberty. From time to time they had to contend with despotically inclined Governors, but these men, prior to the reign of George III, in assailing the rights of the people acted on their own initiative rather than at the command of the King. By the middle of the eighteenth century Virginia had become in internal affairs practically a self-governing dominion. People began to say openly that final authority rested, not with the King, but with the people, and that governments derived their powers from the consent of the governed.

This trend was noted early in the eighteenth century. As early as 1706 Colonel Quary warned the English government of what was coming. A few years later Governor Spotswood wrote: "If the ancient and legal rights of the Crown must give place to the later customs of an infant colony, especially if the practice and usage which ... men would introduce shall be of greater force, the prince's power and authority must daily lose ground here."[2]

It was a slow, almost imperceptible process. But year after year the Burgesses whittled away at the powers of the Governor, until, after the passage of decades, the change became apparent to all. Berkeley, Culpeper, and Effingham had exercised almost dictatorial powers; Gooch, Fauquier, and Botetourt ate out of the hands of the Assembly. Whereas the Governors of the seventeenth century commanded and threatened, those of the mid-eighteenth century pleaded. On one occasion Governor Fauquier wrote the Lords of Trade that he had signed a bill, not because heapprovedof it, but because had he vetoed it he "must have despaired of ever gaining any influence either in the Council or House of Burgesses."

The shouting and firing of guns in celebration of the accession of William and Mary had hardly ended when the Virginians turned their thoughts to the long desired new charter. The Bill of Rights gave them as well as Englishmen residing in England guarantees of liberty, but they had distinctive interests which they thought ought to be protected. Appointing Jeffrey Jeffreys to manage the affair, the Council and Burgesses sent him Â£200 for expenses and suggested that he call to his support any Virginians who chanced to be in London. That the art of lobbying was as well understood in the seventeenth century as it is today is shown by their instruction "to procure the assistance ... of the nobility and such as have offices at Whitehall and other men of note ... to be mediators with their Majesties."[3]

The proposed charter was to confirm the authority of the Assembly. At first sight this would seem to be unnecessary since the Assembly had been in existence since 1619, and had been recognized by James I, Charles I, Charles II, and James II. But the attempts to undermine its authority during the SecondStuart Despotism had convinced the people that its very existence might be threatened by some future King.

They asked, also, that in the charter it be promised "that no tax be made upon this country but by the consent of the Assembly." The people had been deeply disappointed that a like promise had been left out of the charter of 1676. They took for granted that Parliament would not violate their rights as Englishmen by taxing them, but it would have comforted them to have it down in black and white. How necessary such a guarantee was became apparent eighty-five years later with the passage of the Stamp Act.

The charter was to promise, also, that the King and Queen would continue to the Virginians and their descendants their rights as natural born subjects of England, and that as "near as may be" they should be governed after the same method as Englishmen, and "have the full benefit of the Great Charter and all other laws and statutes indulging the liberty of the subjects." Jeffreys was to ask that "the ancient method" of making appeals from the General Court to the Assembly be restored, since appeals to the Privy Council were in most cases impractical because of the expense involved and the difficulty of bringing "evidences, papers, and other records" to England.[4]

We do not know why the application for the charter was dropped. It may have been because Jeffreys found that it would not meet with success, or the Assembly may have been persuaded that a charter was unnecessary under the liberal administration of the new monarchs.

Francis Nicholson, who had been selected to serve as Lieutenant Governor during Effingham's absence, arrived in Virginia in May, 1690. The choice was unfortunate. This man was a strange mixture of contrasting characteristics. A devoted Church of England man and a friend of the clergy, he was at times shockingly profane. One of the patrons of the College of William and Mary, and the founder of the city of Williamsburg, he was unscrupulous in trampling on the rights of all who opposed him. Seeking the admiration of those with whom he was associated, he alienated his best friends by his fits of uncontrollable temper. Capable of acts of great generosity, he was accused of being parsimonious in his private life.

Nicholson's treatment of the Reverend Mr. Slaughter wastypical. He and a certain Captain James Moodie had gone to York to a funeral. "The ceremony and sermon being over," Moodie relates, "he went out of church, where he saw and heard the Governor in the most outrageous passion that he ever saw, swearing the most horrid oaths and most bitter imprecations against Mr. Slaughter, the minister of that parish, calling the said Slaughter rogue, rascal, knave, and all the base billingsgate language that could be in the basest of men's mouths, shaking his horsewhip and threatening to beat the said minister therewith, and to pull his gown over his ears."[5]Apparently Mr. Slaughter had brought on this torrent of abuse by asking for a fee for the funeral sermon.

Nicholson's conduct as Deputy Governor of New York under Sir Edmund Andros at the time of the Glorious Revolution was not such as to inspire confidence that he would do well in Virginia. With no official orders to proclaim William and Mary, and with the people ready to rush to arms, what was needed was tact and conciliatory measures. Instead, Nicholson flew into a rage and talked about suppressing the "uproar and rebellion." It was rumored that he planned to burn the city, and that the people were to be betrayed and murdered. When some armed men, under the German merchant Jacob Leisler, seized the fort, Nicholson deserted his post and took ship for England.[6]

The first meeting of the Council after Nicholson arrived at Jamestown was held on January 3, 1690. After he had shown his commission, he and the Councillors went to the courthouse where it was read to the people assembled there. If the Virginians had been prejudiced against the new Lieutenant Governor by reports of his conduct in New York, they could not have been reassured by his personal appearance. It was said that when he made a bow to the ladies, he looked like a goose picking up straws.

Nicholson began his administration with a due regard to the influence of the Council. He had noticed that some of them held large tracts of land for which they paid no quit rents, and he pointed out, in a letter to the Earl of Nottingham, that it would strengthen the hands of the Governor if they were forced to pay up. "But the great men being concerned, I dare notventure to put any new method in execution without an instruction."[7]

He was equally cautious at first to defer to the Council in making appointments. When the sheriff of Middlesex died, he asked those Councillors who lived in that part of the country to nominate his successor. When they suggested Mr. Robert Dudley, Nicholson at once gave him a commission. At the same meeting he pointed out that the regular time for naming sheriffs and coroners was at hand, and asked that the Councillors be prepared to make nominations at their next meeting.[8]

But it was not long before he began to use the patronage to build up his own power under the guise of defending the royal prerogative. When the oath of supremacy was tendered the members of the Council, Richard Lee, Isaac Allerton, and John Armistead refused to take it because they were Roman Catholics. Nicholson filled one vacancy by naming Attorney General Edmund Jenings. He then sent a list of four other prominent men to the King and Queen, with the suggestion that they select the other two from it. Three of the four deserved well, he pointed out, because in the House of Burgesses they had been "for their Majesties' interest." Colonel Thomas Milner, the Speaker, behaved very well too,"buthe hath not estate enough to be a Councillor. But he should have promise of some place of profit."[9]

We have no evidence that Nicholson tried to build up a party in the House of Burgesses by distributing sheriff's places to the members. But he did try to ingratiate himself by hobnobbing with them and "admitting" them daily to his table. This he did, he said, in order to keep a good agreement with them for their Majesties' service and advance the public affairs of the country, and not to propose or gain anything to be done in the Assembly. But the fact that he used the same technique to gain power during his second administration, makes his protestations seem rather hollow.

Nicholson claimed great success for his administration. He had befriended the clergy and bettered their condition, he pointed out, he had "looked after their Majesties' revenue," and left it in excellent condition, he had reorganized themilitia. But he admitted, in fact boasted, that he had defended the royal prerogative on all occasions. He might have added that he had given Commissary Blair his wholehearted support in his efforts to found a college.

When Nicholson heard that Effingham had retired as Governor General of Virginia, and that he had been succeeded by Sir Edmund Andros, he was bitterly disappointed. As Lieutenant Governor under Effingham, he thought that when the government became vacant it was his due. He was especially disgruntled that Andros had been selected since he had against him a long standing pique. Yet he made the best of the situation, greeted Andros upon his arrival, and, at the head of the James City County militia, escorted him to Jamestown "through the several counties which were in his way."[10]

It must have been with apprehension that the Virginians received Sir Edmund, for reports of his despotism in New England had preceded him. They had heard that there he ruled like an Eastern despot, promulgating laws, levying taxes without the consent of the Assemblies, placing men under arrest and denying them the right ofhabeas corpus. And they knew that the Bostonians had at last captured him, put him aboard a vessel, and shipped him back to England. The Virginians were ready to offer stiff resistance should he try to rule them with a harsh hand.

So they were surprised to find Andros a mild mannered man, who not only made no attack on their liberty, but tried to live in peace with both Council and Burgesses. He seems not to have used the patronage to build up his power, nor to have broken the grip of the House on the purse by demanding large fees; he would have allowed the Burgesses to appoint their own clerk had his instructions permitted it, and he carefully kept off the explosive subject of the arrears of quit rents. Edward Randolph summed it up by saying that he had "mightily gained upon the Council and chief men in the country by his even temper."[11]

Nothing can illustrate better the progress made in self-government in Virginia since the overthrow of James II than the Burgesses' cavalier treatment of two bills recommended by the King and Queen. The first, a bill to prohibit the exportationof loose tobacco, was greatly desired by the English merchants. The other, a bill to establish ports in the Virginia rivers, had been passed in 1688 by the Assembly, and was now returned for certain revisions before becoming law. The Burgesses promptly voted down both measures. "The appointment of ports and enjoining the landing and shipping of all goods ... from the same will ... be very injurious and burdensome," they said. There was a long debate on the question of prohibiting the exportation of loose tobacco, but this bill too failed to pass. Andros was deeply concerned at this disregard of the royal wishes, but when the Council advised him that nothing more could be done with the Burgesses, he dissolvedthem.[12]

The British government also decided that it was best not to press the matter. In 1695 Andros spoke of the King's"goodness"in dispensing with his prerogative "to establish ports without the consent of the Assembly, and leaving it to our choice, and also in waiving the prohibition of bulk tobacco so earnestly desired in England because it was found not pleasing here." But the victory of the Burgesses riled Edward Randolph. "They are full of conceit, and fancy themselves as great as the House of Commons in England," he said in disgust.[13]

It is probable that the King was so lenient with the Assembly because he wanted them to vote men and money to assist New York in her struggle with the French and Indians. Andros did his best, pointing out that New York was a bulwark for Virginia, and that if she fell the war cry would soon be heard on the Virginia frontier. The Burgesses were not convinced. The situation in New York was not so desperate as had been represented; they denied that New York was the "bulwark and defense of Virginia"; they were at heavy expense to guard their own frontier. It was characteristic of Andros that he asked the Council to reply for him. The Councillors at heart were no doubt as reluctant as the Burgesses to send aid to New York, but they were in the position of royal advocates and put up the best argument they could. Yet the session ended without anything being done.[14]

When the Assembly met in 1695, Andros had better success. He had been instructed by the King to send a quota of menfrom the Virginia militia whenever the Governor of New York asked for them, he said. This alarmed the Burgesses. They thought it would not only weaken the defense of Virginia by taking away so many men, but would so frighten the young freemen that many would desert their wives and children and leave the colony. In the end they compromised by voting Â£500 in lieu of men.[15]This Andros was forced to accept, though by so doing he brought on himself a reprimand from the Committee of Trade.[16]

It is strange that Andros, who was so moderate in his dealings with the House of Burgesses, and declared that he never thought himself better than when he had them about him to consult for the good of the country, should have bearded them on one of their most sensitive pointsâ€”the appointment of a Treasurer. In 1691 the Assembly passed two laws, one for levying a poll tax, and one laying a duty on liquors, both of which were to be "paid by the collectors thereof to the Treasurer." Included in the act was the naming of Colonel Edward Hill as Treasurer.[17]

A year later, when Nicholson gave him a lucrative job as collector, Hill had to vacate this office, since it was unlawful for the same man to hold both. To act as Treasurer until the Assembly convened, the Governor named one of the Council, Henry Whiting. When the Burgesses met they questioned Whiting's authority, but he satisfied them by showing them his commission. They then passed a bill to name a permanent Treasurer, but the Council, probably at Andros' urging, refused to concur. "The Governor would never consent to the Assembly's appointing their own Treasurer but would rather lose a tax than suffer them to do so," James Blair testified. But, he added: "This makes them suspicious and more unwilling to raise money."[18]

Whiting held the office until his death, which occurred probably in September, 1694. Then, for several years, there seems to have been no Treasurer. But the Burgesses were merely biding their time. Their opportunity came in 1699. The old statehouse at Jamestown had burned down, and there was urgent need for an appropriation to build a new one. They passed a bill placing a duty on the importation of servants and slaves,and laying a levy by poll, the revenue from both to be paid into the hands of the Treasurer for financing a new Capitol. Since there was no Treasurer they included in the act the appointment of Colonel Robert Carter to that office. The Governor and Council, realizing that they could not have the Capitol without the Treasurer, yielded.[19]

The undoing of Andros was his quarrel with the Reverend James Blair, Commissary for the Bishop of London in Virginia. When this rugged Scotsman came to the colony he found conditions in the Church far from satisfactory. Since there was no college in the colony the parishes were entirely dependent upon England for their ministers. The dispersal of the people was such that if a parish were large enough to provide the rector with an adequate living, it was too large for him to minister to properly. Some parishes extended forty miles or more along the banks of the great Virginia rivers, the minister was usually too poor to have a library or to marry. Since English clergymen were reluctant to come over under such conditions, there were many vacant parishes. Often the vestries in desperation were forced to accept any that offered themselves, however unsuitable. There were many able and pious ministers in Virginia, but some were of inferior ability, and a few were a disgrace to their calling. And it was inevitable that amid the woods and tobacco fields of a new country they should neglect many features of the liturgyâ€”the use of vestments, the observance of the saints' days, burial in consecrated ground, etc.

With the enthusiastic support of the Bishop of London and of Governor Nicholson, Blair had worked out a plan of reform. He would found a college to educate young Virginians for the ministry; he would secure an act of Assembly increasing the ministers' salary; he would enforce ecclesiastical discipline; he would give the clergy a voice in the government by procuring a seat in the Council for the Commissary. Going to England, he gained the backing of the Archbishop of Canterbury and other prelates, and through them of King William and Queen Mary.[20]

Their Majesties granted a charter for the college, permitted it to be named William and Mary, gave Â£1,985.14.10 out of the quit rent fund, 10,000 acres of land, the revenue of one pence apound on tobacco exported from Virginia to any other colony, and a salary for the Commissary from the quit rents. So Blair returned in triumph and took his seat beside the great men of the Council. But it was a triumph which won him the enmity of Andros. The Governor, no doubt, was jealous of his influence in high circles in England, and he viewed with alarm the diversion from the use of the government to the college and the clergy of urgently needed funds. With the opening of the year 1694 the government was facing a deficit with no way of meeting it except by the hated levy by poll, or by drawing on the quit rents.

Soon Blair was complaining that Andros was trying to obstruct his reforms for the clergy. There must have been stormy scenes in the Council meetings, with Blair hurling accusations at the Governor, and the latter denying them. The President of the College "could not be obliged by all endeavors to contain himself within bounds," wrote Andros to Secretary Shrewsbury. "His restless comport I ever passed by till the whole Council ... faulting him as unfit to be in the Council, I thought it my duty ... to suspend him."[21]

But Andros did not reckon on Blair's influence in England. Undoubtedly the Commissary wrote the Bishop of London of his suspension, and the Bishop complained to the Lords of Trade. In due time Andros received a rebuke from the King. He had appointed Blair to the Council "the better to enable him to promote and carry on" the "good and useful" work of founding a college. Now he found that his gracious intentions had been discouraged by his suspension. "Our will and pleasure is that forthwith upon the receipt hereof you take off the said suspension."[22]It was a bitter humiliation for Andros when, in August, 1696, Blair produced the King's letter and resumed his seat.[23]So bitter, in fact, that he dared a second time to oust the hated Commissary. At a meeting of the Council in April, 1697, Blair asked whether a recent act of Parliament did not debar him from sitting in the General Court since he was a native of Scotland. Whereupon the Council, with a promptness he probably did not expect, voted that not only didit do so, but that it made him ineligible for the Council as well.[24]

Blair's answer was to take ship for England, there to lay his complaints before the English prelates and through them before the Board of Trade. To the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Salisbury, and the Bishop of London he undoubtedly poured out his complaints of Androsâ€”that he was an enemy of the college, that he did not support the efforts to secure better livings for the clergy, that he had disobeyed the King's express orders to keep him in the Council. This ecclesiastical lobby was too much for Sir Edmund. Seeing the handwriting on the wall, he wrote that he wished to come home because of ill health. On May 31, 1698, his resignation was accepted and Francis Nicholson named to succeed him as Governor General.[25]

When Andros bade Jamestown goodbye and set sail for England, a full decade had passed since the Glorious Revolution, time sufficient for one to judge its effect upon self-government in Virginia. Some of the losses of the Second Stuart Despotism had not been regained. The act of 1680 giving the Crown a perpetual revenue had not been repealed; the judicial powers of the Assembly had not been restored; the efforts to secure a charter for the colony had been abandoned; the Burgesses had not regained the right to name their clerk.

Yet the gains far outweighed these failures. Of first importance was it that the Assembly itself had been preserved with most of its rights and privileges. It still could initiate legislation, it alone could initiate money bills, it could determine the uses of all appropriated funds, it could appoint the Treasurer. The petitions of the Assembly to the Throne were no longer cast aside with scorn as in the days of Charles II and James II, but were given careful consideration. The battle for liberty had not yet been won, many bitter struggles lay ahead, but the gains made under the mild rule of King William and Queen Mary were vital to the eventual victory.

Back to Index Next