History of the Colony and Ancient Dominion of Virginia

CHAPTER LXX.

1766-1768.

In the year 1766 there was published at Williamsburg "An Inquiry into the Rights of the British Colonies," from the pen of Richard Bland.[549:A] In discussing the question, "Whether the colonies are represented in the British Parliament?" he traces the English constitution to its Saxon origin, when every freeholder was a member of the Wittenagemote or Parliament. This appears from the statutes 1st Henry the Fifth, and 8th Henry the Sixth, limiting the elective franchise, that is, depriving many of the right of representation in parliament. How could they have been thus deprived, if, as was contended, all the people of England were still virtually represented? He acknowledged that a very large portion of the people of Great Britain were not entitled to representation, and were, nevertheless, bound to obey the laws of the realm, but then the obligation of these laws does not arise from their being virtually represented. The American colonies, excepting the few planted in the eighteenth century, were founded by private adventurers, who established themselves, without any expense to the nation, in this uncultivated and almost uninhabited country, so that they stand on a different foot from the Roman or any ancient colonies. Men have a natural right to quit their own country and retire to another, and set up there an independent government for themselves. But if they have this so absolute a right, they must have the lesser right to remove, by compact with their sovereign, to a new country, and to form a civil establishment upon the terms of the compact. The first Virginia charter was granted to Raleigh by Queen Elizabeth, in 1584, and by it the new country was granted to him, his heirs and assigns, in perpetual sovereignty, as fully as the crown could grant, with full power of legislation and the establishment of a government. The country was to be united to the realm of England in perfect league and amity; was to be within the allegiance of the crown, and to be held by homage and the payment of one-fifth of all gold and silver ore. In the thirty-first year of Elizabeth's reign, Raleigh assigned the plantation of Virginia to a company, who afterwards associating other adventurers with them, procured new charters from James the First, in whom Raleigh's rights became vested upon his attainder. The charter of James was of the same character with that of Elizabeth, with an express clause of exemption forever from all taxation or impost upon their imports or exports. Under this charter, and the auspices of the company, the colony of Virginia was settled, after struggling through immense difficulties, and without receiving the least aid from the British government. In 1621 a government was established, consisting of a governor, council, and house of burgesses, elected by the freeholders. In 1624 James the First dissolved the company, and assumed the control of the colony, which, upon his demise, devolved upon Charles the First, who, in 1625, asserted his royal claim of authority over it. To quiet the dissatisfaction of the colonists at the loss of their chartered rights, the privy council afterwards, in the year 1634, communicated the king's assurance that "all their estates and trade, freedom and privileges, should be enjoyed by them in as extensive a manner as they enjoyed them before the recalling of the company's patent." Moreover, Charles the First, in 1644, assured the Virginians that they should always be immediately dependent upon the crown. After the king's death Virginia displayed her loyalty by resisting the parliamentary forces sent out to reduce the colony, and by exacting the most honorable terms of surrender. Here the author of "the Inquiry," although exceedingly well informed in general as to the history of the colony, falls into the common error that Charles the Second was proclaimed in Virginia some time before he was restored to the throne in England.

Thus Virginia was, as to her internal affairs, a distinct, independent state, but united with the parent state by the closest league and amity, and under the same allegiance. If the crown had indeed no prerogative to form such a compact, then the royal engagements wherein "the freedom and other benefits of the British constitution" were secured to them, could not be made good: and a people who are liable to taxation without representation, cannot be held to enjoy "the freedom and benefits of the British constitution." Even in the arbitrary reign of Charles the First, when it was thought necessary to establish a permanent revenue for the support of the government in Virginia, the king did not apply to the British parliament, but to the assembly of Virginia, and sent over an act under the great seal, by which it was enacted, "By the king's most excellent majesty, by and with the consent of the general assembly," etc. After the restoration, indeed, the colonies lost the freedom of trade which they had before enjoyed, and the navigation act of 25th Charles the Second not only circumscribed the trade of the colonies with foreign nations within very narrow limits, but imposed duties on goods manufactured in the colonies and exported from one to another. The right to impose these duties was disputed by Virginia; and her agents, in April, 1676, procured from Charles the Second a declaration, under his privy seal, that "taxes ought not to be laid upon the inhabitants and proprietors of the colony but by the common consent of the general assembly, except such impositions as the parliament should lay on the commodities imported into England from the colony." But if no protest had been made against the navigation act, that forbearance could in no way justify an additional act of injustice. If the people of the colonies had in patience endured the oppressions of the English commercial restrictions, could that endurance afford any ground for new oppressions in the shape of direct taxes? If the people of England and of the colonies stood, as was contended, on the same foot, being both equally and alike subjects of the British government, why was the trade of the colonies subject to restrictions not imposed on the mother country? If parliament had a right to lay taxes of every kind on the colonies, the commerce of the colonies ought to be as free as that of England, "otherwise it will be loading them with burdens, at the same time that they are deprived of strength to sustain them; it will be forcing them to make bricks without straw." When colonies are deprived of their natural rights, resistance is at once justifiable; but when deprived of their civil rights, when great oppressions are imposed upon them, their remedy is "to lay their complaints at the foot of the throne, and to suffer patiently rather than disturb the public peace, which nothing but a denial of justice can excuse them in breaking." But a colony "treated with injury and violence is become an alien. They were not sent out to be slaves, but to be the equals of those that remain behind." It was a great error in the supporters of the British ministry to count upon the sectional jealousies and clashing interests of the colonies. Their real interests were the same, and they would not allow minor differences to divide them, when union was become necessary to maintain in a constitutional way their rights. How was England to prevent this union? Was it by quartering armed soldiers in their families? by depriving the colonists of legal trials in the courts of common law? or by harassing them by tax-gatherers, and prerogative judges, and inquisitorial courts? A petty people united in the cause of liberty is capable of glorious actions—such as adorn the annals of Switzerland and Holland.

The news of the repeal of the stamp act was joyfully welcomed in America, but the joy was premature; for, simultaneously with the repeal, parliament had declared that "it had, and of right ought to have, power to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever." Townshend,[552:A] afterwards chancellor of the exchequer, brought into parliament a bill to levy duties in the colonies on glass, paper, painters' colors, and tea, and it became a law. The duties were external, and did not exceed in amount twenty thousand pounds; but the colonies suspected the mildness of the measure to be only a lure to inveigle them into the net. The new act was to take effect in November, 1767. The flame of resistance, smothered for awhile by the repeal of the stamp act, now burst forth afresh: associations were everywhere organized to defeat the duties; altercations between the people and the king's officers grew frequent; the passions of the conflicting parties were exasperated. Two British regiments and some armed vessels arrived at Boston.

In Virginia, the assembly, encountering no opposition from the mild and patriotic Blair, remonstrated loudly against the new oppressions. Opposition to the arbitrary measures of the British administration broke forth in England, and in London the fury of civil discord shook the pillars of the government.

Francis Fauquier, lieutenant-governor, died early in 1768, at the age of sixty-five years, ten of which he had passed in Virginia. He brought with him the frivolous tastes and dissipated habits of a man of fashion and a courtier; he was addicted to gaming, and by his example diffused a rage for play. He was generous and elegant, an accomplished scholar, and, in Mr. Jefferson's opinion, the ablest of the governors of Virginia. A county is named after him. His death devolved the duties of government upon John Blair, president of the council. He was a nephew of Commissary Blair, whom he had succeeded in the council. He had long represented Williamsburg in the house of burgesses, having been a member as early as 1736. During the trying period of his presidency, his vigilance and discretion were displayed in protecting the frontier from Indian invasion.[553:A]

In 1714 some English emigrant Baptists settled in southeast Virginia, and in 1743 another party settled in the northwest; but the most important accession came from New England, about the period of "the New Light stir." Those who had left the established church were called Separates, the rest Regulars. Their preachers, not unfrequently illiterate, were characterized by an impassioned manner, vehement gesticulation, and a singular tone of voice. The hearers often gave way to tears, trembling, screams, and acclamations. The number of converts increased rapidly in some counties. The preachers were imprisoned and maltreated by magistrates and mobs; but persecution stimulated their zeal and redoubled their influence: they sang hymns while on the way to the prison, and addressed crowds congregated before the windows of the jails. At this time Deputy-Governor Blair addressed the following letter to the king's attorney in Spotsylvania:—

"Sir:—I lately received a letter, signed by a good number of worthy gentlemen, who are not here, complaining of the Baptists; the particulars of their misbehavior are not told, any further than their running into private houses and making dissensions. Mr. Craig and Mr. Benjamin Waller are now with me, and deny the charge; they tell me they are willing to take the oaths as others have: I told them I had consulted the attorney-general, who is of opinion that the general court only have a right to grant licenses, and therefore I referred them to the court; but on their application to the attorney-general,[554:A] they brought me his letter, advising me to write to you that their petition was a matter of right, and that you may not molest these conscientious people, so long as they behave themselves in a manner becoming pious Christians and in obedience to the laws, till the court, when they intend to apply for license, and when the gentlemen who complain may make their objections and be heard. The act of toleration (it being found by experience that persecuting dissenters increases their numbers) has given them a right to apply in a proper manner for licensed houses for the worship of God, according to their consciences, and I persuade myself the gentlemen will quietly overlook their meetings till the court. I am told they administer the sacrament of the Lord's Supper near the manner we do, and differ in nothing from our church but in that of baptism and their renewing the ancient discipline, by which they have reformed some sinners and brought them to be truly penitent; nay, if a man of theirs is idle and neglects to labor and provide for his family as he ought, he incurs their censures, which have had good effects. If this be their behavior, it were to be wished we had some of it among us; but at least I hope all may remain quiet till the court." This letter was dated at Williamsburg, July the 16th, 1768.

The persecution of the Baptists commenced in Chesterfield, in 1770, and in no county was it carried farther. According to tradition, Colonel Archibald Cary, of Ampthill, was the arch-persecutor. In few counties have the Baptists been more numerous than in Chesterfield.

While many of the preachers were men of exemplary character, yet by the facility of admission into their pulpits impostors sometimes brought scandal upon the name of religion. Schisms, too, interrupted the harmony of their associations. Nevertheless, by the striking earnestness and the pious example of many of them, the Baptists gained ground rapidly in Virginia. In their efforts to avail themselves of the toleration act, they found Patrick Henry ever ready to step forward in their behalf, and he remained through life their unwavering friend. They still cherish his memory with grateful affection.

The Baptists, having suffered persecution under the establishment, were, of all others, the most inimical to it, and the most active in its subversion.[555:A]

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER LXXI.

1768-1771.

In November, 1768, Norborne Berkeley, Baron de Botetourt, arrived in Virginia as governor-in-chief. The season was delightful, with its tinted foliage, serene sky, and bracing air. Botetourt, just relieved from the confinement of a sea-voyage, was charmed with his new place of abode; the palace appeared commodious; the grounds well planted and watered. While his new residence was fitting up for him he daily enjoyed the hospitalities of the people. He found that while they would never willingly submit to be taxed by the mother country, yet they were ardently desirous of giving assistance, as formerly, upon requisition. In the mean time the duties complained of were collected without any resistance whatever. Botetourt, solicitous to gratify the Virginians, pledged "his life and fortune" to extend the boundary of the State on the west to the Tennessee River, on the parallel of thirty-six and a half degrees. This boundary, Andrew Lewis and Thomas Walker wrote, would give some room to extend the settlements for ten or twelve years.[556:A]

On the 11th day of May, 1769, when the assembly was convened, the governor rode from the palace to the capitol in a state-coach drawn by six milk-white horses, a present from George the Third, and the insignia of royalty were displayed with unusual pomp. The pageant, supposed to be intended to dazzle, served rather to offend. On that day and the following he entertained fifty-two guests at dinner.

When, in Massachusetts, the custom-house officers had demanded[557:A] from the courts writs of assistance for enforcing the revenue act, the eloquent James Otis had resisted the application in a speech which gave a mighty impulse to the popular sentiment. The same question was now argued before Botetourt and the council, forming the general court, and he concurred in declaring them illegal. During this session, Mr. Jefferson made an unsuccessful effort for the enactment of a law authorizing owners to manumit their slaves.

In February, parliament, refusing to consider a redress of American grievances, had advised his majesty to take vigorous measures against Massachusetts, and to make inquisition there for treason, and, if sufficient ground should appear, to transport the accused to England for trial before a special commission; and George the Third, a king of exemplary character, but obstinate temper, heartily concurred in those views. Upon receiving intelligence of this fact, the burgesses of Virginia again[557:B] passed resolutions unanimously, vindicating the rights of the colonies, claiming the sole right to levy taxes, and asserting the right of bringing about a concert of the colonies in defence against the encroachments of parliament; exposing the injustice and tyranny of applying to America an obsolete act of the reign of Henry the Eighth, warning the king of the dangers that would ensue if any American should be transported to England for trial, and finally ordering the resolutions to be communicated to the legislatures of the other colonies, and requesting their concurrence. Even the merchants of peaceable Pennsylvania approved these resolutions; Delaware adopted them word for word; and the colonies south of Virginia eventually imitated her example. An address was also prepared to be laid before the king. Botetourt took alarm at what he termed, in his correspondence with the government, "the abominable measure," and having convoked the assembly, addressed them thus: "Mr. Speaker and Gentlemen of the house of burgesses,—I have heard of your resolves, and augur ill of their effects. You have made it my duty to dissolve you, and you are dissolved accordingly."

The burgesses immediately repaired in a body to the Raleigh, and unanimously adopted a non-importation agreement, drawn by George Mason, and presented by George Washington. The resolutions included one not to import, or purchase any imported slaves, after the first day of November, until the objectionable acts of parliament should be repealed. Mr. Mason, not yet a member of the assembly, was not present at this meeting. The moderate party in the assembly, while they had opposed measures which appeared to them injudicious and premature, nevertheless avowed themselves as firmly riveted to the main principle in dispute. Their views, they averred, had been made public in the several memorials to government; and from the position so assumed they were resolved never to recede. They had not, indeed, expected that parliament would ever explicitly acknowledge itself in the wrong; but it had been their hope that the dispute would have been left to rest upon reciprocal protestations, and finally have died away. The late measures of the British government had extinguished such delusive hopes. That government claimed the right of subjecting America to every act of parliament as being part of the British dominions; and at the same time that Americans should be liable to punishment under an act of Henry the Eighth, made to punish offences committed out of the realm. The deportation of Americans for trial, depriving them of the right of trial by a jury of the vicinage, appeared to be fraught with worse mischiefs than the stamp act, in as much as life is more precious than property.[558:A]

On the 9th of May, 1769, the king had, in his speech to parliament, re-echoed their determination to enforce the laws in every part of his dominions. Nevertheless, on the thirteenth the Earl of Hillsborough, secretary of state for the colonies, wrote to Botetourt, assuring him that it was not the intention of ministers to propose any further taxes, and that they intended to propose a repeal of the duties on glass, paper, and paints, not on the question of right, but upon the ground that those duties had been imposed contrary to the true principles of commerce. Botetourt, calling the assembly together, communicated these assurances, adding: "It is my firm opinion that the plan I have stated to you will certainly take place, and that it will never be departed from; and so determined am I to abide by it, that I will be content to be declared infamous, if I do not to the last hour of my life, at all times, in all places, and upon all occasions, exert every power with which I am, or ever shall be, legally invested, in order to obtain and maintain for the continent of America, that satisfaction which I have been authorized to promise this day by the confidential servant of our gracious sovereign, who, to my certain knowledge, rates his honor so high that he would rather part with his crown than preserve it by deceit." The council, in reply, advised the repeal of the existing parliamentary taxes; the burgesses expressed their gratitude for "information sanctified by the royal word," and considered the king's influence as pledged "toward protecting the happiness of all his people." Botetourt, pleased with the address, wished them "freedom and happiness till time should be no more." William Lee regarded this as mere bombastic rant. During this year appeared a pamphlet, asserting the rights of the colonies, entitled "The Monitor's Letters," by Arthur Lee.

Lord North succeeded the Duke of Grafton as prime minister, in January, 1770, and in the ensuing March all the duties on the American imports were repealed, except that on tea. Lord North, at the same time, however, avowed the absolute determination of the government not to yield the right of taxing the colonies.

The first association appears not to have been adhered to, and the English merchants declared that the exports to Virginia of the prohibited articles were never greater.

On the 22d day of June, 1770, a second association was entered into at Williamsburg, by the burgesses and the merchants of the colony appointing committees, to be chosen by the associators of each county, to enforce the non-importation agreement; resolving to promote industry and frugality; enumerating the articles not to be imported or purchased after a certain day, specially mentioning slaves and wine; engaging not to advance the price of goods, wares, and merchandise; binding themselves not to import or purchase any article which should be taxed by parliament for the purpose of raising a revenue in America.

The estimable Botetourt died in October, 1770, in his fifty-third year, and after an administration of two years. Promoted to the peerage in 1764, he had succeeded Sir Jeffrey Amherst as governor-in-chief in 1768, and was the first of that title since Lord Culpepper, who had condescended to come over to the colony. On his arrival it was his purpose to reduce the Virginians to submission, either by persuasion or by force; but when he became better acquainted with the people he changed his views, and entreated the ministry to repeal the offensive acts. Such a promise was, indeed, held out to him; but finding himself deceived, he demanded his recall, and died shortly afterwards of a bilious fever, exacerbated by chagrin and disappointment. He was a patron of learning and the arts, giving out of his own purse silver and gold medals as prizes to the students of William and Mary College. His death was deeply lamented by the colony, and the assembly erected a statue in honor of him, which is still standing, somewhat mutilated, in front of the college. At his death the administration devolved upon William Nelson, president of the council.

In May, 1771, a great fresh occurred in Virginia, the James in three days rising twenty feet higher than ever was known before. The low grounds were inundated, standing crops destroyed, corn, fences, chattels, merchandise, cattle, and houses carried off, and ships forced from their moorings. Many of the inhabitants, masters and slaves, in endeavoring to rescue property, or to escape from danger, were drowned. Houses were seen drifting down the current, and people clinging to them, uttering fruitless cries for succor. Fertile fields were covered with a thick deposit of sand; islands were torn to pieces, bars accumulated, the channel diverted, and the face of nature altered. At Turkey Island, on the James River, there is a monument bearing the following inscription: "The foundations of this pillar were laid in the calamitous year 1771, when all the great rivers of this country were swept by inundations never before experienced, which changed the face of nature and left traces of their violence that will remain for ages." One hundred and fifty persons were drowned by this rise in the rivers.

The assembly met in July, 1771. About this time the question of an American episcopate was agitated; and in some of the Northern colonies the measure was warmly contended for in the public papers. New York and New Jersey desired to secure the co-operation of Virginia in petitioning the king on this subject, and deputed the Rev. Dr. Cooper, President of King's College, New York, and the Rev. Mr. McKean, deputies to visit the South in this behalf; and at their urgent solicitation, Commissary Horrocks, himself aspiring to the mitre, as was supposed, called a convocation of the clergy to take the matter into consideration. Only a few attended; but after some vacillation they determined to join in the petition to the crown, the Rev. John Camm taking the lead in this proceeding. Four of the clergy in attendance, Henley and Gwatkin, professors in the College of William and Mary, and Hewitt and Bland, entered a protest against the scheme of introducing a bishop, as endangering the very existence of the British empire in America. The assembly having expressed its disapprobation of the project, and it being urged but by few, and resisted by some of the clergy, it fell to the ground; and the thanks of the house were presented, through Richard Henry Lee and Richard Bland, to the protesting clergymen for their "wise and well-timed opposition." Churchmen naturally sided with the English government, and the bench of bishops were arrayed in opposition to the rights of the colonies. The protest of the four ministers gave rise to a controversy between them and the United Episcopal Conventions of New York and New Jersey; and a war of pamphlets and newspapers ensued in the Northern and Middle States; and the stamp act itself, according to some writers, did not evoke more bitter denunciations, nor more violent threats, than the project of an episcopate: New England was in a flame against it. It was believed, that if bishops should be sent over they would unite with the governors in opposition to the rights of America. The laity of the Episcopal Church in America were, excepting a small minority, opposed to the measure. Neither the people of Virginia, nor any of the American colonies, were at any time willing to receive a bishop appointed by the English government. Among the advocates of the scheme the Rev. Jonathan Boucher took a prominent part, and he sustained it ably from the pulpit. He held that the refusal of Virginia to consent to the appointment of a bishop, was "to unchurch the church;" and his views on this subject were re-echoed by Lowth, Bishop of Oxford, in an anniversary sermon delivered before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. On this point of ecclesiastical government the members of the establishment in Virginia appear to have been looked upon as themselves dissenters. In one sense they were so; but their repugnance was to prelacy, not to the episcopate; a prelatical bishop was in their minds associated with ideas of expense beyond their means, and of opposition to the principles of civil liberty. Boucher, in a sermon that he preached in this year at St. Mary's Church, in Caroline County, of which he was then rector, says of the dissenters in Virginia: "I might almost as well pretend to count the gnats that buzz around us in a summer's evening."

The scheme of sending over a bishop had been entertained more than a hundred years before; and Dean Swift at one time entertained hopes of being made Bishop of Virginia, with power, as is said, to ordain priests and deacons for all the colonies, and to parcel them out into deaneries, parishes, chapels, etc., and to recommend and present thereto. The favorite sermons of many of the Virginia clergy were Sterne's.[562:A]

During this year died the Rev. James Horrocks, President of the College and Commissary. He had been at the head of William and Mary since the death of Rev. William Yates, in 1764. Mr. Horrocks was succeeded in both places by the Rev. John Camm.

John Murray, Earl of Dunmore, was transferred[562:B] from the government of New York to that of Virginia. The town of Fincastle, the title of one of his sons, in Botetourt County, was now incorporated. The Honorable William Nelson, president, died in this year. About this time the Methodists appeared in Virginia; they still avowed that attachment to the Church of England which Wesley and Whitefield both, in the early years of their career, had uniformly professed. Although they allowed laymen to preach, the communion was received by them at the hands of the clergy only; and they even affirmed that "whosoever left the church left the Methodists." They, therefore, now were visited with a share of the odium which fell upon the established church.

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER LXXII.

THE REV. DEVEREUX JARRATT.

The Rev. Devereux Jarratt was born in the County of New Kent, Virginia, in January, 1733, of obscure parentage. His grandfather, an Englishman, had served during the civil wars under Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, and hence probably was derived the Christian name of the grandson. His grandmother was a native of Ireland. His father was a carpenter, and from the manner in which he and his family lived, some idea may be formed of the condition of the common people in that day. Their food consisted of the produce of the soil, except a little sugar, which was used only on rare occasions. Their clothes were all of maternal manufacture, except hats and shoes, and these last were worn only in the winter. They not only used no tea or coffee themselves, but they knew no family that did use them. Meat and bread and milk constituted the diet of that class. They looked upon the gentry as a superior caste. Jarratt, in his autobiography, describing his early days, says: "For my part, I was quite shy of them, and kept off at an humble distance. A periwig in those days was a distinguishing badge of gentle-folk, and when I saw a man riding the road near our house with a wig on, it would so alarm my fears and give me such a disagreeable feeling, that I dare say I would run off as for my life." He lived to see society reduced to the opposite, and, in his opinion, worse extreme of republican levelling, insubordination, and irreverence. His early education was confined to reading, writing, and elementary arithmetic, some short prayers, and the church catechism. Upon his father's death, Robert, the eldest son, inherited the land, and Devereux's share of the personal property was twenty-five pounds, Virginia currency, which he was to receive when he should reach the age of twenty-one. The relative value of money was four times greater then than it was fifty years afterwards. A good horse could be bought for five pounds, and a good cow and calf for a pistole, or three dollars and sixty cents. At eight or nine years of age young Jarratt was sent to school, and so continued, with great interruptions, for three or four years. By this time he had learned to read the Bible indifferently, to write a sorry hand, and had acquired some knowledge of arithmetic, and this closed his educational curriculum. Being placed now under the guardianship of his elder brother, his employments for some years were threefold: 1st, taking care of and training race-horses; 2d, taking care of gamecocks and preparing them for a match and main; 3d, ploughing, harrowing, and other plantation work. At the age of seventeen he undertook the business of a carpenter, under another brother, who often had recourse to "hard words and severe blows," which he "did not at all relish;" but he continued to labor in this way until about 1750. During the five or six years while he lived with his brothers, he never heard or saw anything of a religious nature, nor did he go to the parish church once a year. The parish minister was a poor preacher, very near-sighted, and, reading his sermons closely, he kept his eyes fixed on the paper, and so near that what he said "seemed rather addressed to the cushion than to the congregation." This parson was rarely observed to stand erect and face the audience, except when he denounced some individual in the congregation with whom he happened to have a quarrel. Cards, dancing, racing, etc., were then the favorite pastimes, and young Jarratt participated in them as far as his leisure and circumstances would permit, and this as well on Sundays as on other days. Not being content with his stock of learning, and skill in arithmetic being the chief desideratum among the common people, he borrowed a book, and while his plough-horse was grazing at noon applied himself to that study, and made rapid progress. He felt conscious at this time that the plough and the axe were not his element; and his skill in the division of crops, in the rule of three, and in practice, soon became so widely known that he was, unexpectedly, when at the age of nineteen, invited to set up a school in Albemarle County, one hundred miles distant from New Kent. His baggage appears to have constituted no considerable impediment to his journey, for he says: "I think I carried the whole on my back except one shirt." His entire wardrobe at this time consisted of a pair of coarse breeches, one or two Oznaburg shirts, a pair of shoes and stockings, an old felt hat, and a bear-skin coat, the first garment of that kind that had ever been made for him. To improve the gentility of his appearance he put on a cast-off wig, which he procured from a servant. On setting out for Albemarle, young Jarratt had not a farthing of money, and never had been master of as much as five shillings cash. The income of the school scarce afforded him clothing of the coarsest kind, but he gained the confidence of his employer, who was an overseer for a lowland gentleman, so far, that he trusted him with "as much checks as made him two new shirts." Albemarle was then a frontier county; there was no minister or public worship within many miles, and the Sabbath was spent in sports and amusements. Here he met with Whitefield's Eight Sermons, delivered at Glasgow, the first book of sermons that he ever saw. Jarratt went next to live with a wealthy gentleman, whose wife was a pious Presbyterian, spoken of as a New Light. It was while he was under Presbyterian influences that his conversion took place. When upwards of twenty-five years old he commenced the study of Latin under Alexander Martin, sent from Princeton College, a private tutor in the family of a gentleman in Cumberland. Martin was afterwards governor of North Carolina. Mr. Jarratt intended to become a Presbyterian minister, but in 1762 changed his mind, and began to prepare to take orders in the established church. Upon a further acquaintance with the subject his prejudices against that church and its liturgy were removed, and he came to be of opinion that the Prayer Book contained, at the least, as good a system of doctrine and public worship as the Presbyterian; the doctrinal articles he considered the same, in substance, in both churches, and the different modes of worship he held to be not essential. His mind hung in equilibrium between the Church of England and the Presbyterian Church as regarded their theory, and balancing the secular advantages, he decided in favor of the established church, mainly because "he saw the Presbyterian ministers dependent on annual subscriptions—a mode of support very precarious in itself, and which subjects the minister to the caprice of so many people, and tends to bind his hands and hinder his usefulness." To this he adds: "The general prejudice of the people at that time against dissenters and in favor of the church, gave me a full persuasion that I could do more good in the church than anywhere else." The fact is, however, that at that time the popular feeling was growing less friendly to the clergy of the established church and more friendly to dissenters. Embarking for England, in October, 1762, and being ordained deacon by the Bishop of London, and priest by the Bishop of Chester, he preached several times in London, and was "suspected of being a Methodist." While in that city he heard Whitefield and Wesley. He returned to Virginia in July. Shortly afterwards he was received as minister of Bath Parish, in Dinwiddie, he being then in his thirty-first year. He found his people as ignorant of true religion as if they had never frequented a church or heard a sermon. As regarded other Episcopal clergymen, he did not know of one in Virginia like-minded with himself. He was indeed opposed and reproached by them as a fanatic, a dissenter, a Presbyterian. His preaching, although at first unacceptable, proved, ere long, effective, and crowded congregations attended his ministrations. The interest extending widely beyond his parish, he spent part of his time in itinerant preaching, going several hundred miles and in every direction. The clergy in general being unwilling to open their churches for him, and they being not large enough to contain the crowds which he attracted, he was in the habit of preaching in the open air, under trees, arbors, or booths, and he had the advantage of a voice which was audible to his large congregations. The clergy frequently threatened him with writs and prosecutions for the violation of canonical order, but he retorted upon them successfully, and maintained his ground. At length he met with sympathy and co-operation from the Rev. Mr. McRoberts, and an intimacy continued between them for many years. But as Mr. Jarratt, who was at first in effect a Presbyterian, became a minister of the established church, so eventually, many years afterwards, during the revolutionary war, his friend and coadjutor, Mr. McRoberts, became a Presbyterian minister. Their friendship remained uninterrupted.

About the year 1769 the increase of the number of Baptists produced some divisions among Mr. Jarratt's people. The Methodists appearing in Virginia about the same time, and professing to be virtually members of the Church of England, Mr. Jarratt (in order to resist the encroachments of the Baptists) co-operated with them in building up their societies; but he found reason subsequently to repent of this step, and although often styled a Methodist himself, yet he finally broke off entirely from that denomination.[567:A]

FOOTNOTES: