When this order reached Virginia the Assembly was again in session. "After I had passed 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 Assembly 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 Assemblys."[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 Assembly 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 Assembly 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 constitutional 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 Assembly 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 Assembly in that year was soon after the Assembly 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 petition.... Mr. Charles Scarburgh, a member of that Assembly, alsoe was, soon after ye Assembly, 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 assembly 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 Assembly. 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 Assemblymen, 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 assail the charter rights of the people. Effingham, on the other hand, was the instrument of the English King and his Councillors in an assault upon representative government in the colony. It was but natural that all classes, 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 Assembly. 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 Assembly soe insisted on".[1010]

Soon after, the Governor's distrust was heightened by two acts of favor shown by Ludwell to leaders of the opposition in the House of Burgesses. When ordered to oust Major Allen from his surveyor's place, he gave it to "Major Swan, one altogether as troublesom as the other & that only for the use of Allen". Upon receiving information that the King had declared Major Beverley "uncapable of any public imployment ... hee presently gives his Surveyor's place, the best in the Country to his Son".[1011] In the spring of 1686 the Governor made one last attempt to win Ludwell over from the people's cause. "I did," he wrote, "on the death of Colonel Bridger ... give him a collector's place, in hopes to have gained him by it."[1012] But Ludwell, unaffected by this attempted bribery, continued his active opposition to the arbitrary and illegal conduct of the Governor. At last, during the session of Assembly of 1686, there occurred an open breach. "His Lordship flew into a great rage and told ... Ludwell he had formerly made remarks upon him, and that if he did not look the better to himself he should shortly suspend him from the Council."[1013] Early in 1687 this threat was put into effect,[1014] and the troublesome Councillor was for the second time deprived of his seat. But this persecution, which the people believed to be directed against Ludwell for his support of their cause, brought him into great popularity throughout the colony and made him the acknowledged leader of the opposition to the administration. In the elections for the Assembly of 1688 he was chosen by the freeholders of James City county to represent them in the House of Burgesses.[1015] Effingham, however, would not allow him to take his seat, producing a clause from his commission which forbade suspended Councillors to become members of the Assembly.[1016] Despite this exclusion, Ludwell could and did, by conferences with individual members, influence the actions of the House and lead them in their fight against the Governor.

The most important task that confronted the Burgesses when they assembled in 1688 was to call the Governor to account for many burdensome fees which he had imposed upon the people by executive order. First in importance was "a fee of 200 pounds of tobacco for the Seal affixed to Patents & other public instruments".[1017] This the Burgesses considered a tax imposed without the authority or consent of the Assembly, and consequently destructive of the most cherished rights of the people. Moreover, it had, they claimed, deterred many from using the seal and had greatly impeded the taking up of land. They also protested against a fee demanded by the "Master of the Escheat Office of £5 or 1000lbs tobacco", and to one of thirty pounds of tobacco required by the Secretary for recording surveys of land.[1018] "This House," they declared, "upon Examination of the many grievous Complaints ... (have) been fully convinced and made sensible that many unlawful and unwarrantable fees and other dutyes have been, under colour of his Majesty's Royal authority, unjustly imposed ... & that divers new unlawful, unpresidented & very burthensom and grievous wayes & devises have been of late made use of to the great impoverishing Vexing and utter undoeing of many of his Majesties Subjects of this his Dominion."[1019]

The Burgesses were also deeply concerned at an instance of the unwarrantable use of the royal prerogative. In 1680 an act had been passed concerning attorneys. Two years later, before the act had received the royal assent, it had been repealed by the Assembly. Later the King, by proclamation, had made void the act of 1682, and the Governor had insisted that this revived the law of 1680. Against this, the Burgesses in 1688 entered a vigorous protest. "A Law," they declared, "may as well Receive its beginning by proclamation as such revivall.... Some Governor may be sent to Govern us who under the pretense of the liberty he hath to construe prerogative and stretch it as far as he pleaseth may by proclamation Revive all the Lawes that for their great Inconveniences to the Country have been Repeal'd through forty years since."[1020]

The Burgesses drew up a long paper, setting forth their many grievances, with the intention of presenting it to the Governor. They first, however, requested the Council to join them in their demand for redress. This the Council with some sharpness, refused to do. We are apprehensive, they replied, that the grievances "proceed from petulent tempers of private persons and that which inclines us the rather so to take them is from the bitterness of the Expressions".[1021] Judging the Governor's temper from this reply of the Councillors, the Burgesses relinquished hope of redress from the executive and determined to petition the King himself. An humble address was drawn up, entrusted to Colonel Philip Ludwell and delivered by him at Windsor, in September, 1688, into the hands of James II. Before it could be considered, however, William of Orange had landed in England and King James had been overthrown.[1022]

In the meanwhile a crisis in Virginia had been approaching rapidly. The people felt that their religion, as well as their liberties, was menaced by the rule of James II. In 1685, the King had directed Effingham "to permit a Liberty of Conscience to all persons", that would "bee contented with a quiet and peaceable enjoyment of it, not giving offence or scandal".[1023] The people of Virginia understood well enough that this order was dictated, not by considerations of liberality, but by James' determination to favor the Catholic church. The feeling of uneasiness was increased when, in 1688, Effingham, declaring it no longer necessary for the Burgesses to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, admitted a Catholic to the Assembly.[1024]

In October, 1688, James sent word to the Governor of the impending invasion of the Prince of Orange and commanded him to place Virginia in a posture of defense.[1025] Immediately the colony was thrown into the wildest excitement, and, for a time, it seemed probable that the people would attempt the expulsion of Effingham. "Unruly and unorderly spiritts," the Governor afterwards testified, "laying hold of the motion of affairs, and that under the pretext of religion,... betook themselves to arms."[1026] Wild rumors spread through the colony that the Papists of Maryland were conspiring with the Senecas to fall upon Virginia and cut off all Protestants in a new Saint Bartholomew's Eve.[1027] The frontiersmen along the upper courses of the Rappahannock and the Potomac "drawing themselves into parties upon their defense", were "ready to fly in the face of ye government. Soe that matters were ... tending to a Rebellion." However, the news of William's easy victory and the flight of James restored quiet to the colony. On February the nineteenth, 1689, the Privy Council wrote the Governor that William and Mary had ascended the throne of England,[1028] and a few weeks later their Majesties were proclaimed at Jamestown with solemnity and thanksgiving.[1029]

The Glorious Revolution was a victory for liberty even more important to Virginia than to England. It brought to an end those attacks of the English government upon the representative institutions of the colony that had marked the past ten years. It confirmed to the people the rights that had been guaranteed them, through a long series of patents dating back as far as 1606, and rendered impossible for all time the illegal oppressions of such men as Harvey, Berkeley, Culpeper and Effingham. Other Governors of despotic disposition were yet to rule Virginia—Nicholson, Andros, Dunmore—but it was impossible for them to resort to the tyrannical methods of some of their predecessors. The English Revolution had weakened permanently the control of the British government over the colony, and consequently the power of the Governor.

The advance of liberalism which was so greatly accelerated both in England and in America by the events of 1688 was halted in the mother country in the middle of the eighteenth century. But Virginia and the other colonies were not greatly affected by the reaction upon the other side of the Atlantic. Here the power of the people grew apace, encountering no serious check, until it came into conflict with the sullen Toryism of George III. Then it was that England sought to stifle the liberalism of the colonies, and revolution and independence resulted.

The changed attitude of the Privy Council towards Virginia was made immediately apparent by the careful consideration given the petition of the Burgesses. Had James remained upon the throne it is probable that it, like the address of 1684, would have been treated with neglect and scorn. But William received Ludwell graciously, listened to his plea "on behalf of the Commons of Virginia", and directed the Committee of Trade and Plantations to investigate the matter and to see justice done.[1030]

Effingham, who had been called to England upon private business, appeared before the Committee to defend his administration and to refute Ludwell's charges. Despite his efforts, several articles of the petition were decided against him, and the most pressing grievances of the people redressed. The "Complaint touching the fee of 200lbs of tobacco and cask", it was reported, "imposed by my Lord Howard for affixing the Great Seal to Patents ... in regard it was not regularly imposed ... the committee agree to move his Majesty the same be discontinued".[1031] Similarly their Lordships declared in favor of abolishing the fee of thirty pounds of tobacco required for registering surveys. The article touching the revival of repealed laws by proclamation was referred to the consideration of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. These officers gave it as their opinion that his Majesty did have the right, by repealing acts of repeal, to revive laws, but the committee agreed to move the King that the Act of Attorneys should be made void by proclamation.[1032]

This was a signal victory for the Burgesses, but Ludwell, who had personal scores to settle with the Governor, did not let matters drop here. After the lapse of several months he appeared once more before the Committee with charges against Effingham of misgovernment and oppression.[1033] Referring to the quarrel over the Bill of Ports, in 1685, he accused him of exercising "two negative voices". He complained bitterly of his attacks upon those Burgesses that had opposed him in the Assembly, and of his abuse of the power of suspending Councillors. The money arising from fort duties, he said, which had formerly been accounted for to the Assembly, had, during Effingham's administration, "been diverted to other uses". The Governor had established new courts of judicature contrary to the wishes of the people.

These persistent attacks of Ludwell resulted in another victory, for the Committee decided that Effingham should no longer rule the colony. He was not displaced as Governor-General, but he was commanded to remain in England, and to leave the control of the administration to a Lieutenant-Governor. This, doubtless, was not unsatisfactory to Lord Howard, for he retained a part of his salary and was relieved of all the work and responsibility of his office. The Lieutenant-Governorship was given to Captain Francis Nicholson.[1034]

Thus the colony emerged triumphant from the Critical Period. It is true the House of Burgesses had lost many privileges—the right to elect its own clerk, the right to receive judicial appeals, the right to control all revenues,—but they had retained within their grasp that all-important power—the levying of general taxes. And they had gained greatly in political experience. Long years of watchfulness, of resistance to encroachments upon their rights, had moulded them into a body that the most cunning executive could neither cajole nor intimidate. Unmindful of the anger of Governors, the rebukes of Kings, of personal loss, even of imprisonment, they had upheld the people's rights. And their descendants were to reap the reward of their faithfulness. The traditions of ability, probity and heroism established by the men of the Critical Period made possible that long and honorable career of the House of Burgesses and the important rôle it was to play in winning independence for America.


INDEX