There were many who hailed the restoration of the monarchy as the dawn of an era of prosperity and happiness for Virginia. The colony, despite the efforts of some of its people, had remained loyal to the Crown until overpowered by force of arms. It might well expect especial favor and care from its prince, now that he was firmly established upon his throne. Of the ability and justice of the Governor Virginia had had ample experience during the ten years of his first administration.

Never was a people doomed to more bitter disappointment. The years which followed the Restoration were crowded with misfortunes greater than any that had befallen the colony since the ghastly days of the Great Sickness. Charles II, far from showing gratitude to his Old Dominion, overwhelmed it with injustice and oppression. The Virginians were crushed with tremendous duties on their tobacco and with ruinous restrictions upon their trade. The titles to their plantations were threatened by a grant of the entire colony to two unworthy favorites of the King. Governor Berkeley, embittered by the humiliation of the Commonwealth period, and growing avaricious and crabbed with advancing years, soon forfeited that respect and love which his former good conduct had gained him. His second administration was marred by partiality, oppression and inefficiency. The people were deprived of their right of suffrage by continued prorogation of the Assembly. Local government fell into the hands of small aristocratic cliques, while the poor were ground down with unequal and excessive taxes. Two wars with Holland added to the misfortunes of the colonists. Even the Heavens seemed to join with their enemies, for the country was visited by a terrific hurricane which swept over the plantations, destroying crops and wrecking houses. These accumulated misfortunes brought such deep suffering upon the colony that hundreds of families were reduced to poverty and many were forced into debt and ruin. No wonder that the commons, finally driven to desperation, should have risen in insurrection against the Governor and the King.

First among the causes of distress during this unhappy period must be placed the Navigation Acts. England, in the middle of the 17th century, was engaged in an unsuccessful contest with Holland for the carrying trade of the world. The merchantmen of Amsterdam and Flushing found their way even to Maryland and Virginia, where their low freight rates and the liberal prices they gave for tobacco, assured them a hearty welcome. The exports of the colonies to England itself were not infrequently carried in Dutch bottoms. This was a source of much anxiety and annoyance to the British government. It seemed unjust that the American colonies, which had been founded at such tremendous cost, should now prove as great a source of wealth to Holland as to the mother country. And it could not but anger the English shippers to find themselves elbowed by these foreigners in the ports of the Bermudas or the rivers of Virginia.

In 1651, the British Parliament, thinking it necessary to give their merchants some protection from this lively competition, passed the first of the Navigation Acts. Under its provisions no goods of the growth or manufacture of Asia, America or Africa should be introduced into England in any but English ships, of which the owner, master and three-fourths of the sailors were English subjects; and all foreign commodities imported to England should be conveyed directly thither from the place of growth or manufacture. This law injured the Virginians by excluding the Dutch carriers from the tobacco trade with England and thus causing a sharp rise in freight rates. During the early years of the Commonwealth period it was frequently avoided, but before 1660 the English government began to enforce it more strictly.

Nor did the people get relief with the restoration of the monarchy. Charles II proved more solicitous that Parliament for the welfare of the English merchants; even more indifferent to the complaints of the colonists. A new Navigation Act was passed in 1660 which struck a deadly blow at the prosperity of Virginia. Under its provisions all goods sent to the colonies, even though of foreign growth or manufacture, were to be exported from England, and all tobacco, sugar, wool, etc., produced in the colonies, must be shipped only to England or to her dominions.

Thus were the colonies sacrificed upon the altar of greed. The new act injured the Virginia planters in several ways. Since all their tobacco must now be brought to English ports, they could no longer seek the most advantageous markets. Had the demand for the commodity in England been more elastic, the consequences of this provision might not have been disastrous. Declining prices would have so stimulated the demand that the English could have consumed the entire crop. But the King’s customs kept up the price to the consumer, and made it impossible for the merchants to dispose of the vast quantities of the leaf that had formerly gone to Holland and other countries. Moreover, the varieties sold to the Dutch were not popular in England, and could not be disposed of at any price. Soon the market became so glutted that the merchants refused to take more than half the crop, leaving the remainder to rot upon the hands of the planters.

There followed in Virginia a sharp decline in prices. The Dutch had given the colonists three pence a pound for their tobacco. A few years after the Restoration the planters considered themselves fortunate if they could dispose of their crops at a half penny a pound. Much was sold at a farthing. Now since tobacco was the staple product of Virginia and the main support of the people, this rapid decline in its value was disastrous. Frequent complaints were sent to England that the colonists could not maintain themselves and their families upon the meagre returns from their tobacco. “Twelve hundred pounds is the medium of men’s yearly crops,” wrote Secretary Ludwell in 1667, “and a half penny per pound is certainly the full medium of the price given for it.” This made an average income for each planter of but fifty shillings. When the poor man had paid his taxes for the necessary support of the government, very little remained to him to clothe his wife and children. “So much too little,” he adds, “that I can attribute it to nothing but the mercy of God, that he has not fallen into mutiny and confusion." In 1673 the Governor and the Council declared that the colony was full of indigent persons, who could barely support themselves with their utmost exertions.

Not only did the act of 1660 depress the price of tobacco, but it increased the already excessive freight rates. Since the bulk of the colonial exports had now to be brought directly to England, in English ships, the masters of Plymouth or London could double or triple their charges. Simultaneously there occurred a pronounced rise in the cost of manufactured goods. The far-famed skill of the Dutch workmen had made it possible for them to produce many articles more cheaply than the English, and to underbid them in their own colonies. But now that all foreign goods were excluded, the planters were forced to purchase the more expensive product of the English workshops.

Thus were the Virginians cut with a two-edged sword. At the very time that their incomes were being diminished, they were confronted by an increase in the cost of living. Nor could they, as Lord Baltimore declared they might, alleviate these evils by industry and thrift. For the more strenuous were their efforts to increase the tobacco crop, the greater would be the glut in the English market and the more disastrous the drop in prices.

The poor colonists found an able, but an unsuccessful advocate, in a London merchant named John Bland. “If the Hollanders,” he wrote in a paper addressed to the King, “must not trade to Virginia how shall the Planters dispose of their Tobacco? The English will not buy it, for what the Hollander carried thence was a sort of Tobacco, not desired by any other people, ... the Tobacco will not vend in England, the Hollanders will not fetch it from England; what must become thereof?” But Charles II, who knew little of economic matters, and cared nothing for the welfare of the colonists, ignored Bland’s convincing appeal. No alleviation was given Virginia, and she was allowed to drift on through poverty and desperation to rebellion.

In a vain attempt to make the colony independent of the English manufacturers and to turn the people from the excessive planting of tobacco, the Assembly passed a series of acts designed to encourage local industrial establishments. It was especially desired that Virginia should make her own cloth, for the cost of the English fabrics was excessive. To stimulate the art of spinning and weaving the Assembly offered rewards for the best pieces of linen and woollen goods produced in the country. A bounty was placed on the manufacture of silk. In 1666, the establishment of cloth works in each county was made compulsory by act of Assembly. “Whereas,” it was declared, “the present obstruction of trade and the nakedness of the country doe suffitiently evidence the necessity of provideing supply of our wants by improveing all meanes of raysing and promoteing manufactures amonge ourselves, ... Be it enacted ... that within two yeares at furthest ... the commissioners of each county court shall provide and sett up a loome and weaver in each of the respective counties." Nor were other industries neglected. Tan-houses were erected in various places “to tanne, curry and make the hides of the country into leather and shoes". Bounties were offered for the construction of vessels, in the hope that Virginia might rival the prosperous ship-builders of New England.

These experiments added a heavy burden to the poor taxpayer, while they accomplished little for the relief of the colony. Virginia, with its scattered plantations and its lack of skilled artisans, could not hope to compete with the workshops of England. The commissioners, whether from corruption or from lack of ability, proved poor business managers, and their ill success occasioned loud and bitter complaints.

In May, 1661, Governor Berkeley sailed for England to combat a new design to revive the Virginia Company. It is quite probable that he took occasion during his stay at court to protest against the Navigation Acts. But he found it impossible to turn the King and Parliament from what had become their settled colonial policy. Ten years later, when the Lords of Trade and Plantations asked him what impediments there were to the improvement of trade in the colony, the Governor blurted out the truth with his accustomed vigor. “Mighty and destructive by that severe act of Parliament which excludes us from haveing any Commerce with any Nacon in Europe but our owne, Soe that wee cannot add to our plantacon any Comodity that growes out of itt ... ffor it is not lawfull for us to carry a pipe-staff or a Bushel of Corne to any place in Europe out of the King’s dominions. If this were for his Majesty’s Service or the good of his Subjects wee should not repine what ever our Sufferings are for it. But on my Soule it is the Contrary for both."

In seeking relief from the evil consequences of the Navigation Acts the Virginians turned to their cousins of New England. And the hardy sailors of Massachusetts and Connecticut, tempted by the high prices of manufactured goods in the southern colonies, brought their wares into the James, the York and the Potomac, where they entered into lively competition with the English merchants. Nor did they hesitate, when occasion offered, to defy the law by transporting the Virginia tobacco to foreign markets. But England was unwilling to leave the colonists even this small loophole. Parliament decided, in 1672, to place a duty of one penny a pound upon tobacco shipped from one colony to another, and the payment of this duty did not give liberty to the owners to transport it to a foreign country. This act completely crippled the intercolonial trade. A few years later, after Bacon’s Rebellion, when the Virginia counties were presenting their grievances to the King’s commissioners, the people of Lower Norfolk requested that the act of 1672 might be repealed. The only notice taken of their petition was the contemptuous comment of the commissioners that it was wholly mutinous for them “to desire a thing contrary to his Majesty’s Royall pleasure & benefitt and also against an Act of Parliament".

It had been suggested, when the price of tobacco began to fall, that the evil might be remedied by governmental restraint upon the annual crop. The diminution of the demand for the leaf, brought about by the loss of the foreign market, was to be met by a corresponding limitation upon the supply. Prices would thus be restored and the planter would receive a greater return for a much smaller output. But for this remedy to be effective, it would be necessary to secure the cooeperation of Maryland and perhaps North Carolina, as a cessation in Virginia would accomplish little, if no restraint were put upon the planters of the other colonies. Moreover, since the proposed step might diminish the revenue from the customs, it would be necessary to obtain the consent of the King.

In 1662 many of the planters and merchants petitioned Charles II to forbid the planting of tobacco in Maryland and Virginia for one year. At first this appeal was rejected and the colonists were commanded to refrain from presenting similar petitions in the future. Later, however, the Privy Council secured a reversal of this decision and an order was issued authorizing the Assembly to appoint commissioners to confer with the Marylanders upon the best means of lessening the excessive crops. Accordingly a meeting was held at Wiccocomico, May 12, 1664, which recommended that the planting of tobacco after the twentieth of June each year should be prohibited. The report met with the approval of the Virginians and was promptly ratified by the Assembly, but the Marylanders believed that a partial cessation would be detrimental to their interests and their legislature refused to give its consent.

But as prices sank lower and lower, and poverty became more general, the Virginians once more appealed to Maryland, this time for a total cessation for one year. Numerous letters were exchanged upon the subject, but at first nothing was accomplished. After many months had been consumed in useless negotiations Governor Berkeley, in the dead of winter, himself journeyed to Maryland and at last succeeded in convincing the leading men of that colony of the necessity of the measure. As a result, the Maryland Assembly passed an act prohibiting all tobacco planting in their province from February 1666 to February 1667, provided Virginia and North Carolina should do likewise. The Assembly at Jamestown promptly passed a similar law, but the North Carolinians, owing to Indian troubles, delayed their action so long that the Marylanders repudiated the entire agreement.

Somewhat discouraged the colonists again sent commissioners, this time to Saint Mary’s, to resume the broken thread of negotiations. Here at last success seemed to crown their efforts, for all differences were adjusted, and the cessation was agreed upon by the three colonies. But the joy of Virginia at this happy outcome was soon turned to grief and indignation, for the Marylanders received a letter from Lord Baltimore, “in absolute and princely terms prohibiting the execution of the ... articles of cessation”.

“This overtook us,” wrote Governor Berkeley, “like a storm and enforced us like distressed marriners to throw our dear bought commodities into the sea, when we were in sight of our harbour, & with them so drown’d not only our present reliefs but all future hopes of being able to do ourselves good, whilst we are thus divided and enforced to steere by anothers compasse, whose needle is too often touched with particular interest. This unlimited and independent power ... of the Lord Baltimore doth like an impetuous wind blow from us all those seasonable showers of your Majesty’s Royall cares and favours, and leaves us, and his own province withering and decaying in distress and poverty.... This unreasonable and unfortunate prohibition ... hath not only increased the discontent of many of the inhabitants of his province, but hath raised the grief and anger of allmost all your ... subjects of this colony to such a height as required great care to prevent those disturbances which were like to arise from their eluded hopes and vain expences."

Can there be any doubt that the Navigation Acts and the futility of all attempts to escape their baleful effects, were largely instrumental in bringing on Bacon’s Rebellion? As prosperity and contentment are the greatest safeguards of the public peace, so poverty, nakedness and distress are breeders of sedition. Philip Ludwell spoke of Bacon’s army as “a Rabble of the basest sort of People; whose Condición was such as by a chaunge could not admitt of worse". Had England been less selfish in her treatment of Virginia, there would not have been so many indigent men in the colony eager to join in this wild uprising against the government. Berkeley himself admitted, in 1673, that at least one third of the freemen had been rendered so desperate by poverty and debt that in times of foreign war their loyalty to England could not be relied upon.

But Charles II was indifferent to the welfare of these distant subjects and blind to their growing dissatisfaction. Just when the situation was most critical, he aroused their anger and grief to the highest pitch, by making a gift of the entire colony to Lord Culpeper and the Earl of Arlington. Previously he had granted that portion of Virginia which lies between the Potomac and the Rappahannock rivers, known as the Northern Neck, to Lord Hopton and several other noblemen. These patentees were to receive fees, remainders, reversions and escheats, and were given power to grant patents for all land that had not been taken up. This had caused the people of Virginia, and especially those residing in the Northern Neck, great uneasiness, and had proved a serious hindrance to the settling of that region. The Assembly, dreading the clash of jurisdiction which this grant made almost inevitable, had sent agents to England to persuade the King to annul the patent, or permit the purchase of the tract by the colony. While they were working to this end, there came the unexpected news that Arlington and Culpeper had received a grant of the entire colony. Without consulting in the least the desires of the people, Charles had given them over to two unscrupulous favorites, with the indifference he might have shown in presenting a necklace to his mistress. The colonists, “to their unspeakable griefe and Astonishment”, felt now that they were “reduced to a far worse condition than that wherein they had adventured their lives and fortunes for the planting that Country under the Company".

The privileges and powers granted in this patent, had they ever been exercised by Arlington and Culpeper, would have rendered the government at Jamestown almost a nullity. The two lords were to receive all escheats, quit-rents, duties and reservations belonging to the Crown; they were given power to divide the territory into counties, hundreds and parishes; to erect churches and present ministers to them; to make manors, fairs, and markets; to appoint sheriffs, surveyors, and other important officers; to issue patents for land; to appropriate to their own use all arrears of “rents and other profits”, accruing since the year 1669.

In great alarm the Virginia Assembly directed the agents in England to use their utmost endeavors to have this grant recalled. At the same time they drew up a statement of their objections to the patent, showing how unjust and ruinous were its provisions. It was in direct conflict with numerous royal concessions and patents, given them from time to time under the Great Seal. There was good reason to fear that the lords, by their deputies, might impose upon them new rents and services. They might demand new surveys and new patents for land which had long been occupied. They might, in fact, completely devastate the government of all its “just powers and authorities”.

The agents, upon receiving these instructions, went to the Lords Patentees to request them to resign the most obnoxious of their new powers. In case they refused, the agents threatened to appeal at once to the King. Arlington and Culpeper received them courteously, and, after numerous delays, consented to relinquish the patent, provided Virginia would offer no objection to the passing of a new grant, assuring them the quit-rents and escheated property. The agents were well satisfied with this settlement, for it would relieve the colony of its fear of proprietary government, while the grant of the rents and escheats would impose little additional burden.

In order, however, to prevent the giving away of such disturbing powers in the future, they petitioned the King to grant “Letters Pattents for the incorporacon” of the colony. In this new charter they desired first that permission be given Virginia to purchase the Northern Neck. They next requested the King to promise that Virginia should have no other dependence than upon the Crown of England, “nor in the future be cantonized into parcells by grants made to particular persons”. “And for the prevention of surreptitious grants” they desired his Majesty to promise in the charter that nothing should again pass concerning Virginia until a hearing had been given to some person impowered by the colony to represent their interests. Of even greater importance was their desire, “That there shall bee no Taxe or Imposition layd on the people of Virginia, but by their owne Consente, and that Express’d by the Representatives in Assembly."

The whole matter came before the King in Council, June 23, 1675, and was referred to the judgment of Attorney-General William Jones and Solicitor-General Francis Winnington. In October these officers reported that in their opinion the patent of incorporation would be beneficial both to the colony and the King’s service, and ought to be granted. Charles thereupon gave directions that the papers be drawn up for his signature. But here, for some unknown reason, the matter came to a halt. Several months passed and the patent had not been issued. At last, April 19, 1676, at the urgent request of the agents, his Majesty directed that the Lord Chancellor cause the papers to pass the Great Seal at once. But before this could be done, news came to England of Bacon’s Rebellion, and the King immediately reversed his order. Later, other Letters Patent were granted, but they were very different from those sought by the agents, and contained little more than a bare declaration of the colony’s direct dependence upon the Crown of England.

This unsatisfactory business caused great irritation among the colonists. The heavy expense of carrying on the negotiations in England “made them desperately uneasie, especially when, after a whole Year’s Patience ... they had no Encouragement from their Agents". A tax of fifty pounds of tobacco per poll, imposed for the purchase of the Northern Neck, aroused widespread dissatisfaction. In April, 1676, Governor Berkeley, fully conscious of the mutterings of revolution, was awaiting with anxiety the arrival of favorable news from the agents. “There are divers,” he wrote, “that would fain persuade the people that al their high taxes will bring them no benefit, so that if the most advantageous terms had been proposed to us it would have been impossible to have persuaded the people to have parted with more tobacco til a more certain demonstration had been given them of what is already done. I appeased two mutinies this last year raysed by some secret villaines that whispered amongst the people that there was nothing intended by the fifty pounds levy but the enriching of some few people." In 1677, after Bacon’s Rebellion, the King’s commissioners heard from all sides that the imposition of this tax was one of the main causes of discontent.

The wars of 1664 and 1672 with Holland added much to the distress in Virginia. The bold Dutch mariners, angered at the injury done them by the Navigation Acts, preyed upon the English merchantmen in every sea. Woe to the tobacco ship that encountered a hostile privateer, in its journey across the Atlantic! The English vessels were not safe even in the Virginia rivers, under the guns of their forts. Twice the daring Dutch came through the capes and into the James River itself, where they wrought great damage to the shipping.

It was the custom, during these times of danger, for the merchant vessels of Virginia and Maryland to cross the Atlantic in large fleets, under the protection of English men-of-war. In May 1667, some twenty vessels were anchored in the mouth of James River, near Newport News, awaiting the remainder of their fleet before sailing. Three leagues above them lay the Elizabeth, a frigate of forty-six guns, sent by the King for the protection of the colony. She was undergoing repairs, however, having become “soe disabled in her Maste and Leaky in her Hull as that she could not keep at sea”, and for the moment afforded little proctection to the merchantmen riding below.

At this juncture, a fleet of five Dutch warships, under the command of Abraham Crimson, appeared off the coast, bent on mischief to the English shipping. The Hollanders, learning of the exposed position of the tobacco fleet from the crew of a shallop which fell into their hands, determined upon a bold attack. On their way to the capes they encountered a ship of London bound from Tangier to Virginia. The English master, Captain Conway, “fought them very well for two hours, but at last being wounded himself and over powered with men, was taken by them".

The Dutchmen came into Chesapeake Bay June 4, and anchored there over night. The next morning, taking advantage of a fair easterly breeze, they sailed boldly into the mouth of the James. In order to take their prey entirely by surprise they flew the English colors, and as they passed the merchantmen, hailed them in English and sang out their soundings in English. Proceeding directly up to the unsuspecting frigate, they threw aside their disguise with the roar of three volleys. The captain of the Elizabeth had gone ashore, to attend a wedding it was said, and had left but thirty men on board. Without officers, and surprised by superior numbers, the sailors could make no effective resistance. Several rushed to their guns, but they fired only one piece of ordnance before they were forced to surrender. While some of the Dutchmen were securing the Elizabeth, the others turned upon the helpless merchantmen and succeeded in capturing the entire fleet. Several of the ships might have saved themselves by running into the Elizabeth River, where the enemy would not have dared to follow them, but they seemed paralyzed with surprise and fell an unresisting prey.

Great was the grief and rage of Sir William Berkeley when news of this disaster reached him. How could he answer to the King for the loss of the royal frigate and twenty English merchantmen? With great promptness and resolution he decided to fit out all available vessels in the colony for a sally upon the enemy. In the upper James were three merchantmen and in the York nine. If these could be supplied quickly with guns and men, there might yet be time to defeat the Dutch and rescue the captured ships. The Governor, who was ever reckless in exposing his person, resolved to direct the attack himself in the good ship Admirall. But some of the masters by no means relished the thought of risking their vessels and their cargoes in a battle with the Dutch. When the Governor impressed them into the King’s service by putting the broad arrow upon their masts, they pretended obedience, but used such delays that the fleet could not be prepared in time. Captain Lightfoot, of the Elizabeth, grieved by the loss of his ship, “very passionately resolved to hazard himself in the Admirall”, while several members of the Council and forty other gentlemen volunteered their services. Upon the shore were assembled four regiments of militia, ready to embark should they be needed. Yet the masters continued their procrastination day after day until the Dutch escaped.

Nor had Admiral Crimson shown any haste to be off. Soon after the battle he had burned five or six of the merchantmen, “for want of men to man them”. It had also been necessary for him to destroy the frigate, which was still out of repair and far from seaworthy. He had sent parties ashore several times to secure water, which he greatly needed, but they had been driven back with ease. After a stay of five or six days in James River, he sailed away with his prizes, leaving the Governor to dismiss his militia and write home his accusations against the masters.

Warned by this experience, the English government, upon the outbreak of the war of 1672, sent two men-of-war to Virginia. These vessels, in July 1673, were stationed at the mouth of the James guarding a large fleet of merchantmen, when news came that nine Dutch warships were approaching the capes. Instantly preparations were made to fight them. Several of the tobacco ships were forced into service and fitted with guns. Sailors were taken from the smaller vessels to help man the larger. But before all could be put in readiness the enemy came through the capes and anchored at Lynhaven Bay.

The English had as yet little apprehension for the safety of their merchantmen, for they could at any time run under the guns of a fort at Nansemond, or could retreat up the James while their men-of-war held back the enemy. At this moment, however, there appeared across the waters of the Chesapeake eight sail of the Maryland fleet, unconscious of their danger and bearing down upon the Dutch. The English commanders realized that only instant action could save them. Taking with them six of the tobacco ships they sailed out to give battle.

“But before they came within reach of gun shot 4 of the merchant ships came on ground.” One turned back to the James. But the other three ships went on, and unaided fought six of the largest Dutchmen. For three hours the battle continued with great fury. At last Captain Gardner, one of the English commanders, “judging that the enemy (if he checkt them not) would be in with (the) merchant ships riding in James river ... tacked alone upon them with Extra ordinary courage, and for at least one houre fought them all.... But, having all his greate maste and his fore topmast desperately wounded, and most of his rigging shot”, he was at last forced to retire. “With as much courage as conduct (and beyond the hopes or expectation of those who saw that brave action) (he) disengaged himselfe ... and brought off all the Marylanders but one.” The Virginia fleet, “which were neere 40 sail”, secured “almost a tides way before the enemy, which undoubtedly saved many which otherwise would have bin lost”. Some of the merchantmen took refuge at Fort Nansemond, where the enemy dared not attack them, others retreated up the river towards Jamestown. Unfortunately five of them, in the confusion of the flight, ran aground and were afterwards captured. The four ships which had grounded before the battle also fell into the hands of the Dutch. Thus, despite the gallant conduct of the English, the enemy succeeded in capturing a large part of the tobacco fleet.

Great as was the distress caused by the depredations of the Dutch, the planters suffered even more during these wars by the stagnation of trade. The great risk incurred in crossing the ocean necessarily brought an increase both in freight rates and in the cost of manufactured goods. In 1667 the Governor and Council declared that the planters were “inforced to pay 12 pounds to L17 per ton freight” on their tobacco, “which usually was but at seven pounds". Conditions were even worse during the second war. In 1673 Berkeley complained that the number of vessels that dared come to Virginia was so small, that they had “not brought goods and tools enough for one part of five of the people to go on with their necessary labor”. “And those few goods that are brought,” he added “have Soe few (and these hard Dealing) Sellers and Soe many Indigent and necessitous buyors that the Poore Planter gets not the fourth part ... for his tobacco which he usually has had in other times."

In this period, so full of suffering and misfortune, the year 1667 was especially noteworthy for its long series of disasters. In November Secretary Thomas Ludwell wrote Lord Berkeley, “This poore Country ... is now reduced to a very miserable Condicon by a continuall course of misfortune. In Aprill ... we had a most prodigeous Storme of haile, many of them as bigg as Turkey Eggs, which destroyed most of our younge Mast and Cattell. On the fifth of June following came the Dutch upon us, and did soe much mischiefe that we shall never recover our reputations.... They were not gone before it fell to raineing and continued for 40 dayes together, which Spoiled much of what the haile had left of our English Graine. But on the 27th of August followed the most Dreadful Hurry Cane that ever the colony groaned under. It lasted 24 hours, began at North East and went round northerly till it came to west and soe on till it came to South East where it ceased. It was accompanied with a most violent raine, but no Thunder. The night of it was the most Dismall tyme that ever I knew or heard off, for the wind and rain raised soe Confused a noise, mixt with the continuall Cracks of falling houses.... The waves (were) impetuously beaten against the Shoares and by that violence forced and as it were crowded up into all Creeks, Rivers and bayes to that prodigeous height that it hazarded the drownding many people who lived not in sight of the Rivers, yet were then forced to climbe to the topp of their houses to keep them selves above water. (The waves) carryed all the foundation of the fort at point Comfort into the River and most of our Timber which was very chargably brought thither to perfect it. Had it been finished and a garison in it, they had been Stormed by such an enemy as noe power but Gods can restraine.... Had the Lightning accompanied it we could have beleeved nothing else from such a confusion but that all the elements were at Strife, which of them should doe most towards the reduction of the creation into a Second Chaos. It was wonderful to consider the contrary effects of that Storme, for it blew some shipps from their Anchors and carryed them safe over shelves of Sand where a wherry could Difficultly passe, and yet knockt out the bottome of a ship ... in eight foot water more than she drew. But when the morning came and the Sun risen it would have comforted us after such a night, had it not lighted us to ye Ruines of our plantations, of which I thinke not one escaped. The nearest computation is at least 10,000 houses blowne downe, all the Indian Graine laid flatt upon the ground, all the Tobacco in the fields torne to pieces and most of that which was in the houses perished with them. The fences about the Corne fields (were) either blown down or beaten to the ground by trees which fell upon them & before the owners could repaire them the hoggs & Cattell gott in and in most places devoured much of what the Storme had left."

In the midst of the second Dutch war came another scourge no less distressing than the great hurricane. Throughout the 17th century cattle raising was one of the most important industries of the small Virginia proprietors. No planter, however insignificant his holdings, was without his cow and his calf. They constituted a most important portion of his wealth, and an indispensable source of support. In the winter of 1672-3 occurred an epidemic which destroyed more than half the cattle of Virginia. The mortality was increased by the cold, which was unusually severe. Many men, in an effort to preserve the poor beasts, gave them all their corn and thus brought hunger upon themselves. Before relief came with the spring, fifty thousand cattle had perished.

Perhaps the people of Virginia might have borne patiently all these misfortunes, had their Governor ruled them with wisdom and justice. Certain it is they would never have turned in wild anger to strike down his government, had that government not done much to make their condition intolerable. Sir William Berkeley was accused of destroying the representative character of the Assembly, of initiating a notorious spoils system, of intimidating Burgesses, of winking at embezzlement of public funds. And, although most of these charges were brought by the Governor’s bitter enemies, some of them were undoubtedly true.

In Virginia, during this period, the commons could guard their interests only by means of the House of Burgesses. All other organs of government were controlled by Berkeley and his friends. The people had no voice in the selection of vestrymen, or sheriffs, or justices of the peace, and no control over their actions. The Council was entirely submissive to the Governor’s will. Its members not only held their seats at Sir William’s pleasure, but were the recipients of numerous other favors that bound them closely to his interest. Thus in the executive, in all branches of the judiciary, and in the upper house of Assembly the Governor was all-powerful.

If then he could control the Burgesses and make them subservient to his desires, he would remove the only obstacle to almost complete despotism. Nor was it a matter of very great difficulty for him to gain a mastery of the House. In every county he could nominate government candidates, and exert tremendous pressure to secure their election. If necessary, they might be seated by fraud at the polls or false returns by the sheriff. “It is true,” Bacon declared, “that the people’s hopes of redemption did ly in the Assembly, as their Trusts, and Sanctuary to fly to, but I would have all men consider first how poore people are debarred of their fair election, the great men in many places haveing the Country in their debte and consequently in their aw. Secondly how meanly we are provided of men of Learning, ability and courage, nay indeed of honesty, to stand up in the people’s behalf and oppose the oppressing party."

And if ever, despite these difficulties, the candidates of the people were elected, the Governor might still win their support in the House, by a judicious use of the patronage. He controlled enough offices of honor and profit to reward richly his friends in the Assembly. If the Burgess was careful never to thwart the wishes of the Governor, or to vote against his measures, he might reasonably expect a collectorship, a sheriff’s place, a commission in the militia, or possibly a seat in the Council. A large percentage of the members of the House were office-holders.

If half the charges brought against Berkeley are to be believed, he was guilty of instituting a system of political corruption as effective as that maintained in France by Guizot during the reign of Louis Philippe. He has assumed to himself, it was declared, “the sole nominating, appointing and commissionating of all ... officers both civil and military amongst us ... (they) being ... (the better to increase ... his party) multiplied to a greate number.... All which offices he bestowed on such persons (how unfitt or unskillfull soever) as he conceived would be most for his designs. And that the more firmely to binde and oblige them thereunto and allure others to his party, he ... permitted or connived at the persons soe commissionated by him ... unwarrantably ... to lay and impose what levies and imposicons upon us they should or did please, which they would often extort from us by force and violence, and which for the most part they converted to their owne private lucre and gaine. And ... Sir William Berkeley, haveing by these wayes and meanes, and by takeing upon him contrary to law the granting collectors places, shérifs, and other offices of profitt to whome he best pleased, he soe gained uppon and obliged all the greatest number of the men of parts and estates in the whole country (out of which it was necessary our representatives and Burgesses should be elected) hath there by soe fortifyed his power over us, as of himselfe without respect to our laws, to doe what soever he best pleased, and from time to time ... to gaine and procure great quantities of Tobacco and mony from us to his proper use over and besides the Thousand pounds yearly salary ... and over and besides the fees, profitts and per quisites to the place of Governour belonging."

Bacon himself declared, in justification of his rebellion, that oppression and injustice were rife in the colony, and that it was useless to appeal to the Assembly for redress. “The poverty of the Country is such,” he said, “that all the power and sway is got into the hands of the rich, who by extortious advantages, having the common people in their debt, have always curbed and oppressed them in all manner of wayes.” The poor, he declared, were kept in such perpetual bondage that it was not possible for labor or industry to extricate them. The great men of the colony had brought misery and ruin upon the common people by perverting all equity and right. The perpetual breach of laws, remiss prosecutions, excuses and evasions, but too plainly attested that things were carried by the men at the helm, “as if it were but to play a booty, game or divide a spoile”. “Now consider,” he adds, “what hope there is of redress in appealing to the very persons our complaints do accuse."

And when once the Governor had obtained a House that was subservient to his will, he might, by his power of prorogation, continue it indefinitely. During the years from the Restoration to Bacon’s Rebellion, there were not more than two general elections, and probably only one that of 1661. Under these circumstances the Assembly could no longer be said to represent the voters of the colony. The Burgesses might defy or betray the people as they chose, they could not be made to answer at the polls for their misconduct. And their is ample proof that this Long Assembly attended more to the commands of the Governor than to the wishes of electors that could no longer elect. Even Sir William’s best friends admitted that his authority in Virginia was almost despotic. Secretary Thomas Ludwell, writing in 1666, declared that the Governor was “the sole author of the most substantial part” of the government, “either for Lawes or other inferior institutions". “Our representatives,” complained the Charles City commons eleven years later “(of which for this county in nine yeares time last past there hath been a verry doubtful election as we conceive) have been overswayed by the power and prevalency of ... Sir Wm. Berkeley and his councell, divers instances of which wee conceive might be given, and have neglected our grievances made knowne to them."

That this overthrow of representative government in the colony and the substitution of the Governor’s despotic sway contributed greatly to the anger and desperation of the people, there can be no doubt. The evidence comes not only from the rebels and from the county grievances, but from disinterested persons, and even Berkeley’s friends. “Whatever palliations,” wrote Governor Thomas Notley, of Maryland, in 1677, “the grate men of Virginia may use at the Councell board in England, ... yett you may be sure ... much ... if not every tittle” of the accusations against them are true. “If the ould Course be taken and Coll: Jeoffreys build his proceedings upon the ould ffoundation, its neither him nor all his Majesties Souldiers in Virginia, will either satisfye or Rule those people. They have been strangely dealt with by their former Magistracy." William Sherwood, if we may believe his own statement, forfeited Sir William’s favor by reporting in England that “the general cry of the country was against ye Governour”. And “it is most true”, he added, “that the great oppressions & abuse of ye people by ye Governours arbitrary will hath been ye cause of the late troubles here".

The illegitimate influence of Berkeley over the Assembly was the more galling to the people inasmuch as they had no voice in local government. The justices of the peace, who exercised the most important powers in the counties, received their commissions, not by popular election, but by executive appointment. And the Governor, although often influenced in his selections by the advice of the Council, gave little heed to the wishes of the commons. His appointees were invariably men of means and influence, and could be relied upon to uphold the interests of the aristocracy and the Governor.

The justices were members of the county courts, and as such exercised judicial, executive and legislative functions in local affairs. The courts met every second month, and were empowered to settle cases involving not more than ten pounds sterling. Individual justices could “try and determine any cause to the value of twenty shillings or two hundred pounds of tobacco". Far more important was the power of the courts to impose direct taxes. The county levy was usually very heavy. In fact, during the Restoration period, it often exceeded the public levy voted by the Assembly. In Lower Norfolk county, during the years from 1666 to 1683, the local assessment amounted to 188,809 pounds of tobacco. This sum seems to us now almost insignificant, but it proved a very real burden to the indigent freemen of that unhappy period. Yet perhaps the people would not have complained had the assessments been voted by a body elected by themselves or representative of their interests. They were bitterly angered, however, that they should be taxed without their own consent and against their wishes, by appointees of the Governor; and the sense of wrong was aggravated by the fact that the taxes were often voted by the courts in secret session, not without grave suspicions of abuses and fraud. “It has been the custome,” it was declared in the Surry grievances, “of the County Courts att the laying of the levy to withdraw into a private Roome by which the poor people not knowing for what they paid their levy did allways admire how their taxes could be so high." “Wee desire,” declared the people of the Isle of Wight, “to know for what wee doe pay our Leavies everie year and that it may noe more be layd in private." From Charles City came the most startling charges of fraud and oppression. “The Commisoners or Justices of peace of this county,” it was declared, “heretofore have illegally and unwarrantably taken upon them without our consent from time to time to impose, rayse, assess and levy what taxes, levies and imposicons upon us they have at any time thought good or best liked, great part of which they have converted to theire own use, as in bearing their expense at the ordinary, allowing themselves wages for severall businesses which ex officio they ought to do, and other wayes, as by account of the same on the booke for levies may appeare." The people were even deprived, during Berkeley’s second administration, of the right of electing the vestries. These bodies had always been composed of the foremost men in each parish. At this period they succeeded in shaking off entirely the control of the commons by themselves filling all vacancies in their ranks. Since they exercised the power of imposing a tax to pay the ministers’ salaries and meet other obligations of the parishes, this attempt to make themselves self-perpetuating was a matter of no little importance. The people expressed their disapproval in the most emphatic terms, and after Bacon’s Rebellion requests came from many counties that the vestrymen might be chosen, as formerly, by the whole body of parishioners.

The unjust poll-tax, which was then used in the public, county and parish levies, was an unending source of discontent. There can be no doubt that it bore with too great weight upon the poor people. “They complain,” wrote Gyles Bland, on the eve of the Rebellion, “that great Taxes are imposed upon them every yeare, by wayes very unequall, Laying them very heavily, by the Poll, whereby the Poorer sort are in the hardest Condition." It must be remembered, however, that many of the servants and slaves were listed as tithables, or persons subject to the poll tax. This of course tended to increase the share of the wealthy. Yet the inequality was very real and the burden upon the poor very heavy. The number of tithables assessed of a man was by no means an accurate gage of his wealth. Later in the century, with the great influx of negro slaves, the burden upon the rich planters increased and became more nearly proportionate to their ability to pay.

Bland suggested that all inequality might be eliminated by adopting a land-tax. “Which,” he said, “seems to be the most equal imposition and will generally take off the complaint of the people, although perhaps some of the richest sort will not like it, who hold greater proportions of land than they actually plant." The King’s commissioners also thought the land tax just, but considered it “impracticable there”. When the people of Warwick county asked, “That all persons may be rated and taxed according to their Estates”, the commissioners reported that this was “a thing to be wish’d but never to be granted them”. If the King should command it, they knew not how it would be relished by the landed men, since the common usage had been always taxing by poll.

The universal discontent was still further increased by the wasteful and lax use of public funds. The money which was wrung from the poor people by these unequal taxes, was seldom wisely or economically expended. Much was squandered upon foolish projects, costly in the extreme, and impossible of accomplishment. Such was the attempt to build a city at Jamestown. For many years it had been a matter of regret to the English government that Virginia should remain so entirely a rural country. Not realizing that this was but the result of exceptional economic conditions and not a sign of weakness or decay, they sought more than once to force the building of towns by legislative enactments. Thus, in 1662, in accordance with the King’s wishes, the Assembly passed an act providing for the erection of thirty-two brick houses at Jamestown. Each county was required to build one of these houses, a levy of thirty pounds of tobacco per poll being laid for that purpose. This attempt was foredoomed to failure, for if economic conditions could not develop cities in the colony, the mere erection of houses upon the unhealthful Jamestown peninsula could accomplish nothing. We learn from Bacon’s Proceedings that the town at the time of the Rebellion consisted of “som 16 or 18 howses, ... and in them about a dozen families (for all the howses are not inhabited) getting their liveings by keeping ordnaries, at extraordnary rates”. That there was corruption or inefficiency in carrying out the orders of the Assembly seems certain. The people of Isle of Wight county complained of “the great Quantities of Tobacco levyed for Building Houses of publick use and reception at Jamestown, which were not habitable, but fell downe before the Finishing of them".

There were also accusations of laxness and fraud in the erecting and management of the public industrial plants. Very grievous taxes have been laid on the poor people, it was claimed, “for building work houses and stoare houses and other houses for the propogating & encouragem’t of handicraft and manufactury, which were by our Burgesses to our great charge and burthen by their long and frequent sitting invented and proposed. Yet for want of due care the said houses were never finished or made useful, and the propagating & manufactury wholy in a short time neglected, and noe good ever effected ... save the particular profitt of the Undertakers, who (as is usually in such cases) were largely rewarded for thus defrauding us."

Even more frequent and bitter complaints originated with the construction of forts upon the various rivers to protect the colony and the merchant ships from foreign foes. At the outbreak of the war of 1664 it was resolved to build a fortress at Jamestown. The ships’ masters were not satisfied with the selection of this site, for obviously it afforded no protection to vessels trading upon the Potomac, York or Rappahannock, and very little to those upon the lower James. After one hundred pounds sterling had been expended at Jamestown, the structure partly completed and fourteen guns brought up, the merchants procured orders from the English government that the fort be transferred to Old Point. The Governor and Council were most reluctant to make this change, but the commands were so positive they dared not disobey. So the guns were conveyed back down the river and the work begun again. But many serious difficulties were encountered. “We have been at 70,000lb tobacco charge,” wrote Thomas Ludwell in 1667, “and have lost several men in the worke and many of the materials by storms breaking our rafts whereon we float the timber to that place.... After all (we) were forced to quit the work as of impossible manage, for great were the difficulties, and so insupportable would the charge have been." A few months after, when the Dutch captured the tobacco fleet in the mouth of the James, this fort seems to have been deserted. It was utterly destroyed by the great hurricane of the following August.

Thereupon it was decided to build five new forts, two on the James and one upon each of the other great rivers. The charges for these structures were to be borne entirely by the counties upon the rivers they were to defend. Whether from mismanagement or dishonesty large sums of money were expended in this undertaking with but little good effect. Berkeley wrote that the colony lacked the skill either to construct or maintain the forts, “We are at continuall charge,” he declared, “to repaire unskilfull & inartificall buildings.” The King’s commissioners in 1677, testified that the forts were made of “mudd and dirt”, and could be of little service against the enemy. At the beginning of the Dutch war of 1672 the Assembly found them in poor condition and incapable of offering resistance to the enemy. “For as much,” it was declared, “as the materials ... were not substantial or lasting, some have suffered an utter demolition, some very ruinous and some capable of repair.” It was thereupon ordered that the forts be at once restored and authority was given for new taxes to cover the cost.

One at least of the reconstructed forts proved of service in the hour of need, for it was under the guns of Nansemond that many of the merchantmen ran in July 1673, from the pursuing Dutch men-of-war. But the people could see in them only a pretext for increasing their taxes. And it was quite impossible to make them believe that such sums could be expended to so little purpose save by fraud or embezzlement. The Charles City commons declared that great quantities of tobacco had been raised for building forts “which were never finished but suffered to goe to ruine, the artillery buried in sand and spoyled with rust for want of care". From James City county came the complaint that although heavy taxes had been paid for fortifications, there was in 1677 “noe Place of defence in ye Country sufficient to secure his Majestys Subjects against any Forreign Invasion”. The King’s commissioners substantiated this statement. “We are well assured,” they said, “of the Truth of this Complaint, and doe know that the Forts erected could be of noe use, Endurance or defence.... Yet were they of great Expence to the People who paid Excessively for Building them."

The Assembly had from time to time sought to make the merchants trading to Virginia aid in the defense of the colony, by imposing upon them Castle Duties, in the form of a toll of powder and shot. The masters had more than once complained of this duty, but as it was not very burdensome it was allowed to remain. Had all the ammunition thus received been used as intended by law, the people would have been saved great expense, and the forts made more serviceable. But the contributions, if we may believe the complaints of the people, were often stolen by the collectors. “Notwithstanding,” said the Isle of Wight commons, “the great quantities of ammunition payd by ships for fort duties for the countries service ... wee are forced to provide powder and shott at our proper charges." The Nansemond grievances were more explicit in their accusations of fraud. “They Complayne that the Castle duties, accustomed to be paid by the Masters of Shipps in Powder & Shott for the service and security of the Country, is now converted into Shoes and stockings &c as best liketh the Collectors of it and disposed to their own private advantage."

It would not be just to give credence to all the accusations made against Berkeley. The King’s commissioners who conducted the investigation into his conduct, were his enemies; while many of the charges were brought by those who had taken part in the Rebellion. Thus the testimony against him is in most cases distinctly partisan. Moreover those that were closely associated with Sir William often expressed extravagant admiration for his ability and energy, and love for his character. “He hath,” wrote the Council in 1673, “for neare 30 years governed this colony with that prudence and justice which hath gained him both love and reverence from all the Inhabitants here."

Singularly enough Berkeley seems to have prided himself upon his ability as a ruler. He never forgot the compliment paid him by the people in 1660, when they insisted, even against his will, upon making him their Governor. And long after he had forfeited their confidence and esteem he imagined himself as popular as in his first administration. It was a bitter blow to his pride when the commons rose against his government in 1676. His proclamations bear testimony to his pain that the youthful Bacon should have usurped his place in the affections of the people. His letter to the King asking to be recalled from his government was undoubtedly dictated by wounded pride. Upon the eve of his final departure for England he did not scruple to write Colonel Jeffreys, “I will confesse to you that I beleeve that the Inhabitants of this Colony wil quickly find a difference betweene your management and mine."

It would be difficult to reconcile this attitude of mind with Berkeley’s oppressive administration, did we not know his views upon governmental matters. He had never been in sympathy with republican institutions. It was the height of folly, he thought, to allow the people to participate either in administrative or legislative affairs. The King alone should rule; the people’s duty was to obey. It was but five years before the Rebellion that he wrote to the Lords of Trade and Plantations, “I thanke God there is noe ffree schooles nor printing (in Virginia) and I hope wee shall not have these hundred yeares, for learning has brought disobedience & heresaye and sects into the world and printing has divulged them, and libells against the best Government: God keepe us from both." A man that could utter such sentiments as these would not scruple to throttle, if he could, all representative institutions in his government. If he intimidated voters and corrupted the Burgesses, it was perhaps because he thought himself justified in any measures that would render the Governor, the King’s substitute, supreme in the government.

But whatever is the verdict of posterity upon the conduct and motives of Sir William Berkeley, the causes of the Rebellion stand out with great clearness: England’s selfish commercial policy, the Culpeper-Arlington grant, the Dutch wars, storms and pestilence, inefficient if not corrupt government, excessive taxes. The only wonder is that the insurrection did not occur earlier. In fact two mutinies did break out in 1674, when the excessively heavy taxes of that year were announced, but the rebels lacked leaders and were suppressed without great difficulty. As early as 1673 the defection of the planters was so great that it was feared many might attempt to deliver the colony into the hands of the Dutch. Berkeley wrote that a large part of the people were so desperately poor that they might reasonably be expected upon any small advantage of the enemy to “revolt to them in hopes of bettering their Condition by Shareing the Plunder of the Country with them". A certain John Knight reported “that the planters there doe generally desire a trade with the Dutch and all other nations and would not be singly bound to the trade of England, and speake openly there that they are in the nature of slaves, soe that the hearts of the greatest part of them are taken away from his Majesty". Thus the downtrodden planters, alienated from England, angered at the Governor, even distrusting their own Assembly, waited but an occasion and a leader to rise in open rebellion. A new Indian war offered the occasion, and they found their leader in young Nathaniel Bacon.