When the news reached England that the common people of Virginia were in open revolt against their Governor, and had driven him from his capital, the King was not a little surprised and alarmed. The recollection of the civil war in England was still fresh enough in his memory to make him tremble at the mutterings of rebellion, even though they came from across the Atlantic. Moreover, since the customs from the Virginia tobacco yielded many thousand pounds annually, he could but be concerned for the royal revenue. If the tumults in the colony resulted in an appreciable diminution in the tobacco crop, the Exchequer would be the chief loser. Nor did the King relish the expense of fitting out an army and a fleet for the reduction of the insurgents.

His anxiety was increased by lack of intelligence from the colonial government. Several letters telling of Bacon’s coercion of the June Assembly had reached him, but after that months passed without word from the Governor or the Council. From private sources, however, came reports of “uproars so stupendous” that they could hardly find belief. It was rumored in England that Sir William had been defeated, driven out of the colony, and “forced to lie at sea".

Charles seems to have perceived at once that Berkeley must have been responsible for the Rebellion. He probably cared very little whether the old Governor oppressed the people or not, so long as he kept them quiet, but it was an inexcusable blunder for him to drive them into insurrection. Charles himself, it is said, had resolved long before, never to resume his travels; he now wondered why Sir William had brought upon himself this forced journey to Accomac. He decided to institute an investigation to find out what the Governor had been doing so to infuriate the people. A commission, consisting of Colonel Herbert Jeffreys, Sir John Berry and Colonel Francis Moryson, was appointed to go to Virginia to enquire into and report all grievances and pressures.

Early in June, 1676, Berkeley had written the King, complaining that his age and infirmities were such that he could no longer perform properly his office in Virginia, and requesting that he be allowed to retire from active service. The Council had protested against this resignation, but Charles thought it best to take Sir William at his word and to recall him from the government he had not been able to preserve in peace and quiet. In honor of his long service, and his well known loyalty, he was, however, to retain “the title and dignity of Governor". He was ordered to return to England “with all possible speed”, to report upon his administration and to give an account of the extraordinary tumults in the colony. During his absence the duties of his office were to be entrusted to Colonel Herbert Jeffreys, who was to bear the title of Lieutenant-Governor. He was not, however, to be the deputy or assistant of Sir William, and “to all intents and purposes” was made Governor-in-chief. Berkeley was to be “no wayes accountable” for his actions good or bad.

The King instructed Colonel Jeffreys, before attempting to subdue the rebels by force of arms, to exhaust all peaceable means of securing their submission. In order to make this task more easy, he drew up and had printed a proclamation of pardon, which he directed him to publish throughout the colony. All, it declared, with the sole exception of Bacon, that should surrender themselves, and take the oath of allegiance and supremacy, were to receive free and full forgiveness. Charles felt that most of the colonists were at heart still loyal, and would, if their grievances were redressed, be glad to accept his royal offer of grace.

But he did not rely entirely upon gentle measures, for, after all, the stubborn Virginians might distrust his promises and reject the pardon. So he resolved to send to the colony a strong body of troops to bring them to their senses, if necessary, at the point of the bayonet. A thousand men, thoroughly equipped for active service, were put under the command of Colonel Jeffreys and embarked for the colony.

In the meanwhile, Governor Berkeley, having regained his authority, was busily engaged in reimbursing himself and his friends for their losses in the Rebellion. There can be no doubt that many of the loyalists had suffered severely by the depredations of the insurgents. Those that followed the Governor into exile upon the Eastern Shore, had been compelled to leave their estates to the mercy of the enemy. And the desperate rebels, especially after death had removed the strong arm of Bacon, had subjected many plantations to thorough and ruthless pillage. Crops had been destroyed, cattle driven off, farm houses burned, servants liberated. Almost every member of the Council had suffered, while Berkeley himself claimed to have lost no less than L10,000.

Thus, it was with a spirit of bitterness and hatred that the loyalists, in January and February, returned to their ruined homes. Quite naturally, they set up a clamor for compensation from the estates of those that had plundered them. Now that the King’s authority had been restored, and the cause they had contended for had triumphed, they demanded that the vanquished should be made to disgorge their plunder and pay for their wanton destruction. Surely the Governor’s followers could not be expected to accept readily all these great losses as a reward for their loyalty.

But restoration upon a large scale would almost certainly entail injustice, and would fan again the flames of bitterness and hatred. It might be possible to restore many articles yet remaining in the hands of the rebels, but most of the plundered goods had long since been consumed. It was often impossible to determine what persons had been guilty of specific acts of pillage, while many of the most active rebels were very poor men, from whom no adequate compensation could be obtained.

There ensued an undignified and pernicious scramble by the loyalists to seize for their own use the property of the few well-to-do insurgents. On all sides confiscation, unauthorized seizures, and violence marked the collapse of the Rebellion. In these proceedings Sir William took the lead. His servants went out, under pretence of searching for his stolen property, to take for his use the sheep, the cattle, and other goods of the neighboring rebels. He showed, it was declared, “a greedy determination thoroughly to heale himselfe before hee car’d to staunch the bleeding gashes of the woefully lacerated country.... Making and treating men as delinquents, before any due conviction or attainder, by seizing their estates, cattle, servants and carrying off their tobacco, marking hogsheads and calling this securing it to the King’s service."

Even more unjustifiable was the conduct of Sir William in resorting to arbitrary compositions with his prisoners to fill his exhausted purse. Men were arrested, thrown into jail, terrified with threats of hanging, and released only upon resigning to the Governor most or all of their estates. One James Barrow was locked up at Green Spring and refused permission to plead his case before the Governor. He was told that his release could be secured only upon the payment of a ruinous composition. “By reason,” he said, “of the extremity of Cold, hunger, lothsomnesse of Vermin, and other sad occasions, I was forct to comply." Edward Loyd was held for twenty-one days, while his plantation was invaded, and his wife so frightened that she fell into labor and died.

It was proposed by the loyalists to share among themselves the estates of all that had been executed for treason, had died in arms against the King, or had fled from the colony to escape the Governor’s vengeance. It did not matter to them that the wretched widows and orphans of these men would be left destitute. Nor did they stop to consider that these estates, if forfeited at all, could not be seized legally for private use, but should revert to the Crown. They thought only of repairing their own ruined fortunes.

In the midst of this confusion and lawlessness Berry and Moryson, with a part of the fleet and seventy of the English soldiers, arrived in the James River. They had left Portsmouth November the nineteenth, but it was January the twenty-ninth before they reached Virginia. Without waiting for Jeffreys and the main body of the fleet, they notified the Governor of their arrival and requested an immediate conference. Berkeley came aboard their flag-ship, the Bristol, February the first, where he was notified of their mission and intrusted with official letters. He poured into the ears of the commissioners the recital of the exciting events of the past months the destruction of Jamestown, Bacon’s death, the surrender of Ingram and Walkelett, the execution of the leading rebels, the return of “the poore Scattered Loyal party to their ruined homes". Although peace had been restored not three weeks before, he pretended astonishment that the King had thought it necessary to send soldiers to his aid.

Nor could he conceal his irritation at the mission of Berry and Moryson. That Charles should think it necessary to make an investigation of affairs in Virginia betokened a lack of confidence in the Governor. Berkeley’s friends claimed, no doubt truly, that he was the author of every measure of importance adopted by the government of Virginia. An inquiry into conditions in the colony could but be an inquiry into his conduct. And the Governor, perhaps, knew himself to be guilty of much that he did not wish to have exposed before his royal master.

Moreover, Berkeley was not in the humor to brook interference at this juncture. He was inexorably resolved that the chief rebels should be brought to the gallows and that his own followers should be rewarded for their faithfulness. If the commissioners intended to block these measures, or protest against his actions when in violation of law, they might expect his bitter hostility.

Before the commissioners had been in Virginia two weeks their relations with the Governor became strained. The disposing of the “delinquents Estates”, they announced, must be referred to the King. Loyal sufferers should not secure restitution except by due process of law. Seizures of tobacco and other goods must stop. Soon the meetings in the cabin of the Bristol became so stormy that the commissioners decided to hold all future communication with Sir William in writing. This they thought necessary because his “defect of hearing” not only made privacy impossible, but looked “angrily, by loud and fierce speaking".

A few days later Colonel Jeffreys arrived with the remainder of the fleet. He and his fellow commissioners found the whole country so ruined and desolate that they experienced considerable difficulty in securing a place of residence. As the Governor disobeyed flatly the King’s commands to entertain them at Green Spring, they were compelled to accept the hospitality of Colonel Thomas Swann and make their home at his seat on the James River. On the twelfth of February, Jeffreys, Berry and Moryson went to Green Spring, where they held a long conference with Berkeley and the Council. Jeffreys produced his commission, and read the clauses which instructed Berkeley to return immediately to England, and to resign the government into his hands.

It is easy to imagine with what anger Berkeley and his Council received this command. If Sir William must embark for England and give up his government to this stranger, they would be foiled in their revenge in the very moment of triumph. Jeffreys would probably put an end to the wholesale plundering of the rebels: the illegal distribution of confiscated estates, the seizure of goods, the unjust compositions. It was true that Sir William had written the King in June asking his recall, but many things had happened in Virginia since he penned that letter. He was passionately opposed to leaving his government at this juncture.

And the old man’s quick wit found an excuse for remaining in Virginia. The word “conveniency” in his orders gave him a loophole. It was evident to all that the King wished him to return without delay, but Berkeley pretended to believe that this word had been inserted in order to permit him to use his own convenience in selecting the date of departure. The question was put to the Council and this body gave a ready and joyous support to the Governor’s interpretation. Jeffreys and the commissioners begged them to consider that the word referred not to Sir William’s “conveniency”, but to that of the King’s service, yet they would not heed them. So Jeffreys went back to Swann’s Point in discomfiture and the old Governor remained in Virginia for three months more to carry to completion his plans of restitution and revenge. That he should have dared thus to trifle with his royal master’s commands, which all his life he had considered sacred, reveals to us vividly his furious temper at this juncture. The humiliation and indignities he had experienced during the Rebellion had deprived him of all prudence.

Had Colonel Jeffreys been a man of force he would not have submitted to this juggling with the King’s commands. With a thousand British troops at his back, he could easily have arrested Sir William and forced him to take ship for England. Although this would have been harsh treatment for one that had so long served the King, it was fully justified by the Governor’s flagrant disobedience. And it would have relieved the colony of the presence of a man whose inhuman cruelty had rendered him odious to the people. But Jeffreys knew that the Governor’s brother, Lord John Berkeley, was high in the King’s favor, and might take revenge should he resort to violent measures. So he contented himself with writing home his complaints, and sat quietly by, while Berkeley carried to completion his principal designs.

The Governor was deeply displeased with the King’s proclamation of pardon. Should he publish it at once, as he was ordered to do, it would greatly hinder him in his work of revenge and render more difficult his illegal seizures and confiscations. Since the pardon excepted only Bacon, under its terms such notorious rebels as Robert Jones, or Whaly, or even Lawrence, might come in out of the wilderness and demand immunity. This Berkeley was determined should not be. He thought at first of suppressing the pardon entirely, and of setting out one of his own based upon it, excepting the most notorious rebels. The commissioners urged him to publish the papers unchanged, as the King would undoubtedly resent any attempt to frustrate his intentions. And they insisted that there should be no delay. “Observing the generality of the people to look very amazedly one upon another”, at the arrival of the English soldiers, as though dreading a terrible revenge by the King, they thought it highly desirable to “put them out of their paine". It was, they declared, by no means unlikely that a new rebellion would break out, for the people were still deeply dissatisfied and “murmured extremely”.

After several days of hesitation, Berkeley decided to issue the King’s proclamation unchanged. Accordingly, on the tenth of February, to the great relief of “the trembling people”, the printed copies brought over by the commissioners were made public. But with them the Governor published a proclamation of his own, which limited and modified that of his Majesty. Gyles Bland, Thomas Goodrich, Anthony Arnold, and all other rebels then in prison were to be denied the benefit of the pardon. The King’s mercy was not to extend to Lawrence and Whaly; or to John Sturdivant, Thomas Blayton, Robert Jones, John Jennings, Robert Holden, John Phelps, Thomas Mathews, Robert Spring, Stephen Earleton and Peter Adams; or “to John West and John Turner, who being legally condemned for rebellion made their escapes by breaking prison”; or to Sara Grindon, “who by her lying and scandalous Reports was the first great encourager and Setter on of the ignorant” people; or even to Colonel Thomas Swann, Colonel Thomas Bcale or Thomas Bowler, former members of the Council. The commissioners thought it highly presumptuous in Berkeley thus to frustrate the King’s wishes, and they were careful to let his Majesty know the Governor’s disobedience, but the Council of Virginia endorsed all his actions and the people dared not disobey.

And so the trials and executions of the wretched rebels continued. As a result, no doubt, of the protests of the commissioners, the proceedings of the court martial were closed, and the accused were now examined before the court of oyer and terminer. Gyles Bland, who for some months had been a prisoner aboard the Adam and Eve, was now made to answer for his participation in the Rebellion. He possessed many powerful friends in England, but their influence could not save him. It was rumored that the Duke of York had blocked all efforts in his behalf, vowing “by God Bacon and Bland shoud dye". Accordingly, on the eighth of March, he was condemned, and seven days later was executed. Other trials followed. In quick succession Robert Stoakes, John Isles, Richard Pomfoy, John Whitson and William Scarburgh were sent to the scaffold. Some of the Governor’s friends expressed fear that the rabble might attempt to rescue these men, and “Counsell’d the not sending them to dye without a strong Guard”, but the people dared not rise in their behalf.

Robert Jones was condemned, but was saved from the gallows by the intercession of Colonel Moryson. Jones had fought with Charles I in the English civil wars, and now exhibited the wounds received in the service of the father as a plea for pardon for his rebellion against the son. Moryson was moved to pity at the plight of the old veteran and wrote to Madam Berkeley requesting her to intercede for him with the Governor. “If I am at all acquainted with my heart,” wrote the Lady in reply, “I should with more easinesse of mind have worne the Canvas Lynnen the Rebells said they would make me be glad off, than have had this fatal occasion of interceding for mercy." None the less Berkeley consented to reprieve Jones, and many months later the King pardoned him.

Anthony Arnold, who had been one of the most active of the rebel leaders, boldly defended the right of peoples to resist the oppressions of their rulers. He declared that kings “had no rights but what they gott by Conquest and the Sword, and he that could by force of the Sword deprive them thereof, had as good and just a Title to it as the King himselfe.... If the King should deny to doe him right he would make noe more to sheathe his sword in his heart or Bowells then of his own mortall Enemyes." For these and other treasonable words this “horrible resolved Rebell and Traytor” was condemned to be “hang’d in Chaines in his own County, to bee a more remarkable Example than the rest".

The Governor, even now, showed no inclination to put an end to the trials and executions. No sooner would the courts empty the jails of prisoners than he would fill them up again. The unhappy rebels, finding that the King’s pardon gave them little protection, and that Berkeley excepted from it whom he wished, could not know where next the axe would fall. None can say how far Sir William would have carried his revenge had not the Assembly requested him “to hold his hand from all other Sanguinary punishment". This brought him to his senses and he consented, though with extreme reluctance, to dismiss his witnesses and juries, and put an end to the executions. And even then “he found out a new way” to punish his victims, “ffyning some of their Treasons and Rebellions and condemning others to banishment to England".

The Governor’s extreme severity and the insatiable greed of the loyal party brought the colony to the verge of another rebellion. The people were deeply angered. Had there appeared any person to lead them, “bould and courageous ... that durst venture his neck”, the commons were ready “to Emmire themselves as deepe in Rebellion as ever they did in Bacon’s time". For many months it was feared that Lawrence, “that Stubborn desperate and resolved Rebell”, would emerge from seclusion to put himself at the head of a new swarm of mutineers. Were he to appear at this juncture, not even the presence of the English troops could prevent Bacon’s veterans from flocking to his standard. “Soe sullen and obstinate” were the people that it was feared they would “abandon their Plantacons, putt off their Servants & dispose of their Stock and away to other parts”. Had England at this juncture become involved in a foreign war, the Virginians would undoubtedly have sought aid from the enemies of the mother country.

Nor could the people expect relief or justice from the General Assembly which met at Green Spring, February the twentieth, 1677. The elections had been held soon after the final collapse of the Rebellion, amid the general terror inspired by the numerous executions, and had resulted in an overwhelming victory for the loyalists. In many counties, staunch friends of the Governor had been put in nomination, and the commons given an opportunity of showing the sincerity of their repentance by electing them to the Assembly. William Sherwood declared that most of the Burgesses were Berkeley’s “owne Creatures & choase by his appointments before the arrivall of the Commissioners". In several places fraud as well as intimidation seems to have been used to secure the election of loyalists. The commons of Charles City complained that there had been illegal voting in their county and seventy of them signed a petition, demanding a new election, which they posted upon the court house door. That the Assembly was in no sense representative of the people seems to have been recognized even in England, for some of the King’s ministers declared that it had been “called when ye Country was yet remaining under great distractions, and uncapable of making their Elections after ye usual manner".

Certain it is, that the House of Burgesses as well as the Council, was filled with ardent loyalists and friends of the Governor. They passed several acts confirming all Berkeley’s recent measures, and inflicting further punishment upon the luckless rebels. Some that had escaped the gallows were forced to pay heavy fines, others were banished. Many were compelled to make humble submission, with ropes around their necks, upon their knees before the Governor or the county magistrates. Large sums of money were voted to reward the most active of Berkeley’s supporters. All that had held command among the rebels, even Ingram and Walkelett, were made forever “incapable of any office civil or military in Virginia”. To speak ill of the Governor and Council or of the justices of the peace, was declared a high crime, punishable by whipping. If the people, to the number of six, assembled in arms, they were to be considered mutineers and rebels. And the Burgesses showed great reluctance to reduce their own salaries, which the people considered so excessive. The Governor feared to insist upon it, “least perhaps he might thereby disoblige and thwart his own ends and interest in the Assembly”, and only the positive commands of the King, delivered to them by the commissioners, could induce them to make any reduction at all.

They passed resolutions praising the wisdom, the bravery, the justice and integrity of the Governor, and exonerating him for all blame for the outbreak of the Rebellion. “The distempered humor predominant in the Common people”, which had occasioned the insurrection, they declared the result of false rumors “inspired by ill affected persons, provoking an itching desire in them to pry into the secrets of the grand assembly". They snubbed the King’s commissioners, replying to their request for assistance in discovering the common grievances that the Assembly alone was the proper body to correct the people’s wrongs. Yet when the commons did come to the Burgesses with their complaints they were repulsed with harsh reproofs and even severe punishment. Certain grievances from Isle of Wight county were denounced as “libellous, Scandalous and rebellious” and “the chiefe persons in the Subscriptions” were to be punished “to the merits of their Crymes". A petition from Gloucester county was declared to savor so strongly of the “old leaven of rebellion” that it must be expunged from the records. When the people of Nansemond appealed for a more just method of taxation, they were answered briefly, “It is conceived the pole is the equallest way."

One is inclined to wonder why the people, thus finding the Assembly but an instrument of oppression in the Governor’s hands, did not turn eagerly for support and relief to the King’s commissioners. These men had invited them to bring in all their pressures, without restraint or fear of punishment. His Majesty, they announced, was anxious to know what had caused them to rise against his authority. All just complaints would be carefully considered and all grievances redressed. But dread of Sir William’s anger held the people back. Their chief grievance was the old Governor himself, but there were few that dared say so, even with the promise of the King’s protection. The commissioners wrote Secretary Coventry that until “the awe of his stay” was removed, they could “never thoroughly search and penetrate into the bottome of the Businesse". Berkeley, they said, continually impeded their investigations and prevented the people from testifying. It might be necessary for Colonel Jeffreys to send him home, before the mists he cast before them could be dispelled. When he was gone, a short time would show boldly those things that as yet only cautiously peeped forth.

The violent opposition which the commissioners encountered from the Governor and the loyalists soon forced them to become the leaders of the defeated party. The poor people looked forward with hope to the day when Sir William would leave and Colonel Jeffreys assume control of the executive. Then, they were sure, the persécutions would end and justice be done them.

The hatred and contempt of the Governor’s friends for Colonel Jeffreys and his colleagues is shown by an interesting and unique incident. Having heard that Sir William was at last preparing to sail for England, they went to Green Spring, on the twenty-second of April, to bid him farewell. This they thought due his dignity and rank, even though their relations with him had been far from cordial. As they left the house, after paying their respects to the Governor and his lady, they found Sir William’s coach waiting at the door to convey them to their landing. But before they rode away a strange man came forward, boldly putting aside the “Postillion that used to Ryde” and got up himself in his place. The Governor, several Councillors, and others saw what occurred, but did not offer to interfere. Lady Berkeley went “into her Chamber, and peep’d through a broken quarrell of the Glass, to observe how the Show look’d". After reaching their boat, the commissioners found to their horror that the strange postilion was none other than the “Common Hangman that ... put the Halters about the Prisoner’s Necks in Court when they were to make their submission”. This seemed to them so gross an insult, not only to the “Great Seal”, but to their “persons as Gentlemen”, that they were resolved to make his Majesty himself acquainted with it. “The whole country rings of ... the public Odium and disgrace cast upon us,” they said, “as the Exchange itselfe shortly may."

It is probable that Lady Berkeley alone was responsible for this incident, which, as the commissioners themselves said, looked “more like a woman’s than a man’s malice". The Governor denied with passionate vehemence that he was in any way guilty. “I have sent the Negro to be Rebuked, Tortur’d or whipt, till he confesse how this dire misfortune happen’d,” he wrote the commissioners, “but I am soe distracted that I scarce know what I doe."

Even before Berkeley left the colony Colonel Jeffreys issued a proclamation, formally taking possession of the government. For some time it had been apparent that the Lieutenant-Governor’s long delay in entering upon his duties was greatly weakening him in the estimation of the people. Since he had been forced to sit idly by for several months while Sir William carried to completion matters of the utmost importance, and had not dared to take his office so long as it pleased the old man to linger in the colony, many thought, quite naturally, that he could not have been entrusted with full authority to act as Governor. And this opinion had been industriously furthered by the loyal party. The departure of Sir William, they declared, did not mean a permanent change of administration. Jeffreys was to act only as his deputy during his absence and would retire upon his return. Feeling that these views, if universally accepted, would undermine his influence and authority, Jeffreys entered a vigorous denial in his proclamation. He had been appointed, he declared, to exercise the power of Governor, as fully as Berkeley or any of his predecessors had done. No man should dare to belittle his office or authority. Berkeley was going home at his own request because his great age and infirmities rendered him unfit to sustain further the burdens of his position. The new executive had refrained from assuming his duties earlier, “because an Assembly being ... ready to convene, the issueing forth a new Summons ... must needs have greatly retarded the publique Weale". Nor did he scruple to claim the full title of “Governour and Captain Generall of Virginia”.

This proclamation aroused Berkeley’s deepest ire. “Your ejecting me,” he wrote Jeffreys, “from having any share in the Government whilst yet I am in the Countrey ... I beleeve can neither be justified by your Comisión nor mine.” “You say that his Majesty out of the knowledge of my inability to govern did surrogate so able a man as Coll: Jeffreys to supply my defects. I wish from my heart Coll: Jeffreys were as well known to the King and Counsel as Sir William Berkeley is, for then the difference would be quickly decided.” The letter was addressed to the “Right honorable Coll: Herbert Jeffreys, his Majesty’s Lieutenant Governor of Virginia”, and was signed “William Berkeley, Governor of Virginia till his most Sacred Majesty shall please to determine otherwise".

In the meanwhile the letters of the commissioners, reporting Berkeley’s disobedience to the King’s commands, had arrived in England. Charles was angered, not only at his delay in surrendering the government, but also at his presumption in disregarding the royal proclamation of pardon. “You may well think,” he wrote Berkeley, “we are not a little surprised to understand that you make difficulty to yield obedience to our commands, being so clear and plain that we thought no man could have raised any dispute about them. Therefore ... we do ... command you forthwith ... without further delay or excuse (to) repair unto our Presence as We formerly required you."

Secretary Coventry wrote even more severely. We understand, he said, that to the King’s clear and positive orders for you to resign the government to Colonel Jeffreys, “upon certain pretences which are no wayes understood here, you have delayed at least if not refused obedience.... His Majesty ... seemeth not a little surprised as well as troubled to find a person that had for so many years served his Royal Father and himself through ye worst of times with so unshaken a loyalty, and so absolute obedience and resignation, should now at one time fall into two such great errors as to affront his Proclamation by putting out one of his owne at ye same time with his, and in that to exempt several persons from pardon, which were by the King’s owne Proclamation made capable of Pardon; then after positive orders given for your immediate return ... you yet stay there ... and continually dispute with his Majesty’s commissioners. I will assure you, Sir, his Majesty is very sensible of these miscarriages, and hath very little hopes that ye people of Virginia shall be brought to a right sense of their duty to obey their Governours when the Governours themselves will not obey the King. I pray you, Sir, ... take not councell from your owne nor any other body’s passion or resentment, to take upon you to judge either conveniency or not conveniency of the King’s orders, but obey them, and come over; and whatever you have to say ... you will be heard at large."

Even before these letters were written Sir William had left the colony. He had embarked for England, May the fifth, in Captain Larrimore’s sturdy ship which had stood him in such good stead in the hour of need. But the old man, worn out by his violent passions and unusual exertions, was physically unfit for the long voyage across the Atlantic. He became very ill on shipboard, and reached England a dying man. “He came here alive,” wrote Secretary Coventry, “but so unlike to live that it had been very inhumane to have troubled him with any interrogacons." The news of the King’s displeasure at his conduct added much to his suffering. He pleaded for an opportunity “to clear his Innocency” even though the “tedious passage & griefe of mind” had reduced him “to extreame weaknesse". That Charles did not refuse him this privilege is attested by a letter written to Berkeley by Secretary Coventry. “I am commanded by his Majesty,” he said, “to let you know that his Majesty would speake with you as soone as you can, because there are some ships now going to Virginia, and his Majesty would see what further Instructions may be necessary to be sent by them." But Berkeley could not attend the King, either to give information or to plead his own cause. His condition rapidly became critical, and a few days later he died.

Hardly had Sir William breathed his last than Thomas Lord Culpeper “kissed the King’s hand as Governour". This nobleman had received a commission, July 8, 1675, which was to take effect immediately upon the death, surrender or forfeiture of the office by Berkeley. It had never been Charles’ intention that Colonel Jeffreys should remain permanently at the head of the government of Virginia, and he now notified him to prepare to surrender his office to the new Governor. The King, who felt that the unsettled condition of Virginia required Culpeper’s immediate presence, ordered him to depart “with all speed”, and told the colonists they might expect him by Christmas “without fayle". But this pampered lord, accustomed to the luxury of the court, had no desire to be exiled in the wilderness of the New World. By various excuses he succeeded in postponing his departure for over two years, and it was not until the spring of 1680 that he landed in Virginia. Thus, for a while, Colonel Jeffreys was left as the chief executive of the colony.

In the meanwhile the commissioners, freed from the baleful presence of the old Governor, were continuing their investigation into the causes of the Rebellion. Berkeley had advised them, when they first announced their mission, to carry out their work through the county courts. But they had refused to accept this plan. The justices were almost all henchmen of Sir William, many were hated by the people and some were the objects of their chief accusations. Had the investigation been intrusted to their hands, they would most certainly have suppressed the principal complaints. The commissioners, therefore, appointed especial officers in the counties to hear the people’s grievances, draw them up in writing and bring them in for presentation to the King. Even then the loyal party attempted, by intimidation, to prevent the commons from explaining without reserve what had caused them to take up arms against the government. Sir William, they were careful to report, would most certainly return, and any that dared charge him or his friends with corruption might expect the severest punishment. But the announcement by the commissioners that his Majesty himself had promised his protection to all informants relieved the fears of the people and many came forward with the story of their wrongs. These seem to have been faithfully drawn up by the officers and in time presented to the King.

The loyal party complained loudly that the commissioners used in this matter none but the enemies of the Governor. Lord John Berkeley declared that they had sought information from such only as were known “to be notorious actors in the rebellion". But the commissioners were undoubtedly right in insisting that all grievances should come from those that had been aggrieved. They themselves, they declared, were not responsible for the truth of the charges; their function was only to receive and report them. The King had sent them to Virginia to make the royal ear accessible to the humblest citizen. This could be done only by brushing aside the usual channels of information and going directly to the commons themselves. That some of the accusations were exaggerated or even entirely false seems not improbable; many were undoubtedly true. Posterity must accept them, not as the relation of established truth, but as the charges of a defeated and exasperated party.

In their work of investigation the commissioners found that they had need of the records of the House of Burgesses. In April, 1677, after the adjournment of the session at Green Spring, they came to Major Robert Beverley, the clerk of the Assembly, and demanded “all the Originall Journals, Orders, Acts”, etc., then in his custody. Beverley required them to show their authority, and this they did, by giving him a sight of that part of their commission which concerned his delivery of the records. He then offered to allow them to examine any of the papers necessary to the investigation, but he refused absolutely to relinquish their custody. The commissioners, who distrusted Beverley and perhaps feared that he might conceal the records, “took them from him by violence".

When the Assembly met in October, 1677, the House of Burgesses sent a vigorous protest to Colonel Jeffreys against these proceedings of the commissioners. Their action, they declared, “we take to be a great violation of our privileges”. The power to command the records which the commissioners claim to have received from the King, “this House humbly suppose His Majesty would not grant or Comand, for that they find not the same to have been practiced by any of the Kings of England in the likewise.... The House do humbly pray your Honour ... will please to give the House such satisfaction, that they may be assured no such violation of their privileges shall be offered for the future."

When Charles II heard of this bold protest he was surprised and angered. It seemed to him a “great presumption of ye said Assembly ... to call in Question” his authority. Referring their representation to the Lords of Trade and Plantations, he directed them “to examine ye same, & to Report” what they thought “fitt to be done in Vindication of ... (the) Royall Authority, & for bringing the said Assembly to a due sence & acknowledgement of their Duty & Submission". The Lords gave it as their opinion that the declaration was so “Seditious, even tending to Rebellion”, that the new Governor should be directed to rebuke the Assembly and punish the “authors and abettors of this presumption". The King commanded Lord Culpeper to carry these recommendations into effect. On the third of July, 1680, Culpeper brought the matter before the Virginia Council, preparatory to delivering the rebuke. But the Councillors made a vigorous defense of the action of the Assembly, and unanimously advised the Governor to suspend the execution of the King’s command. After some hesitation, Culpeper yielded, and the matter was referred back to the Privy Council. Charles was finally induced to rescind the order, but he insisted that all reference to the declaration “be taken off the file and razed out of the books of Virginia".

The work of the commission being completed, Berry and Moryson, in July, 1677, sailed with the royal squadron for England. Their report, which was so damaging to the Virginia loyalists, was not allowed to go unchallenged. Sir William Berkeley, upon his death bed, had told his brother, Lord John Berkeley, of the hostility of the commissioners, and charged him to defend his conduct and character. And Lord Berkeley, who was a member of the Privy Council and a man of great influence, did his best to refute their evidence and to discredit them before the King. Their entire report, he declared, was “a scandalous lible and invective of Sir William ... and the royal party in Virginia". His brother’s conduct had been always prudent and just, and it was noticeable that not one private grievance had ever been brought against him before this rebellion. The meetings of Lord Berkeley with the commissioners in the Council chamber were sometimes stormy. On one occasion he told Berry, “with an angry voice and a Berklean look, ... that he and Morryson had murdered his brother”. “Sir John as sharply returned again” that they had done nothing but what they “durst justify".

As the other members of the Privy Council protected the commissioners, and upheld their report, the attacks of the angry nobleman availed nothing. Secretary Coventry averred that Berry and Moryson had been most faithful in carrying out the King’s directions, and he showed his confidence in their honesty and their judgment by consulting them upon all important matters relating to the colony. And for a while, their influence in shaping the policy of the Privy Council in regard to Virginia was almost unlimited.

Nor did they scruple to use this great power to avenge themselves upon those men that had so antagonized them and hindered their investigation. Robert Beverley they represented to the Privy Council as a man of low education and mean parts, bred a vulgar seaman and utterly unfit for high office. Colonel Edward Hill was the most hated man in Charles City county. Ballard, Bray and some of the other Councillors were rash and fiery, active in opposing the King’s orders and unjust to the poor people. The Privy Council was so greatly influenced by these representations that they determined to reconstruct the Virginia Council, upon lines suggested by Berry and Moryson. Colonel Philip Ludwell, Colonel Ballard and Colonel Bray were expressly excluded from the Council, while Colonel Hill and Major Beverley as “men of evil fame and behavior” were deprived of all governmental employment whatsoever, and “declared unfit to serve His Majesty". On the other hand, Colonel Thomas Swann, who had been excluded from the Council by Governor Berkeley, was now, for his kindness to the commissioners, restored to his seat.

The departure of Sir William Berkeley by no means ended the opposition to Colonel Jeffreys. A part of the Council, realizing that continued hostility could result only in harm to themselves, made their peace with the new administration, and were received into favor, but the more violent of the loyal party remained defiant and abusive. Philip Ludwell, Beverley, Hill, Ballard and others openly denounced Jeffreys as a weakling, entirely unsuited for the important office he now occupied, and did their best to render him unpopular with the people. The Lieutenant-Governor retaliated with considerable spirit, depriving some of their lucrative offices, and suspending others from the Council. Ludwell, whose conduct had been especially obnoxious, was ousted from the collectorship of York River. Ballard was expelled from a similar office. And many months before the changes in the Council ordered by the English government became known in Virginia, no less than six of the most active loyalists had been suspended by the Lieutenant-Governor.

But events soon took a more favorable turn for the Berkeley party. The departure of Berry and Moryson deprived Jeffreys of his staunchest friends and advisors. And, before the end of the summer, he was prostrated by the Virginia sickness, which was still deadly to those unaccustomed to the climate of the colony. For several months he was too ill to attend properly to his duties or to resist the machinations of his enemies, and the government fell into the hands of the Council. And since this body, despite its pretended support of the Lieutenant-Governor, was at heart in full sympathy with Beverley and Ludwell and the other loyalists, the policy of the administration was once more changed. The work of extortion was actively resumed and the courts again busied themselves with suits against the former rebels.

But consternation seized the Green Spring faction, as the loyalists were now called, upon the arrival of the King’s order, annulling Berkeley’s proclamation of February 10, 1677, and reaffirming the general pardon. If this command were put into effect, most of the confiscations secured since the Rebellion, would become illegal, and restitution would have to be made. So desperately opposed to this were the loyalists that they resolved to suppress the King’s letter. They believed that it had been obtained by the influence of the commissioners, and this, they hoped, would soon be rendered nugatory by the presence at court of Sir William Berkeley. If they could keep the order secret for a few weeks, new instructions, dictated by the Governor, might arrive to render its execution unnecessary. Colonel Jeffreys protested against their disobedience, but he was too weak to oppose the will of the Council. So, for six weeks, his Majesty’s grace “was unknown to ye poore Inhabitants”, while the innumerable suits and prosecutions were pushed vigorously. Not until October the twenty-sixth, when all hope of its revocation had been dispelled by fresh information from England, did the Council consent to the publication of the letter.

In September, 1677, writs were issued for an election of Burgesses. Had Jeffreys not been ill, he would perhaps have refused to allow a new session of the Assembly. The contest at the polls could but result in a victory for the Green Spring faction, as the electoral machinery was in their hands. The Lieutenant-Governor, although he had removed some of the higher colonial officials, had made few changes in the personnel of the county courts. The sheriffs, by resorting to the old methods, made sure of the election of most of the nominees of the loyal party. Complaints came from James City county, New Kent county and other places that intimidation and fraud had been used to deprive the people of a fair election. If we may believe the testimony of William Sherwood, the Berkeley faction carried things with a high hand. “The Inhabitants of James City County,” he wrote, “did unanimously elect me a Burgess ... but several of my professed enemies ... procured another writt for a new election, with a positive command not to choose me. The people then being under amazement consented to whome soever the Sheriffe would returne, & so my enemies to make their party the stronger in ye house ... causd three Burgesses to serve for James City County."

“By this means,” wrote Colonel Daniel Parke, “and by persuading the burgesses that Sir William Berkeley was coming in Governour again, (the loyal party) got all confirmed that was done at the Assembly before held at Greene Spring." In order to compensate themselves for their great losses and to fulfil the promises made by Berkeley to his followers during the Rebellion, they levied a tax upon the people of one hundred and ten pounds of tobacco per poll. “This with the county tax and parish tax,” said Parke, “is in some counties 250lbs, in some 300, and in some 400lbs, which falls very heavie upon the poorer people.” The county grievances were again rejected by the Burgesses as false and scandalous, and the persons presenting them were severely punished. But the Assembly expressed an earnest desire to bring about a reconciliation between the hostile factions in the colony, and prescribed a heavy penalty for the use of such opprobrious epithets as “traytor, Rebell Rougue, Rebell”, etc.

The news of Berkeley’s death was a severe blow to the Green Spring party. All the hope they had entertained that he would accomplish the overthrow of the work of the commissioners, at once fell to the ground. But they were somewhat consoled by the appointment of Lord Culpeper. This nobleman was related to Lady Berkeley, and they had good reason to believe he would reverse the policy of the present administration and ally himself with the loyalists.

In the meanwhile the Lieutenant-Governor was regaining his health and spirits, and was taking a more active part in public affairs. He had been deeply angered with Colonel Philip Ludwell for his many insults, and he now determined to prosecute him “for scandalizing the Governor, and abusing the Authority of his Majesty". Ludwell’s unpardonable crime, it would seem, consisted in calling Jeffreys “a pitiful little Fellow with a perriwig". He had also been heard to say that the Lieutenant-Governor was “a worse Rebel than Bacon”, that he had broken the laws of Virginia, that he had perjured himself, that he “was not worth a Groat in England”. Nor was it considered a sufficient excuse that Ludwell had made those remarks immediately after consuming “part of a Flaggon of Syder". The jury found him guilty of “scandalizing the Governor”, but acquitted him of any intention of abusing his Majesty’s authority. The General Court, upon the motion of Colonel Jeffreys, referred the case to the King and Privy Council, that they might “advise a punishment proportionable to the offence". Against this decision the defendant, as he had an undoubted right to do, appealed to the General Assembly. Ludwell felt, no doubt, that should the appeal be allowed, his great influence in the House of Burgesses would secure him a light sentence. But the court declared the case so unprecedented that the whole matter, including the question of appeal, must be decided by the King.

With the return of hot weather, Colonel Jeffreys, not yet being acclimated, or “seasoned”, as the Virginians expressed it, again became seriously ill. The Council elected a president to act in his place and once more assumed control of the administration. The Green Spring faction, whom only the Lieutenant-Governor could restrain, again lifted its head and endeavored “to continue their old exactions & abuses". Feeling, perhaps, a sense of security in their remoteness from the King, which made it impossible for him to watch their actions closely, or to mete out to them prompt punishment, they still disregarded his pardon and his reiterated commands. “The colony would be as peaceful as could be wished,” wrote William Sherwood in August, 1678, “except for the malice of some discontented persons of the late Governor’s party, who endeavour by all ye cunning contrivances that by their artifice can be brought about, to bring a Contempt of Colonel Jeffreys, our present good Governor.... Those persons who are the troublers of the peace ... are ... Lady Berkeley, Colonel Philip Ludwell, Colonel Thomas Ballard, Colonel Edward Hill, Major Robert Beverley, all of which are cherished by Mr. Secretary Ludwell (who acts severely.) It is to be feared, unless these fiery Spiritts are allayed or removed home, there will not be that settled, happy peace and unity which otherwise might be, for they are entered into a faction, which is upheld by the expectation of my Lord Culpeper’s doing mighty things for them & their interest."

Colonel Jeffreys died in November, 1678. It was the fortune of this Governor to come to the colony in one of the greatest crises of its history. Had he been a man of ability and firmness he could have rendered the people services of great value. He might have put an end to the reign of terror inaugurated by Berkeley, prevented the unending law suits, confiscations and compositions, reorganized the county courts and assured to the people a fair election of Burgesses. He seems to have wished to rule justly and well, but he was too weak to quell the strife between the rival factions and bring quiet to the distracted colony.

So bitter was the loyal party against Colonel Jeffreys, that after his death they sought to revenge themselves upon his widow. The Lieutenant-Governor had received no part of his salary from March, 1678, to the day of his death, and had, as a result, incurred considerable debt. As Mrs. Jeffreys was unable to meet all her husband’s obligations, she was detained in Virginia, and, according to one account, thrown into prison. “’Tis plain,” she wrote Secretary Coventry, “they seek my Life in malice to my husband, though none of them can tax him with any injustice.... I cannot hope to outlive this persecution, but I most humbly beseech you to intercede for me to his Majesty, that my child may not be ruined." Mrs. Jeffreys later received the arrears due her husband, and was thus enabled to free herself from the power of her enemies.

Upon the death of Colonel Jeffreys, Sir Henry Chicheley, by virtue of a commission granted in 1674, assumed control of the government. The new Governor had long served with distinction in the Council, and seems to have been a “most loyal, worthy person and deservedly beloved by the whole country". But he was now too “old, sickly and crazy” to govern the colony with the vigor and firmness that were so greatly needed. During the eighteen months of his administration the people were “not reconciled to one another”, and “ill blood” only too often was manifested by both factions.

Sir Henry had himself been a severe sufferer by the Rebellion. He had fallen into Bacon’s hands and had even, it would seem, been threatened with death, in retaliation for Berkeley’s execution of Captain Carver. Yet he attempted to rule impartially and well. Writs were issued in the spring of 1679 for an election of Burgesses, and the people were protected from intimidation at the polls. The Assembly, as a result, showed itself more sane, more sensitive to the wishes of the commons, than had been either of the sessions of 1677. Several laws were enacted redressing some of the most flagrant evils of the old governmental system of Berkeley. The voters of each parish were empowered to elect two men “to sitt in the severall county courts and have their equall votes with the severall justices for the makeing of by lawes". An act was passed putting a limit upon the excessive fees charged by the collectors of the customs. And the clamor of the loyalists for the payment of their claims upon the treasury were unheeded, and all public debts were referred for settlement to the next session.

Chicheley’s administration came temporarily to an end with the arrival of Lord Culpeper. The period from the close of the Rebellion to May, 1680, when the new Governor-General took the oath of office, seems, at first sight, characterized only by confusion and disaster. The violent animosities, the uncertainty of property rights, the lack of a firm and settled government kept the people in constant uneasiness and discontent. The numerous banishments and executions had deprived the colony of some of its most intelligent and useful citizens, while the plundering of both parties during the Rebellion, and the numberless forfeitures that followed the establishment of peace, had reduced many men to poverty. Nor had the most pressing of the grievances that had caused the people to rise against the government been redressed. The Navigation Acts were still in force, the commons were yet excluded from their rightful share in the government, the taxes were more oppressive than ever.

Yet amid the melancholy confusion of the times, important changes for the better were taking place. Never again was an English Governor to exercise the despotic power that had been Sir William Berkeley’s. This was not due to the greater leniency of the British government, or to lack of ambition in the later Governors. But the Rebellion and the events following it, had weakened the loyalty of the people and shown them the possibility of resisting the King’s commands. The commons, angered at the severity of the punishment inflicted upon the rebel leaders, and disappointed in the royal promise that their grievances should be redressed, regarded the government with sullen hostility. The wealthy planters resented what they considered Charles’ ingratitude for their loyal support in the hour of need, and complained bitterly of his interference with their attempts to restore their ruined fortunes. Throughout Berkeley’s administration their interests had seemed to be identical with those of the Governor, and they had ever worked in harmony with him. With the advent of Colonel Jeffreys, however, they had been thrown into violent opposition to the executive. Their success in thwarting the policies of the Lieutenant-Governor, and in evading and disobeying the King’s commands gave them a keen appreciation of their own influence and power. They were to become more and more impatient of the control of the Governors, more and more prone to defy the commands of the English government.

The awakened spirit of resistance bore rich fruit for the cause of liberty. The chief difficulty heretofore experienced by the commons in defending their rights was the lack of intelligent and forceful leaders. These they now secured through the frequent quarrels of the wealthy planters with the Governors. More than once Councillors, suspended from their seats for disobedience, came forward as leaders in the struggle to preserve the rights of the people. In this capacity they rendered services of the highest importance. Strangely enough some of the leading spirits of the old Berkeley party became, by their continued opposition to the executive, champions of representative government in the colony. Had it not been for the active leadership of Robert Beverley and Philip Ludwell the cause of liberty might well have perished under the assaults of Charles II and James II.

The House of Burgesses was gradually becoming more representative of the people. The intimidation of voters practiced by the loyal party immediately after the Rebellion could not be continued indefinitely. As the terror inspired by Berkeley’s revenge upon the rebels began to wane, the commons insisted more upon following their own inclinations at the polls. Moreover, the incessant quarrels of the Governors with the members of the aristocracy made it impossible for any clique to control again the electoral machinery. As the sheriffs and justices were no longer so closely allied with the executive as they had been in the Restoration period, false returns of Burgesses and other electoral frauds were apt to be of less frequent occurrence.

Thus, during the years immediately following the Rebellion, forces were shaping themselves which were to make it possible for the colony to resist those encroachments of the Crown upon its liberties that marked the last decade of the rule of the Stuart kings, and to pass safely through what may well be called the Critical Period of Virginia history.