For some years after the Restoration the administration of English colonial affairs had been very lax. The Council of Plantations, which had served as a Colonial Office during the period from 1660 to 1672, had done little to control the Governors or to supervise and direct their policies. With the exception of one list of questions sent to Virginia in 1670, they had left Sir William Berkeley almost entirely to his own devices. September 27, 1672, the Council of Plantations was united with the Board of Domestic Trade to form the Council of Trade and Plantations. This new arrangement seems not to have been productive of good results, for in December, 1674, after the fall of the Cabal ministry, it was discontinued and the direction of colonial affairs entrusted to the King’s Privy Council. This important body, finding its new duties very onerous, created a committee of twenty-one members, to whom the supervision of trade and plantations was assigned. In this way the King’s most trusted ministers were brought into close touch with colonial affairs. We find now such prominent statesmen as Secretary Coventry, Secretary Williamson and Sir Lionel Jenkins carrying on extensive correspondence with the Governors, becoming interested in all their problems and needs, and demanding copies of all journals of Assembly and other state papers.

This closer intimacy with the colonial governments led inevitably to a feeling of intolerance for local autonomy and for representative institutions, and to a determination to force upon the colonists a conformity with the policies and desires of the English government. Charles II and James II, instituted, in the decade preceding the English Revolution, a series of measures designed to curb the independence of the colonists. Some of the Assembly’s long-established and most important rights were attacked. Many of its statutes were annulled by proclamation; its judicial powers were forever abolished; its control over taxation and expenditure was threatened; the privilege of selecting the Assembly clerk was taken from it; while even the right to initiate legislation was assailed.

The intolerant mood of the King and Privy Council is reflected in the instructions given Lord Culpeper upon his departure for Virginia. They included orders depriving him of the power, exercised freely by all former Governors, of calling sessions of the Assembly. “It is Our Will and pleasure,” Charles declared, “that for the future noe General Assembly be called without Our special directions, but that, upon occasion, you doe acquaint us by letter, with the necessity of calling such an Assembly, and pray Our consent, and directions for their meeting."

Even more dangerous to the liberties of the people was the attempt to deprive the Assembly of the right to initiate legislation. “You shall transmit unto us,” Culpeper was commanded, “with the advice and consent of the Council, a draught of such Acts, as you shall think fit and necessary to bee passed, that wee may take the same into Our consideration, and return them in the forme wee shall think fit they bee enacted in. And, upon receipt of Our commands, you shall then summon an Assembly, and propose the said Laws for their consent."

Most fortunately neither of these instructions could be enforced. The great distance of England from Virginia, and the time required to communicate with the King, made the summoning of the Assembly and the initiation of legislation without the royal assent a matter of absolute necessity. Lord Culpeper, with his Majesty’s especial permission, disregarded these orders during his first visit to the colony, and later, to his great satisfaction, the Committee of Trade and Plantations “altered their measures therein".

Culpeper was directed to secure in the colony a permanent revenue for the King. It was rightly judged that the representatives of royal authority could never be entirely masters of the government while they were dependent for their salaries upon the votes of the Assembly. Sir William Berkeley, it is true, had rendered his position secure by obliging all “the men of parts and estates”, but similar methods might be impossible for other Governors. The King and Privy Council did not, however, attempt to raise the desired revenue by imposing a tax upon the people without their own consent. An act levying a duty of two shillings a hogshead upon all tobacco exported from Virginia was drawn up by the Attorney-General for ratification by the Assembly. The consent of the King in Council was duly received and the bill, with an act concerning naturalization and another for a general pardon, were sent to Virginia by Lord Culpeper. “These bills,” the King told him, “we have caused to be under the Greate Seale of England, and our will is that the same ... you shall cause to be considered and treated upon in our Assembly of Virginia."

The revenue bill was quite similar to an act of Assembly still in force, which had imposed a duty upon exported tobacco, but an all-important difference lay in the disposal of the funds thus raised. The former statute had given the proceeds of this tax to the Assembly, “for the defraying the publique necessary charges", but the new act was to grant the money “to the King’s most excellent Majesty his heires and Successors for ever to and for the better support of the Government".

In order to carry out these new designs for the government of the colony, the King ordered Lord Culpeper to prepare to sail at once. The Governor, however, was most reluctant to leave the pleasures of the court for a life in the American wilderness. His departure had already been long delayed, more than two years having elapsed since Charles had told the colonists to expect his speedy arrival. Yet he still delayed and procrastinated. On the third of December, 1679, an order was issued giving his Lordship “liberty to stay in Towne about his affaires until Monday next, and noe longer, and then to proceed forthwith” to the Downs, where “the Oxford frigat” was waiting to convey him to Virginia. But as he still lingered in London, the Captain of the frigate was ordered to sail up the Thames to take him on board. No sooner had he left his moorings, however, than Culpeper, probably in order to gain time, hastened away to the Downs. This so aroused the King’s anger that he was pleased to direct one of his principal secretaries to signify by letter to Lord Culpeper his high displeasure at his delay and neglect of duty, and that his intentions were to appoint another Governor of Virginia unless he embarked as soon as the frigate returned to the Downs. But now adverse winds set in, and Culpeper, with the tobacco fleet which had waited for him, was unable to sail until February 13, 1680.

He arrived off the capes May the second, and eight days later took formal possession of his government. Immediately the Councillors and other leading planters flocked around him, eager to secure his support against the old rebellious party. Nor was their presentation of their cause ineffectual in winning the Governor’s sympathy. “All things,” he wrote Secretary Coventry, “are ... far otherwise than I supposed in England, and I beleeve ye Council, at least I have seen through a mist." It was to be expected then, that in settling the dispute that had so long troubled the colony he would favor the Berkeley faction. And this, so far as the King’s commands would permit, he seems to have done. The wealthy planters expressed their satisfaction with his measures, and the commons, if they disapproved, feared to reveal their resentment. “His Excellency,” wrote Colonel Spencer, “has with soe great prudence settled all the Affairs of the Country that our late different Interests are perfectly united to the general satisfaction of all his Majesty’s Subjects in this colony."

The Berkeley party was deeply displeased at the King’s command to exclude Colonel Philip Ludwell from the Council. Recognizing in the order the influence of Colonel Jeffreys and the other commissioners, they assured the Governor that it had been secured by false representations. The Councillors declared “that they were very sencible of ye want of that Assistance they for many Years” had had from Colonel Ludwell, “whose good abilities, Knowne Integrity and approved Loyalty” rendered him most necessary to his Majesty’s service. They therefore earnestly requested “his Excellency to Readmitt & Receive him to be one of ye Councill". Culpeper yielded readily, and Ludwell was restored to his seat.

The Burgesses were chagrined at the order to oust Major Robert Beverley from all public employment. He was again the clerk of Assembly, for which office he was “their Unanimous Choyce”, and his disgrace was regarded as a rebuke to the House. Upon their earnest petition Culpeper consented that he should retain that important post in which he was soon to render signal service to the people and to incur again the anger of the King and his ministers.

When the Assembly convened the Governor at once laid before it the Act of General Pardon, the Act of Naturalization and the Act for a Public Revenue. To the first and the second he obtained a prompt assent, but the third was strenuously resisted. The House of Burgesses was filled with gentlemen of the best families, men closely allied with the Council in position and interest, yet they were unwilling to permit any part of the public revenue to pass out of the control of the people. “The House,” they declared, “doe most humbly desire to be Excused if they doe not give their approbacon of his Majesties bill." And so determined were they, that when the matter was again brought before them by the Governor they refused even to resume the debate.

But Culpeper, fearful of the King’s displeasure, and uneasy for the payment of his own salary, made strenuous efforts to secure the passage of the bill. He did not scruple to resort to bribery and intimidation to force obedience from the stubborn Burgesses. We have the testimony of the Governor himself to one notorious case of the misuse of the patronage. Among the leaders of the House of Burgesses was Isaac Allerton, a man of wealth and education, and an excellent speaker. “He did assure me,” Culpeper reported to the Privy Council, “of his utmost services in whatsoever the King should command him by his Governor, particularly as to a further Bill of Revenue for the support of ye Government, And I did engage to move his Majesty that hee should bee of the Council ... though not to be declared till after the Session of next Assembly, when I am sure he can bee as serviceable if not more than any other person whatsoever." This bargain was faithfully kept and in time Allerton, for thus betraying his trust, received his seat in the Council.

Nor did Lord Culpeper hesitate to intimidate the Burgesses by threatening to demand the payment of all arrears of quit-rents. This tax, although belonging to the King from the first settlement of the colony, had not, for many years, been duly collected. It was now rumored, however, that the Privy Council intended, not only to enforce for the future a strict payment, but to demand a settlement for the accumulated arrears. In 1679 Sir Henry Chicheley had forwarded to his Majesty a petition from the Assembly asking relief from this great burden. If this be not granted, he wrote, the payments which have been so long due and amount to so vast a sum, will fall heavily upon all, but especially upon the poor. Culpeper, knowing well the anxiety of the Burgesses upon this point, told them that if they expected the King to grant their petition, they must yield to his desire for a royal revenue in the colony.

Calling the Assembly before him, he urged them to resume their debate. “It looks,” he said, “as if you could give noe reasons or as if you were affraid to be convinced.... I desire you to lay aside that irregular proceeding ... and resume the debate.” The Council, he added, had given their unanimous consent to the bill. “Consider the affaires of the Quitt Rents, Consider the King’s favour in every thing you may aske even to a cessacon ... and reflect if it be tante for you not to concurr in a thing that, I am assured, ye King ... judges his owne and will soe use it and the more fully then if this Act pass."

Thus threatened, the Burgesses finally yielded, and the bill became law. But they insisted upon adding to it two provisos: that the former export duty upon tobacco be repealed, and that the exemption of Virginia ship owners from the payment of the tax, which had been a provision of the former law, should be continued. When some months later the matter came before the Committee of Trade and Plantations, their Lordships expressed much dissatisfaction at these amendments, declaring that the bill should have passed “in Terminis”. Since, however, the first proviso in no way changed the sense of the act, and had been added only to prevent a double imposition, they recommended that it should be continued. But the second was declared null and void by order of the King, as “irregular and unfit to be allowed of".

Lord Culpeper, immediately after the dismissal of the Assembly made ready to return to England. August 3, 1680, he read to the Council an order from the King granting him permission to leave the colony, and a few days later he set sail in The James. The government was again left in the hands of the infirm Chicheley.

Culpeper, upon his arrival in England, told the King that all was well in the colony, that the old contentions had been forgotten, and the people were happy and prosperous. But this favorable report, which was made by the Governor to palliate his desertion of his post, was far from being true. There was, as he well knew, a deep-seated cause of discontent in Virginia, that threatened constantly to drive the people again into mutiny and disorder. This was the continued low price of tobacco. In the years which had elapsed since Bacon’s Rebellion, the people, despite their bitter quarrels, had produced several large crops, and the English market was again glutted. “What doth quite overwhelm both us and Maryland,” complained the colonists, “is the extreme low price of our only commodity ... and consequently our vast poverty and infinite necessity." The Burgesses, in 1682, spoke of the worthlessness of tobacco as an “ineffable Calamity”. “Wee are,” they said, “noe wayes able to force a miserable subsistance from the same.... If force of penne, witt, or words Could truely represent (our condition) as it is, the sad resentments would force blood from any Christian Loyall Subjects heart." Some months later the Council wrote, “The people of Virginia are generally, some few excepted, extremely poor, ... not being able to provide against the pressing necessities of their families." That the Privy Council was aware, as early as October, 1681, that these conditions might lead to another insurrection, is attested by a letter of the Committee of Trade and Plantations to Lord Culpeper. “We are informed,” they wrote, “that Virginia is in great danger of disturbance ... by reason of the extreme poverty of the People, occasioned by the low price of tobacco which, tis feared may induce the servants to plunder the Stores of the Planters and the Ships arriving there and to commit other outrages and disorders as in the late Rebellion."

This universal distress created a strong sentiment throughout the colony in favor of governmental restriction upon the planting of tobacco. Unless something were done to limit the annual crop, prices would continue to decline. Many merchants, who had bought up large quantities of tobacco in England with the expectation that its value would eventually rise, “fell to insinuate with the easiest sort People how advantageous it would bee ... if an Act of Assembly could be procured to cease planting tobacco for one whole year". When, in the spring of 1682, it became apparent that another large crop must be expected, an almost universal demand arose for the immediate convening of the Assembly for the passage of a law of cessation.

The Councillors, although themselves in favor of some restraint upon the huge output, advised the aged Deputy-Governor not to consent to a session at this juncture. But Chicheley, persuaded, it was claimed, by the insistent arguments of Major Beverley, yielded to the desires of the people, and upon his own responsibility, issued writs summoning the Burgesses to convene at Jamestown, April 18, 1682. Five days before the date of meeting, however, a letter arrived from the King, expressly forbidding an Assembly until November the tenth, when, it was hoped, Lord Culpeper would have returned to his government. The letter also informed the Deputy-Governor that two companies of troops that had remained in Virginia ever since the Rebellion, could no longer be maintained at the expense of the royal Exchequer. Since many of the Burgesses were already on their way to Jamestown, Sir Henry decided to hold a brief session, in order to permit them, if they so desired, to continue the companies at the charge of the colony. But he expressed his determination, in obedience to the King’s commands, to forbid the consideration of any other matter whatsoever.

The Burgesses met “big with expectation to enact a Cessation". The appeals of their constituents and the smart of their own purses made them desperately resolute to give the country relief from the present depressing conditions. When they learned that after all their session was to be in vain, and that they were to be allowed to vote only on the matter of continuing the companies, they were deeply concerned and angered. Addressing the Deputy Governor, they declared themselves overwhelmed with grief at the expectation of adjournment. They had, from all parts of the drooping country, passionately wended their way to Jamestown, to attend this Assembly, upon which the “last expiring hopes” of the “miserably indigent poor Country” were reposed. Should they be compelled to return to their homes, having accomplished nothing, the people would be struck with amazement, “like an unexpected death wound".

The Deputy Governor, not daring to disobey the King, ignored their appeal, and bade them decide without delay whether or not they would continue the two companies. But the Burgesses would give no definite answer upon this matter, hoping by a policy of delay to win, in the end, Chicheley’s consent to the cessation. After seven days of fruitless bickering Sir Henry, in anger at their obstinacy, prorogued the Assembly to November the tenth. Before their dismissal, however, the Burgesses, in order to show that they had not been remiss in endeavoring to secure relief for the people, voted that the journal of their proceedings should be read publicly in every county.

Nor had they misjudged the desperate humor of the people. When it became known throughout the colony that the Assembly had done nothing to restrict the planting of tobacco, the anger of the poor planters could not be restrained. Some bold spirits proposed that the people should assemble in various parts of the country, and, in defiance of law and order, cut to pieces the tobacco then in the fields. If the King would not permit a cessation by law, they would bring about a cessation by force. A few days after the close of the Assembly, parties of men in Gloucester began the work of destruction. It required but little exertion to ruin the tender plants, and the rioters, passing from plantation to plantation, in an incredibly short time accomplished enormous havoc. Many men, filled with the contagion, cut up their own tobacco, and then joined the mob in the destruction of the crops of their neighbors.

As soon as the news of this strange insurrection reached Jamestown, Chicheley dispatched Colonel Kemp to Gloucester with directions to muster the militia and to restore order by force of arms. This officer, with a troop of horse, fell upon one party of plant-cutters, and captured twenty-two of their number. “Two of the principal and incorrigible rogues” he held for trial, but “the rest submitting and giving assurances of their quiet and peacable behavior were remitted". Other parties, intimidated by these vigorous measures, dispersed, and soon peace was restored throughout all Gloucester. But now news reached the Deputy-Governor “that the next adjacent county, being new Kent, was lately broke forth, committing the like spoyles on plants”. And no sooner had the troops suppressed the rioters here than the disorders spread to Middlesex and other counties. It became necessary to issue orders to the commanders of the militia in each county to keep parties of horse in continual motion, to prevent the designs of the plant-cutters and arrest their leaders. And then the rioters, who had at first carried on their work in the open day, “went in great companys by night, destroying and pulling up whole fields of tobacco after it was well grown". Not until August were the disorders finally suppressed.

These troubles, coming so soon after Bacon’s Rebellion, caused great apprehension, both to the colonial government and to the Privy Council. “I know,” wrote Secretary Spencer, “the necessities of the inhabitants to be such ... their low estate makes them desperate.... If they goe forward the only destroying Tobacco plants will not satiate their rebellious appatites who, if they increase and find the strength of their own arms, will not bound themselves." And, although the actual rioters were “inconsiderable people”, yet it was thought they had been instigated by men of position and wealth.

Grave suspicion rested upon Major Robert Beverley. It had been the importunities of “the over-active Clerk” that had persuaded Chicheley, against the advice of the Council, to convene the Assembly. It was he that had been the most industrious advocate of a cessation, that had fomented the disputes in the Assembly, that had most strenuously opposed adjournment. And it was he, the Council believed, that had “instilled into the multitude ... the right of making a Cessation by cutting up Plants". Moreover, they thought it not improbable that he would lead the people into a new insurrection. The rabble regarded him with veneration and love. His activity in suppressing the Rebellion and his opposition to the county grievances of 1677 had been forgotten, and they saw in him now only the defender of the poor and helpless. Were he to assume the rôle of a Bacon and place himself at the head of the commons, he might easily make himself master of the colony. Although there was no evidence against him, “but only rudeness and sauciness”, it was thought advisable to render him powerless to accomplish harm, by placing him under arrest. He was taken without resistance by Major-General Smith, “though to his own great loss of 2 or 300 pounds, by the Rabbles cutting up his Tobacco plants within two days after out of Spight".

Beverley was kept in strict confinement on board an English ship, the Duke of York, where for the time, he was safe from rescue by the people. But so fearful was the Council that he might plot for a general insurrection, that they issued orders forbidding him to send or to receive letters, and permitting him to speak only in the presence of the captain of the ship. Even these harsh measures did not reassure them, and it was decided to send him to the Eastern Shore, where the people were most loyal to the government, and where rescue would be impossible. As preparations were being made to effect his transfer, he escaped from the custody of the sheriff, and returned to his home in Middlesex. But he was soon recaptured, and conveyed to Northampton. Here, despite all the efforts of his friends and his own violent protests, he was kept in confinement for months. In the fall he applied for a writ of habeas corpus, but this was denied him under the pretext that the whole matter had been referred to the King, and was no longer within the jurisdiction of the Deputy-Governor and Council. Since, however, all fear of a rebellion was now passed, he was permitted, upon giving bail to the sum of L2,000, to return to his home. But he was still restricted to the counties of Middlesex and Gloucester, was declared ineligible to public office and was forbidden to plead as an attorney in any colonial court.

When the Privy Council learned of the plant-cutting in Virginia, they ordered Lord Culpeper “to repair to the Government with all possible speed, in order to find out, by the strictest enquiry, the abbetors and instruments of this commotion”. And since they too were fearful of a new insurrection, they gave directions “that some person who shall be found most faulty may be forthwith punished". “After which,” the Privy Council advised, “and not before the Governor may be directed to consider of and propose, with the advice of the Council and the Assembly, ... some temperament in relation to the Planting of Tobacco and raising the price of that commodity."

Culpeper left England in October, 1682, upon “the Mermaid frigat”, and, after a tedious and dangerous voyage of eleven weeks, arrived safely in Virginia. He was resolved that the persons responsible for the plant-cutting should be brought immediately to trial, and punished with the utmost rigor of the law. The strictest inquiry was made into the conduct of Major Beverley, and had there been evidence sufficient to convict him, the unfortunate Clerk would undoubtedly have suffered death upon the gallows. But since only the most trivial offenses could be adduced against him, Culpeper was forced to turn elsewhere for the victims demanded by the English government.

So the prosecution was now directed against some of the actual plant-cutters. In this, however, Culpeper found himself greatly embarrassed by Chicheley’s previous treatment of the matter. The Deputy-Governor had, some months before, issued pardons to many of the chief offenders, and had permitted the others to give bail, thus treating their crime as “Ryot and noe more”, and making the affair seem “as slight as possible to the people". But Culpeper, despite this action of Sir Henry, ordered the arrest of four of the most notorious plant-cutters and charged them with high treason. Their trial created great excitement throughout the colony, but “despite the high words and threats” of the rabble, three of them were convicted. Two were executed Somerset Davies at Jamestown, and Black Austin “before the Court-house in Glocester county, where the Insurrection first broke out". The third was pardoned by the Governor. “Hee was extremely young,” Culpeper wrote, “not past 19, meerely drawn in and very penitent, and therefore ... I thought fit to mingle mercy with Justice and Repreeved him ... to the end the whole country might be convinced that there was no other motive in the thing but purely to maintain Government."

But although Culpeper was thus vigorous in punishing the disorders of the poor people, he did nothing to remove the cause of their turbulence the low price of tobacco. By an order in Council of June 17, 1682, he had been directed to grant a cessation, should it seem expedient, and had been given a letter from Secretary Jenkins to Lord Baltimore, requiring the cooeperation of Maryland. But, upon finding the colony in peace and quiet, and the Assembly busy with other concerns, he “took advantage thereof”, and kept secret this unexpected concession. Culpeper pretended to believe that the desired cessation would be of no real benefit to the planters, but it is clear that he was consciously betraying the colony to the greed of the royal Exchequer. “I soe encouraged the planting of tobacco,” he reported to the Privy Council, “that if the season continue to be favorable ... there will bee a greater cropp by far than ever grew since its first seating. And I am confident that Customs next year from thence will be L50,000 more than ever heretofore in any one year." Immediately after, he declared that he well knew “that the great Cropp then in hand would most certainly bring that place into the utmost exigencies again”, and he promised to be prepared to quell the disturbances that would result.

Before Lord Culpeper left England an order had been delivered to him “commanding that noe Governour of his Majesty’s Plantations, doe come into England from his Government”, without first obtaining leave from the King. But so loath was he to remain long in Virginia, that as soon as he had dispatched the business of the April court, he once more set sail for England. “I judged it a proper time,” he said, “to make a step home this easy quiet year, not out of any fondness to bee in England, ... but for the King’s service only."

But Charles and the Privy Council were weary of Culpeper’s neglect of duty. They decided to rid themselves of so untrustworthy an officer and to appoint in his place a man that would remain in the colony and carry out their wishes and policies. An inquisition was held upon his conduct, and his letters patent as Governor-General were declared void. On the 28th of September, 1683, a commission as Lieutenant- and Governor-General of Virginia was granted to Lord Howard of Effingham.

Few British colonial Governors are less deserving of respect than Thomas Lord Culpeper. He was insensible of any obligation to guard the welfare of the people of Virginia, and was negligent in executing the commands of the King. He seems to have regarded his office only as an easy means of securing a large income, and he was untiring in his efforts to extort money from the exhausted and impoverished colony. Sir William Berkeley’s salary as Governor had been L1,000, but Culpeper demanded and received no less than L2,000. In addition, he was allowed L150 a year in lieu of a residence, received pay as captain of infantry and claimed large sums under the provisions of the Arlington-Culpeper grant.

Nor did he scruple to resort to open fraud in satisfying his greed. There were, in 1680, two companies remaining in Virginia of the troops sent over to suppress Bacon’s Rebellion. Having received no pay for many months, the soldiers were discontented and mutinous. The Privy Council entrusted to Culpeper, upon his first departure for the colony, money to satisfy them, and to compensate the householders with whom they had been quartered. At this period, as always in the seventeenth century, there was a great scarcity of specie in Virginia. But there circulated, usually by weight, various foreign coins, the most common of which was the Spanish piece of eight, about equal in value to five shillings in English money. My Lord, upon his arrival, industriously bought up all the worn coins he could secure, arbitrarily proclaimed them legal tender at the ratio of six shillings to one piece of eight, and then paid the soldiers and the landlords. This ingenious trick probably netted him over L1,000. Later he restored the ratio to five to one, so that he would lose nothing when his own salary became due. Of such stuff were some of the Virginia colonial governors.

But Culpeper’s many defects were not wholly unfortunate for the colony, for they rendered him unfit to carry out the designs of the King. His frequent absences from his government made it impossible for him to become thoroughly acquainted with conditions in the colony, or to bind the wealthy to him by a judicious use of the patronage. He was too weak, too careless to pursue a long continued attack upon the established privileges of the people.

It boded ill, therefore, for Virginia, when he was removed, and a commission granted to Lord Howard. The new Governor was well fitted for the task of oppression and coercion. Unscrupulous, deceitful, overbearing, resentful, persistent, he proved a dangerous foe to the representative institutions of the colony, and an able defender of royal prerogative. Had he not encountered throughout his entire administration, the united and determined resistance of the Burgesses, he might have overthrown all constitutional government. Well it was for Virginia that at this moment of imminent danger, the Burgesses should have been so conscious of their duty and so resolute in executing it. They were still, as in most periods of colonial history, men of high social position, but they represented, not their own class, but the entire colony. And they were ever watchful to guard the interests of the commons.

Effingham took the oath of office in England, October 24, 1683, and a few months later sailed for the colony. No sooner had he set foot in Virginia than the struggle with the Burgesses began. The session of Assembly of April, 1684, was filled with their bitter disputes.

Consternation reigned in the House when Lord Howard produced an instruction from the King forbidding appeals from the inferior courts to the Assembly. As early as October, 1678, Colonel Francis Moryson had advised the Privy Council to abolish the judicial powers of the Assembly, claiming that they were the source of the great influence and “arrogancy” of that body. Their Lordships did not awaken at once to the importance of this matter, but before long they became convinced that Moryson was right. Accordingly Lord Culpeper, in his commission of 1682, was directed to procure the immediate repeal of all laws “allowing appeals to the Assembly". But Culpeper, interested only in securing money from the Burgesses, failed to put this instruction into operation. “As to what concerns Appeals,” he declared, “I have never once permitted any one to come to the Assembly, soe that the thing is in effect done. But having some thoughts of getting a Revenue Bill to pass, I was unwilling actually to repeal ye Laws relating thereunto till the next session of Assembly should be over, well knowing how infinitely it would trouble them."

But Effingham had no such scruples, and told the Burgesses plainly the commands he bore from the King. The House, in great dismay, requested the Governor and the Council to join them in an address to his Majesty, imploring him to restore a privilege which had so long been enjoyed “according to ye Laws and antient Practice of the Country". But Lord Howard replied coldly, “It is what I can in noe parte admitt of, his Majesty haveing been pleased by his Royal instruccons to direct & command that noe appeales be open to the General Assembly."

Nor did the Assembly ever regain this important power. As late as 1691 we find the agent of the Burgesses in England asking in vain for the restoration of the right of appeals. The change threw into the hands of the Governor and Council extraordinary power over the judiciary of the colony. The county justices, who sat in the lower courts, were the appointees of the Governor, and could not effectually resist his will. Moreover, as appeals lay from them to the General Court, they were powerless before the decisions of the superior tribunal. Thus the judiciary of the colony lost its only democratic feature.

The Burgesses, undismayed by their defeat in this matter, at this same session entered a vigorous protest against the King’s right to annul acts of Assembly. During Berkeley’s administration his Majesty had seldom exercised this power, but of late many acts had been repealed by proclamation without the consent or knowledge of the Assembly. This, the Burgesses claimed, was an unwarranted infringement upon the privileges granted them “by sundry Comissions, Letters and Instructions”, that was most destructive of their cherished liberties and rights. And they demanded that henceforth their statutes should have the force of law until they had been “Repealed by the same Authority of Generall Assembly". But they received no encouragement from the Governor. What you ask, he told them, “is soe great an entrenchment upon ye Royall authority that I cannot but wonder you would offer at it".

Thereupon the House determined to appeal directly to the King, petitioning him not only to give up the right of repealing laws by proclamation, but to permit the continuation of appeals to the Assembly. Since the Governor refused to transmit their address to his Majesty, they forwarded copies to Secretary Jenkins by two of their own members Thomas Milner and William Sherwood.

This address received scant consideration from the King and the Privy Council. “Whereas,” James II wrote Effingham in October, 1685, “it hath been represented unto us by our Committee for Trade and Plantations, that they have received from some unknown persons a paper entitled an address and supplication of the General Assembly of Virginia ... which you had refused to recommend as being unfit to be presented.... Wee cannot but approve of your proceedings.... And wee doe further direct you to discountenance such undue practices for the future as alsoe the Contrivers and Promoters thereof." For their activity in this matter Sherwood and Milner “in ye following year were both turned out of all imployments to their great damage and disgrace".

In the spring of 1685 Effingham received notification from the Privy Council of the death of Charles II and the accession of the Duke of York as James II. He replied a few days later, “I have, with the greatest solemnity this place is capable of proclaimed his Majesty King James II in all the considerable places of this colony, where the great Acclamations and Prayers of the People gave a universal Testimony of their Obedience." Despite these outward manifestations of joy, the people were by no means pleased to have a Roman Catholic monarch upon the English throne. When news reached Virginia that the Duke of Monmouth was in open rebellion, and had gained important successes over his Majesty’s forces, there was grave danger that the commons of the colony might espouse his cause. Many were so emboldened, wrote Effingham, “that their tongues ran at large and demonstrated the wickedness of their hearts, till I secured some and deterred others from spreading such false reports by my Proclamation". The defeat and execution of the Duke of Monmouth for a time ended all thought of resistance to the King.

But Effingham found the people sullen and discontented and the Burgesses more stubborn than ever. The session of Assembly of 1685 was, perhaps, the most stormy ever held in Virginia. The House made a strenuous and successful resistance to a vigorous attempt to deprive it of its control over taxation. In 1662, when the Assembly was dominated by Sir William Berkeley, an act had been passed empowering the Governor and Council to levy annually for three years a tax of not more than twenty pounds of tobacco per poll. In 1680 the Council had requested Lord Culpeper to represent to the King the disadvantages of leaving taxation entirely in the hands of the Assembly, hoping that his Majesty would by proclamation revive the law of 1662. The greatest item of expense to the government, they argued, arose from the Assembly itself, “ye charge of which hath been too often found to be twice as much as would have satisfied all publiq dues". The matter was presented to the consideration of the Burgesses in 1680, but was lost in the committee room.

The King and Privy Council, although they approved of the levy by the Governor and the Council, did not venture to grant them that power by royal proclamation. They instructed Lord Howard, however, in his commission of 1683, to propose for passage in the Assembly a law similar to that of 1662. Accordingly, in 1684, Effingham placed the matter before the Burgesses and told them that it was the King’s desire that they give their consent. But they ignored his message, and the Governor could not press the matter at that time. In the next session, however, he became more insistent. “I must remind you,” he told the Burgesses, “of what was omitted in ye last Assembly ... that a Law may passe whereby His Majesty’s Governor with ye advice of ye Council may be empowered to lay a levy." But the Burgesses would not yield. “The House,” they replied, “... do humbly signifye to your Excellency, that they can noe waies concede to or comply with that proposition, without apparent and signal violation of ye great trust with them reposed." And when Effingham urged them to reconsider their action, they passed a resolution unanimously refusing to relinquish this their greatest privilege.

After the prorogation of the Assembly, Lord Howard wrote home his complaints against the stubborn Burgesses. “Your Lordships,” he said, “will ... find their total denyal that the Governor and Council should have any power to lay the least Levy to ease the necessity of soe frequent Assemblys.... This was propounded by mee to them before his Majesty’s Instructions came to my hand that I should,... but nothing would prevail nor I beleeve will, unless his Majesty’s special command therein."

A long and acrimonious quarrel occurred over the quit-rents. Because of the lack of specie in the colony, it had always been necessary to collect this tax, when it was collected at all, in tobacco. In March, 1662, the Assembly had passed a law fixing the rate of payment at two pence a pound, which was then not far from the current price. But the decline in value of the commodity which had occurred since 1662, had resulted in a great diminution in the tax.

In July, 1684, the King wrote Effingham that he had taken over all the rights of Arlington and Culpeper to the quit-rents, and announced it his intention to use them for the support of the Virginia government. He directed the Governor to secure the repeal of the law of 1662 and to forbid all payments in tobacco. “You must ... impower,” he wrote, “the Officers of our Revenue to collect (them) ... according to ye reservation of 2s per every hundred acres ... to be paid in specie, that is in Mony."

As tobacco sold, in 1684, at a half penny a pound, this order, had it been put into operation, would have quadrupled the value of the quit-rents, and increased materially the burdens of the planters. The Burgesses, in alarm, petitioned the Governor to allow the old arrangement to continue, declaring that the lack of specie made it impossible to comply with the King’s order. And they refused to repeal the law of March, 1662.

Displeased at their obstinacy, the King, in August, 1686, nullified the law by proclamation. “Being now informed,” he declared, “that several persons goe about to impede our Service ... by imposing bad tobacco upon our collectors at the rate of 2d per llb, under pretence of an Act of Assembly of March 30, 1662, ... Wee have thought fit to Repeal the said Act."

Even then the Burgesses resisted. At the session of 1686 they petitioned on behalf of all the freeholders of the colony that the quit-rents should be paid as formerly. To make payment in specie, they declared, would not only be ruinous, but utterly impossible. So angered were they and so determined not to obey, that Effingham found it expedient to consent to a compromise. It was agreed that the tax should be collected in tobacco as before, but at the rate of one penny per pound, which, as Effingham said, was not ad valorum. Thus the only result of this long quarrel was to double the value of the quit-rents, and to add greatly to the burdens of the impoverished and discontented people.

Even more bitter was the contest over the so-called Bill of Ports. This measure was designed to remedy the scattered mode of living in Virginia, by appointing certain places as ports of landing and shipment, and confining to them all foreign trade. Throughout the seventeenth century almost all shipping was done from private wharves. The country was so interspersed with rivers, inlets and creeks, deep enough to float the largest vessels, that ports were entirely unnecessary. Each planter dealt directly with the merchants, receiving English manufactured goods almost at his front door, and lading the ships with tobacco from his own warehouse. This system, so natural and advantageous, seemed to the English Kings, and even to the colonists, a sign of unhealthful conditions. More than once attempts had been made to force the people to build towns and to discontinue the desultory plantation trade.

In 1679, Culpeper was ordered to propose a law in the Assembly requiring the erection of towns on each great river, to which all foreign trade should be confined. Accordingly, in 1680, a Bill of Ports was passed. “Wee are now grown sensible,” wrote Secretary Spencer, “that our present necessities, and too much to be doubted future miseries, are much heightened by our wild and rambling way of living, therefore are desirous of cohabitation, in order whereunto in ye late Assembly an Act was made appointing a town in every County, where all Goods imported are to be landed, and all Goods exported to be shipt off. And if this takes effect, as its hoped it may, Virginia will then go forward which of late years hath made a retrograde motion."

But this attempt ended in dismal failure. In 1681, when the shipmasters came to the appointed ports, they found that no shelter had been constructed for their goods. Thinking the law nullified, or not yet in operation, they traded as usual from private wharves. For this breach of the law, some of them were prosecuted in the colonial courts, to their own great loss and to the inconvenience of many of the planters. Loud wrangling and bitter animosities resulted throughout the colony, and at length the King was compelled to suspend the law.

In the Assembly of 1685 it was proposed to enact another Bill of Ports. Accordingly an act was drafted in the House of Burgesses and, in due time, sent up for the approval of the Council. The upper house, after making several alterations, consented to the bill and returned it to the Burgesses. The latter agreed to most of the changes, but struck out a clause restricting the towns to two upon each river, and added an amendment permitting one port to a county. The Council in turn yielded, but inserted a new clause, “That there should bee ffees ascertained on Goods exported and imported for the support of those Officers which should bee obliged to reside in those Ports". As “there was noe room in ye margint to write ye alteration ... it was wrote in a piece of paper and affixt to ye Act". When the bill came back to the House, Major Robert Beverley, who was again the clerk of the Assembly, acting it would seem upon his own initiative, tore off the paper containing this amendment. The bill then came before the House apparently assented to without change and was returned by them for the signature of the Governor and the Councillors. Neither Effingham nor any of the Council noticed the omission, and thinking their amendment had been accepted, signed the bill. Thereupon it was engrossed, and sent up for the final signature of the Governor. But Effingham in reading the engrossed copy, discovered the omission, and refused to affix his name to the bill, claiming that it “was not engrost as assented to” by him and the Council. “To which,” wrote the Governor, “they sent mee word that the Bill could admit of noe alteration or amendment after it was attested by the Clerk of the General Assembly as assented to, and that it had by that the force of a Law.... I sent them word again that though any bill was assented to by mee and the Council, yet if I should afterwards perseive it would prove prejudicial ... I had power to refuse the signing of it by vertue of His Majesty’s negative voice.... But all would not persuade them out of their obstinacy, nay tho’ I offered to lay that Bill aside till His Majesty’s pleasure should bee known therein; And to sign all the others.... But nothing would please them but Invading, if not destroying, His Majesty’s Prerogative.” The Burgesses declared that they did not contest the Governor’s right to the veto, but contended that when once he signed a bill, “it could not faile of having ye force of a Law". Effingham, they complained, was claiming a “double negative Voice”. So angry did they become that they refused to apportion the levy for defraying the public charges, and after many days of bitter contention the Governor was forced to prorogue them.

“I did not disolve them,” he wrote the Privy Council, “for these reasons. Because if his Majesty shall think fitt to have them dissolved, it will bee soe great a rebuke to them, when done by his Majesty’s special command, that I hope it will deter them for the future to bee soe obstinate and peevish." Accordingly, in August, 1686, the King wrote the Governor, “Whereas, we have been informed of ye irregular and tumultuous proceedings of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, at their late meeting, the members thereof having ... presumed so far as to raise contests touching ye power of ye Negative Voice ... which wee cannot attribute to any other Cause then the disaffected & unquiet Dispositions of those Members.... Wee have thought fitt hereby as a mark of our displeasure ... to Charge ... you forthwith to Dissolve the present Assembly."

When this order reached Virginia the Assembly was again in session. “After I had passed the Acts,” wrote Effingham, “I ordered His Majesty’s Letter to bee publickly read to them, and then Dissolved them ... and told them they were the first Assembly which had been soe dissolved and I hoped they would bee the last that should deserve it. I ordered copies of his Majesty’s Letter to bee sent to the several County-Courts, that all the Inhabitants might know how displeasing such proceedings were to his Majesty." “And now,” he added, “the public debts being paid,... I shall not for the future have soe frequent Assemblys."

More damaging to the Burgesses than this rebuke was the loss of the right to elect their own clerk. “I was severely angry with their Clerk,” declared Effingham, “that he durst omit ye least clause, especially soe material an one ... I sent to the Assembly to make him an example for it, But they rather maintained him." Some months later the King sent orders that Beverley be tried for defacing the records and that he be once more deprived of all offices. Probably because of his great popularity, Beverley was never brought to trial, but he was forced to relinquish his lucrative governmental posts. In May, 1686, Nicholas Spencer wrote the Committee of Trade and Plantations, advocating the appointment of the clerk by the Governor. “I ... beg leave to present,” he said, “how necessary it is ... that the clerk of the House ... bee commissionated by his Majesty’s Governour ... and that his salary be appointed unto him out of his Majesty’s revenue. This will take off his dependency on his great masters the House of Burgesses, and leave noe room for designed omissions." Nothing loath, the King, in August, 1686, wrote Lord Howard, “Wee ... require you ... upon the Convening of the Assembly to appoint a fit person to execute the Office of Clerk of the House of Burgesses, & not to permit upon any pretense whatsoever any other person to execute ye said Office but such as shall bee soe chosen by you."

Accordingly, at the session of April, 1688, the Governor, with the approbation of the Council, appointed Captain Francis Page as clerk of the House. The Burgesses could but yield, but they told Effingham that the clerk was still their servant and ought to take the usual oath of secrecy. “I do declare,” replied the Governor, “it was never my intention nor my desire that the Clerk should be as a spy upon your Actions and to declare to me your private Debates.” It was therefore agreed that he should take the following oath: “You shall keep secret all private Debates of the said House of Burgesses." Despite this, it was quite evident that the House was no longer to be master of its own clerk, and that he was to be in the future, to some extent at least, an emissary of the enemy seated in their midst.

The resolute and vigilant defense of the constitutional rights of Virginia made by the House in this the critical period of her history is deserving of the highest praise, because it was made in the face of vigorous personal attacks by Effingham upon the most active of the members. Every Burgess that voted against the measures proposed by the King or advocated by his Governor, exposed himself not only to removal from office, but to active persecution. As we have seen, Mr. William Sherwood and Colonel Thomas Milner, for forwarding to the Privy Council the address of the Burgesses in 1684, had been dismissed from office. “In ye year 1686 Mr. Arthur Allen & Mr. John Smith, who were Burgesses in ye year 1685, were turned out of all imployment Civill & Military to Mr. Allen’s great damage, he being a surveyor of land at that tyme." I have displaced Allen, wrote Effingham, because he was “a great promoter of those differences between mee and the Assembly concerning the King’s negative Voice ... as not thinking it fitt that those who are peevishly opposite to his Majesty’s interest should have any advantage by his favor". “In the year 1688 Mr. William Anderson, a member of ye Assembly in that year was soon after the Assembly by the Governor’s order and Command put in ye Common goale and there detained 7 months, without Tryal, though often prayed for, and several courts past in ye time of his imprisonment. Nor could he obtain ye benefit of habeas corpus upon his humble petition.... Mr. Charles Scarburgh, a member of that Assembly, alsoe was, soon after ye Assembly, turned out of all imployment and as a mark of his Lordship’s displeasure, a command was sent to ye clerk of ye county to raze his name out of ye records as a Justice of Peace." “From whence,” it was declared, “the people conclude these severities are inflicted rather as a terrour to others than for any personall crimes of their owne, and is of such ruinous consequence that either the public or particular interests must fall, for if none oppose, the country must languish under the severity of the government, or fly into a mutiny to save themselves from starving. If any do appear more zealous in prosecuting the countries complaints they know what to expect. It being observable that none has been thus punisht but those who were forward in the assembly to oppose the encroachments on the people, and promote the complaint to England, being out of hope of relief on the place."

One is inclined to ask, when considering the incessant quarrels of the Governor and the Burgesses, why Lord Howard was less successful than Governor Berkeley had been in gaining an ascendency over the Assembly. During the Restoration Period the Burgesses had worked in entire harmony with Sir William, even when he advocated the oppressive measures that were so instrumental in bringing on Bacon’s Rebellion. Effingham, on the other hand, found himself continually embroiled with the Assemblymen, and unable to force them into submission even with rebukes and persecution.

The explanation must be sought partly in the different characters of the two Governors. Berkeley was an abler man than Lord Howard, more tactful, more capable of utilizing the weapons at hand. His method of overwhelming the legislators with favors was more effective in winning their support than intimidation and threats. Moreover, Sir William, himself a Virginian by his long residence in the colony, carried out only his own policies, and by methods that did not openly assail the charter rights of the people. Effingham, on the other hand, was the instrument of the English King and his Councillors in an assault upon representative government in the colony. It was but natural that all classes, even the wealthy planters, should resist him with stubborn resolution. Nor was it possible for Effingham to control, as Sir William had done, the elections of Burgesses. The opposition of many sheriffs, whose duty it was to preside at the polls, to the administration, the greater vigilance of the House, and the independent spirit of the commons conspired to render the returns more accurate and the House more responsive to the will of the people. Finally, the poor planters found now, what they had lacked during the Restoration Period, cultured and able men to represent them in the Assembly. Without the aggressive leadership of Major Robert Beverley, Thomas Milner, Colonel Ballard, and other prominent planters, the cause of the people might have been lost.

Even in the Council the commons had one staunch friend Colonel Philip Ludwell. This restless man, who was unable to work in harmony with any Governor save Sir William Berkeley, sympathized with his old friends of the Green Spring faction in their resistance to Effingham. As early as 1684 he had aroused the Governor’s suspicion by arguing in Council “for the undutiful Address which was sent to his Majesty", and during the sessions of 1685 and 1686 it was thought that he was “an Instrument in Abbetting and formenting those Disputes & Exceptions the Assembly soe insisted on".

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

The most important task that confronted the Burgesses when they assembled in 1688 was to call the Governor to account for many burdensome fees which he had imposed upon the people by executive order. First in importance was “a fee of 200 pounds of tobacco for the Seal affixed to Patents & other public instruments". This the Burgesses considered a tax imposed without the authority or consent of the Assembly, and consequently destructive of the most cherished rights of the people. Moreover, it had, they claimed, deterred many from using the seal and had greatly impeded the taking up of land. They also protested against a fee demanded by the “Master of the Escheat Office of L5 or 1000lbs tobacco”, and to one of thirty pounds of tobacco required by the Secretary for recording surveys of land. “This House,” they declared, “upon Examination of the many grievous Complaints ... (have) been fully convinced and made sensible that many unlawful and unwarrantable fees and other dutyes have been, under colour of his Majesty’s Royal authority, unjustly imposed ... & that divers new unlawful, unpresidented & very burthensom and grievous wayes & devises have been of late made use of to the great impoverishing Vexing and utter undoeing of many of his Majesties Subjects of this his Dominion."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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