University of Virginia Library

APPENDIX.

No. I.

A Copy of the Journal of the Proceedings of the Convention
held at the College of William and Mary, in the City of
Williamsburg, in April, 1719.

At a Convention of the Clergy of Virginia, begun on Wednesday, the
eighth day of April, 1719, in the College of William and Mary, in the
city of Williamsburg, Mr. Commissary Blair called over a list of the
clergymen of this Colony, and the following members answered to their
names:—

Mr. Selater, Mr. Guy Smith, Mr. Lewis Latane, Mr. Thomas Sharpe,
Mr. Hugh Jones, Mr. Andrew Thomson, Mr. Ralph Bowker, Mr. Cargill,
Mr. George Robinson, Mr. Monroe, Mr. Eml. Jones, Mr. Bar. Yates, Mr.
Wm. Finney, Mr. John Shaife, Mr. Alex. Scott, Mr. John Worden, Mr.
Benj. Pownal, Mr. Wm. Brodie, Mr. John Bagge, Mr. Fran. Mylne, Mr.
Brunskill, Mr. Fountaine, Mr. Geo. Seagood, Mr. James Robertson, Mr.
James Falconer.

Absent.

Mr. Alex. Forbes, Mr. John Bell, Mr. Giles Rainsford, Mr. James
Breghin, Mr. John Span, Mr. Owen Jones, Mr. John Prince, Mr. James
Tenant, (out of the country,) Mr. Daniel Taylor, (excused by letter,) Mr.
Saml. Bernard, (sick,) Mr. James Cleck, (sick,) Mr. Wm. Black.

Then Mr. Commissary Blair read two letters from the Lord-Bishop of
London, our Diocesan, one to himself, and another to Reverend the Clergy
of Virginia, and recommended the particulars of them, which letters are as
followeth,—viz.:

Then the Convention received a letter from the Honourable the Governor,
directed to the clergy, which was read, and with it a copy of a
letter from the Governor to the vestry of St. Anne, in Essex, which was
read also, which letters are as followeth, viz.:—

The said letter being read, a motion was made that the Commissary be
desired to print his sermon preached this day before the members of the
Convention, at the parish church of Bruton, in the city of Williamsburg.
Mr. Commissary answered that he had never yet appeared in print; but,
if the members of the Convention wished it, he would transmit a true copy
of it to the Lord-Bishop of London; and it was desired accordingly.

Resolved unanimously that the Governor be addressed.

Then a committee of the seven members following was appointed to
prepare the address,—viz.: Mr. Emanuel Jones, Mr. Hugh Jones, Mr.
George Robertson, Mr. Skaife, Mr. Seagood, Mr. Brodie, and Mr. Yates,—
and return it to the House by to-morrow morning, nine o'clock.

Ordered, That the Convention be adjourned to that hour.

Thursday, April 9, 1719.

Mr. Brodie, one of the committee that was appointed to draw up an
address to the Governor, being absent by reason of sickness, the rest of
the said committee—viz.: Mr. Emanuel Jones, Mr. Hugh Jones, Mr.
George Robertson, Mr. Skaife, Mr. Seagood, and Mr. Yates—appeared,
and Mr. Emanuel Jones in their name delivered it in; which, being read
and examined paragraph by paragraph, passed without amendment, and is
as followeth, viz:—

The Convention next took the Lord-Bishop of London's letter into consideration,
which being again read and considered paragraph by paragraph
the first question that was put by Mr. Commissary was, Whether any of
the members present knew of any person who officiated in this country as
a minister without license from our present Diocesan or his predecessor?
and the whole House declared they knew of none. The next question
upon it was, Whether any of the members present knew of any minister
that officiated in the Colony without Episcopal ordination? to which the
following members answered they knew of none,—viz.: Mr. Monroe, Mr.
Mylne, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fountaine, Mr. Brunskill, Mr. Sharpe, Mr. George
Robertson, Mr. Finney, Mr. James Robertson, Mr. Thomson, Mr. Cargill.

The following members were doubtful whether Commissary Blair had
Episcopal ordination or not,—viz.: Mr. Skaife, Mr. Latane, Mr. Yates, Mr.
Bagge, Mr. Emanuel Jones, Mr. Bowker, Mr. Seagood, Mr. Scott, Mr.
Hugh Jones, Mr. Falkoner, Mr. Downal, and Mr. Worden. Mr. Selater
suspended his judgment. The next question was, Whether any member
knew of any minister who did not conform punctually to the rules of the
Established Church?

It was owned that there were many rules which were not observed by
any of them, because of the circumstances of the country.

Ordered, That it be an instruction to the committee that shall be appointed
to answer the Lord-Bishop of London's letter, that they set forth
the particulars wherein at present they cannot help being deficient in the
discharge of their function, and that his Lordship's directions be requested
therein, and that they inform him that none of the members refuse to
conform to the rubrics and canons to the utmost of their power.

The next thing inquired into was the irregularity of the lives of the
clergy.

To which it was answered, that no member had any personal knowledge
of the irregularity of any clergyman's life in this Colony.

Whereupon it was ordered, that it be an instruction to said committee
modestly to vindicate the lives of the clergy from the aspersions (thrown
on them by former informations to his Lordship) of faults and miscarriages
in the lives of some among them.

Ordered, That it be an instruction to the committee to inform his
Lordship that visitations have been attempted by Mr. Commissary, but
have been found very difficult, and that his Lordship's directions be desired
in that matter.

The next things in his Lordship's letter taken into consideration were
institutions and inductions.

Upon which the question was put, Whether, in order to the redress of
the grievances we labour under with reference to them, the difficulties
which render our livings and circumstances precarious should not, in the
said answer, be represented to his Lordship?

It passed in the affirmative.

Ordered, That the said committee be instructed accordingly; and that
they let his Lordship know that, whenever the Governor has been applied
to, he has been always ready to redress us in this matter to the utmost of
his power.

Ordered, That the committee to be appointed to draw up the representation
and answer to his Lordship's letter consist of seven members. Then
the House named Mr. Commissary, Mr. Bagge, Mr. Hugh Jones, Mr. Cargill,
Mr. Mylne, Mr. Finney, and Mr. Pownal to be that committee.

Ordered, That the committee meet this evening at six o'clock.

Resolved, That the address be presented to the Governor.

Ordered, That the committee that prepared it attend him to know when
he will be pleased to be waited upon therewith. Then the Convention
adjourned to 9 o'clock to-morrow.

Historical Remarks for the Better Understanding of the Proceedings
of the Convention of the Clergy at Williamsburg,
in April, 1719

Before the Convention was called, great pains were taken to prepossess
the clergy in favour of the Governor by getting them to sign addresses of
encomiums upon him, in which there was usually some reflection against
the House of Burgesses that sent home a complaint against him to his
Majesty, so that, without condemning themselves, it could not be expected

they would act otherwise in relation to him than they did at the Convention.
To make way for these addresses, it was confidently given out, and
most industriously spread all over the country, that Mr. Commissary and
three more were turned out of the Council, and that the address of the
House of Burgesses was refused to be received, because it came not through
the hands of the Governor; both which proved otherwise.

On the day of the Convention, the Commissary and clergy waited on the
Governor at his house; and, the Commissary asking if he had any commands
for the Convention, he said he would signify what he had to say in
a letter.

While Mr. Commissary was yet giving his charge, and was come to that
part of it which gives an account of Sir Edward Northey's opinion,—viz.:
"In the year 1703, Governor Nicholson had the opinion of Sir Edward
Northey, then Attorney-General, as to the business of presentations and
inductions. He gave his opinion that "the right of presentation by our laws
was in the parishioners, and the right of the lapse was with the Governor."
Here Mr. Emanuel Jones interrupted him, crying out that it was a mistake;
it was not the parishioners, but the vestry. "I have right to know it,"
said he, "for I brought in that opinion." Mr. Commissary answered, "Sir,
you ought not to interrupt me: I have Sir Edward Northey's opinion here,
and I'll show you presently that it is right quoted;" and accordingly produced
it, and satisfied the whole Convention that he had right quoted it.

Immediately after the Commissary's charge, and before any other business
was entered upon, Mr. William Robinson, Clerk of the Council, being sent
by the Governor, desired admittance, and presented a letter from the Governor,
directed to the reverend the clergy of Virginia in Convention at Williamsburg,
and then withdrew. This letter, being all an invective against
Mr. Commissary, contributed very much to the ill-temper of the Convention.
There was such a confused noise upon it, that for a considerable space no
one could be heard. When that confusion was a little over, so that he
could be heard, Mr. Commissary said he was very unhappy to be under
the frowns of the Governor, but was so conscious of his innocency, that, if
they would have patience to hear him, he would ask no time, but would
immediately answer all the accusations of that letter. And, beginning, as
the letter does, with the business of collations, while he was showing the
law and practice of the country and the opinion of the late Bishop of London
and of Sir Edward Northey, by which he had always governed himself,
another confused clamour arose, that they were not proper judges of these
things, and therefore desired him to desist, and send his answer to the
Governor's letter in writing to my Lord-Bishop of London; to which he
acquiesced.

Then Mr. Hugh Jones and some others, faulting the doctrine of Mr.
Commissary's sermon preached before them that day, desired Mr. Commissary
to print it. He, excusing himself as never having appeared in
print, said if they had any objections against it he was ready to answer

them, or, if they desired it, he would transmit a true copy of it to my
Lord-Bishop of London; and accordingly they insisted upon this last, and
he promised to do it.

Then it was moved that an address be made to the Governor. Mr.
Commissary and some others put them in mind that it was more proper, and
would look better upon the minutes, to begin with the principal business
they were called upon,—viz.: The answer to my Lord of London's letter.
But, this being overruled, a committee was appointed to draw the said
address. Some moved that Mr. Commissary might be one of this committee
to help prepare the said address; but this was opposed by the greater
part.

Then Mr. Commissary and some others moved that it might be considered
whether it was not proper to give directions to the committee concerning
the manner of the said address, particularly that they should
abstain from intermeddling with those unhappy differences of State that
were between the Governor and the House of Burgesses; and that they
should confine themselves to what was more proper for the clergy,—namely,
the thanking the Governor for his protection of the Church. If they drew
a handsome address to this purpose, it was said, we should all unanimously
join in it, which would do him more service than if they drew any thing
which we could not all unanimously sign. But this motion was overruled
and the committee left to themselves without any limitation.

Upon this, he immediately sent the sermon, hoping the Governor would
either rest satisfied, or, by the help of his friends of the clergy, form his
objections and give him an opportunity of answering them. He heard no
more of it, only understands he took a copy.

Upon the question of Mr. Commissary's Episcopal ordination, of twenty-four
that were present besides Mr. Commissary himself, twelve voted that
they were doubtful of his Episcopal ordination, eleven that they had no
doubt about it, and one that he suspended his judgment. The reasons of
those who were doubtful were, first, that they knew not the hand in which
the certificate was written subscribed Jo. Edenburgen. To which it was
answered, that they could not have a better proof, that fell within their
knowledge, than the late Bishop of London's license under his hand and
seal. Second, it was objected that the certificate was not in the usual
English form, nor any seal annexed to it. To which it was answered that
a certificate from a Scotch Bishop of any one being a minister in his
diocese, in the Order of Presbyter, is a sufficient proof of the matter of fact,
though it is not in the English form; and that, being taken for such thirty-four
years ago by the late Bishop of London, (and the late Lord Effingham,
Governor of Virginia,) to whom both his ministry in Scotland and the test

for which he suffered were at that time well known, it ought not now to be
called in question. Third, Mr. Hugh Jones objected to the word Presbyter
in that certificate,—that it should have been Priest. But this objection
was ridiculed by most of themselves, since in the English certificates [OMITTED]
Priests' Orders they are said to be promoted "Ad Sacrum Presbyteratus
Ordinem."

In answer to the question whether they knew of any minister in this
Colony that did not punctually conform to the rules of the Established
Church, there is no more set down in the minutes but that it was owned
there were several rules which were not observed by any of them because
of the circumstances of the country. But upon this Mr. Commissary urged
that my Lord-Bishop of London had been certainly informed of great deviations
from the Liturgy, and therefore that if any of the informers were
then present they would acquaint us with what they had observed of this
kind, that it might be certified, and told them they must expect he would
acquaint my Lord with it if they had nothing to say. Upon this Mr. Hugh
Jones said something to this purpose:—That he was desired by my Lord of
London to give his Lordship some account of the state of this Church, and
that accordingly he had given an account of some things in which Mr.
Commissary did not observe the rubric. He instanced in the clerk's
publishing the banns and some other things in church. For by the laws
of this country all proclamations and many laws are published in Church,
and, the clerks commonly keeping the register, the usual way is for them
to publish the banns and give a certificate of it to the minister. He complained
too of Mr. Ingles, his taking upon him in his school to make exhortations
to his schoolboys, alleging that he should only teach them the
Church Catechism. The whole Convention, judging these things frivolous,
commended Mr. Ingles (who is a sober, good man, and master of arts) for
giving good instructions to his boys concerning their morals; and as for
some other things of small variation from the rubric, they found none but
such as the different circumstances of the country from those of England
necessarily engaged us in, which are more particularly mentioned in the
clergy's answer to my Lord of London's letter.

In the evening of this day, after the Convention was adjourned, eight
ministers, who, for the reasons above mentioned, did not join in the address
which the major part prepared for the Governor, agreed upon one of their
own, both to show their duty to him and their moderation with relation to
the public differences in the country. It was as follows:—

And then they went to his house to present it. But he, having first
perused it by himself, at last refused to receive it, called it a libel, and
gave it back to Mr. Commissary.

An Answer to the Accusation contained in the Governor's Letter to the
Convention, which Letter is to be seen in Journal of the Proceedings of
the said Convention.

ACCUSATION.

For none more eminently than Commissary Blair sets at naught those
instructions which your Diocesan leaves you to be guided by, with respect
to institutions and inductions,—he denying by his practices, as well as discourses,
that the King's Governor has the right to collate ministers to
ecclesiastical benefices within this Colony; for when the church he now supplies
became void by the death of the former incumbent, his solicitation
to the same was solely to the vestry, without his ever making the least
application to me for my collation, notwithstanding it was my own parish
church.

ANSWER.

As this accusation is here worded, the design of it is plainly to induce
your Lordship to believe that I oppose the King's instructions and deny

the Governor the power of collation, and that I was inducted into my
parish without him. But none of all these do in the least touch and explain
the true state of the difference betwixt his opinion and mine in this
matter, which I must therefore beg leave more clearly to unfold to your
Lordship.

The sole question as to this affair is, What is to be meant by collation
as in the Governor's instructions?—whether such a power as the King has
to bestow livings of which he himself is the patron? or such a power as
the Bishop has to collate to livings that fall into his hands by lapse? He
claims it in the first sense; I have always understood it in the second, for
the following reasons. It has been the constant practice in this country
that whatever ministers we have had inducted have had first a presentation
from the vestries, who, by law here, act in the name of the parishioners.
And before this gentleman's time, it was never known that ever
a Governor refused to induct upon any such presentations, or gave collation
and institution without it. 2d. By a law of this country, entitled Ministers
to be Inducted, after it has spoken of a minister's producing a testimonial
of his ordination, and his subscribing to be conformable to the orders
and constitutions of the Church of England and the laws there established,
follow immediately these words:—"Upon which the Governor is hereby
requested to induct the said minister into any parish that shall make presentation
[OMITTED] him." And from these words it has been always understood
here that the parish had the presentation and the Governor the induction.
For, as to the word requested, they think, and he grants, it doth not alter
the case when applied to the Governor,—that being the usual form in
which our laws express his duty, and not by the more authoritative words
of enacting, commanding, or requiring, as they do other people's. 3d.
The parishes here are at the charge of founding the churches, the glebes,
and the salaries. 4th. Governor Nicholson consulted Sir Edward Northey,
the late Attorney-General, as to all this affair,—being desirous (as I thought)
to remedy the precariousness of the clergy, who, except a very few, have
no inductions. And Sir Edward was altogether of this opinion, as your
Lordship will see by a copy of it, which I herewith transmit. Governor
Nicholson sent copies of that opinion to the several vestries of this country,
and threatened if they did not present that he would take the benefit
of the lapse: the very threatening procured presentations, and consequently
inductions, for some ministers. And had the Governor collated and inducted
upon the lapse,—nay, had he made but one or two examples of it,—
all this grievance might have been redressed long ago. But he only
threatened, and never once collated upon lapse; so that the precariousness
is as much fixed as ever. 5th. Having often discoursed with your Lordship's
predecessor and written to him on this subject, I never found he
had any other notion of collation by the Governor but that it was to be
upon lapse. And the great difficulty started in those days to that scheme
was that the country complained six months was too short a time for them

to supply their vacancies in,—there being no ministers to be had here who
were not already provided. For remedy of which, in the last revisal of
our laws, a law was provided in which two years (if I remember right)
were allowed the parishes to supply their vacancies. This law, about fifteen
years ago, was under consideration of the Council of Trade. My Lord-Bishop
of London was that day present at the Board, and I, being then in
London, was desired to attend. After full debate upon it, the law was
approved of, and my Lord of London was very well satisfied. But after
all it miscarried here in this country. Our Assembly could not agree
about it, and so it fell. Sure, if either the Bishop or the Council of Trade
had had any notion of this right of patronage which the Governor claims,
(and his commission and instructions are the same now they were then,)
having so ready a remedy for the precariousness of the clergy, they needed
not to have made these extraordinary concessions. 6th The Governor's
new method would destroy all benefit of lapse; whereas, if the presentation
is in the parish and the lapse in the Governor, we have the ordinary
check upon the patron, as in England and other Christian Churches, which
is a very valuable security. 7th Collations for benefices, together with
licenses for marriage and probates of wills,—being three things pertaining
to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but expressly excepted out of it and by
the King's instructions given to the Governor,—seems to be a good argument
that, in the point of collations, the Governor acts only as ordinary,
and consequently either institutes upon presentation or collates by lapse,
but not as original patron.

These are the reasons which have induced me to think collations are to
be interpreted in another sense than the Governor has lately fixed on
them. I say lately; for I do not remember that he fell upon this notion
above three or four years ago, which makes me astonished at the censure
he gives of me for not applying to him for his collation. There are two
wrong things here insinuated. One is, as if the Governor at that time
had claimed (as he now does) the right of collating to the living as patron
before it lapsed; whereas this pretension was, by four or five years, of a
later date,—my coming to this parish being at Christmas, 1710,—and nobody
at that time having ever questioned the vestry's right of choosing a
minister when the parish was fairly void,—as it was here, by the death
of my predecessor, Mr. Solomon Wheatly. As soon as I was elected by
the vestry, I immediately acquainted the Governor, and he said he was very
glad of it. And I do assure your Lordship he nor no one else at that time
faulted this as being then, and long afterward, the common practice of the
country. If a Governor ever interposed in such cases in those days, it was
only by recommendation to the vestries, but never by way of collation, which
he now begins to claim. The other thing which I take to be here insinuated
is as if, upon the vestry's presentation of me, I had, in contempt of his
authority and right to give collation, never applied to him for it. This, I
confess, would have been a great contempt, and such one as never any

minister in this country was guilty of. For, as soon as we can get a presentation
from the vestry, we never fail to apply to the Governor for induction,
as readily as any clerk in England applies to the Bishop with his
presentation. But this is the unhappiness of our precarious circumstances
in this country,—that the vestries are such enemies to induction that they
will give no presentations, and our Governors have been so unwilling to
disoblige the parishes that they have never taken the benefit of the lapse; so
that the ministers generally officiate upon the election of the vestry, without
presentation or induction. As this is the case of about nine or ten of
our ministers, (for some four or five are inducted,) your Lordship will
easily perceive that, as matters then stood, without a presentation it was
in vain for me to apply to the Governor for collation or induction. But I
thought it became me, in good manner, to wait on the Governor and to acquaint
him with what was done: he signified his great satisfaction, and did
not in the least fault any thing in the conduct of the matter. We were
then, and for many years afterward, in perfect friendship; though now all
things that are capable of any ill aspect are mustered up to make a crime
where never any before was so much as pretended.

ACCUSATION.

And I cannot but complain of his deserting the cause of the Church in
general, and striving to put it on such a foot as must deprive the clergy of
that reasonable security which I think they ought to have with regard to
their livings.

ANSWER.

It passes my skill to find out the defects of this method. If the Governor
would give the parishes warning to present in a reasonable time, and, in
case of failure, to make use of the lapse, it would remedy the precariousness
of the clergy as well as the other, and would have this advantage,—
that it would be much more easily applied, and a minister would have more
of the love of his parishioners; whereas, the other way will involve him
in a lawsuit to defend his title; and if we should at any time have a
Governor that has little regard to the Church or religion, he may keep the
parish void as long as he pleases,—there being no lapse ever incurred by
that scheme.

ACCUSATION.

As to the disorders in the worship of God which are pointed at in the
said letter, it appears as if my Lord of London knew not that his Commissary
is more apt to countenance than redress the same; for I myself
have seen him present in church while a layman—his clerk—has read
the divine service in the congregation,—he himself vouchsafing to perform
no more of his ministerial office than to pronounce the absolution, preach,
and dismiss the congregation.

ANSWER.

It is well known that I do constantly, while I enjoy my health, read the
whole divine service myself. And if the Governor has at any time seen
it otherwise, it has been when I have been so weakened with sickness that
I was not able to go through the whole service and preach too. If it be
thought an irregularity that on such a case I made use of a laic, it is to
be considered that this is a country where there is not one clergyman to be
had on such an occasion,—they being all employed at the same time in their
own far-distant parishes,—and that the country is so used to this practice,
that long before I knew it, by the fifth law in the printed book, entitled
Ministers to Provide Readers, it is enacted. "That where there is not a
minister to officiate every Sunday, the parish shall make choice of a grave
and sober person of good life and conversation to read divine service every
intervening Sunday at the parish church, when the minister preacheth at
any other place." But I constantly read prayers myself, unless disabled
or weakened by sickness.

ACCUSATION.

I have often seen him present at the churchyard, while the said clerk
has performed the funeral-service at the grave.

ANSWER.

Here it is insinuated as if I had been at the funeral when the clerk
performed the funeral-service at the grave. I can aver that my constant
practice is otherwise. What might occasion it that one time—whether
that I had not been spoken to, or that I was hoarse, or that I passed through
the churchyard accidentally while the clerk was in the funeral-service, and
I did not think fit to interrupt him—I can't tell, except the circumstances
of the fact were explained. But it is a common thing all over the country—
what through want of ministers, what by their great distance and the
heat of the weather and the smelling of the corpse—both to bury at
other places than churchyards and to employ laics to read the funeral-service,—which,
till our circumstances and laws are altered, we know not
how to redress.

ACCUSATION.

And I remember when he was for having the churchwardens provide
lay readers, who should on Sundays read to their congregations some printed
sermons; and so far he declared in Council his approbation thereof, that
such practice had like to have had the sanction of the Government, had I
not withstood it as destructive to the establishment of the Church.

ANSWER.

The Governor's memory must in this matter have exceedingly failed
him, when he represents this of lay readers either as a new project—for

(as I quoted above) there is a law of the country for it, duly put in practice
when there is no minister to officiate—or as a project of mine. The thing
I would have rectified in it was, that I understood that readers took upon
them to read what sermons they thought fit, and I was for their reading only
the homilies. This meeting with some opposition, (for it was alleged, if
nothing but the homilies were read, the people would not come to Church,)
it was, with the Governor's consent, accommodated thus:—that where there
was a minister in the parish, the minister should direct what sermons the
reader should read at the distant church or chapel, and where there was
no minister the Commissary should do it. But for the horrid innuendo
this part of my accusation is capable of—as if ministers were hereby intended
to be laid aside and lay readers set up in their places, and so the
establishment of the Church destroyed—there was never any such thing
thought of, far less argued, in Council. I have upon all occasions acquainted
your Lordship and your predecessor when vacancies fell by the death of
the minister, and pressed for a speedy supply; and whenever they came
in they were immediately provided with parishes, if the Governor himself
did not delay them.

ACCUSATION.

These and many other instances that might be given, which induce me
to believe that a reformation of what has chiefly (as I apprehend) given
occasion to your Diocesan's letter, will not be pressed very heartily by your
Commissary, especially if he made no such solemn promise at his ordination
as his Bishop reminds you all of. Wherefore I judge it to be more
incumbent upon the several members now in Convention diligently to inquire
of the disorders which your Diocesan takes notice of, and earnestly to
apply yourselves to proper means for redressing them.

ANSWER.

Whether I did heartily press reformation in pursuance of your Lordship's
letter, your Lordship will more readily apprehend from the copy of my speech
to the Convention, than from these hard prognostications of it. And though,
by means of this letter of the Governor's and other more clandestine prepossessions,
they were sufficiently inflamed, your Lordship will observe
that, instead of accusing me of any irregularities, when I put the question,
Whether any of them knew of any that did not punctually conform to the
established Liturgy, they answered only that there were several things
that were not observed by any, by reason of the circumstances of the country,
which particulars were ordered to be mentioned by the committee
appointed to answer your Lordship's letter, and that your Lordship's directions
be requested therein. But the worst innuendo of all is a doubt here
suggested, and more industriously circulated in his private insinuations,—
at least in the insinuations of his emissaries,—as if I never had Episcopal
ordination. The Governor, indeed words it somewhat doubtfully. "Espe

cially (says he) if he made no such promise at his ordination as his Bishop
reminds you all of". He was satisfied before that I was ordained with
Episcopal ordination in Scotland. The doubt he here suggests is concerning
the form of that ordination,—whether it had any such stipulation as the
English form has. I had told him that I was ordained by the very same
English book of ordination,—as indeed I was. But, if he could not believe
that,—having it only from my own testimony,—he might have remembered
that I showed him my license under the hand and seal of your Lordship's
predecessor, in which, among other things, is certified that I promised to
conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England as by law established;
so that there was no occasion for throwing out this reflection.

These are the accusations I am charged with in that letter: the sum of
which is,—1st. A difference of opinion about presentation, which I own,
and have given your Lordship my reasons for it; which yet I humbly
submit to your more mature judgment. 2d. Some few irregularities as to
the Liturgy, which were owing partly to sickness and weakness disabling
me at that time to perform the whole service, and partly to the circumstances
of the country, which will not admit of exact conformity as in
England. This will be more fully explained in the clergy's answer to your
Lordship's letter.

But that all this heat and anger should break out now, when the pretended
causes were the same all along,—both during his nine years' government
and all his predecessors', from the first seating of the country,—
everybody here observes is owing to his late resentments because I could
not go along with him in several late innovations, which have given such
distaste to the country that our House of Burgesses have complained of
them to his Majesty. Had he taken the advice of the Council, he might
have made himself and the country easy. But he is so wedded to his own
notions that there is no quarter for them that go not into them. He is
now endeavouring to remove several gentleman of the Council of the most
unblemished characters. But, his resentment having more ways to reach
me than any of the rest, he has exerted himself to the utmost of his endeavours
both to ruin me with the College and my parish and your Lordship.
But your Lordship's backwardness to discard an old servant without
some crime proved against him, and the clearness of my title to be president
of the College by the charter, and the love of my parishioners, give him great
uneasiness,—though my interest is a very unequal match for his. The
fair, candid way with which your Lordship has used me, notwithstanding
the vast pains he has taken to supplant me with your Lordship, has laid me
under great obligations of gratitude, and the highest esteem of your Lordship's
candour and justice.

I doubt not there are many other things laid to my charge which I have
never heard of, and therefore cannot answer at this distance. But, if your
Lordship will give me leave to come home, I hope I shall be able to clear
myself of all imputations to your Lordship, as I had the good fortune

to do formerly in the like case to your Lordship's predecessor, who sifted
all those matters to the bottom.

I hope your Lordship will pardon all this trouble. God forgive them
who have occasioned it. I am only on the defensive. The equity of my
judge gives me great boldness,—knowing that I have endeavoured to keep
a good conscience, and that whereinsoever I have erred I am ready to
submit to your Lordship's judgment, and to correct whatever you think
amiss in my conduct.

No. II.

Extracts from a Pamphlet reporting the Proceedings of a
Jubilee at Jamestown in Commemoration of the Second Centennary
Anniversary of the Settlement of Virginia, May 13,
1807.

Due notice having been given of the intended celebration, the preparations
commenced on the 10th. A packet, a sloop and schooner had
arrived before the 12th, with bands of musicians and a company of artillery
and cannon, and with a number of visitors.

On the 12th, the beach began to assume the appearance of a regular
encampment, from the erection of tents for the sale of various articles;
and the scene was agreeably diversified by groups of beautiful women who
were every moment passing from the main into the island. It was not
unusual to see groups of pilgrims stealing away from the throng and bustle
of preparation, from the wild revelry of joy and the enthusiasm of satisfied
and rapturous exultation, to saunter among the ruins, and converse in
fancy among the tombs with the illustrious dead whose virtues and achievements
had furnished the motives for their assemblage. It was in the
highest degree interesting and edifying to trace the effects produced upon
the minds and faces of the spectators by the view of these venerable remains
of other times. The eye, in surveying the ruin of the church-steeple
garlanded to its summit with irregular festoons of smilax and ivy, carried
back the mind to the interesting incidents and events of the first settlers.

A crowd of pilgrims were discovered on their hands and knees within
the churchyard, removing the dust and rubbish from the mouldering and
mutilated tombs, and exploring with anxious though patient curiosity the
almost effaced characters which affection and piety had sketched there
in the vain expectation that they would be immortal. Whilst engaged in

these pious and interesting offices, a pleasing melancholy insensibly stole
over the mind; the grosser passions of our nature, the dull pursuits of the
world, were forgotten, whilst each for a moment by the witchery of fancy
imagined himself in the presence of those gallant and venerable spirits
that once animated and informed the mortal tenants of those graves.

As it were by general consent, the discovery of the oldest stone became
an object of general emulation, and, in the course of the examination, the
results, as they seemed to be successful, were triumphantly announced.
Not even the searchers of gold-mines, whose mania is so deservedly ridiculed
and censured by Smith and our other historians, could have exceeded
the zeal and patience with which the pilgrims of 1807 examined
every character or fragment that promised to throw light on the character
of their fathers and the antiquities of their nation.

Beyond 1682, nothing legible could be traced; but, from the freshness
of the marble bearing this date, contrasted with the surrounding masses
of mutilated and mouldering decay, it was the general impression that
this stone was comparatively young.

Among the group of objects calculated to excite reflection on such an
occasion, it was impossible to avoid noticing the growth of a sycamore,[1]
whose germ had been inscrutably deposited between the fissure of two
massy tombs, whose growth was gradually but certainly effecting their
demolition. In vain did a brawny wreath of the poisoned oak, having
first wound itself round the sycamore, grasp the trembling marbles for
the purpose of averting their fall. The sycamore was a lever that incessantly
propelled them from their centres, and it was obvious that nothing
but its death could save them from falling without the line of the
base. To a reflecting mind every incident is fruitful. This seemed to be
a struggle between life and death; and, what may appear extraordinary, it
was the general wish that death should come off victorious in the contest.

On the 13th, the dawn was ushered in by a cannon: a second announced
the first faint etchings of the sun on the edge of the horizon. During the
night, several vessels had arrived, and the eye rested with pleasure on the
spectacle of thirty-two sail at anchor in the cove, boats plying incessantly
off and on from the shore, groups of beautiful women every moment
making their appearance, crowds flocking in and from every part of the
adjacent country, and the Powhatan evolving in silent majesty his flood,
margined as far as the eye could reach with cultivated plantations and
gay villas.

About 11 o'clock, the long-deserted shores of Jamestown witnessed a
spectacle equally picturesque and impressive. It was no longer the mournful
image and gloomy silence of depopulation. Thirty-two vessels graced
the ancient harbour; upward of four hundred ladies embellished the
scene, which became every moment more animated by the increasing concourse

of citizens, and upon which the presence of the military, and a
band of music of Captain Nestle and his company of artillerists from Norfolk,
reflected no small lustre.

At 12 o'clock, in consequence of arrangements previously agreed upon
by the joint committees from Norfolk, Portsmouth, Petersburg, and Williamsburg,
a procession marched to the ruins of the old church-steeple and
the lugubrious group of tombstones contiguous to those ruins. The order
of the procession was as follows:—

1. Bishop Madison, and the orators of the day.

2. The deputies from Norfolk, Portsmouth, Petersburg, and Williamsburg.

3. The ladies.

4. Band of music.

5. Artillery.

6. A cannon-ball weighing five cwt., supported by eight men.[2]

7. Citizens at large.

During the procession, several tunes of a solemn nature were struck by
the music, and cannons fired at proper intervals. Upon reaching the ruins,
the venerable Bishop of Virginia ascended a tombstone, and, in that affecting,
pathetic manner which characterizes all his religious effusions, poured
out a prayer strongly expressive of the national gratitude for that peculiar
protection which the Deity has been pleased to bestow on the feeble but
auspicious germ planted two hundred years ago in the wilderness,—a germ
from which a State has sprung up now highly prosperous and flourishing.
Here two sentiments equally dear to the human heart, and equally powerful,—religion
and patriotism,—united their influence; and that influence
was irresistibly felt: pious tears were seen hanging on many a cheek furrowed
by age or adorned with youthful bloom.

BISHOP MADISON'S PRAYER.

O God! Parent Almighty, who, though unseen, upholdest this ponderous
ball, and, breathing through the immensity of space, fillest with stupendous
life all which it inhabit; Spirit invisible, God of our forefathers, to thee
we raise the voice of praise and thanksgiving; oh, hear us, and deign to
accept this our imperfect homage. Thou great and glorious Being, who,
according to the plans of thy wisdom, didst first inspire our forefathers
with the elevated idea of seeking an asylum for man in this Western world;
thou, who badest the terrors of death to retire from their hearts, the remorseless
billows of the deep to be at rest, and the horrors of the howling
wilderness no longer to alarm, oh, hear, and, on this eventful day, suffer us
to pour forth, from the fulness of our souls, the tide of reverential affection,
of joy, and of gratitude; suffer us, the descendants and the heirs of

those mighty men whose footsteps, under thy gracious providence, here
were first impressed to approach thy divine Majesty, to declare the wondrous
things which thou hast done for us, and to implore thy continued
protection.

Assembled in thy sight, we now prostrate ourselves before thee, upon
that ground which thou, O God, didst choose whereupon to rest the
wearied feet of our progenitors. Twice one hundred times hath this earth,
in obedience to thy command, performed its faithful revolution around the
fountain of light, since thy providential goodness was here testified by our
ancestors with heartfelt songs of gratitude and praise. The stream of
time hath swept before thee the generations which since have arisen and
passed away; but we, upon whom this day hath fallen, will rejoice in thy
presence, and, with a sincere and ardent gratitude, will recall to vivid
memory thy former and thy present mercies.

Hallowed be the place where thou didst particularly manifest thy goodness
to our forefathers, and where the heavenly plan for spreading wide
the blessings of social rights first beamed forth. It was here, O God, it
was on this chosen ground, that thou didst first lay the sure foundations of
political happiness. Here didst thou say to our forefathers, who, under
thy guidance, had defied the perils of an untried ocean, "Here fix your
abode; here shall the great work of political salvation commence; here
I will strike deep the roots of an everlasting empire, where justice and
liberty and peace shall flourish in immortal vigour, to the glory of my
name and the happiness of man. Here ye shall sleep; but your sons and
your daughters shall possess the land which stretcheth wide before you;
shall convert the wilderness and solitary place into fields smiling with
plenty; shall, in ages yet to come, exceed the sands upon the sea-shore in
number; shall, when two hundred years are accomplished, here resort,
here recall to mind your valour and your sufferings, and here, touched
with a lively sense of the blessings vouchsafed to them, they shall exalt
and adore my name, and acknowledge that the mightiness of my arm
and the overshadowing of my Spirit hath done those great and excellent
things for them."

Such, O God, was thy will. To thy servants now before thee has
been given the high boon of living to see the light of that day, and of
acknowledging that thy promises are as steadfast as the everlasting hills.
To us has been given the triumph which this day affords. It was thy
providence which reared the tender plant that here took root, and which
nourished it with the dews of heaven until its branches have cast their
shade from ocean to ocean. It was thy providence, gracious Benefactor
of man, which awoke in our breasts a just sense of the inappreciable value
of our rights, and infused that indomitable spirit which effected a revolution
the most important in the annals of time, and which led to the
establishment of civil governments throughout this rising empire upon the
broad and firm basis of equal laws. It was thy providence which inspired

that wisdom which hath guarded us against the horrors of war, and
which, amidst the dread convulsions that agitate the Old World, hath still
irradiated this thy chosen land with the blessings of peace. To thee, O
God, we ascribe, as is most due, that never-ceasing current of national
prosperity which has daily increased, and which, under thy auspices, we
trust, will continue to increase, until its waters, spreading throughout
every region of the earth, shall gladden, with their salubrious streams,
nations which are now the victims of ambition, and thence diffuse peace
and good-will among the whole family of mankind.

Continue, gracious Benefactor, thy mercies toward us. Oh, teach us
ever to love and to reverence thy name; teach us that the God of virtue
can love only virtue; teach us that it is thou only, the first Source of
happiness, who can secure it to the human race. Impress upon our hearts
an ardent love for thy holy religion: may its pure and sublime morality
be to us the rule of all duties: may it guard us against the debasing in
fluence of licentiousness and vice, and inspire the people of these United
States with those inflexible virtues which republics demand: may the
love of our country and obedience to law be the dignified characteristic
of citizens: may they never forget that, without religion, morality dies;
and that, without morality, republics are swept from before thee with the
besom of destruction.

Bless all the constituted authorities, and so rule their hearts and
strengthen their hands that they may drive from among us all manner
of vice.

Give prosperity to the different seminaries of learning; increase true
knowledge, and infix upon the hearts of the rising generation a just sense
of the duties which they owe to themselves, to their fellow-creatures, and
to their God.

Finally, O God, pardon our offences, and deign to hear our imperfect
prayer, for the sake of thy Son, our Saviour, Jesus Christ.[3]

The prayer being over, the citizens repaired to a lawn in front of the
principal house on the peninsula, for the purpose of hearing the orations
and poems prepared for the day. Mr. B. G. Baldwin, from Winchester,
then a student at William and Mary,—afterward Judge Baldwin, of
Staunton,—spoke first. He was followed by Mr. John Madison, also a
student from the upper country. The speeches were creditable to the

patriotism and talents of these young men. Then followed two odes, by
Mr. C. B. Blanchard, of Norfolk, and Mr. Le Roy Anderson, of Williamsburg,
which were interesting to the assembly.

Two days and nights were spent in these and other exercises of a different
character. After feasting and mirth on the island, which continued
two days and nights, the scene was transferred to Williamsburg,
where another day and night was spent in like manner,—very unlike the
manner of the first days of our forefathers on the island, whose first act
was the solemn celebration of the Lord's Supper.

No. III.

Origin of the Names of Parishes.

[The following was furnished at my request by my friend, Mr. Hugh Blair
Grigsby, of Norfolk, to whom I am indebted for many other things in the foregoing
articles.]

My Dear Sir:—Your letter of the 18th was received last evening, and
I hasten to reply at once to your interrogatories.

1. Augusta.—So called from the Princess Augusta, wife of Frederick,
Prince of Wales, who was the eldest son of George II., but died before his
father. The county of Augusta was created in 1738, and Frederick in the
same year, and were thus named after the Prince and Princess of Wales.

2. Dale.—This is a fancy name, probably applied from the local propriety
of the name,—probably from Dale Manor in England, from which
some of the vestry may have emigrated; just as George Mason the first
called the county of Stafford from Stafford in England. (See note to George
Mason's Life in Virginia Convention of 1776.) Thomas Dale was High-Marshal
of Virginia in 1611.

3. Beckford.—The name of a place in England, and a common name
of persons; but I know not its application here. By-the-way, its true
meaning is bec fort, (a strong beak.)

4. South Farnham.—Farnham is the name of a town in Surrey, England,
in which the Bishop of Winchester has a castle. Its products are
hops and corn. It is on the banks of the Wey.

5. Truro.—This is the name of a borough in Cornwall, England, and
is the shipping-port of the tin and copper ore found in its vicinity. Probably
there were mines in the vicinity of Truro parish, in Virginia, or some
of its people came from Truro.

6. Fincastle.—The name of this parish was taken from the county of
Fincastle, which was so called after the country-seat of Lord Botetourt, in
England. Fincastle county was taken from Botetourt in 1774. In October,

1776, the county of Fincastle was divided into Kentucky, Washington,
and Montgomery,—the name of Fincastle having been dropped.
The town of Fincastle, however, which had been incorporated in 1772,
retained the name.

7. Petsworth.—The true name is Petworth, and is the name of a
town in Surrey, England, which contains a church in which the Percys
were buried. If the parish were created before 1630, it was doubtless so
called in honour of Percy, who was for a short time Governor of Virginia,
and was of the noble house of Northumberland. A likeness of Percy (with
his amputated finger) is in our Historical Hall,—having been presented by
Conway Robinson, who saw the original portrait in England. The name
Petso, to which you allude, is only an abbreviation of "Petswo," which
was the old way of recording the word, as Norfolk was written "Norff,"
or "Norfo."

8. Antrim.—This is the name of a parish in the county of Antrim, on
the northeast coast of Ireland, of which Belfast is one of the principal
towns, as also Lisburn and Carrickfergus,—all noted in the history of that
great effort to Saxonize Ireland. It is the head-quarters of the Protestants
and Scotch-Irish. It is an immense county of two hundred and seventy-one
thousand inhabitants. Some descendant of the Scotch-Irish (as were
the Lewises) gave one parish that name.

9. St. James's Northam.—Northam is a common name of a hundred
places in England, (signifying north settlement,) and corresponds with
Southam, Eastham, and Westham.

10. Stratton Major.—Stratton is the name of a town in Cornwall,
England, and individuals took the name from the town. The Strattons
came over to Virginia early and were scattered on the eastern and western
shores of the Chesapeake. It was doubtless named by some minister who
came over from Cornwall. That is to say, the minister suggested the name
to the representative of the county, who proposed it in the House of
Burgesses.

11. Shelburne.—Called after Lord Shelburne, who was prime minister
in England for a short time, and was regarded as friendly to the Americans.

12. Blisland.—This is a common name in England, and is synonymous
with "happy land." It is evidently applied from some local incident long
lost, or from some place in England connected with some of its parishioners.
The word was originally Bliss-land.

13. Saint Bride.—This should have been printed "St. Bride's." It
alludes to the spiritual marriage of St. Catharine, who, according to the
Catholic legends, had the bridal ring placed on her finger by our Saviour
in his childhood. Correggio—I think it is—has given us a superb painting
of the scene. The picture (partly original) is at the house of the late
Miss Ann Herson, a Catholic lady of Norfolk, who died during the yellow
fever, and who was during her life a ministering angel to the poor,—bestowing
her vast wealth freely in the cause of charity. As St. Catharine

was never married corporeally, she has been called the bride of Heaven,—
that is, Saint Bride. We have a street in Norfolk called Catharine, named
about the time of the erection of the parish of St. Bride.

14. Bromfield.—I overlooked Bromfield in its proper place. The
term "brom," which signifies wild oats, is a common prefix in England;
as, Bromley, Bromwich, Bromgrove, Bromton, (now Brompton,) &c.

There are seven different places in Staffordshire, England, called Bromley,
and in Kent; and it is probable that some Staffordshire colonist or
Kentish man suggested the name Bromfield, as appropriate to the position
of the church in the county of Culpepper.

15. Lynnhaven.—This was so called from the port of Lynn in the
county of Norfolk, England, and before Princess Anne, in which it now is,
was set apart as a distinct county.

16. Overwharton.—This name, like that of Stratton, is that of an English
town in the first place, and, secondly, of an individual. It may have
been called in honour of George Wharton, a native of Westmoreland, in
England, who lost all during the civil wars, and who may have been a friend
to the George Mason—the first of the name—who was a Staffordshire man
and a royalist. Or it may have been called after the Marchioness of
Wharton, who was a daughter of Sir Henry Lee, of Ditchley,—a great
royalist,—and who inherited his wealth. If Stafford had not been settled
by some strong Cavaliers, and the parish had been created after the Revolution
of 1688, I would suppose it was called Wharton in honour of the
author of the celebrated ballad of Lillibulero.

17. Cople.—This should correctly be written Copple. The word is
common in Cornwall and in the mining-counties of England, and means
a vessel used in refining metals. It was common, three hundred years ago,
to name taverns after instruments; as, the "Mortar and Pestle," the "Bell,"
&c. But I know of no place in England so called. If there were any
mines in Westmoremand, the title would be appropriate enough.

18. Westmoreland.—This county was created between the years 1648
and 1653, near a century before any of its Revolutionary men were born;
so the Northern writer cannot say properly that it was so called from its
having produced so many great men in Virginia. The true meaning of
Moreland is "greater land," from the comparative "more," which is used
in the sense of great by Gower, Chaucer, and even as late as Shakspeare, who
says, in King John, Act II. 5th sc., "a more requital." But, if Moreland
is derived from the Celtic word "more," then Moreland signifies great land,
or high land; as, Maccullum More is the Great Maccullum. "Gilmore"
means the henchman of the more or great man. The name of Westmoreland
was given originally without doubt to a scene of high land or a great
stretch of land of some kind, and never had allusion to the men who were
born or died in any place so called.

19. Martin's Brandon.—Brandon was so called from the town of
Brandon, in Suffolk, England. It gives the British title to the Scotch

Duke of Hamilton. It is situated on the river Ouse, and its name was
given, like that of Surrey, Sussex, and Suffolk, from emigrants from those
parts of England. It appears from the appendix of Burke's History, vol.
i. p. 334, that one John Martin brought out a patent from England of five
hundred acres, which was located on the tract, or hundred, called Brandon,
on Chapoke Creek; and, in the early enumeration of the different settlements
or plantations in the Colony, the farm of John Martin was always
called "Martin's Brandon." This was as early, I think, as 1630.

No. IV.

Names of some of the Old and Leading Families in Eastern
Virginia in Colonial Times and Immediately Succeeding the
Revolution.[4]

Allen, Alexander, Ambler, Archer, Armistead, Atkinson, Aylett, Acril.

Bacon, Baker, Ball, Baldwin, Ballard, Bankhead, Banister, Bassett,
Baylor, Baynham, Berkeley, Beverley, Birchett, Blair, Bland, Bolling,
Bouldin, Booth, Bowyer, Bradley, Brent, Braxton, Bowdoin, Browne,
Brooke, Broadnaxe, Burwell, Burnley, Butler, Buckner, Byrd, Baskerville,
Branch, Booker, Blow.

Cabell, Calloway, Carr, Carrington, Carter, Cary, Catlett, Chamberlayne,
Christian, Clopton, Claiborne, Clayton, Clarke, Cocke, Coleman, Coles,
Colston, Cooper, Conway, Corbin, Custis, Crawford.

Dabney, Daniel, Davenport, Davis, Dandridge, Digges, Dulany.

Edmunds, Edwards, Eggleston, Eldridge, Ellis, Embry, Eppes, Everard,
Eyre.

Fairfax, Farley, Faulcon, Field, Fitzgerald, Fitzhugh, Fleming, Fry.

Gay, Gibbon, Gilmer, Goode, Goodwyn, Graves, Grayson, Green, Griffin,
Grymes, Grammar, Greenway, Garnett, Garland, Gaines, Gholson.

Hackley, Hansford, Hardaway, Harmer, Harrison, Harvie, Herbert,
Hill, Holliday, Holmes, Hooe, Howard, Hubard, Hairston, Heath, Heth,
Hicks, Hopkins, Hawkins, Hodges, Henderson, Haynes.

Innes, Irby.

Jefferson, Jennings, Johnson, Jones, Joynes.

Kennon, King.

Lanier, Lee, Lewis, Lightfoot, Littlepage, Littleton, Lomax, Ludwell,
Lyons, Leftwich.

Mallory, Martin, Marshall, Marye, Mason, Massie, Matthews, Mayo,
Meade, Mercer, Minor, Meredith, Merriwether, Michie, Minge, McCarty,
Moore, Moseley, Munford, Morris, Morton, Mosby.

Nash, Nelson, Newton, Nicholas, Nivison, Norvell, Noland.

Page, Parke, Parker, Peachey, Pegram, Pendleton, Penn, Peter, Peyton,
Phillips, Pierce, Pleasants, Pollard, Pope, Powell, Poythress, Prentiss,
Price, Prosser, Posey.

Randolph, Reade, Riddick, Roane, Robertson, Robinson, Rose, Ruffin,
Russell, Royall.

Savage, Saunders, Scarburgh, Selden, Shepherd, Short, Skelton, Skipwith,
Slaughter, Spottswood, Stanard, Stevenson, Stith, Stokes, Steptoe,
Strother, Swann, Syme, Spencer.

Tabb, Talbot, Taliafero, Tayloe, Taylor, Tazewell, Terry, Thornton,
Todd, Travis, Trent, Tucker, Tyler.

Upshur, Upshaw; Venable, Vaughn.

Waller, Walker, Walton, Wade, Ward, Waryng, Washington, Watkins,
Watson, West, Wickham, Webb, Whiting, Westwood, Wilkins, Wilcox,
Willis, Winston, Williams, Withers, Wood, Woodson, Wise, Wormley,
Wyatt, Wythe.

Yates, Yelverton.

A very few Scotch and Irish names are found in this list,—still more of
Welsh; but the great body of them are English or British, (other than
Saxon.)[5]

No. V.

Extract from John Rolf's Letter to King James when he was in
England with Pocahontas, concerning the first Plantations
or Settlements in the Colony.

At Henrico, on the north side of the river, ninety odd myles from the
mouth thereof, and within fifteen or sixteen myles of the Falls or head of

that river, (being our furthest habitation within the land,) are thirty-eight
men and boyes, whereof twenty-two are farmors, the rest officers and
others, all whom maintayne themselves with food and apparrell. Of this
towne one capten Smaley hath the command in the absence of capten
James Davis. Mr. Wm. Wickham minister there, who, in his life and
doctrine, give good examples and godly instructions to the people.

At Bermuda Nether Hundred, (seated on the south side of the river,
crossing it and going by land, five myles lower then Henrico by water,)
are one hundred and nineteen—which seate conteyneth a good circuite of
ground—the river running round, so that a pale running cross a neck of
land from one parte of the river to the other, maketh it a peninsula. The
houses and dwellings of the people are sett round about by the river, and
all along the pale, so farr distant one from the other, that upon anie alarme,
they can succor and second one the other. These people are injoyned by
a charter, (being incorporated to the Bermuda towne, which is made a
corporacoun,) to effect and performe such duties and services whereunto
they are bound for a certain tyme, and then to have their freedome. This
corporacoun admit no farmors, unles they procure of the governor some of
the colony men to be their servants, for whom (being no members of the
corporacoun,) they are to pay rent corne as other farmors of this kind—
these are about seventeen. Others also comprehended in the said number
of one hundred and nineteen there, are resident, who labor generallie
for the colonie; amongst whom some make pitch and tarr, potashes, charcole
and other works, and are maintayned by the magazin—but are not
of the corporacoun. At this place (for the most part) liveth capten
Peacdly, deputy marshal and deputy governor. Mr. Alexander Whitaker,
(sonne to the reverend and famous divine, Dr. Whitaker,) a good divine,
hath the ministerial charge here.

At West and Sherley Hundred (seated on the north side of the river,
lower then the Bermudas three or four myles,) are twenty-five, commanded
by capten Maddeson—who are imployed onely in planting and curing
tobacco,—with the profitt thereof to clothe themselves and all those who
labor about the generall business.

At James Towne (seated on the north side of the river, from West and
Sherley Hundred lower down about thirty-seven myles,) are fifty, under
the command of lieutenant Sharpe, in the absence of capten Francis
West, Esq., brother to the right ho'ble the Le Lawarre,—whereof thirty-one
are farmors; all theis maintayne themselves with food and rayment.
Mr. Richard Bucke minister there—a verie good preacher.

At Kequoughtan (being not farr from the mouth of the river, thirty-seven
miles below James Towne on the same side,) are twenty—whereof
eleven are farmors; all those also maintayne themselves as the former.
Capten George Webb commander. Mr. Wm. Mays minister there.

At Dales-Gift (being upon the sea, neere unto Cape Charles, about
thirty my'es from Kequoughtan,) are seventeen, under the command of one

lieutenant Cradock; all these are fedd and maintayned by the colony. Their
labor is to make salt and catch fish at the two seasons aforementioned.

So the nomber of officers and laborers are two hundred and five. The
farmors 81; besides woemen and children, in everie place some—which in
all amounteth to three hundred and fifty-one persons—a small nomber to
advance so great a worke.

Theis severall places are not thus weakly man'd, as capable of no greater
nomber, (for they will maintayne many hundreds more,)—but because no
one can be forsaken without losse and detriment to all. If then so few
people, thus united, ordered and governed, doe live so happily, every one
partaking of the others labor, can keepe in possession so much ground as
will feed a far greater nomber in the same or better condition; and seeing
too, too many poore farmors in England worke all the yeare, rising early
and going to bed late, live penuriously, and much adoe to pay their landlord's
rent, besides a daily karking and caring to feed themselves and
families, what happines might they enjoy in Virginia, were men sensible
of theis things, where they may have ground for nothing, more than they
can manure; reape more fruits and profitts with half the labor, void of
many cares and vexacions, and for their rent a matter of small or no
moment, I leave to your singular judgment and consideracoun, nothing
doubting, but He (who, by his infinite goodnes, with so small means,
hath settled these poore and weake beginnings so happily,) will animate,
stirr up and encourage manie others cheerfully to undertake this worke,
and will assuredly add a daily strength to uphold and maintayne what he
hath already begun.

Seeing then this languishing action is now brought to this forwardness
and strength, no person but is provided for, either by their owne or others
labors, to subsist themselves for food, and to be able to rayse commodities
for clothing and other necessaries, envy it selfe, poysoned with the venom
of aspes, cannot wound it.

Now, to drawe to a conclusion of this my poore oblacon, I would crave
your Highnes' patience a little longer—and that you would turne your
heart to a more heavenly meditacoun, wherein much joy and comfort is to
be reaped and found, of all such as shall truly, sincerely and unfeynedly
seeke to advance the honor of God, and to propagate his gospell. There
is no small hope by pietie, clemencie, curtesie and civill demeanor, (by
which meanes some are wonne to us alreadie,) to convert and bring to the
knowledge and true worship of Jesus Christ thousands of poore, wretched
and misbelieving people on whose faces a good christian cannot looke without
sorrow, pittie and compsssion, seeing they beare the image of our
Heavenlie Creator, and we and they come from one and the same mould,
especiallie we knowing that they, merely through ignorance of God and
Christ, doe run headlong, yea, with joy, into destruction and perpetuall
damnation,—for which knowledge we are the more bound and indebted
to Almightie God, (for what were we before the gospell of Christ shined

amongst us?) and cannot better express our duties and thankfulness for so
great mercies, then by using such meanes to them, as it pleased him to
lend unto others to bring our forefathers and us into the waies of trueth,
—it is much to be mourned and lamented how lightlie the workes of God
are now a days generallie regarded, and less sought after; but the worke
of the world, as though they were eternall, hungered for, and thirsted after
with insatiable greedines. But should we well consider, examine and
search into ourselves, what we were, and now are, there can be no heart,
(if not hardened as the nether mill stone,) but would even break itself to
pieces, and distribute to manie poore soules some parte thereof, to purge
them from their lees of synne, and to sette them in the right pathes of
holines and righteousnes, to serve the King of Heaven; by which meanes
and God's holy assistance, no doubt they will soone be brought to abandon
their old superstitions and idolatries, wherein they have been nursed and
trayned from their infancies, and our greatest adversaries shall not taunt
us with this reproach, "Whom of you have you wonne to christianitie?"
What a crowne of glorie shalbe sett upon their heads who shall faithfullie
labor herein, I leave to the enjoying of them, who shall endeavour unfeynedly
to meritt the same. Finallie, as Caleb and Joshua in the verie
heate of grudgings, murmurings, and assemblies of the children of Israell,
stood stoutlie for the Lord's cause, commending the goodnes of the land
they discovered, to the faces of their oppressors, and the easines to obtain
it even to the perill of their lives, so many right ho'ble and worthie personages,
both here and in Virginia, (whom generallie the most parte withdrew
themselves, that the action was almost sunck downe in forgetfulnes,)
have mightilie upheld this christian cause—for God, even our owne God,
did helpe them. For neither evill reports, nor slanders, nor murmurings,
nor backbitings of others, nor any disaster, did once dismay or hinder
them from upholding thereof with their good reports, incouragements, and
meanes yearelie sent to the planters, to nourish life and being in this zealous
worke. I beseech God to raise up many more such, so zealous for
God's glory, to forward the same—we have tasted of some fruits thereof.
There are no great nor strong castles, nor men like the sons of Anack, to
hinder our quiet possession of that land. God's hand hath been mightie
in the preservacoun thereof hitherto; what need we then to feare, but to
goe up at once as a peculiar people, marked and chosen by the finger of
God, to possess it, for undoubtedly he is with us. And as for murmurers,
slanderers and backsliders, a due porcoun shalbe given them for their reward.
So the blessings of Caleb and Joshua shall fall upon all those that
constantly persevere to the end. Thus, craving your gracious pardon for
my rude boldnes, beseaching God to send you the fulnes of his blessings
in this world and in the world to come, I rest,

No. VI.

The following address and resolutions of the patriots of the Northern
Neck of Virginia, in the year 1765, immediately after the passage of the
Stamp Act, properly belongs to the article on Washington parish, Westmoreland.
It was drawn up by Richard Henry Lee, whose name is first on the
list. It is said to have been the first public association in the land for the
resistance to that act.

Roused by danger, and alarmed at attempts, foreign and domestic, to
reduce the people of this country to a state of abject and detestable slavery,
by destroying that free and happy constitution of government under which
they have hitherto lived,—We, who subscribe this paper, have associated,
and do bind ourselves to each other, to God, and to our country, by the
firmest ties that religion and virtue can frame, most sacredly and punctually
to stand by, and with our lives and fortunes to support, maintain, and
defend each other in the observance and execution of these following
articles.

First.—We declare all due allegiance and obedience to our lawful
Sovereign, George the Third, King of Great Britain. And we determine
to the utmost of our power to preserve the laws, the peace and good order
of this colony, as far as is consistent with the preservation of our constitutional
rights and liberty.

Secondly.—As we know it to be the birthright privilege of every British
subject, (and of the people of Virginia as being such,) founded on reason,
law, and compact, that he cannot be legally tried, but by his peers, and
that he cannot be taxed, but by the consent of a Parliament, in which he
is represented by persons chosen by the people, and who themselves pay
a part of the tax they impose on others. If therefore any person or persons
shall attempt, by any action or proceeding, to deprive this colony of
those fundamental rights, we will immediately regard him or them as the
most dangerous enemy of the community; and we will go to any extremity,
not only to prevent the success of such attempts, but to stigmatize
and punish the offender.

Thirdly.—As the Stamp Act does absolutely direct the property of the
people to be taken from them without their consent expressed by their
representatives, and as in many cases it deprives the British American
subject of his right to trial by jury; we do determine, at every hazard,
and, paying no regard to danger or to death, we will exert every faculty
to prevent the execution of the said Stamp Act in any instance whatsoever
within this colony. And every abandoned wretch, who shall be so lost to
virtue and public good, as wickedly to contribute to the introduction or
fixture of the Stamp Act in this colony, by using stamp paper, or by any
other means, we will, with the utmost expedition, convince all such profligates

that immediate danger and disgrace shall attend their prostitute
purposes.

Fourthly.—That the last article may most surely and effectually be
executed, we engage to each other, that whenever it shall be known to
any of this association, that any person is so conducting himself as to
favour the introduction of the Stamp Act, that immediate notice shall be
given to as many of the association as possible; and that every individual
so informed shall, with expedition, repair to a place of meeting to be
appointed as near the scene of action as may be.

Fifthly.—Each associator shall do his true endeavour to obtain as many
signers to this association as he possibly can.

Sixthly.—If any attempt shall be made on the liberty or property of
any associator for any action or thing done in consequence of this agrreement,
we do most solemnly bind ourselves by the sacred engagements
above entered into, at the utmost risk of our lives and fortunes, to restore
such associate to his liberty, and to protect him in the enjoyment of his
property.

In testimony of the good faith with which we resolve to execute this
association, we have this 27th day of February, 1766, in Virginia, put our
hands and seals hereto.

• Richard Henry Lee

• Will. Robinson

• Lewis Willis

• Thos. Lud. Lee

• Samuel Washington

• Charles Washington

• Moore Fauntleroy

• Francis Lightfoot Lee

• Thomas Jones

• Rodham Kenner

• Spencer M. Ball

• Richard Mitchell

• Joseph Murdock

• Richd. Parker

• Spence Monroe

• John Watts

• Robt. Lovell

• John Blagge

• Charles Weeks

• Willm Booth

• Geo. Turberville

• Alvin Moxley

• Wm. Flood

• John Ballantine, Junr.

• William Lee

• William Sydnor

• John Monroe

• William Cocke

• Willm. Grayson

• Wm. Brockenbrough

• Saml. Selden

• Richd. Lee

• Daniel Tibbs

• Francis Thornton, Junr.

• Peter Rust

• John Lee, Jr.

• Francis Waring

• John Upshaw

• Meriwether Smith

• Thos. Roane

• Jas. Edmondson

• Jas. Webb, Junr.

• John Edmondson

• Jas. Banks

• Smith Young

• Laur. Washington

• W. Roane

• Rich. Hodges

• Jas. Upshaw

• Jas. Booker

---

436





• Thos. Chilton

• Richard Buckner

• Jos. Pierce

• Will. Chilton

• John Williams

• John Blackwell

• Winder S. Kenner

• Wm. Bronaugh

• Wm. Peirce

• John Berryman

• John Dickson

• John Broone

• Edwd. Sanford

• Charles Chilton

• Edwd. Sanford

• Daniel McCarty

• Jer. Rush

• Edwd. Ransdell

• Townshend Dade

• John Ashton

• W. Brent

• Francis Foushee

• John Smith, Jour.

• Wm. Ball

• Thos. Barnes

• Jos. Blackwell

• Reuben Meriwether

• Edw. Mountjoy

• Wm. J. Mountjoy

• Thos. Mountjoy

• John Mountjoy

• Gilbt. Campbell

• Jos. Lane

• A. Montague

• Rich'd Jeffries

• John Suggett

• John S. Woodcock

• Robt. Wormeley Carter

• John Beale, Junr.

• John Newton

• Will. Beale, Junr.

• Chs. Mortimer

• John Edmondson, Jr.

• Charles Beale

• Peter Grant

• Thompson Mason

• Jona. Beckwith

• Jas. Samford

• John Belfield

• W. Smith

• John Augt. Washington

• Thos. Belfield

• Edgcomb Suggett

• Henry Francks

• John Bland, Junr.

• Jas. Emerson

• Thos. Logan

• Jo. Milliken

• Ebenezer Fisher

• Hancock Eustace

• John Richards

• Thos. Jett

• Thos. Douglas

• Max. Robinson

• John Orr.

No. VII.

Synopsis of Assembly Acts Relating to the Protestant Episcopal
Church.

It was my intention to have written an article on the last years of the
Protestant Episcopal Church of Virginia, beginning with the Act of Assembly
in 1776, which suspended the salaries of the clergy, and ending

with that which confiscated the glebes, in 1802. But I find the same so
much better done in this and the two following numbers of this Appendix
that I cannot hesitate between them. The summary of Acts and Memorials
has been furnished me by my young friend, Mr. John Eston Cooke,
of Richmond, Virginia, who, with great care, has examined all the documents
on the subject which are laid up in the archives of the State, and
presented the following result, for which my readers, as well as myself,
will owe him many thanks:—

1. The first Act aimed at the Established Church was passed at a General
Assembly begun and held at the Capitol, in Williamsburg, on the 7th
October, 1776,—the first year of the Commonwealth. This Act is interesting
in an historical point of view, as the first public exhibition of the
dislike of a large class of the community for the English Establishment.
After reciting that much doubt existed touching the application of the laws
of Parliament upon religious matters to the Commonwealth of Virginia,
the Act proceeds to declare that all such laws "which render criminal the
maintaining any opinions in matters of religion, forbearing to repair to
church, or the exercising any mode of worship whatsoever, or which prescribe
punishments for the same, shall henceforth be of no force or validity
in this Commonwealth." After the passage of the Act, "all dissenters,
of whatever denomination, from the said Church, shall be totally free from
all levies, taxes, and impositions whatever, toward supporting and maintaining
the said Church, as it now is or hereafter may be established, or
its ministers." It is nevertheless provided that the vestries of the different
parishes shall levy and assess upon the tithables, including dissenters, as
before, all the salaries and arrearages due the ministers up to the first of
the ensuing January. These assessments are also directed where the vestries,
counting upon them, have made engagements; and the former provisions
for the poor are directed to be continued, conformist and dissenting
tithables contributing.

The fourth section reserves to the Church her glebe lands held at the
time, her churches and chapels built or then contracted for, and all books,
ornaments, and decorations used in worship; also, all arrearages of money
or tobacco then due, and the "perpetual benefit and enjoyment" of all
private donations.

The Act winds up with directions for taking a list of tithables, and ends
by declaring that the old law of 22 George II., for the payment and support
of the clergy, should be "suspended" until the termination of the next
General Assembly.

The Assembly contented itself thereafter for several years with affirming
simply this "suspension" of the old law.

2. But at the session commencing October, 1779, it distinctly erased
the old statute, declaring that this and "all and every other Act or Acts
providing salaries for the ministers, and authorizing the vestries to levy the

same, shall be, and the same are hereby, repealed." The former provisions
are made, however, for arrearages of salary, the performance of engagements,
and the support of the poor. For these purposes all tithables,
whether conformists or dissenters, are to be levied upon as before.

3. There was no new legislation then until the year 1784. In that year,
in compliance with the petitions of the clergy, the Church was incorporated
under the name of "The Minister and Vestry of the Protestant Episcopal
Church"—in each parish. They were to hold and enjoy all which the old
Act of 1776 permitted them to possess, and could sue or be sued like other
corporations. An exception is made in the case of the glebe in the county
of Augusta, where, until the Church was organized, the overseers of the
poor were to receive and apply the proceeds for the repairing of the church,
the grounds, &c., and the support of the poor.

The second clause directs that the vestries shall decide by vote,—the
minister voting with the rest, and having no negative voice.

The third clause grants to the minister and vestry power to receive and
hold every species of property, real and personal, for the Church, and
to improve it as they think best; but the Church cannot derive from these
tenements, in any case, more than eight hundred pounds income. They
may use these proceeds in any manner they desire for the cause of religion
and education.

The other clauses direct that the vestry shall consist of twelve "able
and discreet men," to be elected by the members of the Church, "every
third year forever;" that they shall, with the minister, present to the county
court, triennially, a statement of all property held, real or personal, by the
Church, verified by oath, failing to comply with which they shall forfeit to
the Commonwealth one hundred pounds, and in case of further contumacy
cease to be a body corporate. If the annual revenue exceeds eight hundred
pounds, the subject shall be laid before the Assembly.

The Act ends by repealing all former laws touching the internal government
of the Church, its liturgies, mode of worship, fasts, festivals, &c. All
such are to be decided by Conventions, in which are vested all the powers
of discipline, change, and general government.

At this same term of 1784, the vestry of South Farnham parish, in
Essex, were declared "dissolved," having supplied vacancies in their body
without consulting the freeholders. These latter were directed to meet
and elect a vestry.

4. The foregoing is a summary of the Acts of the General Assembly
touching the Established Church up to the time of the passage of the
"Act for establishing Religious Freedom." This was passed December 16,
1785, and need not be recited.

5. In January, 1799, the Assembly declared that all the old legislation,
above recited, in which the existence of a Governmental Church was directly
or indirectly recognised, should thenceforth be repealed; that no
such Establishment had legally existed since the Commonwealth; and that

the Act of "Religious Freedom" was the true exposition of the Bill of
Rights and the Constitution.

6. The final legislation of the General Assembly was the Act "Concerning
the glebe-lands and churches within the Commonwealth," passed
January 12, 1802. The preamble declares that the Act of 1799, just
referred to, "recognises the principle that all property formerly belonging
to the said Church, of every description, devolved on the good people of
this Commonwealth, on the dissolution of the British Government here, in
the same degree in which the right and interest of the said Church was
derived therein from them." The Assembly does not wish, however, to
"disturb the possession of the present incumbents," though it has the
"right of authorizing a sale of all such property indiscriminately." Therefore
the overseers of the poor shall only sell such glebe-lands as are vacant
or shall become so. Leases granted by the former officers of the Church
shall be respected; but the overseers shall sue for and recover all moneys
due from tenants, and shall receive all other moneys to which the Church
is entitled. The proceeds of the sales, &c., shall be in all cases appropriated
by the overseers for the benefit of the poor, or for any other purpose
which a majority of the freeholders may elect: Provided, that these
appropriations shall not be for "any religious purpose whatsoever."

Nothing in the Act, however, shall authorize a sale of the churches and
their fixtures, furniture, or appliances, or the churchyards, nor affect any
private donation prior to January 1, 1777, for Church or other purposes,
where there is any person in being entitled to take the same, or affect the
property of any kind "acquired by private donations or subscriptions by
the said Church since the date last mentioned."

From the Manuscript Journal of the House of Delegates, 1773-74, and
Manuscript Archives.

Thursday, the 12th of May, 14 George III., 1774.—"A petition of
sundry persons of the community of Christians called Baptists, and other
Protestant dissenters, whose names are thereunto subscribed, was presented
to the House and read, setting forth that the toleration proposed by the
bill, ordered at the last session of the General Assembly to be printed and
published, not admitting public worship except in the daytime, is inconsistent
with the laws of England, as well as the practice and usage of the
primitive Churches, and even of the English Church itself; that the night
season may sometimes be better spared by the petitioners from the necessary
duties of their callings, and that they wish for no indulgences which
may disturb the peace of Government," &c.

The action of the House not discoverable.

On the 17th May, 1774.—"A petition of several members of the Presbyterian
Church, in the county of Bedford, setting forth that many well-disposed
persons of their community had made contributions, to which

others are willing to add, for supporting their clergy in a method more
convenient than the ordinary one by subscription, but that the pious intentions
of such benefactors cannot be effectually carried into execution,
the elders of the Church not being incorporated so as to be capable of
taking and holding land and slaves for the use of the ministers, and therefore
praying that the said elders may be enabled to take and hold land
and slaves to such uses, under proper regulations."

No action, owing to political matters.

May 14, 1774.—"The vestry of the parish of Frederick ask leave to
levy on the tithables, for the minister's salary, "one hundred and fifty
pounds of current money of Virginia, in lieu of the tobacco and cask and
the legal allowance for shrinkage."

The petition is granted,—Mr. Wood, Mr. Edward Pendleton, and Mr.
Zane being directed to prepare the bill.

On May 23, 1774.—The petitions of sundry inhabitants of the county
and parish of Augusta, representing that "the parish is upward of ninety
miles long and near eighty miles wide, and that there are between three
and four thousand tithables in it, and but one church; therefore praying it
may be divided."

On May 24, 1774.—"Ordered, That the members of this House do
attend in their places at the hour of ten in the forenoon, on the first day of
June next, in order to proceed with the Speaker and the mace to the church
in this city, and that the Rev. Mr. Price be appointed to read prayers
and the Rev. Mr. Gwatkin to preach a sermon suitable to the occasion."

Richard Henry Lee is to request Mr. G. to comply. Mr. G. has "a
disorder in his breast," and Mr. Price preached. This was the day appointed
by Parliament for the closing of Boston Harbour.

Many petitions ask the dissolution of vestries for malfeasance of various
sorts,—that parishes may be altered, &c.

The first great Act aimed at the perpetuity of the Established Church
was passed at the session commencing in October, 1776. I find a very
striking paper among the archives, which seems to have had a large share
in the passage of the subsequent Act. It is labelled "Dissenters' Pet'n,
1776, Oct. 24. Ref'd to Com. of Religion."

The petition is as follows:—

On June 3, 1777, the Presbytery of Hanover petitioned the Assembly
again. Thanking it for the late Act, (of 1776,) they proceed to remonstrate
against "a general assessment" which was left to be decided by the next
Assembly. If the Legislature have any power over religion and its ministers,
it has all power, and might oppress and enslave. The memorialists
declare that these consequences are "so entirely subversive of religious
liberty, that, if they should take place in Virginia, we should be reduced
to the melancholy necessity of saying, with the apostles in like cases,
`Judge ye whether it be best to obey God or man,' and also of acting as
they acted."

Nov. 28, 1777.—The petition of the inhabitants of Christ Church
parish, in the county of Lancaster, says that in 1759, by an Act of Assembly,
a new vestry was elected in the parish, but death has now reduced
them to four. These four have "elected into that office a person whom
we think not friendly to the glorious cause we are now engaged in; and,
as we are now declared a free and independent people, we think we have
a right to the choice of a new set of rulers." They therefore pray a dissolution
of the tory vestry and power to elect a new one. This petition is
signed by one hundred and twenty-eight persons, apparently the principal
men of the county. A counter-petition is filed, signed by seven persons,
declaring that the vestryman in question—Mr. William Montague—is not
a tory, though he had been so considered, and praying a refusal of the
petition to dissolve the body. But the vestry was dissolved."

On the 26th November, 1778, various inhabitants of King William
county (Protestant Episcopal) petition and say that the Act suspending
the salaries of clergymen was regarded as temporary: they hope some
provision will be made. They do not wish conscientious Dissenters to
contribute to the support of the Church; "that men of such principles and
persuasions should be exonerated from the support of a clergy so different

in point of worship from them, must be confessed by all to be just and
reasonable." The clergy are, however, men of real merit and fine education,
and deserve some assistance from the Legislature. The Dissenters
are declared to be, often, men of "disorderly and dissipated lives," who
seduce the poor from their labour and negroes from their duties.

This memorial was "deferred" to the next Assembly.

Petitions from Amherst, Culpepper, Caroline, &c. for a general assessment.
This last—Caroline—memorial, (Episcopal,) of date December 5,
1777, states that the memorialists "have seen an Act of the last session
of Assembly, by which dissenters from the Church of England are exempted
from all levies for the support of the said Church or its ministers,
and highly approve thereof, as founded on principles of justice and propriety,
and favourable to religious liberty: at the same time they beg
leave to suggest that as, in their opinion, public worship is a duty we owe
the Creator and Preserver of mankind, and productive of effects the most
beneficial to society, it ought to be enjoined and regulated by the Legislature,
so as to preserve public peace, order, and decency, without prescribing
a mode or form of worship to any." It then declares that the
voluntary-contribution system will cause difficulties between the clergy
and people and discourage men of genius and injure religion. A general
assessment is then prayed.

December 2, 1778, referred to next session.

November 6, 1778.—Sundry (Episcopal) inhabitants of the county of
Cumberland declare that the Dissenters are seducing the ignorant and
sowing "discontent between husbands and their wives." They have
"seen meetings in the night of our slaves, without our consent, which
could produce nothing but deeds of darkness," and the Dissenters had
produced "disobedience and insolence to masters." They "wish to see a
well-regulated toleration established," that men "may be permitted to
serve God in their own way, without molestation. . . . But we wish also
that these nightly meetings may be prohibited under severe penalties."
Lastly, they pray that "some regulation may be adopted to make the clergy
of the Established Church accountable for their conduct, and be removed
for their misbehaviour."

This was rejected December 2, 1778.

October 29, 1778.—"Some of the people called Seceding Presbyterians"
pray that they may thereafter make oath "by holding up the right hand"
only; which petition was granted.

November 10, 1779.—"Divers of the freeholders and other free inhabitants
of Amherst county"—who afterwards describe themselves as "composed
of Church of England men, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists"—"unanimously

and with one voice declare their hearty assent, concurrence,
and approbation of the Act of January, 1779, declaring all
Church-laws null, and the Act of Religious Freedom the true exposition
of the Bill of Rights." Signed by a great number. Many for and against.

May 12, 1780.—Sundry inhabitants of Amelia pray that marriage-licenses
shall not continue to be directed, in the old form, to Episcopal
ministers; that certain persons therefrom doubted the validity of marriages
by other than the Episcopal clergy: they pray that the ceremony "without
the use of the ring and the service" may be declared lawful. Successful.
It led to the bill legitimizing children of all such marriages by Dissenting
ministers. The Baptist Association at Sandy Creek, Charlotte, petition
for the same. Also other Baptist associations.

November, 1780.—Petition and counter-petition of the inhabitants of
Cumberland. The Presbyterians pray the Assembly to declare all nonjuring
clergymen incapable of preaching. The Episcopalians indignantly
declare the Presbyterians "disorderly and turbulent, desirous of giving
laws to all societies," and fond of noise and violence. The real object of
their (the Presbyterians') petition, the memorialists say, is to ruin the Rev.
Christopher MacRae, who, although prevented by conscientious scruples
from taking the oath, is a most benevolent man, a pattern of piety, and
one who wishes liberty and happiness to all mankind. The ruin of the
Church in Cumberland is declared to be the ultimate object of the
Presbyterians.

November 22, 1781.—Sundry inhabitants of Prince Edward county
pray that all the old vestries may be dissolved by Act of Assembly and
new ones elected by the body of the community at large, Dissenters to be
equally competent with conformists to the post of vestrymen, and the sole
proviso to be "attachment to the present form of government." Referred
to next Assembly, and, June 9, 1782, rejected.

November 12, 1784.—The Hanover Presbytery pray that there may be
no incorporations, and, if a general assessment is decided upon, that it may
be as liberal as possible.

June 4, 1784.—The Protestant Episcopal clergy file their memorial.

From this time—that is to say, the date of the Act of "Religious
Freedom"—the enemies of the Establishment redoubled their efforts to
overthrow the last vestiges of its former power and usefulness. The petitions
are throughout of this description, and need not be particularly
referred to. The concessions of the Assembly had evidently given them
hope and resolution, and they seem to have employed every possible means
in their power to cast discredit on the Episcopacy.

During the same period, the petitions from parishes praying a dissolution
of old, inanimate vestries and a sale of unoccupied glebes indicate
that the Establishment was almost at its last gasp. There are great numbers
of these petitions. The foregoing is the conclusion which will be
arrived at from reading them. It is not necessary to publish them.

No. VIII.

Dr. Hawks's Opinion on the Glebe Case, taken from his Work
on the Church of Virginia.

[I had intended to examine for myself the question of the constitutionality
of the law for selling the glebes so far as to form and express an
opinion on the subject, though it would have been of very little worth;
but want of time, and the reading of this and the next number of the appendix,
containing Dr. Hawks's candid statement of the case and Judge
Story's able opinion, have led me to a course which will, I am sure, be
greatly preferred by all my readers. I do not hesitate to say that I have
always inclined to the belief that the Act was unconstitutional. I have
long laboured, but in vain, to obtain the opinion of Judge Pendleton, which
was to have been delivered the day after his sudden death, and which would
have decided the question in favour of the Church. I hope it may yet be
found. At the same time, I must declare that I have always rejoiced in
that Act of the Assembly, so far as the Church was concerned. Such has
also been the feeling of almost all our clergy and laity with whom I have
ever conversed. Could we have had the glebes restored to us by a decision
of the courts, or even by the Act of Assembly, we should have opposed the
effort; it being injurious to the cause of religion in our own Church and
in the State. The history of the glebes and glebe-houses in Virginia has,
from first to last, been a most mortifying one. With comparatively few
exceptions, as may be seen on the old vestry-books, they were not worthy
of the residence of our ministers, and, for the most part, were rented out
for very small sums of money—even for forty, thirty, and twenty shillings—or
surrendered to vestries on condition that the casks or hogsheads
for the tobacco were furnished. When the salaries were withdrawn, only
a few of the glebes held out any inducement to the incumbents to remain,
as the voluntary contributions were very small and often nothing at all.
For these few the Episcopalians earnestly contended, and for their sale
some other denominations as earnestly sought. I doubt not that there were
those who advocated their sale from a sincere conviction that it was religiously
and politically right, while it cannot be doubted that, in many
instances, sectarian feeling and political ambition had much to do with it.]

As to the arguments by which a sale of the glebes was urged upon the
Legislature, the principal were as follows:—

1. That most of the glebe-lands were originally purchased with money
levied upon the people at large, and that, consequently, whenever a majority
of the people desired a sale of the lands, they should be sold and the money
applied to such other use as might seem best to them.

2. That if the Church was permitted to retain the property, a certain
pre-eminence and superiority was thereby conferred, which was odious in
a republic and inconsistent with its institutions.

3. That the fourth article of the Declaration of Rights of Virginia asserted,
"That no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive or separate
emoluments or privileges but in consideration of public services;" but the
enjoyment of the glebes did confer upon the Church "exclusive emoluments
from the community," and was consequently unconstitutional.

To the first of these arguments it was answered that some of the glebes
were a private donation; that those which were purchased were bought
many years before,—some of them more than a century,—and that the
"people" with whose money the purchase was made were not Dissenters,
(for there were few or none in the Colony at that day,) but were members
of the Establishment, and perfectly content that their money should be
thus applied; that, having been thus applied, the "people" had voluntarily
divested themselves of it, and their descendants could not now take it back,
any more than they could other moneys of which their ancestors had seen
fit willingly to deprive themselves: it was also answered that, upon this
principle of a restoration to the "people" of money which the "people"
once gave, there should obviously be returned no more than such a part as
would be proportionate to the original number of Dissenters among the
people who purchased; for, if those who now asked for a sale of the glebes
had, from conscientious motives, dissented from the faith of their fathers,
they should thence learn that their fathers also had consciences, and with
no justice or propriety could they seek to undo what their ancestors
had done with a good conscience. But, as to Dissenters among the original
purchasers, there were either none at all, or, at best, the number
was very limited; and it was certain that there were no Baptists among
them.

It was also asserted to be very questionable whether, considering the great
emigrations to the Western country and to other States, there was one-third
of the inhabitants remaining whose ancestors had contributed to purchase
a glebe; that, if they were sold for the benefit of that third, it would be
impossible to ascertain to whom the proceeds should be paid. If it should
be urged that "the country" first purchased them, and that now they
should be given back to "the country," then it was to be remembered that
that country by a solemn Act had declared that "in all time coming" they
should not be taken from the Church; and that if it would be unrighteous in
an individual to take back by mere force that which he had once bestowed

upon another, it required no small skill in casuistry to prove that similar
conduct was righteous in a State.

As to the second argument, it was said in reply that the question of
permitting the Church to retain the property was one of right, founded on
law, which republics were emphatically bound to respect. That by the
very law which released Dissenters from all taxes to support the Episcopal
Church, the Assembly of Virginia had pledged its legislative faith—the
most solemn pledge and firmest sanction which a free State could give—that
the property in dispute should "in all time coming" be saved and reserved
to the use of the Episcopal Church. That to order a sale of property
thus solemnly reserved would tend to sap the foundation of those rights by
which property in general is held, introduce into the Acts of the Legislature
instability and uncertainty, exhibit a fluctuation in law unprecedented
in Virginia, and overturn that confidence and security which the citizens
of a republic should always feel in the stability of purpose avowed by their
selected representatives. It also said that, if pre-eminence and superiority
in the Church were evils justly dreaded, a declared preference for any
other religious denomination was no less to be deprecated; and that, if the
glebes were sold to gratify any sect or party, a distinction would be so far
manifested in its favour, and would tend to furnish it, in this patronage of
the State, with the means of establishing its own creed upon the ruins
of every other.

To the argument of unconstitutionality as deduced from the Declaration
of Rights the answer was that "the community" under the Government
established after the Revolution certainly had granted to the Church no
exclusive emoluments," for it had granted nothing: it had only confirmed
to the Church that which she had and owned and enjoyed for more than
a century before. But, in truth, the fourth article of the Declaration of
Rights had no bearing upon the question, as was evident when the whole
of it was viewed together. The article declared "that no man or set of
men are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from
the community, but in consideration of public services; which, not being
descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge, to
be hereditary,"—thus showing simply an intention to prevent hereditary
honours, offices, or emoluments in the civil government.

These are the principal arguments and answers which from time to time
were presented to the Legislature upon the question of a sale of the glebes
generally: there are to be found also among the memorials and remonstrances
some which concern the sale of a glebe in some particular parish
only; and these afford additional considerations for and against the measure,
founded upon the peculiar circumstances of each case, and possessing no
general interest.

Bishop Madison, in the exercise of the discretion confided to him by
the Convention of 1796, submitted to the Legislature of that year the
memorial touching the sale of the property of the Church. It was not

acted upon by the Assembly; but the subject, according to some former
precedents in matters concerning the Church already recorded, was submitted
to the consideration of the people. Episcopalians began now to
think that their only mode of saving the glebes was, if possible, with the
concurrence of the Legislature, to draw the determination of the question
from before that tribunal and submit its decision to the courts of law.
With the concurrence of the standing committee, the Bishop therefore
resolved to obtain professional advice, and an opinion was sought at the
hands of some of the ablest jurists of Virginia. Bushrod Washington,
Edmund Randolph, and John Wickham were consulted, and, as the result
of their deliberations, stated:—

1. That the Protestant Episcopal Church was the exclusive owner of
the glebes.

2. That so far was the title of the Church from being impaired by the
Bill of Rights, that on no sound construction did they clash; but that the
title of the Church stood upon precisely the same grounds with the rights
of private property, which had been recognised and secured by the principles
of the Revolution and by the Constitution.

3. That any question concerning the right of property in the glebes
could constitutionally be decided by the judiciary alone.

Having obtained this opinion, the Bishop called together the Convention
in December, 1797, and, in his address, directing their attention to
the Church property, laid before them the opinion just recited.

The Convention appointed a committee to attend the discussion of their
memorial before the Legislature, and instructed them to propose to that
body that the controversy should be submitted to the decision of a proper
tribunal of justice.

The task becomes truly painful of following through the ecclesiastical
records of this period the gradual but sure descent of the Church from
level to level, each a little lower than the former, and of witnessing effort
after effort made in vain by her few remaining friends to stay her downward
course. The picture presented by the Bishop, in one of his addresses
about this time, offers to our contemplation a suffering clergy, temples in
every stage of dilapidation and decay, and an increasing indifference to the
interests of the Church, which told too plainly that the protracted struggle
was fast driving Churchmen into the hopelessness of despair.

The last Conventional effort of which we have any record was made in
1799. By a resolution of that year, the Bishop was directed to employ
counsel to defend the rights of the Church before the judiciary whenever
it should be deemed most proper to bring the question before it; and it
is to be presumed that the Church now sat down in patience to await the
blow which probably was seen by all to be inevitable. The crisis came at
last; and on the 12th of January, 1802, the Legislature passed the law
by virtue of which the glebes of Virginia were ordered to be sold for the
benefit of the public. The warfare begun by the Baptists seven-and-twenty

years before was now finished: the Church was in ruins, and the triumph
of her enemies was complete.

If there should be those who are disposed to view this law as an illegal
encroachment upon the vested rights of the Church, it is proper to remind
them of the reasons which satisfied those who enacted it that they were
doing right. They supposed that from the beginning the property of the
glebes was in the people, not in the clergy; and that, as the number of
Episcopalians in the parishes which remained was not a majority of
the people, therefore no injustice was done by the Act in question.
Many who voted for the law felt compelled to do so by the force of popular
opinion.

It was not long after the passage of the Act of 1802 before the Church
found it necessary to bring the constitutionality of that law before the
proper tribunal for consideration. This was done in the year 1804, in the
celebrated case of Turpin et al. vs. Locket et al., commonly known as the
Manchester case. The defendants, as overseers of the poor, had undertaken
to sell the glebe-lands of the parish of Manchester, under the Act of 1802,
and the plaintiffs—who were the churchwardens and vestrymen—filed a
bill in Chancery to prevent the sale by an injunction.

The cause finally, by an appeal from the decree of Chancellor Wythe,
came before the Court of Appeals,—the highest tribunal in Virginia,—
which at that time was composed of Judge Pendleton, the President, with
Judges Carrington, Lyons, Roane, and Fleming. The last-named gentleman,
however, did not sit in the cause, because he considered himself interested
in the decision.

As the principles involved in the case were of great importance and the
property of the glebes was of much value, it may readily be supposed that
the cause excited a deep interest; and, after an elaborate argument, the
court declined then giving an opinion and held it under advisement. In
the vacation which succeeded, Judge Pendleton prepared his opinion in
writing. It was, that the Act of 1802 was unconstitutional, and that the
glebes belonged to the Protestant Episcopal Church. But, on the night
before the opinion was to have been pronounced, Judge Pendleton died;
and, as Judges Carrington and Lyons were both known to be of a similar
opinion, the judgment of the court, but for the death of its President,
would have been rendered on the next day for the Church.

After the death of Judge Pendleton, Judge Tucker was appointed to
succeed him, and the cause was again argued. The grounds taken were
briefly these:—On the part of the defendants it was argued:—1. That if
the Church had power to hold the glebes before the American Revolution,
that event destroyed such power; and, upon a dissolution of the former
political system, the glebes devolved upon the Commonwealth.

To this it was answered that, by various legislative acts adopted after the
change in government, the very framers of the Constitution who adopted these
acts conclusively showed that they did not suppose the Revolution had destroyed

the Church: thus, on the very day after the declaration of independence,
the Convention of Virginia altered the Book of Common Prayer, to
accommodate it to the change of affairs; and it should here be added that
Judges Carrington and Lyons—both of whom were members of the Convention
of Virginia—declared in their opinion that the destruction of the
Church was not supposed at the time to have resulted from the change
of government. It was also answered that revolutions are intended to
preserve rights, not to take them away; and that alterations in the form
of a government do not affect the rights of private property.

2. It was urged that a distinction obtains between a natural person and
an artificial body, such as a corporation; that even admitting the rights
of the first to be unmolested by a revolution, yet the rights of the latter
are thereby lost.

In reply it was said that, as all property was matter of civil institution,
and the right to it was not natural, but in all cases created by law, the ground
on which private property was held sacred applied as forcibly to a society
as it did to an individual.

3. It was argued that the Church, as a society, lost its corporate existence
by the Revolution: first, because the King—one of its integral
parts—was gone; secondly, because incorporated religious societies were
contrary to the sixteenth article of the Bill of Rights; and, thirdly, because
the profits of the glebes were emoluments, which were forbidden by the
fourth article.

It was answered that neither of these positions was true.

1. The King never was an integral part of the Established Church, even
in England; but, if he were, then a society is not destroyed by the removal
of one of its parts, provided enough be left to carry on its operations.

2. The sixteenth article of the Bill of Rights relates simply to the rights
of conscience and the mutual charities due from man to man.[6]

3. The fourth article does not relate to property at all, but to emoluments
and privileges subsequently to be created in favour of the great
officers of government, and refers to magistrates, legislators, and judges
only.

Upon the second argument, Judges Carrington and Lyons still retained
their former opinion; Judge Tucker concurred in opinion with Judge
Roane that the Act of 1802 was constitutional, and that the glebes might
be sold; while Judge Fleming, who was known to agree with Judges
Carrington and Lyons, still declined, for the reason before given, to sit in
the case. Thus the court was equally divided, and, of course, the decree

below, from which an appeal had been taken, was affirmed; though it has
never yet been determined by a majority of the Court of Appeal in Virginia
that the law of 1802 is constitutional.

No. IX.

Opinion and Judgment of the Supreme Court written and delivered
by Judge Story in the case of the Fairfax Glebe
Question and in contradiction to the Decision of the Virginia
Courts.

[It is not known whether the decision was unanimous, or by what majority
it passed. Chief-Justice Marshall was in favour of it, but requested
Judge Story to draw up the opinion.]

Other considerations arising in this case, material to the title, on which
relief must be founded, render an inquiry into the character and powers
of the Episcopal Church indispensable.

At a very early period the religious establishment of England seems to
have been adopted in the Colony of Virginia; and, of course, the common
law upon that subject, so far as it was applicable to the circumstances of
that Colony. The local division into parishes for ecclesiastical purposes
can be very early traced; and the subsequent laws enacted for religious
purposes evidently presuppose the existence of the Episcopal Church with
its general rights and authorities growing out of the common law. What
those rights and authorities are need not be minutely stated. It is
sufficient that, among other things, the Church was capable of receiving
endowments of land, and that the minister of the parish was, during his
incumbency, seised of the freehold of its inheritable property, as emphatically
personia ecclesiæ, and capable, as a sole corporation, of transmitting
that inheritance to his successors. The churchwardens, also, were a corporate
body clothed with authority and guardianship over the repairs of
the Church and its temporal property; and the other temporal concerns of
the parish were submitted to a vestry, composed of persons selected for
that purpose. In order more effectually to cherish and support religious
institutions, and to define the authorities and rights of the Episcopal officers,
the Legislature from time to time enacted laws on this subject. By
the statutes of 1661, ch. 1, 2, 3, 10, and 1667, ch. 3, provision was made
for the erection and repairs of churches and chapels of ease; for the laying
out of glebes and church-lands, and the building of a dwelling-house for
the minister; for the making of assessments and trades for these and other
parochial purposes; for the appointment of churchwardens to keep the

church in repair, and to provide books, ornaments, &c.; and, lastly, for
the election of a vestry of twelve persons by the parishioners, whose duty
it was, by these and subsequent statutes, among other things, to make and
proportion levies and assessments, and to purchase glebes and erect dwelling-houses
for the ministers in each respective parish. See statute 1696 ch. 11;
1727, ch. 6; and 1748, ch. 28.—2 Tucker's Blackst. Com. App. note M.

By the operation of these statutes and the common law, the lands thus
purchased became vested, either directly or beneficially, in the Episcopal
Church. The minister for the time-being was seised of the freehold, in
law or in equity, jure ecclesiæ, and during a vacancy the fee remained in
abeyance, and the profits of the parsonage were to be taken by the parish
for their own use.—Co. Lit. 340, b; 341, 342, b. 2 Mass. R. 500.

Such were some of the rights and powers of the Episcopal Church at the
time of the American Revolution; and under the authority thereof the purchase
of the lands stated in the bill before the court was undoubtedly made.
And the property so acquired by the Church remained unimpaired, notwithstanding
the Revolution; for the statute of 1776, ch. 2, completely confirmed
and established the rights of the Church to all its lands and other property.

The statute of 1784, ch. 88, proceeded yet further. It expressly made
the minister and vestry, and, in case of a vacancy, the vestry of each
parish respectively, and their successors forever, a corporation by the
name of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in the parish where they respectively
resided, to have, hold, use, and enjoy, all the glebes, churches,
and chapels, burying-grounds, books, plate, and ornaments, appropriated to
the use of, and every other thing the property of, the late Episcopal Church,
to the sole use and benefit of the corporation. The same statute also provided
for the choice of new vestries, and repealed all former laws relating
to vestries and churchwardens and to the support of the clergy, &c., and
dissolved all former vestries; and gave the corporation extensive powers as
to the purchasing, holding, aliening, repairing, and regulating the Church
property. This statute was repealed by the statute of 1786, ch. 12, with
a proviso saving to all religious societies the property to them respectively
belonging, and authorizing them to appoint, from time to time, according
to the rules of their sect, trustees, who should be capable of managing
and applying such property to the religious use of such societies; and the
statute of 1788, ch. 47, declared that the trustees appointed in the several
parishes to take care of and manage the property of the Protestant Episcopal
Church, and their successors, should, to all intents and purposes, be considered
as the successors to their former vestries, with the same powers of
holding and managing all the property formerly vested in them. All these
statutes, from that of 1776, ch. 2, to that of 1788, ch. 47, and several
others, were repealed by the statute of 1798, ch. 9, as inconsistent with
the principles of the Constitution and of religious freedom. And by the
statute of 1801, ch. 5, (which was passed after the District of Columbia
was finally separated from the States of Maryland and Virginia,) the Legislature

asserted their right to all the property of the Episcopal churches
in the respective parishes of the State; and, among other things, directed
and authorized the overseers of the poor, and their successors, in each
parish wherein any glebe-land was vacant or should become so, to sell the
same, and appropriate the proceeds to the use of the poor of the parish.

It is under this last statute that the bill charges the defendants (who
are overseers of the poor of the parish of Fairfax) with claiming a title to
dispose of the land in controversy.

This summary view of so much of the Virginia statutes as bears directly
on the subject in controversy presents not only a most extraordinary diversity
of opinion in the Legislature, as to the nature and propriety of aid
in the temporal concerns of religion, but the more embarrassing consideration
of the constitutional character and efficacy of those laws touching the
rights and property of the Episcopal Church.

It is conceded on all sides, that at the Revolution the Episcopal Church
no longer retained its character as an exclusive religious establishment.
And there can be no doubt that it was competent to the people and to the
Legislature to deprive it of its superiority over other religious sects, and to
withhold from it any support by public taxation. But, although it may
be true that "religion can be directed only by reason and conviction, not
by force or violence," and that "all men are equally entitled to the free
exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience," as the Bill of
Rights of Virginia declares, yet it is difficult to perceive how it follows, as
a consequence, that the Legislature may not enact laws more effectually to
enable all sects to accomplish the great objects of religion by giving them
corporate rights for the management of their property, and the regulation
of their temporal as well as spiritual concerns. Consistently with the Constitution
of Virginia, the Legislature could not create or continue a religious
establishment which should have exclusive rights and prerogatives; or
compel the citizens to worship under a stipulated form or discipline, or to
pay taxes to those whose creed they could not conscientiously believe.
But the free exercise of religion cannot be justly deemed to be restrained
by aiding with equal attention the votaries of every sect to perform their
own religious duties, or by establishing funds for the support of ministers,
for public charities, for the endowment of churches, or for the sepulture of
the dead. And that these purposes could be better secured and cherished
by corporate powers cannot be doubted by any person who has attended to
the difficulties which surround all voluntary associations. While, therefore,
the Legislature might exempt the citizens from a compulsory attendance
and payment of taxes in support of any particular sect, it is not perceived
that either public or constitutional principles required the abolition of all
religious corporations.

Be, however, the general authority of the Legislature as to the subject
of religion as it may, it will require other arguments to establish the position
that, at the Revolution, all the public property acquired by the Episcopal

churches under the sanction of the laws became the property of the
State. Had the property thus acquired been originally granted by the
State, or the King, there might have been some colour (and it would have
been but a colour) for such an extraordinary pretension. But the property
was, in fact and in law, generally purchased by the parishioners or acquired
by the benefactions of pious donors. The title thereto was indefeasibly
vested in the churches, or rather in their legal agents. It was not
in the power of the Crown to seize or assume it, nor of the Parliament
itself to destroy the grants, unless by the exercise of a power the most arbitrary,
oppressive, and unjust, and endured only because it could not be
resisted. It was not forfeited; for the churches had committed no offence.
The dissolution of the regal government no more destroyed the right to
possess or enjoy this property, than it did the right of any other corporation
or individual to his or its own property. The dissolution of the form
of government did not involve in it a dissolution of civil rights, or an
abolition of the common law, under which the inheritances of every man
in the State were held. The State itself succeeded only to the rights of the
Crown, and, we may add, with many a flower of prerogative struck from
its hands. It has been asserted, as a principle of the common law, that
the division of an empire creates no forfeiture of previously-vested rights
of property. Kelly v. Harrison, 2 John. C. 29. Jackson v. Lunn, 3 John.
C. 109. Calvin's Case, 8 Co. 27. And this principle is equally consonant
with the common sense of mankind and the maxims of eternal justice.

Nor are we able to perceive any sound reason why the Church lands
escheated or devolved upon the State by the Revolution any more than
the property of any other corporation created by the royal bounty or established
by the Legislature. The Revolution might justly take away the
public patronage, the exclusive cure of souls, and the compulsive taxation
for the support of the Church. Beyond these we are not prepared to admit
the justice or the authority of legislation.

It is not, however, necessary to rest this cause upon the general doctrines
already asserted; for, admitting that by the Revolution the Church
lands devolved on the State, the statute of 1776, ch. 2, operated as a new
grant and confirmation thereof to the use of the Church.

If the Legislature possessed the authority to make such a grant and
confirmation, it is very clear to our minds that it vested an indefeasible and
irrevocable title. We have no knowledge of any authority, or principle,
which could support the doctrine that a legislative grant is revocable in
its own nature, and held only durante bene placito. Such a doctrine would
uproot the very foundations of almost all the land-titles in Virginia, and
is utterly inconsistent with a great and fundamental principle of a republican
government,—the right of the citizens to the free enjoyment of their
property legally acquired.

It is asserted by the Legislature of Virginia, in 1798 and 1801, that this
statute was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights and Constitution of that State,

and therefore void. Whatever weight such a declaration might properly
have as the opinion of wise and learned men, as a declaration of what the
law has been or is, it can have no decisive authority. It is, however, encountered
by the opinions successively given by former Legislatures, from
the earliest existence of the Constitution itself, which were composed of
men of the very first rank for talents and learning. And this opinion, too,
is not only a contemporaneous exposition of the Constitution, but has the
additional weight that it was promulgated or acquiesced in by a great majority,
if not the whole, of the very framers of the Constitution. Without
adverting, however, to the opinions on the one side or the other, for the
reasons which have been already stated, and others which we forbear to
press, as they would lead to too prolix and elementary an examination,
we are of opinion that the statute of 1776, ch. 2, is not inconsistent with
the Constitution or Bill of Rights of Virginia. We are prepared to go yet
further, and to hold that the statutes of 1784, ch. 88, and 1785, ch. 37,
were no infringement of any rights secured, or intended to be secured,
under the Constitution, either civil, political, or religious.

How far the statute of 1786, ch. 12, repealing the statute of 1784, ch.
88, incorporating the Episcopal churches, and the subsequent statutes in
furtherance thereof of 1788, ch. 47 and ch. 53, were consistent with the
principles of civil right or the Constitution of Virginia, is a subject of much
delicacy, and perhaps not without difficulty. It is observable, however,
that they reserve to the churches all their corporate property, and authorize
the appointment of trustees to manage the same. A private corporation
created by the Legislature may lose its franchises by a misuser or a nonuser
of them; and they may be resumed by the Government under a judicial
judgment upon a quo warranto to ascertain and enforce the forfeiture.
This is the common law of the land, and is a tacit condition annexed to
the creation of every such corporation. Upon a change of government,
too, it may be admitted, that such exclusive privileges attached to a private
corporation as are inconsistent with the new Government may be
abolished. In respect, also, to public corporations, which exist only for
public purposes, such as counties, towns, cities, &c., the Legislature may,
under proper limitations, have a right to change, modify, enlarge, or restrain
them; securing, however, the property for the uses of those for
whom and at whose expense it was originally purchased. But that the
Legislature can repeal statutes creating private corporations, or confirming
to them property already acquired under the faith of previous laws, and
by such repeal can vest the property of such corporations exclusively in
the State, or dispose of the same to such purposes as they may please,
without the consent or default of the corporators, we are not prepared to
admit. And we think ourselves standing upon the principles of natural
justice, upon the fundamental laws of every free government, upon the
spirit and the letter of the Constitution of the United States, and upon the
decisions of most respectable judicial tribunals, in resisting such a doctrine.

The statutes of 1798, ch. 9, and of 1801, ch. 5, are not, therefore, in our
judgment, operative so far as to divest the Episcopal Church of the property
acquired, previous to the Revolution, by purchase or by donation.
In respect to the latter statute, there is this further objection, that it passed
after the District of Columbia was taken under the exclusive jurisdiction
of Congress, and, as to the corporations and property within that District,
the right of Virginia to legislate no longer existed. And as to the statute
of 1798, ch. 9, admitting it to have the fullest operation, it merely repeals
the statutes passed respecting the Church since the Revolution; and, of
course, it left in full force all the statutes previously enacted, so far as they
were not inconsistent with the present Constitution. It left, therefore, the
important provisions of the statutes of 1661, 1696, 1727, and 1748, so far
as respected the title to the Church lands, in perfect vigour, with so much
of the common law as attached upon these rights.

Let us now advert to the title set up by the plaintiffs in the present bill.
Upon inspecting the deed, which is made a part of the bill, and bears date
in 1770, the land appears to have been conveyed to the grantees as churchwardens
of the parish of Fairfax, and to their successors in that office forever.
It is also averred in the bill that the plaintiffs, together with two of
the defendants, (who are churchwardens,) are the vestry of the Protestant
Episcopal Church, commonly called the Episcopal Church of Alexandria,
in the parish of Fairfax, and that the purchase was made by the vestry
of said parish and church, to whom the present vestry are the legal and
regular successors in the said vestry; and that the purchase was made for
the use and benefit of the said church in the said parish. No statute of
Virginia has been cited which creates churchwardens a corporation for
the purpose of holding lands; and at common law their capacity was
limited to personal estate. 1 B. C. 394 Bro. Corp. 77, 84. 1 Roll. Abr.
393, 4, 10. Com Dig. tit. Esglise, F. 3. 12 H. 7, 27, b. 13 H. 7, 9, b.
27 H. 6, 30. 1 Burns's Eccles. Law, 290. Gibs. 215. It would seem,
therefore, that the present deed did not operate by way of grant to convey
a fee to the churchwardens and their successors; for their successors, as
such, could not take; nor to the churchwardens in their natural capacity,
for "heirs" is not in the deed. But the covenant of general warranty in
the deed binding the grantors and their heirs forever, and warranting the
land to the churchwardens and their successors forever, may well operate
by way of estoppel to confirm to the Church and its privies the perpetual
and beneficial estate in the land.

One difficulty presented on the face of the bill was, that the Protestant
Episcopal Church of Alexandria was not directly averred to be the same
corporate or unincorporate body as the church and parish of Fairfax, or
the legal successors thereto, so as to entitle them to the lands in controversy.
But upon an accurate examination of the bill, it appears that the purchase
was made by the vestry "of the said parish and church" "for the use and
benefit of the said church in the said parish." It must, therefore, be taken

as true that there was no other Episcopal church in the parish; and that
the property belonged to the Church of Alexandria, which, in this respect.
represented the whole parish. And there can be no doubt that the Episcopal
members of the parish of Fairfax have still, notwithstanding a separation
from the State of Virginia, the same rights and privileges as they
originally possessed in relation to that church while it was the parish,
church of Fairfax.

The next consideration is, whether the plaintiffs, who are vestrymen,
have, as such, a right to require the lands of the church to be sold in the
manner prayed for in the bill. Upon the supposition that no statutes
passed since the Revolution are in force, they may be deemed to act under
the previous statutes and the common law. By those statutes the vestry
were to be appointed by the parishioners "for the making and proportioning
levies and assessments for building and repairing the churches and
chapels, provision for the poor, maintenance of the minister, and such
other necessary purposes, and for the more orderly managing all parochial
affairs;" out of which vestry the minister and vestry were yearly to choose
two churchwardens. As incident to their office of general guardians of the
church, we think they must be deemed entitled to assert the rights and
interests of the church. But the minister also, having the freehold, either
in law or in equity, during his incumbency, in the lands of the church, is
entitled to assert his own rights as persona ecclesiæ. No alienation, therefore,
of the church lands can be made either by himself, or by the parishioners,
or their authorized agents, without the mutual consent of both.
And therefore we should be of opinion, that, upon principle, no sale ought
to be absolutely decreed, unless with the consent of the parson, if the
church be full.

If the statute of 1784, ch. 88, be in force for any purpose whatsoever,
it seems to us that it would lead to a like conclusion. If the repealing
statute of 1786, ch. 12, or the statute of 1788, ch. 47, by which the Church
property was authorized to be vested in trustees chosen by the Church, and
their successors, be in force for any purpose whatsoever, then the allegation
of the bill that the plaintiffs "have, according to the rules and regulations
of their said society, been appointed by the congregation vestrymen and
trustees of the said church," would directly apply and authorize the plaintiffs
to institute the present bill. Still, however, it appears to us that in
case of a plenarty of the Church, no alienation or sale of the Church lands
ought to take place without the assent of the minister, unless such assent
be expressly dispensed with by some statute.

On the whole, the majority of the court are of opinion that the land in
controversy belongs to the Episcopal Church of Alexandria, and has not
been divested by the Revolution, or any Act of the Legislature passed since
that period; that the plaintiffs are of ability to maintain the present bill;
that the overseers of the poor of the parish of Fairfax have no just, legal,
or equitable title to the said land, and ought to be perpetually enjoined

from claiming the same; and that a sale of the said land ought, for the
reasons stated in the bill, to be decreed, upon the assent of the minister
of said church (if any there be) being given thereto; and that the present
churchwardens and the said James Wren ought to be decreed to convey
the same to the purchaser; and the proceeds to be applied in the manner
prayed for in the bill.

The decree of the circuit court is to be reformed, so as to conform to this
opinion.

No. X.

John Randolph's Recantation.

Mr. John Randolph, of Roanoke, was at one time deeply impressed
with religion, and in a pious frame of mind revised his copy of Gibbon's
History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which he had filled
with notes approving the deistical views of the historian. These notes,
or most of them, he obliterated, and on the celebrated fifteenth chapter, in
which the historian gives an account of the rise of Christianity, on either
side of the text of several pages, he wrote the following remarks, which I
now copy for you from the book before me:—

"When the pencilled notes to this and the succeeding chapter were
written, (and, indeed, all the notes, one excepted in volume tenth, page —,)
the writer was an unhappy young man, deluded by the sophisms of infidelity.
Gibbon seemed to rivet what Hume and Hobbes and Bolingbroke
and Voltaire, &c. had made fast, and Satan—i. e. the evil principle in our
(fallen) nature—had cherished; but—praised be His Holy name!—God sent
the sense of sin and the arrow of the angel of Death, `unless ye repent,'
straight to his heart, and with it came the desire of belief; but the hard
heart of unbelief withstood a long time, and fear came upon him and waxed
great, and brought first resignation to his will, and after much refractoriness,
(God be praised, but never sufficiently, that he bore with the frowardness
of the child of sin, whose wages is death,) after a longer course
of years, more than the servitude of Jacob for Rachel, God in his good
time sent the pardon and the peace which passeth in the love which struck
out fear. Allelujah."

The above is a true transcript from the original pencilled remarks of Mr.
Randolph. His copy of Gibbon is in twelve volumes, printed in Dublin
in 1784. The book belonged to Richard Randolph, the elder brother of
John, and has Richard's name in it, with the endorsement "Matoax,
1790."

No. XI.

The Rev. David Mossom's Epitaph on his Tombstone, at St.
Peter's Church, New Kent.

M. S.

Reverendus David Mossom prope Jacet,

Collegii St. Joannis Cantabrigiæ olim Alumnus,

Hujus Parochiæ Rector Annos Quadraginta.

Omnibus Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ Presbyteriis

Inter Americanos Ordine Presbyteratus Primus;

Literaturâ Paucis Secundus.

Qui tandem Senio et Mœrore confectus

Ex variis rebus arduis quas in hac vita perpessus est,

Mortisq: in dies memor, ideo virens et valens,

Sibi hunc sepulturæ locum posuit et elegit,

Uxoribus Elizabetha et Maria quidem juxta sepultis

Ubi requiescat, donec resuscitatus ad vitam Eternam

Per Jesum Christum salvatorem nostrum.

Qualis erat, indicant illi quibus bene notus

Superstiles

Non hoc sepulchrale saxum.

{ Londini Natus 25 Martii 1690.

Obiit 4° Janii. 1767.

No. XII.

The Ellis Family.

[In my article on Amherst I omitted any special notice of my old friend
Mr. Richard Ellis, of Pedlar Mills or Red Hill.

The following communication from our worthy fellow-citizen, Mr.
Thomas Ellis, of Richmond, will more than compensate for the omission.]

[The following letter, from the Rev. Mr. Caldwell, will be read with
interest by all who were acquainted with Mr. Richard Ellis, of Red Hill,
and his estimable family.]

No. XIII.

The Baylor Family.

[The following account has been furnished me by a member of the same.]

John Baylor the elder, and first of the name who came to the New
World, was born at Tiverton, in England, where, from old Sellers, we learn
that he was related to the Freres, Courtenays, Tuckers, Hedjers, Nortons,
and others. His son John was born in 1650, and, emigrating to Virginia,
was followed by his father, a very old man. He settled in Gloucester
county, and was married to Lucy Tod O'Brien, of New Kent, in 1698.
Large grants of land had been made to father and son in various parts of
the Colony, and the latter, being of an enterprising character, embarked
extensively in mercantile schemes, by which a large fortune for that day
was amassed,—the inventory of his personal effects amounting to £6500.
The books kept at his various counting-houses in Gloucester, King and
Queen, and New Kent, from 1692 to 1722, are preserved, and not only
attest his method and exactness, but afford an interesting comparison.
The relative value of some articles of merchandise then and now is
worthy of note. We find nails at four shillings sixpence per pound,
cotton at one shilling sixpence per yard; and a Madagascar boy, "from on
board ship Tiverton," in one place, is charged to Thomas Randolph at £6,
and another at £10. Mention is made of between six and ten ships,
belonging to him, at different times, engaged in trading with the Old
World. To John Baylor the second and Lucy his wife were born two
children,—John, on the 12th of May, 1705, and another whose fortunes
we have no means of following. The Essex family of the same name
originate here. John, the third of the name, married Lucy Walker at
Yorktown, the 2d of January, 1744, several sons and daughters being the
issue of this marriage. A sister of Lucy Walker married, at the same
time and place, John Norton, of London, of whom we shall have occasion
to speak hereafter. John the third (Colonel Baylor) was with Washington
at Winchester. He represented the county of Caroline in the House
of Burgesses from about 1740 to 1760. A list of the votes at one
election is extant, and reveals his extensive popularity, as he received
every vote in the county save one. Colonel Baylor moved to New Market—
then King and Queen—in 1726, and occupied a grant of land which was
made by Robert Tronsdale in behalf of the King the year before. This
paper is also preserved. The year following Caroline was formed, and
New Market remains in possession of the family, from which it has never
been alienated. Extravagance and folly, unfortunately, leave few such
instances of successive proprietorship, in the State, for so long a time.
The Episcopal church at the Bowling Green was built by Colonel Baylor,
and other gentlemen, between 1640 and 1660, where the family continued

to worship until the death of the Rev. Mr. Waugh, after which time the
church had no minister and the building, like many others in Virginia,
was destroyed and the materials devoted to secular purposes. Colonel
Baylor held several commissions, one of which, constituting him Lieutenant
of the county of Orange, signed by Robert Dinwiddie at Williamsburg in
1752, is in the possession of the family. He too, like his father, was a
man of great energy. New Market was in his time celebrated for a large
and generous hospitality. John, the eldest son of Colonel Baylor, fourth
of the name herein mentioned, was born at New Market on the 4th
of September, 1750; was sent at twelve years of age to Putney Grammar-School,
from which he was removed to Cambridge, and was a classmate
and associate of Mr. Wilberforce. While in Europe, the Letters of Junius
appeared, and, for some reason, he felt so deep an interest, either in the
subject, style, or authorship, as to transcribe them as they were published,—
the manuscript being now in a perfect state of preservation. The performance
of a task so laborious as that involved in the copying of these
famous letters from the Public Advertiser as they appeared, the numbers
of which could have been as well preserved, presents a puzzle which
has exercised the minds of his descendants to this day. This John Baylor
the fourth was married, while in England, to Fanny, his cousin, only
daughter of John and Courtenay Norton, of Gould Square, London, and
returned to Virginia. They were followed by the brothers of Mrs. Baylor,
John Hatley, George, and Daniel Norton, who married in Virginia, leaving
issue. Several of their descendants have devoted their lives to the
ministry. The Rev. John H. Norton, of Fauquier, is one of them. George,
the second son of Colonel Baylor and Fanny Walker, was born at New
Market the 12th of January, 1752. He was aid to General Washington
at the battle of Trenton, and enjoyed the honour of presenting the colours
then taken to the Congress at Philadelphia, and would doubtless have
filled a large space in the stirring history of the times, had not a bayonet-wound
through the chest, in a night-skirmish a short time after, disabled
him so as to unfit him for the service. He died of pulmonary disease,
from this injury, in Barbadoes in 1784. The regiment of horse which
bore his name sprung into existence from his patriotic exertions and
from the pecuniary aid of his elder brother, which was freely given.

Colonel George Baylor married, at Mansfield, Lucy Page, daughter of
Mann Page, Esq., by whom he had one son,—John W. Baylor. Mrs. Baylor,
widow of Colonel George Baylor, was married a second time, to Colonel
N. Burwell, of Millwood, Frederick county, Virginia. Walker, fourth
son of Colonel Baylor, was a captain in the Revolutionary army. He was
also disabled, by a spent ball, which crushed his instep, at Germantown or
Brandywine, which made him a cripple for life. He married Miss Bledsoe,
and left several sons and daughters, one of whom—Judge R. E. B.
Baylor—is now alive and is a prominent citizen of Texas. Robert, fourth
son of Colonel Baylor, married Miss Gwinn, of Gwinn's Island. Lucy,

third daughter of Colonel Baylor, was married to Colonel John Armistead,
17th of March, 1764. The sons by this marriage were all endued with
martial spirit. Lewis was killed in battle in Canada; George defended
Baltimore when attacked by the British in the war of 1812; and two
other brothers occupied distinguished rank in the army of their country.
John and Fanny Norton resided at New Market, and were the parents of
two sons and five daughters, who intermarried with the Claytons, Upshaws,
Foxes, Roys, &c. John Walker Baylor also left children. The
Brents and Horners belong to this branch.

John Roy Baylor, of New Market, Caroline county.

No. XIV.

The Peyton Family.

[The following limited account of this family has been sent me by a
friend. In the civil and ecclesiastical lists the name may be found at an
early day.]

John Peyton, Esq., of Stafford county, Virginia, who died in 1760,
was twice married. By his first wife his children were Yelverton, Henry,
and Ann Waye. By the second wife they were John Rowzee, and Valentine.

1. Yelverton had four sons and four daughters. One of the daughters—
Elizabeth—married her cousin, John Peyton Harrison; and Catherine
married Captain William Bronaugh, of Stafford, who moved to Kanawha
and is the father of a numerous family, the most of whom now live in
Missouri.

Of the sons of Yelverton, Henry was a pious Methodist preacher, and
married a Miss Brent, of Fauquier; and another of his sons—Colonel
Samuel Peyton—was the father of Yelverton, William, and Henry, all of
whom were talented and pious ministers of the Methodist Church, and
died young, leaving each one child.

2. Henry, the second son of John Peyton, married a Miss Fowke, and
resided near the Plains, in Fauquier county. He was a pious member of
the Episcopal Church. One of his sons—Dr. Chandler Peyton—married
Eliza B. Scott, the eldest daughter of the Rev. John Scott; and another
son—Yelverton—married Margaret, the youngest daughter of the Rev. Mr.
Scott. She, after his death, married Mr. Charles Lee, and then Mr.
Glassell.

3. Ann Waye, the daughter of John Peyton, married Mr. Thomas
Harrison, of Stafford. She had a son named John Peyton Harrison, who

married his cousin, Elizabeth Peyton, and has left many descendants; and
another son—Thomas—who was an Episcopal minister and the father of
Philip Harrison, Esq., late of Richmond.

4. John Rowzee, the third son of John Peyton, was the father of John
Howard Peyton, of Staunton, of General Bernard Peyton, of Richmond,
and of Mr. Rowzee Peyton, who has moved to the State of New York.

5. Doctor Valentine Peyton, the fourth son of John Peyton, resided at
the family seat, Tusculum, in Stafford, and was the father of Mrs. John
Conway, of Stafford Court-House, and Mrs. Chichester, who resides near
the Falls Church, in Fairfax county, and of many others.

No. XV.

Ministers and Vestrymen of St. Stephen's and Wicomico
Parishes, Northumberland.

[To the diligence of the Rev. Edmund Withers, minister of Lancaster
county, I am indebted for the following lists, taken from an old vestrybook
recently discovered by him.]

MINISTERS OF ST. STEPHEN'S (CALLED UPPER AND LOWER) PARISH,
NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY.

                               

March 20, 1712,	Rev. John Span,	to	1722.
October 23, 1723,	Rev. John Bell, for eight sermons at 450 pounds tobacco a-piece.
1723,	Rev. Lawrence De Butts,	to	1726.
1724,	Rev. Mr. Lecharcey, for two sermons, 600 pounds tobacco.
1726,	Rev. John Blacknall.
1727,	Rev. William Wye,	to	1731.
1731,	Rev. Francis Peart,	to	1742.
1742,	Rev. Henry Christall,	to	1743.
1743,	Rev. Moses Robertson,	to	—
—	Rev. David Morthland,	to	1754.
1754,	Rev. Thomas Smith,	to	1758.
1758,	Rev. James Crague,	to	—
1758,	Rev. Adam Minzies,	to	1767.
1767,	Rev. Benjamin Sebastian,	to	1777.
1779,	Rev. Thomas Davis,	to	1786.
1792,	Rev. Thomas Andrews	to	1794

VESTRYMEN OF ST. STEPHEN'S PARISH, (UPPER AND LOWER,)
NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY.

                                                                                                                                 

1712.	Col. Peter Hack,
	Capt. Christopher Neale,
	Capt. John Cralle,
	Mr. John Clughton,
	Mr. Richard Hull,
	Capt. Richard Hews,
	Capt. Francis Kenner,
	Mr. Edward Coles.
1714.	Mr. Griffin Fantleroy,
	Capt. Richard Span,
	Mr. John Opie,
	Mr. David Straughan.
1716.	Col. Peter Presley.
1720.	Capt. Edward Sanders,
	Mr. Thomas Hughlett,
	Mr. Thomas Cralle.
1721.	Capt. Richard Kenner.
1724.	Mr. John Sharpleigh,
	Mr. Samuel Bonom,
	Mr. John Lewis,
	Capt. Samuel Blackwell.
1728.	Mr. Robert Clark,
	Capt. John Waughop.
1731.	Mr. John Foushee,
	Mr. Thomas Gill,
	Mr. Matthew Kenner,
	Capt. John Hack.
1738.	Mr. Travers Colston,
	Mr. Spencer Ball
1742.	Capt. Cuthbert Span,
	Mr. Ellis Gill,
	Capt. William Taite.
1749.	Col. Presley Thornton.
1752.	Mr. Newton Keanne.
1754.	Wynder Kenner.
1758.	Parrish Garner,
	Samuel Blackwell, Jr.,
	Capt. Spencer Mottram Ball.
1763.	Mr. Kenner Cralle,
	Mr. Thomas Jones.
1770.	Mr. Rodham Kenner,
	John Williams,
	Joseph Ball,
	Edward Nelmes.
1772.	James Ball
1778.	Matthew Neale,
	William Eskridge.
1779.	Joseph Williams,
	Henry Boggess,
	Elisha Harcum,
	John Rogers,
	Abram Beacham,
	James Claughton,
	Pemberton Claughton,
	John Anderson.
1781.	Walter Jones,
	John Cottrell,
	William Nelmes,
	Peter Cox,
	Thomas Hudnall,
	Lindsey Opie,
	Daniel Muse,
	Hudson Muse,
	Joseph Hudnall.
1794.	Catesby Jones.

MINISTERS FOR WICOMICO PARISH, NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY.

         

May 15, 1770,	Rev. John Leland,	to	1791.
1791,	Rev. John Bryan,	to	1794, (expelled.)
1794,	Rev. David Ball,	to	1799.
1799,	Rev. Duncan MacNaughton,	to	—
1798,	Rev. John Seward, 50 pounds for services during this year.

VESTRYMEN OF WICOMICO PARISH, NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY.

                                                                       

1770.	John Eustace,
	Col. Thos. Gaskins,
	Capt. David Ball, Sr.,
	Capt. John Heath,
	Capt. David Ball, Jr.,
	Capt. Thos. Gaskins,
	Mr. Geo. Dameron,
	Mr. Wm. Taylor.
1772.	Mr. Chas. Coppedge,
	Col. Chas. Lee.
1775.	Mr. John Lawson,
1777.	Mr. Kendall Lee.
	Capt. Wm. Nutt,
	Mr. Thos. Edwards,
	Capt. Wm. Davenport.
1784.	Mr. Wm. Lee,
	Capt. Geo. Ingram,
	Mr. Isaac Baysie,
1784.	Mr. Thos. Hurst,
	Capt. John H. Fallin,
	Mr. Mosley Nutt,
	Onesiphorus Harvey,
	Hopkins Harding,
	David Ball,
	Richard Hudnall,
	James Sutton,
	Chas Lattimore,
	Capt. Geo. Ball.
1794.	Thos. Hurst, Jr.,
	David Palmer.
1796.	Henry L. Gaskins,
	Wm. Blackerby,
	Cyrus Harding,
	Henry Cundiff,
	Thos. W. Hughlett,
	Thos. Harvey.

No. XVI.

Extracts from Ralphe Hamor.

EDITION PRINTED AT LONDON BY JOHN BEALE, FOR WILLIAM WESLEY; DWELLING
AT THE SIGNE OF THE SWANNE, IN PAUL'S CHURCHYARD, 1615.

[Mr. Hamor was a man of high standing in the Colony. His residence
was at Bermuda Hundred, a few miles only from Henricopolis, where Sir
Thomas Dale and the Rev. Alexander Whittaker lived. He appears to
have been intimate with them both and to have partaken of their pious
spirit. It is one evidence of the estimation in which he was held, that
the severest punishment ever inflicted in the Colony was on a man who
uttered slanderous words against Mr. Hamor. Mr. Hamor's work, from
which we take the following extracts, was obtained by Mr. Conway
Robinson, of Richmond, on a late visit to England, and presented to the
Historical Society of Virginia. It is the most reliable and authentic
work on the early history of Virginia.

His religious character, and that of the age, is seen in the following
introductory passage.]

Sure, young though in years and knowledge, I may be said to be, yet
let me remember, to thee perhaps much knowing Reader, what the wisest

man that ever writ or spake (excepting him that was both God and man)
hath said, that such who bring others unto righteousnesse, shal themselves
shine as the stars in the firmament. And doubtlesse I doe beleive even
amongst the rest of my Articles, when these poore Heathens shall be
brought to entertaine the honour of the name, and glory of the Gospell
of our blessed Saviour, when they shall testifie of the true and ever-living
God, and Jesus Christ to be their salvation, their knowledge so inlarged
and sanctified, that without him they confesse their eternal death: I do
believe I say (and how can it be otherwise?) that they shal breake out and
cry with the rapture of so inexplicable mercie: Blessed be the King and
Prince of England, and blessed be the English Nation, and blessed forever
be the most high God, possessor of Heaven and earth, that sent these
English as Angels to bring such glad tidings amongst us. These will be
doubtlesse the empaticke effects and exultation of this so Christian worke,
and may these nothing move! Alas let Sanballat, and Tobiah, Papests
and Plaiers, Ammonites and Horonites, the scumme and dregges of the
people, let them mocke at this holy Businesse, they that be filthie, let
them be filthie still, and let such swine wallow in the mire, but let not
the rod of the wicked fall upon the lot of the righteous nor let them
shrinke back, and call in their helpes from this so glorious enterprise,
which the Prophet Isaiah cals, the declaring of God to the left hand, but
let them that know the worke, rejoice and be glad in the happie successe
of it, proclaiming that it is the everlasting God that raigneth in England,
and unto the ends of the world.

[The following is the true and full account of the capture of Pocahontas
by Captain Argall.]

It chaunced Powhatans delight and darling, his daughter Pocahuntas,
(whose fame hath even bin spred in England by the title of Nonparella
of Virginia,) in her princely progresse, if I may so terme it, tooke some
pleasure (in the absence of Captaine Argall) to be among her friends at
Pataomecke (as it seemeth by the relation I had) imploied thither, as
shopkeepers to a Fare, to exchange some of her fathers commodities for
theirs, where residing some three months or longer, it fortuned upon
occasion either of promise or profit, Captaine Argall to arrive there, whom
Pocahuntas, desirous to renew her familiaritie with the English, and delighting
to see them, as unknowne, fearefull perhaps to be surprised, would
gladly visit, as she did, of whom no sooner had Captaine Argall intelligence,
but he delt with an old friend, and adopted brother of his, Japazeus, how and
by what means he might procure her captive, assuring him, that now or
never, was the time to pleasure him, if he intended indeede that love which
he had made profession of, that in ransome of hir he might redeeme some of
our English men and armes, now in the possession of her Father, promising
to use her withall faire, and gentle entreaty: Japazeus well assured that
his brother, as he promised would use her curteously promised his best

indevours and secresie to accomplish his desire, and thus wrought it,
making his wife an instrument (which sex have ever bin most powerfull
in beguiling inticements) to effect his plot which hee had thus laid, he agreed
that himselfe, his wife, and Pocahuntas, would accompanie his brother to
the water side, whether come, his wife should faine a great and longing
desire to goe aboorde, and see the shippe, which being there three or
four times, before she had never seen, and should be earnest with her
husband to permit her: he seemed angry with her, making as he pretended
so unnecessary a request, especially being without the company of
women, which deniall she taking unkindly, must faine to weepe (as who
knows not that women can command teares) whereupon her husband seeming
to pity those counterfeit teares, gave her leave to goe aboord, so that
it would please Pocahuntas to accompany her: now was the greatest labour
to win her, guilty perhaps of her fathers wrongs, though not knowne as
she supposed, to goe with her, yet by her earnest perswasions, she assented:
so forthwith aboorde they went, the best cheere that could be made was
seasonably provided, to supper they went, merry on all hands, especially
Japazeus and his wife, who to express their joy, would ere be treading
upō Capt. Argalls foot, as who should say tis don, she is your own.
Supper ended, Pocahuntas was lodged in the Gunner's roome, but Japazeus
and his wife desired to have some conference with their brother, which
was onely to acquaint him by what strategem, they had betraid his prisoner,
as I have already related: after which discourse to sleepe they went, Pocahuntas
nothing mistrusting this policy, who nevertheles being most possessed
with feare, and desire of returne, was first up, and hastened Japazeus
to be gon. Capt. Argall having secretly well rewarded him, with a
small copper kettle, and some other les valuable toies so highly by him
esteemed, that doubtlesse he would have betraid his owne father for them,
permitted both him and his wife to returne, but told him, that for divers
considerations, as for that his father had then eight of our English men,
many swords, peices and other tooles, which he had at severall times by
trecherous murdering our men, taken from them, which though of no use
to him, he would not redeliver, he would reserve Pocahuntas, whereat
she began to be exceeding pensive and discontented, yet ignorant of the
dealing of Japazeus, who in outward appearance was no les discontented,
that he should be the meanes of hir captivity, much adoe there was to perswade
her to be patient, which with extraordinary curteous usage, by little
and little was wrought in her, and so to Jamestowne she was brought, a
messenger to her father forthwith despatched to advertise him that his only
daughter was in the hands and possession of the English: ther to be
kept til such time as he would ransom her with our men, swords, peices
and other tools treacherously taken from us: the news was unwelcome,
and troublesom unto him, partly for the love he bare to his daughter, and
partly for the love he bare to our men his prisoners, of whom though with
us they were unapt for any imployment, he made great use: and those
swords, and peices of ours, (which though of no use to him) it delighted
him to view and look upon.

[The following is from the account of Sir Thomas Dale's visit to
Powhatan at his residence, when he took Pocahontas with him and informed
the king of the attachment between her and Mr. Rolfe, not long
before their marriage. Mr. Hamor was of the party, and then presented
Mr. Rolfe's letter to Thomas Dale, which we have published.]

Long before this time a gentleman of approved behaviour and honest
cariage, Maister John Rolfe, had bin in love with Pocahuntas and she
with him, which thing at the instant that we were in parlee with them,
myselfe made known to Sir Thomas Dale by a letter from him, whereby
he intreated his advise and furtherance in his love, if so it seemed fit to
him for the good of the Plantation, and Pocahuntas herselfe, acquainted
her brethren therewith: which resolution Sir Thomas Dale well approving,
was the onely cause, hee was so milde amongst them, who otherwise
would not have departed their river without other conditions.

The bruite of this pretended marriage came soon to Powhatans knowledge,
a thing acceptable to him, as appeared by his sudden consent
thereunto, who some ten daies after sent an old uncle of hirs, named
Opachisco, to give her as his deputy in the church, and two of his sonnes
to see the marriage solemnized, which was accordingly done about the
fift of April, and ever since we have had friendly commerce and trade,
not onely with Powhatan himselfe but also with his subjects round about
us; so as I now see no reason why the collonie should not thrive apace.

The Attempt of Sir Thomas Dale to get another Daughter of Powhatan,
as a Surer Pledge of Peace.

It pleased Sir Thomas Dale (myselfe being much desirous before my
retourne for England,) to visit Powhatan & his court, (because I would be
able to speak somwhat thereof by mine own knowledge) to imploy myselfe,
and an English boy for my Interpreter one Thomas Salvage (who
had lived three years with Powhatan, and speakes the language naturally,
one whom Powhatan much affecteth) upon a message unto him, which
was to deale with him, if by any meanes I might procure a daughter of
his, who (Pocahuntas being already in our possession) is generally reported
to be his delight, and darling, (and surely he esteemeth her as his owne
soule) for surer pledge of peace.

No. XVII.

THE BROKENBROUGH AND FAUNTLEROY FAMILIES.

[After supposing that my work was done, a box of papers has been
sent me by a friend,[7] from which, and a brief notice by himself, I have
drawn the following particulars concerning some members of the above-mentioned
families.]

Colonel William Brokenbrough, the first of the name in Virginia of
whom we have any information, settled in Richmond county and married
a Miss Fauntleroy. The Rev. Mr. Giberne married her sister. The sons
of Colonel Brokenbrough were Austin, who married a Miss Champe,
daughter of Colonel Champe, of King George. The children of Austin
Brokenbrough were Champe, who married a Miss Bowie, of Port Royal,
and left no sons. His surviving daughters are Mrs. Thornton, Mrs.
Peyton, and Mrs. George Fitzhugh, of Port Royal. The other son of
Austin Fitzhugh was John, who became an Episcopal clergyman,—a
learned, amiable, but somewhat eccentric man. He left one son,—Austin,
—who married a daughter of the late General Brown, of the United
States Army. The daughters of the first Austin Brokenbrough were
Lucy, who married a Mr. Alexander, of King George, and, at his death,
a Captain Quarles, of Orange; Elizabeth, who married the Rev. James
Elliott; Jane, who married Mr. Thomas Pratt, of King George, and was
the mother of Mrs. William and Benjamin Grymes and Mrs. Dangerfield
Lewis, of King George. At the death of Mr. Pratt, Jane married Mr.
Taliafero, of Blenheim. Newman Brokenbrough, the second son of
Colonel William Brokenbrough, left no children. More, the third son,
was the father of the late Colonel William Brokenbrough, of Richmond
county. John, the remaining son, was the father of the late Judge William
Brokenbrough, of the Court of Appeals, Dr. John Brokenbrough,
of Richmond, President of the Bank of Virginia, Thomas Brokenbrough,
also of Richmond, Arthur Brokenbrough, of the University of
Virginia, and of Dr. Austin Brokenbrough, of Tappahannock.

The first Austin Brokenbrough, son of Colonel William, was a man
of no little notoriety in Virginia. He was in the English army with
Washington, under General Braddock, but took a very different view of
his obligation to the Crown from General Washington. He, like some of
the old clergy, thought that he was perpetually bound by his oath of allegiance
to the King. He wished, however, to remain in America, as he
had a father, brother, children, and property here. He was willing to be
passive and obey our laws, but could not unite in what he considered rebellion.

This, however, did not suit the times and Virginia, especially
the Northern Neck. In the year 1775, he sent in a petition to the Assembly,
asking leave to remain in Virginia on the terms above mentioned,
which was rejected. Nor only this, but not less than five companies of
men from Richmond, Caroline, and Westmoreland counties came to his
house, determined on some signal punishment, if not the taking of his
life, which he avoided by flying to England in a vessel about to sail from
Hobbs's Hole. His father and brother, though respecting his motives
for adhering to the Crown, joined themselves to the American party. I
have had access to a diary kept by this Austin Brokenbrough from the
time he set sail in 1775 to the time of his return at the close of the war,
and also to letters of the family. Although the diary is much mutilated,
enough remains to enable us to form a just estimate of his character and
a correct view of himself and companions in England during the war.
Some of them had been officers in the army with him, but most of them
were gentlemen from Virginia who sympathized with him. From his
diary it would seem that they had a merry time of it while in England,
especially in London, their chief place of rendezvous. But, in order to
relieve the tedium of such a state of idleness and suspense, the American
loyalists determined to form themselves into a company and offer their
services to the King in case of a threatened invasion from France. When
the time for electing officers arrived, a Lord Pepperell and John Randolph
of Virginia, brother of Speaker Randolph, were the candidates for the
captaincy. The former gained it by two votes. Major Grymes, who
married Mr. Randolph's daughter, was made ensign of the company.
The King most graciously accepted their offer. There was, however, no
need of their services. Mr. Randolph, it is said, died of a broken heart,
and made it his last request that his remains should be brought back to
Williamsburg and deposited in the College chapel, which request was
granted. Mr. Grymes also returned to Virginia. While in London the
American loyalists seem to have had a merry time of it, dining and
supping together at various inns, and having more private lodgings.
Those who approved their principles and conduct were not wanting in
hospitality to them,—especially Lord Dunmore, who either lived in London
or was often there. Among those who consorted together I find the
names not only of Randolph, Grymes, and Brokenbrough, but of Corbin,
Beverley, Maury, Brackenridge, Kirkpatrick, Wormley, Madison, Burnley,
Marshall, Norton, Gilmore, Innis, Steuart, Walker, Williamson, Richardson,
Fitch, Rhoan, Delany, Loyd, Stephenson. All of them appear to have
been Americans,—most of them Virginians. Whether they were all disaffected
to the American cause, or whether other considerations may not
have carried them thither, I know not. Mr. Brokenbrough seems to
have been intimate with them all.

Time seems to have hung heavy on Mr. Brokenbrough's hands. He
appears to have been more temperate than some of his companions, either

English or American, and more chaste in his speech, for he expresses
himself quite shocked at some things in his intercourse with them;
yet he speaks of taking two dinners at different taverns with one of them
in the same day, and again two suppers the same night, and being quite
drunk, with all the rest of his company, on one occasion. The manners
and morals of London must have been very bad at that time. Mr.
Brokenbrough exhibits a very varied character in his diary. At one
time we have a humorous parody on a passage in Shakspeare; then one
of Addison's hymns is copied into it. Now he visits the King's Chapel
in the morning, dines with a friend, and, "after bottle, goes to St.
Thomas's." Now he is in other churches, and speaks in praise of the
sermons, and now at different theatres, and with a company of ladies at
Vauxhall, all of whom, except the young ladies, drank too freely and
were vociferous.

While in Glasgow he heard the celebrated Dr. Robertson, the historian,
preach, and represents his delivery as the most inanimate and uninteresting,
though his style was good and some sentences striking. Much of
his time while in London was spent in hearing the debates in Parliament,
especially those on American affairs. He was present when Lord Chatham
delivered his last speech and fainted and was carried home. His
account of it is quite good. After spending seven years in this manner,
he becomes very desirous to return to Virginia. During his absence his
father and youngest son died, and his property was wasting away through
mismanagement and was in danger of confiscation. In the year 1782 he
came over, and we find him in a vessel at Boyd's Hole, but is advised by
his brother not to venture farther. After this he is in Charleston, S.C.
At what time he actually resettled himself in Virginia does not appear.
While at Boyd's Hole, on board the "Flag," he addresses a long letter to
Mrs. Tayloe, of Mount Airy, whose husband died during the war. The
letter is in reply to inquiries concerning some friends and relatives in
England. An extract from it will be interesting to some of my readers.

"Dear Madam:—I received your favour by my brother, and should
not have delayed returning my thanks for your kindness to my family
and benevolent wishes to myself had it not been that I am under severe
restrictions in a very small cabin. I lament the unhappy state of my
native country and the causes which separated me from my family, and
nothing is left for me but to be humbly content. It gives me pleasure
that good people and those I respect sympathize with me. The prayers
of such will, I hope, fly up to heaven. My prayers—God help me!—for
seven long years have availed nothing; yet I shall still most cordially join
them that Great Britain and America may be again cemented by mutual
interests and that an honourable peace may soon take place. Should it
be otherwise, I hope the din of war will never approach so near to Mount
Airy as to produce the least disquietude or in any manner disturb your repose.
May your son be a great comfort to you! I am told he very much

resembles your papa, and I most sincerely wish that he may emulate his
good qualities and eminent virtues. To surpass them can scarcely be expected,—that
so rarely falling to the lot of man. I cannot, dear madam,
help being highly interested in the welfare of a youth whose father always
took pleasure in rendering my family his best services,[8] and laid me
under particular obligation, and gave the most lively instances of generosity
and humanity, unsolicited, at a time when party prejudices ran high and
sorely against me, and in the moment when I was reduced to the most
lamentable and critical situation that man could be driven into."

It seems that Colonel Tayloe, though on the American side, had gone as
far as he could in behalf of Mr. Brokenbrough, and then warned him of
his danger. The brothers of Mr. Brokenbrough were decidedly American,
as is seen by their letters. The following extract from one of Mr. Newman
Brokenbrough's shows that he took a religious view of the war:—

"The direful scene of war now carried on by Britain upon this continent
is truly melancholy. No man could have thought that Englishmen
and Christians could have so far degenerated from humanity as to
be guilty of such barbarity as is acted upon the people of this continent.
The most savage race in any age of the world would blush at it. However
it may not be thought, on your side of the water, to be more severe
than the nature of the offence deserves, yet I would beg leave to observe
that people are never the sooner convinced of error by such measures,
and that it rather incites them to revenge than deters them from war.
Upon reflection we may plainly discover the cause of such calamity. The
wickedness and impiety of the present profligate age requires an iron rod
for chastisement. You are now in a country where iniquity abounds,
and if you won't be wilfully blind you may discover the great degeneracy
of the British nation from their ancient purity."

Mr. Austin Brokenbrough in his diary mentions one instance of this
which shocks him,—viz.: the fact that the English Government sought,
through Governor Johnson, of New York, to bribe some of the members
of the American Congress. There was a nobleness of soul in him which
revolted at this.

To the above gleanings from the fragments which have been sent me,
I must add something concerning one member of this family from personal
knowledge. With Dr. John Brokenbrough, of Richmond, President
of the Bank of Virginia, I was long and intimately acquainted. His
house was my home during many years whenever I visited Richmond,
and we freely corresponded at other times. A more amiable man is not
easily found. He took an active part in the building of the Monumental
Church, and was during Bishop Moore's life the vestryman to whom he
referred most frequently for council. And yet he was for a long time

beset with skeptical opinions, and often lamented to me the difficulty of
eradicating them. They were the result of the early teachings of Mr.
Ogilvie, who did so much injury to the youth of Virginia. Mr. Austin
Brokenbrough speaks of this gentleman in his diary as one with whom he
became acquainted in England. How he came to Virginia I am unable
to say, but he became a teacher in Tappahannock, and Dr. Brokenbrough
either was his pupil, or heard those infidel lectures which he delivered
in various parts of Virginia and which ruined so many of her young
men. I have reason to believe that these unhappy doubts ceased to
disturb the mind of Dr. Brokenbrough, and trust that he died in the true
faith of the Christian.

THE FANTLEROY FAMILY, NOW SPELLED FAUNTLEROY.

This is a very ancient and numerous family of Virginia. The name is
often found in the old vestry-books. I have not been able to get any
genealogical account of it, but Henning's "Statutes at Large" makes
frequent mention of Major Moore Fantleroy at a very early period, and I
have recently received a document of some interest, dated 1651, in which
he is one of the chief parties, which I shall present to the reader. Major
Fantleroy lived in the Northern Neck, and kept the Indians in that region
in order by his military talents. In the year 1651 he purchased a large tract
of land from one of the tribes, as the following contract shows:—

At a machcomacoi held the 4th of April, 1651, at Rappahannock,—Accopatough,
Wionance, Toskicough, Coharneittary, Pacauta, Mamogueitan,
Opathittara, Cakarell James, Minniaconaugh, Kintassa-hacr.

To all people to whom these presents shall come, both English and
Indians, know ye that I, Accopatough, the right-born and true king of
the Indians of Rappahannock Town and Townes, and of all the land thereto
belonging, do hereby, for and in consideration of ten fathom of peake and
goods, amounting to thirty arms'-length of Rohonoke already in hand
received, and for the love and affection which I the king, and all my men,
do bear unto my loving friend and brother, Moor Fantleroy, who is
likewise now immediately to go with me unto Pasbyhaies unto the governor,
and safely to convey me and my men back again hither unto Rappahannock,
for which and in consideration thereof I do hereby bargain and
sell, give, grant, and confirm, and by this present indenture have bargained,
sold, given, granted, conveyed, and fully confirmed unto the said
Fantleroy, his heirs and assigns forever, a certain p'cell of land situate,
lying, and being in two necks on the north side of Rappahannock Creek,
beginning for breadth at the southernmost branch or creek of Macaughtions
bay or run, and so up along by the side of the said river of Rappahannock,
unto a great creek or river which run—Totosha or Tanks Rappahannock
Town; for length extending easterly with its full breadth unto the
bounds of the Potowmack River at the uttermost bounds of my land. To

have, hold, and enjoy all and singular the aforesaid lands and waters, with
all and every part and parcel thereof, lying and being as aforesaid, unto
the said Fantleroy, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns forever,
so long as the sun and moon endureth, with all the appurtenances,
rights, liberties, commodities, and profits whatsoever thereunto belonging,
in as full and as ample manner as ever I, the said king, or any of my
predecessors, ever had or could have had, by for me. My heirs and successors
fully assuring the said Fantleroy, his heirs and assigns, forever peaceably
and quietly to enjoy all and every part and parcel of the said land
without any manner of lett, losses, molestations, or disturbance whatsoever
proceeding from me or any Indian or Indians whatsoever, now or
hereafter, may or shall belong unto me or any of my heirs, assigns, or
successors, hereby giving unto my said brother full power, leave, license,
and authority to punish, correct, beat, or kill any Indian or Indians
whatsoever, which shall contrary to the intent of this my act and deed
presume to molest, harm, or offer any manner of harm, wrong, injury, or
violence upon the said land, or any part of it, unto the said Fantleroy, his
heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, or any whomsoever he or they
shall seat, place, or put upon any part or parcel of the abovesaid land
hereby given, and granted, and alienated as aforesaid. In witness whereof,
and to the true and full intent and meaning is hereof, with a full knowledge
and understanding of this present act and deed, I, the said king, in the
presence of my said great men and divers others of my Indians, have
hereunto signed and sealed, the fourth day of April, one thousand six hundred
and fifty-one. Signed, sealed, and possession given by tree and turf,

Accopatough, (seal.)

John Edgecombe,

Alexander Campler,

Natha Batson,

Franc: Marsh.

This eleventh of May, one thousand six hundred and fifty-one, we,
Touweren, the great King of Rappahannock and Moratoerin, do hereby
fully ratify and confirm the above said act and deed unto our loving
brother Fantleroy, his heirs and assigns. Witness our hand and seals the
day above written.

         

Witnesses:		Touweren,	Machamap
William Foote,		(SEAL.)	(SEAL.)
Fran. Marsh,
Natha Batson
(A copy)	(Teste.)	Wilson Allen, C. G. C.

Colonel Fantleroy was probably a man of high and fearless temper. It is
on record that on a certain occasion, when he was a member of the House
of Burgesses, something occurred which greatly displeased him, and led
to such strong denunciation of the Assembly that he was expelled for
insulting its members. On the following morning, however, he was
reinstated.

The following extract from a communication from Dr. Henry Faunt Le
Roy, of Naylor's Hole, Richmond county, furnished at my request, is
added to what has been said about the Faunt Le Roys.

The family is of French origin. After their increase they became dispersed,
and, from what I can gather, had something to do with the struggles
between the Catholics and Huguenots or French Protestants. Some remained
in their native land, some crossed the Channel, and one came to America
and settled in Virginia at an early period. The last-named, Moore Faunt
Le Roy, purchased from the aborigines a very large tract of land on the
Rappahannock River, above and below the creek of the same name, and
located. How many children he had, I know not. The only written
record which I have is in an old family Bible, in which appears the name
of my great-grandfather, whose name was William. He was born in
1684, was married to Apphia Bushrod, had three sons and seven
daughters, and died in 1757. The sons were William, Moore, and John.
The first-named was my grandfather, and was born in 1713 and died in
1793. The second was born in 1716; death not mentioned. His
children moved from the Northern Neck to King and Queen, where their
descendants now live. The third was born in 1724: when he died is
not mentioned. My grandfather (who was called Colonel William Faunt
Le Roy) was twice married. By the first wife he had one daughter,
(Elizabeth,) who became the wife of Mr. Adams, of James River, after
having refused her hand to General George Washington. By his second
union (with Miss Murdock) he had seven sons and three daughters. One
married Colonel Turner, near Leedstown, another Mr. Carter, of Amherst;
a third died single. The eldest two of the sons (William and Moore)
as was customary in the good old days of the aristocracy, received the
greatest share of attention, and, in accordance with the usages of the
times, were sent to Europe (home, as it was then called) to be educated.
They were medical students at Edinburgh and Aberdeen,—one fourteen
and the other seven years. William died soon after his return. Moore
lived for some time after his return in Tappahannock, Essex county.
On account of bad health, he did not do much professionally. He died
in Charleston, S. C., in 1802, at the house of the Rev. Wm. Wilson Henry.
The youngest son but my father was very chivalrous in character, enlisted
in the Revolutionary army, and became a favourite with the commander-in-chief.
He was killed in the battle of Monmouth, N. J., in June, 1777,
on the anniversary of his natal day, aged twenty-one years. My father
(Robert) was born in 1758, and was married to Sarah Ball, a daughter of
Colonel James Ball, of Lancaster county, and had five children. His life was
marked by a great non-conformity to the world, which made him offensive
to some who did not understand him, but by those who knew him and
his motives he was highly esteemed and duly appreciated. He embraced
religion in 1806, and was a Christian in the Scripture sense of the word.

He died, peaceful and happy, on the 29th of October, 1832. His last
words were, "I want to die; come, Lord Jesus," and he entered into his
rest. "Mark the perfect man, and behold the upright, for the end of
that man is peace."

It would seem from the foregoing, and from what may be read in my
notice of Mr. Edward Ambler and his wife, and what Mr. Irving and other
writers have conjectured concerning Miss Grymes, of Middlesex, and perhaps
one other lady in the land, that General Washington in his earlier
days was not a favourite with the ladies. If the family tradition respecting
his repeated rejections be true,—for which I would not vouch,—it may
be accounted for in several ways. He may have been too modest and diffident
a young man to interest the ladies, or he was too poor at that time,
or he had not received a college or university education in England or
Virginia, or, as is most probable, God had reserved him for greater things,
—was training him up in the camp for the defence of his country. An
early marriage might have been injurious to his future usefulness.

No. XVIII.

THE BEVERLEY FAMILY.

[The following extract from a letter of Mr. William B. Beverley, of
Blandfield, Essex county, Virginia, is all I have received concerning this
widely-extended family. The reference made to what is said in Henning's
"Statutes at Large" is well worthy of attention.]

No. XIX.

THE PHILLIPS AND FOWKE FAMILIES.

[The following communication concerning two families whose names
are to be seen on the old vestry-books has been sent me by one of the
descendants.]

Mr. James Phillips (sometimes spelled Philipps) was a native of the
South of Wales. He came to this country early in the eighteenth century,
and settled in that part of Virginia known as the county of Stafford. He
married a Miss Griffin. Colonel William Phillips, their only child, was

born about the year 1746, was High-Sheriff of Stafford, and died about
the year 1797. Colonel William Phillips married Miss Elizabeth Fowke, a
daughter of Gerard Fowke, Esq., and Miss Elizabeth Dinwiddie, (Miss
Dinwiddie was a daughter of Mr. Lawrence Dinwiddie, Provost of Glasgow,
Scotland, and was a niece of Robert Dinwiddie, Governor of Virginia,)
by whom he had twelve children, six of whom are now living, the eldest
of those living (Mrs. Jones) being eighty-three, and the youngest (Colonel
William Fowke Phillips) being sixty-two, years of age. Colonel William
Fowke Phillips married his cousin, Sarah Edith Cannon, of Prince
William county, Virginia, by whom he had seven children,—Laura and
Mary Caroline, (now dead,) William Fowke, Jr., Laura E. S., (married to
Mr. Wm. B. Carr, of Loudon county, Virginia,) Dinwiddie Brazier, (married
Miss Nannie F., daughter of William Walden, Esq., of Rapp county,
Virginia,) Virginia Edith, and Roberta Gustavia. Colonel Gerard Fowke
was the first of his name who came to this country. He was Colonel in
the British army, and Gentleman of Privy Chamber to Charles I. He
came to Virginia about the time that his unfortunate monarch was beheaded.
One of his sons settled in Maryland. His son, Chandler
Fowke, Esq., settled in King George county, Virginia. He had three
sons,—Chandler, Gerard, and Richard. Chandler married a Miss Harrison,
Gerard married a Miss Dinwiddie, and Richard married a Miss
Bumbary. Their sister, Elizabeth Fowke, married a Mr. Z. Brazier, (son
of Robert Brazier, of Isle of Thanet, Kent county, England.) Chandler,
the eldest of the children, had three sons,—viz.: William, John, and
Thomas. William married his first-cousin, Jenny Fowke, of Maryland,
and John went to the South with his sister Jenny.

Mr. Gerard Fowke (the second brother) had issue also,—Chandler and
Roger, who went South, Gerard, William, (William married a Miss Bronaugh,)
Robert Dinwiddie, (Robert Dinwiddie married a Miss Peachy,)
Elizabeth, (who married Colonel William Phillips, of Stafford,) and another
daughter, (who married a Mr. Johnston, who resided in Kentucky.)
Richard Fowke, Esq. died in the army. He also left a family.

Elizabeth Brazier had a daughter,—Sarah Harrison Brazier. She
married Mr. John Cannon, son of Mr. L. Cannon, of Ireland. They left
four children,—Grandison, (now dead,) Elizabeth, (dead,) and Sarah
Edith, who married Colonel William Fowke Phillips, the present Auditor
of Treasury for the Post-Office Department. She is now dead also.

Most of those named in this short and in some respects deficient history
were members of the English and Episcopal Churches. Of the
others, two were members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and some
few were not communicants in any.

No. XX.

Further and more Accurate Information concerning Pohick
Church.

[Mr. Alfred Moss, the present clerk of Fairfax county, having carefully
examined all its records, furnishes me with the following statement. The
church at Pohick must have been completed in the year 1772, since a
certain number of its pews were sold in that year by order of the vestry.
A copy of one of the deeds is presented to the reader as probably the first
of the kind ever executed in Virginia. I have met with no hint of any
such thing in all my researches. The example was in a measure followed, a
year or two after, in Christ Church, Alexandria, as has been already stated.
It appears from the court-records that General Washington was vestryman in
1763. George Mason was elected first in 1749. Some objection was made
to him on the ground that he was not a resident in the parish, but it did
not avail. The Rev. Charles Green was the minister from 1738 until his
death in 1765. He came from Ireland, and in his will recommended his
wife to return thither. They do not appear to have had children. Mr. Moss
informs me that Payne's Church must have been built some time before
Pohick, as there is an old man now living in the neighbourhood who is
ninety-nine years old and who was baptized in it.]

This indenture, made the twenty-fourth day of February, in the year
of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-four, between the
vestry of Truro parish, in the county of Fairfax, of the one part, and
Daniel McCarty, of the same parish and county, gentleman, of the other
part: whereas, the said vestry did, on the fifth day of June, in the year
1772, order sundry pews in the new church on the upper side of Pohick
to be sold, at the laying of the next parish levy, to the highest bidder for
the benefit of the parish, pursuant to which order the said pews were sold
accordingly by the vestry at the laying of the said next parish levy, on the
20th day of November, in the same year; and the said Daniel McCarty,
party to these presents, then purchased one certain pew in the said church
for the price of fifteen pounds ten shillings current money,—to wit: the
pew numbered 14, situate on the north side of the said church, and adjoining
the north wall and the rector's pew, being the second pew above
the pulpit, as by the proceedings and records of the said vestry, reference
being thereunto had, may more fully and at large appear. Now this indenture
witnesseth that the said vestry, for and in consideration of the
said sum of fifteen pounds ten shillings current money, to them in hand
paid, for the use of the said parish, by the said Daniel McCarty, before
the sealing and delivery of these presents, the receipt whereof is hereby
confessed and acknowledged, have granted, bargained, and sold, aliened
and confirmed, and by these presents do grant, bargain, and sell, alien and

confirm, unto the said Daniel McCarty, the said pew in the said new
church lately built on the upper side of Pohick, in the said parish of Truro
and county aforesaid, numbered and situated as above mentioned, to have
and to hold the said pew above described unto the said Daniel McCarty,
his heirs and assigns, to the only proper use and behoof of him, the said
Daniel McCarty, his heirs and assigns forever. And the said vestry, for
themselves and their successors, (vestrymen of Truro parish,) do covenant
and grant to and with the said Daniel McCarty, his heirs and assigns, that
he, the said Daniel McCarty, his heirs and assigns, shall, and may forever
hereafter, peaceably and quietly have, hold, and enjoy the said pew above
mentioned and described, without the lawful let, hindrance, interruption,
or molestation of any person or persons whatsoever. In witness whereof
the vestry now present (being a majority of the members) have hereunto
set their hands and affixed their seals the day and year first above
written.

No. XXI.

The Inscription on Commissary Blair's Tombstone in the Old
Graveyard at Jamestown, furnished by Mr. Hugh Blair
Grigsby, a Descendant of Commissary Blair's Brother.

H. S. E. (Hic sepultus est)

Vir Reverendus et Honorabilis

Jacobus Blair, A.M.

In Scotia natus,

In Academia Edinburgensi nutritus,

Primo Angliam deinde Virginiam

venit:

In qua parte tenarum

Annos LVIII. Evangeli, Preconis

LIV. Commissarii

Gulielmi et Mariæ Præsidis,

e Britanniæ Principum

Consiliarii

Concilii Præsidis,

Coloniæ Prefecti,

munera sustinuit:

ornavit

um oris venusti Decus,

ate hilari sine (?) hospitali

munificent

issimo egenis largo.

omnibus comi

superavit.

Collegio bene diversam

fundaverat

ens Bibliothecam suam

id alendum Theologiæ studiosum

juventutem pauperiorem instituendam

Testamento legavit

Cal. Maii in die[9]

MDCCXLIII

ætat: LXXXVIII

am desideratissimi

Senis Laudem

is nepotibus commendabunt

pene marmore perenniora.

Here lies buried

The Reverend and the Honourable

James Blair, A.M.,

who was born in Scotland, was educated in the College of Edinburgh,
and emigrated to England, and thence to Virginia, in which Colony
he spent fifty-eight years as an Evangelist, Deacon, and Priest of the

Church of England, and fifty-four years as Commissary of the Bishop of
London.

He was the Founder and first-President of William and Mary College,
a member of the Council, and, subsequently, its President; and, as such,
in the absence of the representative of the King, the Governor of the
Colony.

He sustained his various offices with the approbation of his fellow-men,
while he illustrated in his life those graces which adorn the Christian
character.

He had a handsome person, and in the family circle blended cheerfulness
with piety.

He was a generous friend of the poor, and was prompt in lending assistance
to all who needed it.

He was a liberal benefactor of the College during his life; and, at his
death, bequeathed to it his library, with the hope that his books—which
were mostly religious—might lead the student to those things that pertain
to salvation.

He died on the — day of the Calends of May, [August, rather,] in the
year 1743, aged eighty-eight years, exhibiting to the last those graces
which make old age lovely, and lamented by all, especially by his nephews,
who have reared this stone to commemorate those virtues which will long
survive the marble that records them.

No. XXII.

Episcopal High School.

This institution, the diocesan school for boys, is situated at Howard,
in Fairfax county, three miles west of Alexandria, and within a quarter
of a mile of the Theological Seminary. The situation is perfectly healthy
at all seasons of the year, and from its elevation commands a beautiful view
of the Potomac, the cities of the District of Columbia, and the surrounding
country for many miles. The play-grounds are extensive and adorned
with trees of inviting shade. They are immediately adjoining the school,
and with the fields of the enclosure (containing about seventy acres) afford
ample room for exercise and recreation. The Potomac and other small
streams in the neighbourhood furnish opportunities for bathing and skating.
The buildings, erected expressly for the purposes of the school, are large,
furnished with every convenience for the wants of the students, and
capable of accommodating about eighty boys.

The object of the Church in establishing the High School was to provide

EPISCOPAL HIGH-SCHOOL, FAIRFAX CO., VA.

an institution of learning, where youth could be thoroughly educated on
Christian principles, and where their morals and habits could be preserved
from the dangers of evil association. Students can here fully complete their
studies; or they can be prepared for advanced classes—the junior and
senior—at any of the colleges or universities of the country; or be fitted
to enter upon the study of a profession or the active business of life.
During their entire course, the most wholesome moral and religious influences
are sought to be exercised over them.

It is a fixed and unvarying rule, that every branch taught at the school
is to be studied faithfully and well. To effect this object, every effort is
made to insure ability and faithfulness on the part of the instructors and
diligence and improvement on the part of the scholars. Great pains are
taken, by the internal regulations of the school, in each particular department,
to train the students to habits of method, neatness, and punctuality,
so important in every business or profession and so indispensable to the
comfort and convenience of individuals.

Education of the mind, however, and the formation of business-habits,
are by no means the sole or most important aim of the school. Whilst
these receive constant and proper attention, it is at all times borne in mind
that the morals and the manners of the students are by no means to be
neglected.

To make mere scholars or exact men of business is not the sole duty of
the Christian teacher. He has much nobler ends in view. No exertions
are to be spared to secure those just named; but at the same time he is to
be diligent to bring those intrusted to his care under the influence of religious
principle. He is not only to labour to make them useful men, but,
so far as in him lies, he is to endeavour to make them Christian gentlemen,—gentlemen
as well in feelings and principles as in outward conduct
and manners.

For these important ends the school was established by the trustees of
the Theological Seminary, in 1839, in obedience to a resolution of the
Diocesan Convention, and placed under the care of the Rev. William N.
Pendleton, who opened it in October of that year. The number of pupils
soon became large; and, besides superior intellectual training, the blessings
of divine grace were very richly bestowed upon them, about forty having
in the first few years made a creditable profession of religion, and some of
these having afterward entered the ministry of the Church. This prosperity
continued until the years 1843-44, when, chiefly through a general
pecuniary embarrassment, which injured almost every literary institution
in the country and ruined some, it became necessary to close the High
School for one year.

In the fall of 1845 it was reopened by the Rev. E. A. Dalrymple, who
had been appointed its rector at the Convention in May preceding, and
whose energy and skill, under the blessing of a good Providence, soon
restored it to its former prosperity. After a most laborious devotion to

his duties for about seven years, the failure of his health constrained him
to resign, leaving the institution in a condition promising permanent
success. In the summer of 1852, the Rev. John P. McGuire, its present
rector, was appointed his successor, and is now nearly at the close of his
fifth session. The number of pupils—between seventy and eighty—is
about what it has been for years; it is still among the very first as an
institution of learning; the fruits of grace are still gathered to an encouraging
extent, some twenty having been added to the Communion of the
Church during the last session, and others now expecting soon to be confirmed,—thus
in the highest sense accomplishing the purpose for which
the school was originally established.

No. XXIII.

Further Statements concerning the Religious Character of
Washington and the Question whether he was a Communicant
or not.

Extract from a letter of the Rev. Dr. Berrian, of New York, to Mrs.
Jane Washington, of Mount Vernon, in answer to some inquiries about
General Washington during his residence in New York as President of
the United States:—

To the above I can add my own testimony, having in different ways
become acquainted with the character of Major Popham, and having
visited him about the same time mentioned by Dr. Berrian.

"An anecdote I derived from Colonel Lear shortly before his death in
1816 may here be related, showing the height to which his [General
Washington's] passion would rise, yet be controlled. It belongs to his
domestic life which I am dealing with, having occurred under his own
roof, whilst it marks public feeling the most intense and points to the
moral of his life. I give it in Colonel Lear's words as nearly as I can,
having made a note of them at the time.

Toward the close of a winter's day in 1791, an officer in uniform was
seen to dismount in front of the President's in Philadelphia, and, giving
the bridle to his servant, knock at the door of his mansion. Learning
from the porter that the President was at dinner, he said he was on public
business and had despatches for the President. A servant was sent into

the dining room to give the information to Mr. Lear, who left the table
and went into the hall, when the officer repeated what he had said. Mr.
Lear replied that, as the President's secretary, he would take charge of
the despatches and deliver them at the proper time. The officer made
answer that he had just arrived from the Western army, and his orders
were to deliver it with all promptitude, and to the President in person;
but that he would wait his directions. Mr. Lear returned, and in a whisper
imparted to the President what had passed. General Washington rose
from the table and went to the officer. He was back in a short time and
made a word of apology for his absence, but no allusion to the cause of it.
He had company that day. Every thing went on as usual. Dinner over,
the gentlemen passed into the drawing-room of Mrs. Washington, which
was open in the evening. The General spoke courteously to every lady in
the room, as was his custom. His hours were early, and by ten all the
company had gone. Mrs. Washington and Mr. Lear remained. Soon Mrs.
Washington left the room. The General now walked backward and forward
slowly for some minutes without speaking. Then he sat down on a
sofa by the fire, telling Mr. Lear to sit down. To this moment there had
been no change in his manner since his interruption at table. Mr. Lear
now perceived emotion. This rising in him, he broke out suddenly:—"It's
all over! St. Clair's defeated,—routed; the officers nearly all killed, the
men by wholesale; the rout complete. Too shocking to think of;—and a
surprise into the bargain!" He uttered all this with great vehemence.
Then he paused, got up from the sofa, and walked about the room several
times, agitated, but saying nothing. Near the door he stopped short and
stood still for a few seconds, when his wrath became terrible. "Yes," he
burst forth, "here, on this very spot, I took leave of him. I wished him
success and honour. `You have your instructions,' I said, `from the Secretary
of War: I had a strict eye to them, and will add but one word,—beware
of a surprise! I repeat it, beware of a surprise; you know how the Indians
fight us.' He went off with that as my last solemn warning thrown into
his ears. And yet to suffer that army to be cut to pieces, hacked,
butchered, tomahawked, by a surprise,—the very thing I guarded him
against! O God! O God! he's worse than a murderer! How can he answer
it to his country? The blood of the slain is upon him,—the curse of
the widows and orphans,—the curse of Heaven!" This torrent came out
in tones appalling. His very frame shook. "It was awful," said Mr. Lear.
More than once he threw his hands up as he hurled imprecations upon St.
Clair. Mr. Lear remained speechless, awed into breathless silence. The
roused chief sat down on the sofa once more. He seemed conscious of his
passion, and uncomfortable. He was silent. His warmth beginning to
[OMITTED] he at length said, in an altered voice, "This must not go beyond
this room." Another pause followed,—a longer one,—when he said, in a
tone quite low, "General St. Clair shall have justice: I looked hastily
through the despatches, saw the whole disaster, but not all the particulars.
I will receive him without displeasure; I will hear him without prejudice,
he shall have full justice." He was now (said Mr. Lear) perfectly calm.
Half an hour had gone by. The storm was over; and no sign of it was
seen in his conduct or heard in his conversation. The whole case was
investigated by Congress. St. Clair was exculpated, and regained the
confidence Washington had in him when appointing him to command. He
had put himself into the thickest of the fight, and escaped unhurt, though
so ill as to be carried on a litter and unable to mount his horse without
help.

In relation to the above, let it be granted that Mr. Lear, (who did not
sympathize with General Washington's religious opinions,) after the lapse
of more than twenty years, retained an accurate recollection of all his
words, and that Mr. Rush fully understood them and truly recorded them,
as doubtless he did: yet what do they amount to? Is the exclamation "O
God! O God!" under his aroused feeling, that swearing since imputed to
him, but which from his youth up he had so emphatically condemned in
his soldiers as impious and ungentlemanly?[10]

If it be said that some doubt still rests on the question of General
Washington's being a communicant, by reason of the testimony of Bishop
White, as mentioned in a previous part of this book, such doubt may be
removed in the following manner:—Here are two most respectable officers
under General Washington, who testify to the fact of having seen him
commune in New York and Philadelphia. He may have communed in
Philadelphia on some occasion and yet not been seen by Bishop White, who
had the care of two or three churches, at which he officiated alternately in
conjunction with one or more ministers. He may have retired, and doubtless
did, at other times, and was seen by Bishop White. If it be asked how
we can reconcile this leaving of the church at any time of the celebration
of the Lord's Supper with a religious character, we reply by stating a well-known

fact,—viz: that in former days there was a most mistaken notion,
too prevalent both in England and America, that it was not so necessary
in the professors of religion to communicate at all times, but that in this
respect persons might be regulated by their feelings, and perhaps by the
circumstances in which they were placed. I have had occasion to see
much of this in my researches into the habits of the members of the old
Church of Virginia. Into this error of opinion and practice General
Washington may have fallen, especially at a time when he was peculiarly
engaged with the cares of government and a multiplicity of engagements,
and when his piety may have suffered some loss thereby.

No. XXIV.

The Virginia Alminack for the Year of our Lord God 1776.

The right Honourable John Earl of Dunmore, Governor.

Members of his Majesty's Council.

Honourable.

• Thomas Nelson, Esqr., Presid

• Richard Corbin, Esqr.

• William Byrd, Esqr.

• John Tayloe, Esqr.

• Robert Carter, Esqr.

• Robert Burwell, Esqr.

• George William Fairfax, Esqr.

• Ralph Wormley, jun., Esqr.

• Rev'd. John Camm.

• John Page, Esqr.

• Gawin Corbin, Esqr.

Governors and Visitors of the College.

Nathaniel Burwell, Esqr., Rector.

• Hon. Thomas Nelson, Esqr.

• Hon. Richard Corbin, Esqr.

• Hon. Wm. Byrd, Esqr.

• Hon. John Page, jun., Esqr.

• Hon. Ralph Wormley, Esqr.

• Rev. James Maury Fontaine.

• Rev. Thomas Field.

• Pevton Randolph, Esqr.

• Robert Carter Nicholas, Esqr.

• Mann Page, Esqr.

• Thomas Nelson, jun., Esqr., (afterwards
  General Nelson).

• Richard Bland, Esqr.

• Dudley Digges, Esqr.

• Charles Carter, Esqr., Corotoman.

• Richard Randolph, Esqr.

• John Blair, Esqr.

• Robert Beverley, Esqr.

• Benjamin Harrison, Esqr.

The foregoing shows who were the leading persons in the government
of the State and College in the year 1776. The Mr. Nathaniel Burwell

who was rector of the College was probably of Isle of Wight, and the
ancestor of many of that name. The Thomas Nelson who was President
of the Council was one of the sons of the first Thomas Nelson, and
usually called Secretary Nelson, because generally Secretary of the
Colony. His brother William, who was generally President of the
Council, being now dead, Thomas succeeded to his office as President.

No. XXV.

Blissland Parish, New Kent County.

Since the first edition of this book I have received a fragment of the
vestry-book of this parish, beginning in the year 1721, and ending in 1786.
During this period of sixty-five years, there were only three ministers: the
Rev. Daniel Taylor, who continued from 1721 to 1729; the Rev. Chickerley
Thacker, from 1729 to 1763, the Rev. Price Davies, from 1763 to 1786.
Their continuance in office for such periods speaks well for their character.
The Rev. Mr. Davies was one selected by the House of Burgesses
to take part in the services at Williamsburg, at the beginning of our
Revolutionary struggle,—which indicates his patriotic principles. The
services of the ministers of this parish are supposed to have been divided
between Warren Church, so called from the swamp of that name about
ten miles below New Kent Court-House, which has entirely disappeared,
and Hickory Neck Church, in James City county, which is still standing,
though not used by Episcopalians. We hear of some movement
towards the re-establishment of Episcopal worship there. It is about
ten miles distant from Williamsburg, and was sometimes visited by
Bishop Madison. Eltham, the seat of the Bassetts, in New Kent, was
within this parish, and the Honourable Burwell Bassett, as well as
his father, William Bassett, were long the vestrymen of it. The following
is a list of the names of the vestrymen from 1721 to 1786:—Bassett,
Thornton, Slater, Cox, Morris, Richardson, Alderley, Armstead, Keeling,
Holdcroft, Kenney, Hockaday, Doran, Williams, Woodward, Dickson,
Allen, Mackain, Sherman, Clough, Henley, Radcliffe, Terrel, James,
Hogg, Power, Goddin, Macon, Dandridge, Hankin, Prince, Russell, Timberlake,
Bridges, Banks, Lewis, Baker. In the above, how many of the
families in Virginia and elsewhere may find the names of their ancestors.

THE END.