University of Virginia Library

ARTICLE XIV.

Williamsburg, Bruton Parish.—No. 4.

According to promise, I proceed to some notices of a few of
the vestrymen of Bruton parish. There are doubtless others
equally worthy of praise, but I have no information from which
to speak. Mr. Daniel Parke, whose name stands first on the list
of the first vestry in 1676, was from Surrey, England, and
married a Miss Evelyn.[50] A tablet of him was placed in the
first church at Williamsburg, and afterwards was transferred to
the second. He appears to have been a man of worth and distinction.
Mr. John Custis, of Arlington, Northampton county,
Eastern Shore of Virginia, married his daughter, and was also a
vestryman. George Washington Parke Custis, of Arlington, Fairfax
county, grandson of Mrs. General Washington, was descended
from the above-mentioned Daniel Parke and John Custis. It
could be wished that the record of Daniel Parke his son, whose
name is also on the vestry-book, were as worthy of notice. He
was indeed more notorious than his father, but for other reasons.
He conceived a great dislike to Mr. Blair, the minister of Jamestown,
the President of the College, and who was living near
Williamsburg. Having no pew in the church at Williamsburg, his
wife was indebted to the kindness of Mr. Ludlow, of Green Spring,
whose daughter Mr. Parke married, for a seat. On a certain Sunday,
Mr. Parke, determined to mortify Mr. Blair by insulting his
wife, in his absence (and doubtless in the absence of Mr. Ludlow,
who afterward complained of it) came into the church, and, rudely
seizing Mrs. Blair by the arm, drew her out of the pew, saying

she should not sit there. He was a man of great violence of
character, as otherwise appears. This is recorded in the archives
of Lambeth, and speaks ill for the decorum and chivalry of the
times. In the Rev. Mr. Anderson's Colonial History of this period,
we have the following account of a Mr. Daniel Parke, which
answers but too well to the foregoing:—

Of old Mr. Page, who stands next to Colonel Daniel Parke the
elder, I have already spoken. Early on the list of vestrymen was
Mr. John Randolph, alias Sir John Randolph, who was the father
of Mr. John Randolph and Mr. Peyton Randolph, all of whom
were in succession Attorney-Generals of Virginia. The father is
spoken of as a most eminent man in his profession, and of high
character. His son Peyton Randolph was also a vestryman of
the church, and gave early signs of a too independent spirit to be
very acceptable to the English Government. Being sent over to
England on account of some of our complaints, and speaking his
mind too freely for the Court and Cabinet, he was displaced from
his office, and his brother John, who had been acting in his absence,
was installed. At the breaking out of the war, John went to England

and was succeeded by his son Edmond. The former, bitterly
repenting of his choice, died of a broken heart, and directed his
remains to be brought back to Virginia. They are interred in the
College Chapel. Mr. Peyton Randolph ever showed himself the
warm and steady friend of the Church as well as of his country.
He went by the name of Speaker Randolph, being for a long time
the presiding officer in the House of Burgesses. He was also
chosen Speaker of the first, second, and third Congress, but suddenly
died of apoplexy, during the last. He was buried for a time
in Philadelphia, but afterward removed to Williamsburg. In connection
with the foregoing notice of Mr. Peyton Randolph, I add
something concerning his nephew and adopted son, Edmund Randolph,
of whose religious sentiments I have spoken in a former
number.

It is sad to think that ministers of the Gospel should contribute
to infidelity by recommending the examination of infidel works.

Who they were I am unable to ascertain. I have other reasons
for knowing that infidelity, under the specious garb of Universalism,
was then finding its way into the pulpit. Governor Page,
Colonel Nicholas, and Colonel Bland made complaints against
some one preaching in or near Williamsburg about this time, for
advocating the doctrine with its usual associates, and prevented
his preferment. The Rev. Mr. Yancey, of Louisa, also published
a sermon on universal salvation, which has been recently
republished by some of that school. A Rev. Mr. Tally, of Gloucester,
taught the same, and afterward gave a fit comment on his
doctrine by dying the death of the drunkard, as one informed
me who closed his eyes. At such a time, when the writings of
French philosophers — falsely so called — were corrupting the
minds of the Virginia youth, the testimony of such men as Peyton
Randolph, Mr. R. C. Nicholas, Colonel Bland, President Nelson,
Governor Page, and the recovery of Edmund Randolph from the
snare, has peculiar weight. In the worst of times, God never
leaves himself without a witness.

There appears on the vestry-list the two names of George
Nicholas and his son, Robert Carter Nicholas. The former came
to this country a physician,—doubtless duly qualified. He married
the widow of Mr. Burwell, of Gloucester, a descendant of the Carters.
His son, Robert C. Nicholas, was distinguished at the bar in Williamsburg,
in the House of Burgesses, in the Council, as Treasurer
of the State, and as a patriot in the Revolutionary War. But he
had a higher praise than all these offices could give him; for he
was a sincere Christian, and a zealous defender of the Church of
his fathers when he believed her rights were assailed. Mr. Hugh
Blair Grigsby, in his eloquent description of the Burgesses of
1776, thus describes him:—

The children of R. C. Nicholas were blessed with a mother who
was equally worthy. Let the following letter to her son, Wilson
Cary Nicholas, on his entering public life, bear witness:—

The author of the above letter was the daughter of Colonel
Wilson Cary, of Hampton, a descendant of one of the first
families who settled in the lower part of Virginia. Tradition says
that Mrs. Nicholas, after the death of her husband, R. C. Nicholas,
at his seat in Hanover, was visited by some British officers,
and received them with great dignity. Her daughter-in-law, wife
of her son George, and sister of Governor Samuel Smith, of Baltimore,
being recognised by one of the officers as an old acquaintance
in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, secured polite treatment for the
family; but the officers, on discovering that there were some jewels
and other valuables in the house, seized upon them and carried
them off.

Although I have not continued the list of vestrymen beyond
the period of the Revolution, there are two who must have been
added to it soon after that event, of whom I wish to take a passing
notice. The first of these is Mr. Burwell Bassett. His name
may be seen on one or more of the earlier journals of the Church
of Virginia, when it was first organized on the American platform.
He is also to be seen, for a long time, as the representative of the
Williamsburg district in the American Congress, and very often as
filling the Speaker's chair in the absence of that officer. I knew
him from my very boyhood as my father's friend and visitor. The
name of Bassett is an ancient and honourable one on the page
of Virginia history, and Mr. Burwell Bassett did not dishonour it.

He was loved and esteemed for his integrity and friendly qualities.
An anecdote was related to me, more than forty years ago, by
that worthy man, Mr. Stanford, member of Congress from North
Carolina, which showed his generosity of character. On a certain
occasion, a poor old soldier of the Revolution presented himself in
Washington and asked an alms of the members of Congress.
Mr. Stanford, seeing something really touching and worthy in the
case, undertook a collection for him in the hall of Congress. He
was mortified at the refusal of some, and at the small and reluctant
contribution of others, but when he came to Mr. Bassett
the scene was changed. He was just receiving of some one a
number of bank-notes, and, on the mention of the subject, immediately
opened both his hands, in which he held the bank-notes,
and said, "Certainly," bidding him take whatever he wanted. His
hospitality was proverbial. You could do him no greater favour
than to go to his house and take as many others with you as you
pleased. He was, however, though a very ultra republican in
theory, pertinacious in having his own way in some things. An
instance of this was once displayed in the Board of Visitors of
William and Mary College, with which he had been connected for
a long time, and where his will had generally governed. On a certain
occasion, when, after much debate, he failed to carry his point
against the younger members, he left the room, shaking his coattail,
instead of the dust of his feet, against them. The Board
could not think of thus parting with their old friend, and, at the
suggestion of one of their number, contrived that evening to let
him know that they wished to dine with him next day. This was
enough. A hospitable feast was given, and nothing more heard
of the difference. The democratic principle of Mr. Bassett,
united with this pertinacity of character, was also evident in his
opposition to the canon of the Virginia Convention excluding from
that body all non-communicants. He held that the vestries had a
right to send whom they pleased, and that it was interfering with
their rights to impose any conditions. He came to the Convention
in Fredericksburg, at which the question was finally settled,
and spoke nearly one whole day against it. Being old and
infirm, when he was tired of standing he asked leave to sit, which
was freely granted. From a seat in the middle aisle, near the
chancel where the bishops sat, he still talked until toward the
close of the day. As I had read a written (and afterward published)
argument in its favour in the morning, his address was
chiefly to myself, and in a very plain style; but we allowed him
all liberties, and, at the close, passed the canon by a majority of
two-thirds or more. His vestry, sympathizing with him or unwilling
to differ, resolved to send no more delegates or contributions
while this canon continued, and were encouraged in their course
by the strictures upon our canon in two of our Northern Episcopal
papers. Bishop Moore and myself did not change our relation
to the parish, but continued to visit the congregation as
usual, and said not a word to persuade the vestry to change their
course. At the death of Mr. Bassett, not many years after, of its
own accord a delegate was sent to the Convention, and all the back
dues honourably sent with him. The kindness of Mr. Bassett to
myself was increased during this period. He not only was most
attentive to me when in Williamsburg, but, as I always came to it
through New Kent, he would meet me in his carriage, more than
twenty miles off, at old Colonel Macon's, and carry me thence to
his hospitable home in Williamsburg, and, when my services
there were ended, insist on sending me to the next point. From
him I learned much of the character of the old church and its
ministers.

MR. ROBERT SAUNDERS.

The other person to whom I alluded was the elder Mr. Robert
Saunders, and father to the one of the same name now living in
Williamsburg. Whether he was descended from either of the two
ministers of that name on the list of the Virginia clergy, (one of
early date,) or related to them, I know not. Mr. Saunders was a
lawyer of distinction in Williamsburg, and highly esteemed by Dr.
Wilmer and Dr. Empie for his religious character. He furnished
Dr. Hawks a lengthy statement about the Church in Virginia, and
especially about the parish of Bruton. The following is his opinion
of the conduct of the Virginia Legislature in relation to the sale
of the glebes:—

I entirely concur with Mr. Saunders, that covetousness did not
promote this law; for, as I shall show hereafter, the glebes were
not worth contending for. Infidelity and sectarianism, I think,
must have had their share in the work. I shall have occasion to
consider this question at a future time.

CONCLUSION.

Some thoughts on the formation of the Virginia character, as
displayed in the American Revolution and previously, may with
propriety follow after the history of the Church and College at
Williamsburg, and the foregoing list of vestrymen. As London
and the Universities were in one sense England, Paris and its University
France, so Williamsburg, while it was the seat of Government,
and the College of William and Mary, were, to a great extent,
Virginia. Here her Governor and chief officers resided; here her
Council often repaired and her Burgesses annually met. What
was their character? Whence did their ancestors come, and who
were they? Happily for the Colony, they were not Lords, or their
eldest sons, and therefore heirs of lordship. With one or two exceptions,
none such ever settled in Virginia. Neither were they in
any great numbers the ultra devotees of kings,—the rich, gay, military,
Cavalier adherents of Charles I.,—or the non-juring believers in
the divine right of kings, in the days of Charles II. and of James II.
Some of all these there were in the Colony, doubtless. Some dainty
idlers, with a little high blood, came over with Captain Smith at
first, and more of the rich and high-minded Cavaliers after the
execution of Charles I.; but Virginia did not suit them well
enough to attract and retain great numbers. There was too much
hard work to be done, and too much independence, even from the
first, for those who held the doctrine of non-resistance and passive
obedience to kings and others in authority, to make Virginia a

comfortable place for them and their posterity.[52] And yet we must
not suppose that the opposite class—the paupers, the ignorant, the
servile—formed the basis of the larger and better class of the Virginia
population, when it began to develop its character at the Revolution,
and, indeed, long before. These did not spring up into
great men in a day or a night, on touching the Virginia soil. Some
of the best families of England, Ireland, Scotland, and France,
formed at an early period a large part of that basis. Noblemen
and their elder sons did not come over; but we must remember
how many of the younger sons of noblemen were educated for the
bar, for the medical profession, and the pulpit, and turned adrift
on the world to seek their own living, without any patrimony.
Some of those, and many more of their enterprising descendants,
came to the New World, especially to Virginia, in search of fortune
and honour, and found them here. Numbers of Virginia families,
who are almost ashamed or afraid in this republican age to own it,
have their genealogical trees, or traditionary records, by which
they can trace their line to some of the most ancient families in
England, Scotland, Ireland, and to the Huguenots of France.
Where this is not the case, still they can derive their origin from
men of education, either in law, physic, or divinity, which things
were too costly in the old countries to be gotten by the poorer
classes, except in some few instances where charity was afforded.
Ministers could not generally be ordained without degrees from
Cambridge, Oxford, Dublin, or Edinburgh. Lawyers studied at
the Temple Bar in London; physicians at Edinburgh. For a long
time Virginia was dependent for all these professional characters
on English education. Those who came over to this country poor,
and ignorant, and dependent, had few opportunities of elevating
themselves; as has been happily the case since our independence,
by reason of the multiplication of schools and colleges, and of all
the means of wealth which are now open to us. Sir William
Berkeley in his day rejoiced that there was not a free school or
printing-press in Virginia, and hoped it might be so for a hundred
years to come; and perhaps it was not much otherwise as to
schools. In the year 1723, the Bishop of London addressed a
circular to the clergy of Virginia, then somewhat over forty in
number, making various inquiries as to the condition of things in
the parishes. One of the questions was, "Are there any schools
in your parish?" The answer, with two or three exceptions, (and
those in favour of charity-schools,) was, none. Private schools at
rich gentlemen's houses, kept perhaps by an unmarried clergyman
or candidate for Orders, were all the means of education in the
Colony, and to such the poor had no access. Another question
was, "Is there any parish library?" The answer invariably was,
none; except in one case, where the minister replied, "We have
the Book of Homilies, the Whole Duty of Man, and the Singing
Psalms." Such were the answers from thirty clergymen, whose
responses I have before me.[53] If "knowledge be power," Virginia
was, up to that time, so far as the poor were concerned, but a barren
nursery of mighty men. Would that it had been otherwise,
both for Church and State! Education was confined to the sons
of those who, being educated themselves, and appreciating the
value of it, and having the means, employed private teachers in
their families, or sent their sons to the schools in England and paid
for them with their tobacco. Even up to the time of the Revolution
was this the case with some. General Nelson, several of the
Lees and Randolphs, George Gilmer, my own father and two of
his brothers, and many besides who might be mentioned, just got
back in time to prepare for the Revolutionary struggle. The College
of William and Mary, from the year 1700 and onward, did
something toward educating a small portion of the youth of Virginia,
and that was all until Hampden Sydney, at a much later
period, was established. But let any one look at the published
catalogue of William and Mary, and see how few were educated
there from 1720 to the Revolution, and let him notice who they
were. Let him also examine whatever lists of Burgesses, Henning's
volumes and the old Virginia almanacs furnish, and he will
see who they were that may be considered the chief men of Virginia.
I have been recently examining another set of records
which show who were considered her first men. I allude to the
vestry elections; and nine times in ten we are confident one of
their body was the delegate. They were the ruling men of the
parishes,—the men of property and education. As we have said
before, from an early period they were in training for the Revolution,
by the steady and ever-successful struggle with Commissaries,
Governors, Bishops of London, and the Crown, on the subject of
the calling and induction of ministers. They also spoke through
the House of Burgesses, which was made up of themselves. We
will venture to affirm that very few of the statesmen of the Revolution
went into it without this training. Even Mr. Jefferson, and
Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief of Christianity, took their
parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one in Williamsburg, the other
in Albemarle; for they wished to be men of influence. In some
of the communications to England, the vestries are complained of
by the clergy as the aristocratic bodies,—the twelve lords or masters
of the parishes; and they did sometimes, I doubt not, rule
the poor clergy with a rod of iron; but they were not the men to
truckle to George III., Lord North, or the Parliament. Well did
Mr. Burke, in his celebrated speech on American affairs, reply to
some who said that the rich slaveholders of the South would not
stand a war, "that they were entirely mistaken; for that those
who had been long accustomed to command were the last who
would consent to obey."[54] In proof of my position that men of
education, and that gotten chiefly in Europe, were the ancestors of
large numbers of those who formed at a later period the most
influential class, I would here insert a list of the earlier clergy of
Virginia which I got from some ancient documents, (most of them
unpublished,) and this is but a small part of those whose names
are lost to us forever. Let the reader compare these with names
on the civil and military list of Virginia's history, and he must
acknowledge the probability at least of consanguinity between
many of them. I begin with the names of Bucke, Whittaker, the
two Williamses, (names still common in Virginia,) Young, Key,
Berkeley, Hampton, Richardson, Teackle, Cotton, Palmer, Gordon,
the Smiths, Ware, Doyley, the Bowkers, Saunders, Holt,
Collier, Wallace, Walker, the Monroes, Slaughter, Blair, Ander
son, Ball, the Yateses, Hall, Latane, the Roses, the Joneses, Sharp,
Waggener, the Taylors, Stith, Cox, the Brookes, the Robertsons,
the Robinsons, Collings, Baylie, Bell, Warden, Debutts, Forbes,
Marshall, Preston, Goodwin, Cargill, Hughes, the Scotts, the
Fontains and Maurys, the Dawsons, Reid, White, Campbell, Graham,
the Thompsons, Fraser, Thacker, Wilkinson, the Navisons,
the Stewarts, the Dixons, Webb, Innis, Warrington, Cole, Purdie,
Marye, Mackay, Jackson, Green, McDonald, Moncure, Keith, Leland,
Craig, Grayson, Bland, Manning, Hamilton, Dick, Clay,
Lyons. Many of the foregoing belong to the first century of our
existence and to the early part of the second. Many of the families
of Virginia may have descended from some of the foregoing
without knowing it. I leave it to others to search out the civil
list of Virginia names, in order to ascertain as far as practicable
how many of their ancestors may have been well-educated doctors
and lawyers, or respectable merchants and farmers, when first
coming to this country. I hope I shall not be misunderstood. It
is no dishonour to be born of the poorest parents in the land. It
is a much greater honour to be descended from a poor and ignorant
good man, than from a rich or learned bad man. I am only
speaking of a historical fact. It was the shame of our forefathers,
both here and in England, that they did not, by promoting education,
furnish more opportunities to the poor to become in a greater
degree the very bone and sinew of the State. It is our sin now
that more and better attention is not paid to the common schools
of Virginia, in order to make them nurseries of good and great
men.