University of Virginia Library

ARTICLE XVII.

York-Hampton Parish.—No. 2.

In connection with York-Hampton parish and its minister, the
Rev. John Camm, there is a subject which I shall now consider,
deeming this the most suitable occasion, as the vestry was equally
concerned in it with any other in the diocese, and the minister
took a more active part than any other of the clergy. I allude to
the celebrated contest between the clergy on the one hand, and
the Council, Burgesses, and some of the vestries on the other, concerning
the salaries of the former, in the year 1758. The act of
Assembly which produced the contest, and convulsed both Church
and State, was called the Option Law or Two-penny Act, because
the people were allowed the option of paying as usual so much
tobacco, or about twopence per pound instead of it. It was occasioned
by the apprehension of a very short crop of tobacco, by
the failure of plants in the spring in some parts of the State.
The failure was very great, though not to the extent apprehended.
It was, however, so great as, with other circumstances, to raise
the price from sixteen shillings and fourpence—the supposed
average price of the clergy's tobacco—to fifty and sixty shillings.
In anticipation of the difficulty which many might find in discharging
their debts to the clergy and others in tobacco, according
to law or contract, the Assembly ordained that the debts due in
tobacco to the clergy and to certain officers of Government,—who
were but few at that time,—and from tenants to their landlords,
or planters to merchants, &c., might be discharged by the payment
of twopence a pound in paper currency, which was only
good in the Colony. In order to understand the subject aright, it
is necessary to recur to some previous acts of the Assembly on
the subject of salaries.

For a long time the salary of a minister had been settled at
sixteen thousand-weight of tobacco per annum; and in the year
1748 the Assembly passed a new act, confirming this, and giving
to the vestries certain privileges hitherto claimed by the Crown,
the Governors, and clergy, but in fact exercised by the vestries,
as has before been stated. Though the clergy did not like some

things in it, yet, unable to help themselves, they submitted, and
the royal assent was given. According to a standing law of England,
no act of the Colonial Legislature could contradict a previous
act which had received the royal sanction, without suspending its
execution until the King's pleasure could be known. The Assembly,
finding it desirable to have the privilege of passing some acts
and carrying them into execution sooner than the distance from
England and the time then required for communication with the
Government would allow, petitioned the King in the year 1751 or
1752 for leave to make some exceptions; but the petition was positively
refused. Nevertheless, it began to act in a small way at
first, on the principle thus refused. In the year 1753 it passed an
act allowing the vestries of Frederick and Augusta to pay the
salaries of their ministers in money instead of tobacco, as but little
of the latter was raised in the valley,—taking care, however, to
allow them handsome salaries, so that no complaint was made. In
the year 1754 the same was done in Norfolk and Princess Anne
parishes without much notice or complaint. But in the year 1755,
when there was the threatening of a very small crop of tobacco
throughout the country, the Assembly proceeded to a bolder step,
and passed a law allowing all who pleased to pay either in tobacco
or money as suited best. The law was carried by only one vote.
A general feeling of uneasiness now seized upon the clergy, and
they were preparing to make opposition. Letters and memorials
were sent to England, and meetings of the clergy held; but as the
season became more propitious and the crop turned out nearly as
good as usual, and the tobacco would generally be paid, no active
measures were taken, though some even then threatened to resort
to law. In the year 1758 a great failure was apprehended, and
the Assembly now passed the obnoxious law of which we are speaking.
Though opposed by some of the Burgesses and the Council
as illegal and unjust, it was carried. The clergy who were nearest
to Williamsburg assembled and asked to be admitted to the bar of
the House, to be heard in opposition to the measure before it
passed, but were refused. Governor Dinwiddie had been urged to
veto the act of 1755, but declined, though saying it was unjust and
illegal, asking, "What can I do? If I refuse, I shall have the people
on my back." Lieutenant-Governor Fauquier, now in office,
when applied to for the same purpose, also refused, saying, "Whether
it be just or unjust, contradictory to the King's instructions or not,
is not the question. The question is, What will please the people?"
He took part with the Assembly; and the Assembly, which had
voted Dinwiddie only £500, (it was the custom to make a present
to every new Governor,) voted him, though a more obnoxious man
than even Dinwiddie, £1000. The clergy were now convened,
and made an address to the Crown, through the Lord-Commissioner
of Trade for the Plantation, pleading their grievances. The Bishop
of London, being called upon for his opinion by the Commissioners,
was decided and strong in favour of the clergy. The Rev. Mr.
Camm was sent over by the clergy to plead their cause, and per
sons were employed by the Assembly on their part. The Rev.
Mr. Camm remained eighteen months in England in the prosecution
of the case. To oppose the Colonies in any thing where taxation or
prerogative was concerned was now becoming a critical matter.
The Stamp Act had just been repealed. Notwithstanding this, the
Commissioners of Trade unanimously declared the law to be not
only unjust, but null and void, and recommended the King to disallow
it and require its repeal, which he accordingly did. As to
the requiring the tobacco to be paid, they told Mr. Camm that the
courts in America must do this, and certainly would do it, the case
being so plain; that if it should be otherwise, and an appeal was
taken to the Privy Council in England, they would certainly be
righted. On this, Mr. Camm immediately wrote to his agent in
America to institute a suit against his vestry for the tobacco, and
carry it before the Governor and Council, which was the Supreme
Court in Virginia. The vestry declined standing the suit until
the Assembly passed an act to support all vestries in their defence.
The trial being had, it appears that Messrs. Randolph, Corbin,
Carter, and Lee were in favour of Mr. Camm's claim, and Messrs.
Byrd, Taylor, Thornton, Burwell, and Blair against it. The two
Mr. Nelsons, of York, the President and Secretary, declined sitting,
as they were a party concerned, being vestrymen of Mr.
Camm's parish. It was understood that they were in favour of the
claim of the clergy, one of them having told the Rev. Mr. Warrington
that he regarded the law as most unjust, and had Mr.
Warrington's case been permitted, as was attempted afterward,
to come up for trial, they would have been on the court, and have
made a majority of one in favour of the clergy, whereas, in the case
of Mr. Camm, a majority of one was in favour of the law. There
was now no other resort for Mr. Camm but to the English Court
of Appeals; and he was not the man to give up a contest until he
could contend no more, especially as he was fighting not only his
own battle, but that of all the clergy of Virginia. He accordingly
sent his case to the Privy Council, expecting that the promises
made to him while in England would be fulfilled, but was disappointed.
After various delays, the case was dismissed, on the
pretence of some informality, the blame being chiefly laid at the
door of Lord Northington. Inasmuch as the Lord-Commissioners
of Trade, Privy Council, and King had all so positively and unanimously
declared the law null and void, and the Governor of Virginia
had proclaimed its repeal by the order of the King, we must
seek the cause of this dismissal in some other difficulty than an informality.
It was doubtless to be found in the desire to avoid at
this time a collision with the Virginia Assembly; and the clergy
were deserted. The Rev. Mr. Warrington, of Hampton, who was
as brave and determined in the Church as his grandson Commodore
Warrington afterward in the navy, had his case before the Council
of Virginia, and, if unsuccessful, was prepared to try whether the
Privy Council would, when the alleged informality was avoided,
enter upon the cause; but his suit was never permitted to be tried
here, the court in Virginia professing to await the decision of the
court in England, and thus ended the matter. Mr. Warrington
brought suit for his full salary in the Court of Elizabeth City, and
the jury brought in a special verdict for some damages, but still
declared the law valid in opposition to the King. The Rev. Alexander
White, of King William, also brought suit. The court declined
instructing the jurors as to the law, and left it entirely with
them, who brought in some trivial damages. But the instance of
suit which caused most interest at the time, and has continued most
to sparkle on the page of history, was that of the Rev. James
Maury. It was tried in Hanover county, though he was in an
adjoining parish. The high character of Mr. Maury entitles any
account he may have given of the transaction to great confidence.
We have it in a printed letter to Mr. Camm in the year 1763. In
the November Court of that year, he says, the court decided in his
favour that it was no law, and at the next court a select jury was
to decide upon the damages. It was indeed, he says, a select jury,
three or four being what were called New Lights, who were dissenters
from and enemies to the Church, and the others picked up
on the occasion, and most unfit to decide such a cause.

It was on this occasion that Patrick Henry, then young in the
practice, made his first successful effort. It was truly an ad captandum
speech, being suited to the times and addressed to the
passions and interests of the people. He praised the law as salutary,—said
that a king, by disallowing such a law, became a tyrant
instead of the father of the people. He spoke in such a manner

that several persons in the crowd cried out, "Treason!" The cause
being pleaded on both sides, by Mr. Lyons for Mr. Maury, by Mr.
Henry for the vestry or collector, and it being intimated to the
jury that, though they must find for the plaintiffs, yet one penny
damages would suffice, in five minutes the jury brought in that
verdict. Mr. Lyons moved that the jury should be sent back
again, as having found against the evidence; but this was refused:
then that certain evidence should be recorded, which also was refused:
and, lastly, that an appeal should be allowed, which shared
the same fate.[64] It is due to Mr. Henry to state that he apologized
to Mr. Maury for some improper reflection made as to himself,
and pleaded, as an excuse for his course, that he was a young
lawyer, a candidate for practice and reputation, and therefore must
make the best of his cause. It is probable, also, that at this time
Mr. Henry may have been a little alienated from the Church of
his father and relatives.[65] The Revs. Mr. Davies and Mr. Waddell
(the old blind preacher of whom Mr. Wirt speaks) were then in
their height of zeal and eminence, and Mr. Henry often attended
their services and admired them much. Disaffection to the Church
was also getting quite strong in that region. Mr. Henry may for
a time have sympathized in their religious views, though I have no
testimony to this effect. The following extract of a letter of Mr.
Roger Atkinson, of Mannsfield, near Petersburg, an old vestryman
and staunch friend of the Church in that place, to his brother-in-law,
Mr. Samuel Pleasants, may throw some light on this
point. He is drawing the portraits of the members sent to the
first Congress from Virginia. Of Mr. Henry he says, "He is a
real half-Quaker,—your brother's man,—moderate and mild, and
in religious matters a saint; but the very d—l in politics,—a son
of thunder. He will shake the Senate. Some years ago he had
liked to have talked treason into the House."[66] Whatever may
have been the feelings of Mr. Henry as to the Episcopal Church
at that time, it is very certain that in after-life he gave full proof
that he was no enemy to it, and had no desire to deprive it of any
just rights. At a time when such numbers were deserting it,
when politicians were raising themselves on its ruins, when the
worn-out glebes, and decayed parsonages, and sacred vessels were
thought to be too much to be left in the hands of the few Episcopal
families which were remaining, Mr. Henry stood up in opposition
to every attempt at their alienation, with the same boldness
and the same success as when he denounced British oppression;
nor did the advocates of the last act by which she was prostrated
in the dust succeed in their endeavour until he had left the hall of
legislation.[67] There may be some difficulty in reconciling his opposition
to this measure with his advocacy of that concerning which
we have been writing, but there may have seemed to be one to him,
and may have been a real one. At any rate, his attachment to the
Church of his fathers is clearly established. There are abundant
proofs that it continued through life, and that his descendants have
inherited it. And now, should it be asked why the clergy alone
of all who were affected by this law should have made such opposition,
when it was professedly designed to relieve the poor, in a
year of unparalleled scarcity, I will endeavour to answer the
question out of the mouths of the clergy themselves at the time.
Their reasons and complaints were sent in lengthy letters—memorials
from themselves and the Commissaries Dawson and Robinson
—to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Bishop of London, and
the Privy Council; also in a letter from the Bishop of London to
the Lord-Commissioners of Trade, and in an opinion of some of
the first jurists in England, among them Lord Cambden. These
have been preserved in the archives of Lambeth and Fulham. I
have a copy of them before me, covering more than one hundred
and fifty folio pages of manuscript. I have carefully examined
the same, as well as whatever on the other side I could obtain, and
will briefly state the substance of the clergy's plea. In the first
place, it is declared to be untrue that no complaints came from
other sources. In the year 1755, the same measure was carried
by only one vote, such was the opposition to it. In the year 1758,
some of the ablest and best men of the Assembly and the State
were opposed to it. Those who were to be sufferers by it among
the officers of Government were afraid to complain, as they might
lose office. But the chief reason why many others did not complain
more and longer was, that most of them were actually paid
their full dues in tobacco. When the King disallowed the law at
the petition of the clergy, and the Legislature was obliged to
encourage the vestries to resent by promising to bear the expenses
of the suit, but said nothing about any other suits, nearly all the
other debtors, believing their cause to be a hopeless one, would not
incur the expenses of a suit, but paid their dues as they stood
before the law was passed. Thus the clergy alone were the sufferers,
while the instruments of doing justice to others. Secondly,
they maintained that theirs was a peculiar case, and might have
been exempted from the operation of law, even if some such
method could have been legally adopted with others. They, by
their profession, were precluded from those various modes of
acquiring property by which others might more easily bear a loss.
Their salaries too were generally small,—so small that a great
number of them could not marry,—that respectable families would
not admit them into that relationship. In ordinary years most of
them, it was declared, did not receive more than eighty pounds,—
sometimes much less; and, when tobacco was indifferent, not more
than forty or fifty pounds, while cases occurred of still less. One
great grievance was, that their salaries were not paid until eighteen
months after their year's labour begun, the levy being never ordered
until twelve months had elapsed, and that not demandable
for six months after; and, if shipped to England, a still longer
delay; and, if they did not send it to England and get their goods
there, must sell it here and buy indifferent articles at an advance
of from twenty-five to fifty per cent. The consequence of this
was, that the clergy were often deeply in debt long before their
salaries were paid. They thought it hard, therefore, that when,
in the course of Providence, an increase of funds occurred for one
year, by which they might be set free from debt or be enabled to
buy a few books, this should be prevented by such an act. They
had often before, by bad seasons injuring the tobacco, or by an
abundant crop reducing the price, suffered a great diminution of
salary, but the Assembly had never regarded this their loss and
sought to supply it in any other way, and it was not fair now to
reduce it by an arbitrary, unjust, and unconstitutional act. Moreover,
they said it was an ex post facto or retrospective law, passed
after they had earned their salary by a year's labour. It was thus
their own property, though not in their hands, as it ought to have
been. They also declared that, considering the high price at which
tobacco sold that year, it was a prosperous one. The quantity of
tobacco shipped was estimated at thirty-five thousand hogsheads,
instead of fifty thousand, the average crop; that, selling at fifty
shillings a hundred instead of sixteen and eightpence, every man
got two-thirds more than usual for his tobacco, and therefore could
better afford to pay than in other years, except in such places as
failed very greatly. The clergy thus lost two-thirds of their just
expectations and lawful rights. They said the history of Virginia
proved that a small crop of tobacco was best for the Colony, that
the Legislature was often endeavouring to stint the crop of tobacco
by preventing the culture of so much, and in former days had
even destroyed some which was already made, and that now, when
Providence had stinted the crop, it was hard that the clergy should
be the chief, indeed only, sufferers. They most positively denied
that the welfare of the poor was the object or the effect of the law,
and said that the rich planters were the chief gainers by it,—that
they had few tenants to pay them in money instead of tobacco,
but cultivated their lands with their own servants, and now paid
the clergy and others to whom they were indebted at one-third of
the price at which they sold their tobacco. They charged the
Legislature with taking from them one penny for the poor and a
shilling for the rich, and maintained that some other method might
have been adopted for the relief of real sufferers far more just and
equal. Comparing their tithes with those of Israel of old, they
computed their portion of the tobacco on an average to be less
than one-fiftieth, and even in that year less than a twentieth, and
said that nothing whatever of any other crops was taxed, and
that all other crops that year were uncommonly abundant. If,
therefore, the Church was worth supporting, they maintained that
it ought to be honourably done. They affirmed that the effect of
this unjust proceeding must be to deter respectable clergymen
from coming into the Colony, or young men of education and
respectability here from entering the ministry. They declared
that such an effect had already been produced; that some of the
best men had already left the Colony, and others were preparing
to follow. There was, with one exception, (and he a young, conceited,
and unworthy man,) entire unanimity among the clergy,
while there was great diversity of sentiment among the laity, and
certainly among the opponents of the measure there were many of
the ablest and best men of Virginia. The clergy, indeed, boasted
that what their advocates wanted in numbers was amply made up
in quality. As the question came to be weighed in the balances
of law and equity, it was more and more admitted to be
unconstitutional and unfair. Many confessed their error; but it
was too late to retract. The clergy had committed the unpardonable
sin of appealing to the Crown; and, though many of them
became staunch Revolutionists, preaching and writing in behalf of
the war, and some girding on their swords, the evil could not be
repaired. Dissenters were rapidly gaining ground. They took
possession of the vacant pulpits and drew off numbers from the
Church, and no future Assembly could have been gotten to repair
the wrong. Such was the permissive providence of God, and
doubtless for wisest reasons. Had the one hundred clergy of Virginia,
or a large portion of them, been true men of God, not only
leading holy lives, laboriously discharging all their duties, understanding
by their own heartfelt experience, and zealously preaching
the doctrines of the Gospel as set forth by the Reformers in
our standards, God would not have permitted that unjust act on
the part of the Legislature of Virginia. There were doubtless
many worthy men among them, and some few who understood,
felt, and preached the Gospel; but, if Mr. Jarratt's testimony is
to be received, God could not have been among them to bless
them. After his ordination in England and settlement in Virginia,
he attended one of the later convocations at Williamsburg, but
was so disgusted at the manner in which he heard some of the doctrines
of the Gospel and the Church spoken of, that he resolved to
attend no more of them. I doubt not there were many sober,
good-natured men among the clergy, but they wanted weight of
character, and were unfit for the ministry. There were many who
preached a dry orthodoxy and frigid morality; but that was not
enough. The Dissenters came and gave hungry souls something
else, though often mixed with what was not the Gospel.

Still, all this did not justify the act of which we have been speaking,
which must ever be regarded as a deep stain on the Legislature
of that day. Necessity, indeed, has no law, and there are times
when laws must be violated in order to prevent a greater evil.
Government has a right to interfere with the property of individuals,
when they greatly abuse it to the injury of the public. But no
such necessity existed. If tobacco was scarce, the price was very
high, and all the necessaries of life abounded. The clergy, whether
deficient in right views of religion or not, performed a large amount
of bodily exercise and went through their required duties, and
therefore had a right to what was secured to them by law. There
was the same scarcity in Maryland, where the salaries were larger;
and yet there was no such commutation enjoined there. We again
therefore come to the conclusion that the clergy were sinking in
public estimation, the dissenters from and enemies to the Church
were increasing, the Revolutionary spirit, the unwillingness to be
interfered with by the authorities of England, was daily strengthening,
and all these combined to permit the passage of the law
and to forbid the reparation of the wrong that was done. I add
that in the College of William and Mary the same contest was
going on. The Visitors and the Faculty were at variance,—the
former claiming the right to dismiss the professors at pleasure, the
latter affirming that, according to the charter of the College, a
controlling power was in the authorities abroad; but the former, as
might be expected, prevailed. The time for revolution and independence
was fully come, and there was no resisting it. President
Camm, at the beginning of the war, being summoned before the
Visitors to answer some complaints, denied their authority, and,
refusing to attend, was displaced, and Mr. Madison, of more republican
spirit, was chosen in his room.

Having closed the consideration of a question which for some
years violently agitated the Church and Colony of Virginia, and

which on one side was mainly defended by the minister of York
Hampton parish, we take our leave of poor old York, but not without
a word or two as to its past, its present, and its future, so
far as man may look into the future of a dilapidated town or
village. Little York was never much more than a village; although
merchants from Baltimore and Philadelphia—at that time little
more than villages—once got goods from its warehouses. How
many inhabitants it had, when at its height, cannot be said. Besides
tradesmen and artificers and shopkeepers, of whom we are
unable to get any information, we learn that before and for some
time after the Revolution there was one of the most delightful societies
anywhere to be found, consisting of Amblers, Archers, Gibbons,
Jamiesons, Macawleys, Nicolsons, Griffins, Nelsons, Diggeses,
Smiths, Popes, Shields, Fouchees, &c. All these, with the other families
of the place, and from the country around, filled the Episcopal
Church in York, and formed a happy, undivided society. During
the war, all fled who could: some did not return, or only returned
to bid adieu to its ruins. From time to time, others removed,
until it was left almost desolate, and the country around seemed
likely to share the same fate. Agriculture grew worse and worse.
Lands were almost given away. But within the last few years a
favourable change has seemed likely to take place, in sympathy
with the improvement of all Lower Virginia. A few zealous
females, in the hope and anticipation of it, by the most indefatigable
diligence, rebuilt the old church, which had been destroyed by fire,
and the Rev. Mr. Withers, while Chaplain to the Lunatic Asylum
in Williamsburg, rendered acceptable services to the few remaining
inhabitants of York. It has been hoped that the railroad, intended
to connect Richmond with Baltimore by York River, would have
found a terminus here, and thus insured a revival of the town. In
this its friends have been also disappointed, that terminus being
established higher up. Still, hopes are entertained of its more
gradual improvement by the increased commerce floating on the
bosom of York River, and from the rise in lands all around. The
demand for houses is increasing, and, if the present owner of nearly
all York and its vicinity was disposed to sell, lots and small farms
would be purchased and settled. There is one interesting and
venerable establishment in the vicinity of York which deserves
a notice. It is called Temple Farm. It was the country-residence
of Governor Spottswood in the beginning of the last century.
It was called Temple Farm because of a house in its garden,
built by the Governor as a cemetery. It was in the mansion-house
on this farm that Lord Cornwallis met Washington and
signed the articles of capitulation. One of our Virginia antiquaries,
(Mr. Caruthers,) in a semi-fictitious historical novel, after
the manner of Walter Scott, has made this place a chief scene and
Governor Spottswood the chief hero. But, it being so long since
the date of the events described, many of its readers perhaps
doubt whether the house was built by Governor Spottswood, or
whether he ever lived there. Having myself had an interest, by
marriage, in the house and farm, and knowing that there was much
of the real in the traditionary accounts of it, but wishing to obtain
the most reliable information, I addressed a letter to Doctor William
Shield, of York, who once possessed it, and received from him
the following communication:—

It is well known that Governor Spottswood died at Annapolis, in
the year 1737, on his way to join the army which he was appointed
to command, and which was about to engage in a Western expedition.
His remains were doubtless carried by water to York,
and deposited at this, his favourite residence, and in the tomb or
temple which he had built, and in which other worthies were buried.
It may be said, without fear of contradiction, that there is not on
all York River a more picturesque spot than Temple Farm. Its
capacity for improvement is also very great.