A history of Virginia from its discovery and settlement by Europeans to the present time |
 | III. |
| I. | CHAPTER I. |
| II. |
| III. |
| IV. |
| V. |
| IV. |
| VI. |
| VII. |
| VIII. |
 | CHAPTER I. A history of Virginia |  |
CHAPTER I.
National Debt of Great Britain—Her authority in America—Sir Robert
Walpole—Injustice of taxing the Colonies—Lord Chatham—Doctor
Johnson—Patrick Henry—His early life—Clergy and Two Penny Act
—Clergy suit—Henry's eloquence—Indian War—George Grenville
proposes to raise revenue by taxing the Colonies—Virginia remonstrates
—Stamp Act—Indignation in America—Virginia Legislature of 1765—
Patrick Henry's Resolutions—Their effect—First Congress—Stamp Act
repealed—Treasurer Robinson—Death of Governor Fauquier—His character—Charles
Townsend—Duties on tea and other articles—Action in
Virginia—Norborne Berkley—Baron de Botetourt arrives—His character—First
Virginia Convention—English injustice—Death of Botetourt—Lord
Dunmore governor—Dabney Carr—Boston Port Bill—
Raleigh Tavern—Convention in Williamsburg—Indian Hostilities—
General Andrew Lewis—Battle of Point Pleasant—Severe Loss of the
Virginians—Savages defeated—Speech of Logan—Convention of 1775
in Richmond—Patrick Henry's great speech—Its effect—Dunmore secretly
removes powder from Williamsburg—War.
Since the reign of William and Mary, England
had felt continually increasing upon her, the weight
of that huge debt which seems destined at last to
involve the British state in total ruin.[1]
But, hitherto,
great as were her necessities, they had not so
blinded her eyes to the light of justice and of policy,
American Colonies.
Her hand had often pressed heavily upon them.
Her Sovereigns had infringed their charters, and
taken away their lands; and her Parliaments had
fettered their trade by Navigation Laws, continued
from reign to reign without repeal. It cannot be
said that the Colonists had borne her oppressive
rule without resistance. We have seen enough
already in the History of Virginia to show that the
power, and not the right, of the mother country had
been acknowledged in the reluctant submission
yielded to each law which subjected the Colony to
unequal restraints. The time was now approaching
when another struggle was to be made, and
America was to demand that right and power
should no longer be held in conflict with each
other.
Few things are more difficult than the task of
defining the precise extent of constitutional authority
claimed by Great Britain, and admitted by
her American Dependencies, during the whole
period of their connexion.[2]
He who will examine
what has been written on the subject by those who
have professed to understand it, will be, at least, as
much astonished at their discord of opinion, as he
will be edified by their arguments. Many in
America, and some in England, held that the
Crown alone was the supreme bond of union, and
that the English Parliament had no direct legislative
the Parliament was sovereign, and that its lawmaking
power, in every case calling for its exercise,
might be extended to the Colonies as fully as to
any other part of the British Realm.[4] In America,
the rule of the Parliament in its action on the commerce
of the Colonies, seems to have been reluctantly,
but certainly admitted; and, harsh as were
her Navigation Laws, had England never gone
beyond them, she would long have retained her
dominion over her distant children.
But there was one line beyond which the boldest
advocates of English authority had not yet ventured
to pass. To annex duties to imports for the purpose
of regulating commerce, and directing it into
profitable channels, had long been the policy of the
mother country, and habit had taught the Colonies
to submit; but the scheme of levying a tax in any
form, upon America, for the purpose of pouring
revenue into the British treasury, had never yet
been tried; and, even when spoken of, had always
been abandoned. It is true, that as early as 1696,
a pamphlet had appeared in England, recommending
a Parliamentary tax upon one of the Colonies;
but it was immediately answered by two counter-pamphlets,
in which the right contended for was
to have acknowledged the injustice of the attempt.[5]
During Sir Robert Walpole's administration, England
was beginning to totter beneath her financial
burden; but when that sagacious statesman was
asked to tax America, he repelled the temptation
with prophetic alarm.[6] He declared that "it was
a measure too hazardous for him to venture upon,"
and when afterwards, upon the failure of his celebrated
Excise Bill, Sir William Keith renewed the
proposition, the baffled minister replied with emphasis:
"I have Old England set against me, and
do you think that I will have New England likewise?"[7] England needed a mind as comprehensive
as that of Walpole to teach her that justice and true
policy must always ultimately coincide, and that it
is better to bear present ills than, by using an illegal
remedy, to insure final retribution.
It is not strange that the American Colonies should
have shrunk with horror from the first approaches
of the great taxing power to which Britain sought to
subject them. They were not represented in her
Parliament; and, in the very nature of things, they
could not there sustain and secure their interests.
Separated by three thousand miles of water, distinct
in the products of their soil, their habits and
feelings, and already maintaining legislative assemblies
of their own, there was every thing to prove
to countenance their rights by admitting their delegates
to the floor of the English House of Commons.
And accordingly, this plan never received any
general favour, either in America or in the mother
country, although political visionaries were not
wanting to introduce and by argument to support
it.[8] It would have been impossible that the Colonies
should have been duly represented in the English
Parliament. If neither Ireland nor Scotland has
had complete justice done to her in her legislative
union with England, it will be easy to see what
gross mockery would have been practised upon
America, by inviting her delegates to join the lawmakers
of Great Britain upon English soil. But
it has been fortunate that a plan which would have
been plausible enough to delay our independence,
was yet so ungrateful to the mother country, that
she never seriously contemplated its adoption.
England taxed her Colonies without even the semblance
of justice, that America might stand acquitted
in the eyes of all the world in her exercise
of the right of revolution.
Money, since its first introduction, has had an
importance in human affairs, to which no other
physical possession of man can lay claim. It is
because money represents every thing else in the
world, that men are prone to regard it as more
valuable than all other things united. If land and
water, houses and cattle, offices and titles, feelings
and principles, can be, in a thousand varied forms,
not singular that this universal solvent should be
regarded with peculiar interest. It is true that it
is only valuable when used, but in order to be used
it must be obtained, and hence the fierce opposition
shown by all men to every restraint upon their
right to obtain this key to the treasuries of earthly
good. Let it not then be supposed that the Colonists
were moved to resist British taxation by the
mere vulgar "love of money," so often attributed to
Anglo-Americans. They were governed by precisely
the same motives which control all other
men, and which had long been admitted in full
expansion by their British ancestors. Had they,
for a moment, recognised the right of Britain to
take their money by an act of Parliament, and
without their consent, they would, by a slow but certain
process, have been converted into slaves, felling
trees, clearing fields, and cultivating tobacco, corn,
and cotton, for the benefit of English masters. The
selfishness of the human heart would have asserted
its power, and Britain would not have heaped additional
burdens upon her own shoulders, when she
might so readily place them upon her young dependant.
Those who had been most truly imbued with the
spirit of the English Constitution, at once denied
the right of Britain to tax America, and placed
their protest not merely upon the broad ground of
natural justice, but upon the more contracted basis
of constitutional law. They held that the raising
of money was not strictly a part of legislative
might define treason, constitute new crimes and
new penalties for crime, regulate commerce, and
even attaint the blood of the subject, but it was for
the people themselves, by their representatives, to
grant money for the use of the Crown. Money
was a free gift, always asked by his Majesty of the
House of Commons, and never granted except by
a bill first introduced into that jealous body;[9] therefore
the attempt of England to draw revenue from
America, without her consent, was open robbery.
It was the act of the strong man, who wrests treasure
from the weak, and seeks to silence conscience
by pleading his own necessities. So apparent was
the force of this argument, that many sought to
evade it by pretending that the American Colonies,
though not actually, were yet in theory, represented
on the floors of the Houses of Parliament. They
compared their condition to that of Birmingham,
Manchester, and other large towns in England,
which, though without members in the House of
Commons, were, in interest, represented in that
body,—thus striving to forget that the difference
between the two cases was "as wide as the Atlantic
Ocean," and that no interests similar to those of the
Colonies had any constitutional supporters in the
general representation of Britain.[10] These sage
assent to taxation, her assent might be
fairly implied; but they were not long able to hug
this delusion to their bosoms. Her voice of dissent
was heard first in petitions, remonstrances, and
arguments, and then in the call to battle, and the
sound of human conflict.
But English Ministers had resolved that the fatal
line should be passed; and, while we may wonder
at their blindness, we have no reason to regret their
decision. The time had arrived when America
was to be free. Her independence indeed could
not have been long delayed. She had grown like
a young giant, and her dependence on her parent
had already subjected her to so many galling restraints,
that she was ever ready to disclaim it.
England herself furnished the spark which produced
the explosion. How much longer she might
have retained her dominion by prudence and justice,
we cannot say; but the moment her own hand
applied the torch, a train was fired, which had,
during many years, been increasing in inflammable
power. The Stamp Act, with the subsequent
measures, constituted nothing more than a breach,
through which a mighty torrent immediately poured,
and swept away for ever the barriers that had so
long confined it.
As we approach the time when the mother
country was preparing, by her unnatural conduct,
to array her children in arms against her, we turn
to Virginia, and find a man upon her soil destined
to act a brilliant part in the coming struggle. In
belief in a special providence, which now brought
him forward to the crisis. Patrick Henry was born
in the County of Hanover, in the year 1736. His
father was Col. John Henry, a native of Aberdeen,
in Scotland,[11] and though respectable in birth, he
pretended not to belong to the aristocracy of Virginia.
The son, who now claims our attention,
has since become one whom the world would be
ashamed not to know. He had no blood to give
him adventitious honour—no wealth to purchase
esteem—no courted connexions to reflect upon him
the smiles of society, but he had a soul which more
than compensated for all external defects. He was
one of nature's noblemen. If the name of Demosthenes
be destined to live for ever, the name of
Henry cannot die; for, as an orator, the Virginian
may not yield to the Greek, and as a man, he will
be preferred by all able to discriminate.[12]
He had not enjoyed the advantage of systematic
education, but his mind sought for knowledge with
a thirst so keen, that it could not be disappointed.
Few persons who marked the outward aspect of the
awkward and apparently indolent young man, who
for several years seemed fitted for no business that
he undertook, would have suspected the work that
was going on within. He read with avidity all
history to which he could gain access, and converted
its truths into food for the vast digestive
without ideas, and ideas without knowledge would
imply a contradiction. Patrick Henry was not
learned, but even when yet young he was wise.
When, after reading Coke upon Littleton, and the
Virginia Laws, he applied for a license to practise
as a barrister, he astonished the accomplished
Judge who examined him, by the vigorous operations
of a mind which knew law by intuition.[13] And
three years after he came to the bar, his wonderful
powers developed themselves upon an occasion
which in itself was important, and which in its remote
bearing, is inseparably connected with the
history of Virginia.
The Episcopal Church was established by law,
and its ministers, by a statute enacted in 1696, were
authorized to receive sixteen thousand pounds of
tobacco as a salary attached to their office. This
statute was substantially re-enacted in 1748, and
had been regularly sanctioned by the Crown.
The price of tobacco had long been stationary at
two pence per pound; but this commodity, like
every other article of trade, was liable to change
according to the law of supply and demand. A
short crop in 1755, caused the price to advance,[14]
and
the Assembly passed an act, declaring that all persons
bound to pay in tobacco, might discharge their
dues by paying in money, at the rate of two pence
per pound. This act was to operate during ten
its effect until it should receive the King's
assent.[15] The law was at this time quietly endured,
but in 1758, acting on the belief that the crop was
again to fall short, the Assembly re-enacted the
statute of 1755, and as before, they annexed no
suspending clause which would have rendered necessary
the sanction of the Crown. The clergy
now took fire. It is undoubtedly true that the
effect of this law was to deprive each of them of
about two hundred and sixty pounds sterling per
annum, for tobacco was now worth six pence per
pound instead of two pence as before. But they
suffered in common with all other creditors, and
their loss was occasioned by the double medium of
exchange, then existing in Virginia.
Immediately a hot controversy commenced. Rev.
John Camm, of William and Mary College, wrote
a strong pamphlet, in which the "two penny act"
was denounced with keen sarcasm, and assailed by
plausible argument. Richard Bland and Landon
Carter replied, and so important became the dispute,
that His Majesty in Council took up the question,
and at once cut the Gordian knot by declaring
the act of 1758 null and void.[16]
Whereupon, in
various counties throughout Virginia, suits were
brought by clergymen against their respective parish
collectors to enforce the law of 1748. In the
County of Hanover, the Rev. James Maury had
had been retained on either side. The action
was founded on the statute of 1748, which gives
the tobacco in specie. To this the defendants
pleaded specially the statute of 1758, and the plaintiff
demurred to the plea. He objected to the law
of 1758, first, because it had not received the royal
sanction when enacted; and secondly, because it
had been expressly declared void by the King in
Council. When this demurrer came up before the
County Court for November, 1763, it was argued
by Peter Lyons,[17] for the plaintiff, and by John
Lewis for the defendants, and the Court, notwithstanding
that popular feeling ran strongly against
the clergy, sustained the demurrer, and thus decided
that the law of 1748 must take full effect.
This decision reflects honour upon the firmness
and integrity of the Court. If the whole question
be regarded in an aspect merely legal, there can be
no doubt that the clergy were right, and as they
are said to have triumphed decidedly in the war of
pamphlets which had previously been waged,[18]
so
they seemed now about to prevail in the judicial
combat. The question of law having been disposed
of, nothing remained but to call a jury and submit
to them the question of damages to which the ministers
were entitled because of the obstruction of
their legal rights. At this stage, Mr. Lewis withdrew
done all that he could, and that they must be defeated.
But there was a deeper question than that of
mere law affecting the case of the clergy. Already
in Virginia, the evils of an establishment had been
felt and acknowledged by a large body of the people.
The Episcopal rectors had not been so remarkable
for their holy lives as to commend their
church to the more serious inhabitants, and the
vicious and disorderly openly denounced her. A
very large number of those who were then properly
called "Dissenters," had gathered in the
Colony, and embracing in their ranks men of pure
lives, of keen intellects, and of accurate knowledge,
they powerfully affected public opinion.[19]
Any tax,
whether in money or in tobacco, for the support of
one sect while others were restrained, was justly
odious. No law could remove this foul blot from
the record. Neither the patents of a King, nor the
statutes of a Colonial Assembly, could make it just
to compel men to contribute to the support of a religious
denomination from whose teachings they
dissented, and upon whose ministry they never attended.
This was the fatal point in the case of the
church, and so strongly did it address itself to the
common sense of mankind, that the clergy suits
were in universal odium, and were generally stigmatized
as the actions of "the parsons against the
people."[20]
Under these circumstances, the case came before
a jury of the County Court of Hanover, on the 1st
day of December, 1763. Unable to retain Mr.
Lewis, and almost in despair as to their cause, the
defendants employed Patrick Henry to represent
them in the question of damages. His own father
was the presiding Justice, and his uncle was one
of the very clergymen who were now urging their
claims at law. The court-house was crowded to
excess. Mr. Lyons, in behalf of the plaintiffs,
opened the case, and, certain of success, he contented
himself by a statement of the previous steps
before the court, and concluded his speech to the
jury by a brilliant eulogy upon the merits of the
clergy. When he had concluded, Mr. Henry rose
and commenced his address. He was awkward
and embarrassed; his words faltered; the clergy
smiled, nodded, and exchanged glances of compassionate
triumph; the people trembled for their
champion; his father hung his head in shame and
sorrow. But gradually a mighty change came
over the speaker; his form became erect and graceful;
his eye kindled into fire; his voice grew in
thrilling emphasis, and from his lips poured forth
words which bound every soul in the assembly as
with a magician's spell. A dead silence prevailed,
and bending forward from seats and windows and
each place where they stood, the people listened in
awe and astonishment to the voice of the great
spirit of eloquence who had descended among
them. His power was such that he made "their
blood to run cold in their veins, and their hair to
of indescribable feeling ran down his cheeks as he
marked the triumph of his son. With resistless
sway the orator pleaded before the jury the injustice
of the plaintiffs' claims. He denounced the
act of the King in declaring void the law of 1758,
and with prophetic force he urged that the compact
between people and sovereign might be dissolved
by royal oppression. He painted in glaring colours
the conduct of the clergy, and at length, at one
withering burst of invective, the ministers present,
unable longer to endure, rose and fled from the
house in total discomfiture![21] For one hour Mr.
Henry held his hearers in chains, and when the
case was submitted to the jury, they returned almost
immediately to the bar with a verdict of one
penny damages. A motion for a new trial was
made, but was promptly overruled by a unanimous
vote.[22] It seemed as though men were already looking
into the future. Justice asserted her right, although
law was openly disregarded.
After this decision the clergy abandoned all their
suits, and never again urged their claims. Patrick
He had already rendered them service in a
cause requiring a mind of peculiar boldness and
expansion; but this was only intended for the more
important purpose of bringing him forward as their
champion in a contest with a stronger enemy than
the Established Church.
Though civilized nations were at peace, the savages
of America were yet active in hostility.
While they were daily diminishing in numbers,
they lost nothing of their ferocity, and were increasing
in means of annoyance by obtaining a
knowledge of European arms. Around the frontiers
of the Colonies they continued their assaults,
and hoped for impunity by the withdrawal of most
of the military force which had been previously
supported. Three forts only were now regularly
garrisoned,—Detroit, between Lakes Huron and
Erie; Niagara, between Erie and Ontario; and
Pitt, on the confines of Virginia, at the junction of
the two rivers forming the Ohio. The savages
renewed their cruelties upon the settlers in the
west, and increasing in boldness, they surrounded
Fort Pitt with their warriors, and pressed the siege
so closely, that its brave defenders feared a fatal
result. But General Amherst had despatched Colonel
Bouquet with a large supply of provisions and
a powerful escort to relieve this important fortress.
At his approach the besiegers retired, and joining
their comrades in the wilderness, presented a formidable
body, ready to renew the attack when the
immediate danger should be passed. Colonel Bouquet
dangerous defile, known as Turtle Creek, on the
very verge of civilized settlements, and surrounded
on all sides by mountains covered with forest trees.
Here the Indians made an attack from their ambuscade:
pouring down the sides of the eminence,
they fell violently upon the English, and thought
to overwhelm them by numbers; but they were
received with steady discharges of musketry, and
with strokes of the bayonet, which drove them back
into their fastnesses above.[23]
The English remained more than a day in the
defile, encompassed by enemies, cut off from aid,
incessantly on the watch, and suffering from torturing
thirst, to relieve which no water was found
near their encampment. At this crisis, Bouquet's
genius suggested a stratagem. Dividing his command
into four companies, he placed two of these
in a concealed position behind a projection of the
mountain, and directed the remaining two to feign
a retreat. (August 6.) Deceived by this movement,
and eager to fall upon the disabled foe, the
savages came out from their concealment, and with
terrific cries fell upon the rear of the retiring troops.
Instantly the concealed companies attacked them
in flank; a fatal fire was poured on them, and the
bayonet commenced its work; the other companies
faced about and joined in the assault. The savages
were routed with immense slaughter—most of them
were left dead upon the field; and the few who
who returned in triumph to Fort Pitt. Successive
reverses after this time, broke the spirit of the
savages, and early in the succeeding year, they
sought and obtained peace from Sir William Johnstone,
who, by his address, had gained over them
a controlling influence.[24]
The wars in which England had been engaged had
added heavily to her debt, and rendered her financial
system the prominent subject for the consideration
of her ministers. America had borne a large
part of the burden—had given up her children to
the battles in which the encroachments of France
had been repelled, and had contributed large sums
of money for the general good. So important had
been her voluntary supplies, that England had felt
bound to make return, and at various times she
had voted sums, amounting in all to about one million
and seventy-two thousand pounds sterling, to
repay her Colonies for what they had freely advanced
to her.[25]
In addition to this, a debt of more
than two millions and a half had been contracted
by America during the war, for which she had received
no indemnity from the mother country.[26]
In
the face of these facts, it seems singular that statesmen
should have held that the Colonies had been
"protected by the arms and preserved by the care"
of Britain. The war had been for her benefit
rather than for their own. It was to sustain her
undertaken, and its principal loss, both in blood and
treasure, fell upon her colonial offspring.
But George Grenville found in this war and its
consequent burdens, a sufficient pretext for introducing
a new feature into the policy of his country.
He was a Minister to whom America owes more
gratitude than Britain. He is entitled to the honour
of having applied the torch which kindled the flame
of our Independence. Laborious in his habits and
skilled in the details of business, he had yet no expansion
of view—none of that higher sagacity
which had distinguished some of his predecessors.
He knew figures better than men. His arithmetic
would convince him that a certain tax laid by Parliament
on a certain subject, would probably produce
a certain amount of money; but how such a
measure would affect the complicated passions of
man, and the moral aspect of government, were
considerations upon which he bestowed but transient
thoughts. Yet he did not approach the subject
of a tax for revenue upon the Colonies without
appearances of perplexity and hesitation.
He commenced by drawing more closely the
reins of the Navigation Laws. During many years
a trade had existed between the English Colonies
and the French West India islands and Spaniards
in South America, which was so beneficial to all
parties that it was connived at by the ruling British
authorities. It circulated English manufactures
among the French and Spaniards, and returned
gold and silver in exchange. But when Mr. Grenville's
to all the naval commanders in the waters of America
to act as custom-house officers, and rigidly to
enforce the existing laws.[27] This gave rise to innumerable
cases of vexation and petty tyranny, and
the remonstrances of the Colonists were so loud as
to induce the English Parliament to pass an act
sanctioning, upon certain terms, the trade which
had been thus interrupted. (April 5.)
Early in the session of 1764, Mr. Grenville presented
to Parliament the subject of drawing revenue
from the Colonies. An act was passed, in which it
was declared to be just and necessary "that a revenue
be raised in his Majesty's dominions in
America for defraying the expenses of defending,
protecting, and securing the same." At the same
time intimation was given that the Stamp Act
was before the eyes of English law-makers; but,
with apparent moderation and real timidity, the
Minister announced that this measure would be
postponed one year, in order that in the mean time
the Colonies might offer an equivalent for its proceeds
in any form they thought proper to adopt.[28]
A sensitive shrinking from the decisive step was
manifested, and Mr. Grenville hoped that America
would joyfully accept the chain when it was only
to be imposed in the form of a voluntary contribution.
But he had not sounded the depth of feeling with
which this subject was regarded in the Colonies.
They were fast increasing in wealth, and
might have borne a single infliction without injury;
but their danger was found in the recognition of the
right. A principle, when once admitted, is steady in
its operation, and almost limitless in its influence.
It may work slowly and silently, but it is therefore
the more dangerous: it were better that a nation
should bestow as a gift more than half its wealth,
than acknowledge the principle of tax-paying to the
most insignificant amount. The Colonists were
not deceived by the specious proposal of the ministry.
They saw that, by voluntarily voting an equivalent,
as compensation for the proposed stamp
duties, they would recognise the right for which
England contended; and, while some provinces returned
equivocal answers, the refusal of the larger
number was firm and decided.[29]
Virginia was true to herself in this crisis, but the
observant reader will note with interest the respectful
and almost suppliant tone she assumed in addressing
her mother. In no colony was the spirit of
loyalty more prominent: her people were deeply
imbued with love to England, which was cherished
by the institutions and customs under which they
lived; her church was formed upon the model of that
in the mother country; her clergy threw their influence
into the scale adverse to innovation; her
wealthy planters had been generally educated on
British soil; and even her statesmen were strongly
infected with this prevalent feeling. But the love
It was strong enough gradually to change her love
into hostility, and to array her in battle against the
parent who seemed determined to repay her affection
by tyranny. It will be instructive to mark the
progress of this change.
(November 14.) The General Assembly appointed
a committee, consisting of nine of its ablest
members,[30]
to draw up memorials in answer to the
intimations of the English Ministry, which threatened
taxes. The address to the King was written
by Peyton Randolph. It is dutiful and conciliatory
in its tone, and uses entreaty that his Majesty
would protect them in "their ancient and inestimable
right" of paying no taxes except those imposed
by themselves. The memorial to the House
of Lords is supposed to be from the pen of Richard
Bland. It is even more peaceful and suppliant in
its manner than that to the King: it speaks of the
burdens the people already bore; of the debt of half
a million contracted during the war; the total want
of specie, and the late restrictions upon their trade;
it humbly deprecates taxation: no firm protest, no
vigorous assertion of right can be found through
its pages. The address to the Commons was by
George Wythe, and in this we mark a brave and
manly spirit, which rises at once to meet its subject,
and to grapple with its dangers.[31]
The King
of hereditary honours, but the Commons might be
approached without awe. Such is the genuine
spirit of British loyalty.
(1765.) Finding that he could hope for nothing
from the action of the Colonies, the Minister hesitated
no longer in his course. On the 7th day of
February, the celebrated Stamp Act was introduced
into the House of Commons. To detail its provisions
would now be an unnecessary task. It has become a
part of the proverbial knowledge of America. Children
hear and read of it as the cause of the Revolutionary
war. It declared void wills, deeds, conveyances,
leases and contracts, bonds, bills of exchange,
and notes, unless they should be duly
stamped, and upon each stamp a tax was imposed,
varying in amount according to the nature of the
instrument.[32]
Nothing to which a stamp could be
applied escaped the vigilance of Ministers. Parchment,
vellum, or paper; declarations, pleas, demurrers
and rejoinders, bills and answers in chancery;
newspapers, pamphlets, calendars and almanacs,
all were laden with the same requisition. The
ingenuity long known and applied in England,
was called in to aid this scheme; and it seemed as
though the whole mechanism of the social system
must cease to work in America, or else that she
must pay the taxes demanded.
This act did not pass into a law without strenuous
opposition. The arguments of its supporters were
any mind not blinded to truth. The declamation
of Charles Townsend was answered by the
eloquence of Colonel Barré, whose defence of
America has made his name dear to all of her
children. But the decree had gone forth: the dangerous
experiment was to be tried. The bill passed
the House of Commons by a vote of two hundred
and fifty in its favour, and fifty opposed to it; and,
after obtaining in the House of Lords yet more
decided favour, it received the royal sanction, and
on the 22d of March became a law, to take effect
in the Colonies on the 1st day of the succeeding
November.[33]
Men on both sides of the Atlantic may have expected
to hear complaints in America when this
law was announced; but few were prepared for
the burst of indignant feeling with which it was
received. The whole nation seemed to mourn, but
it was that mourning which rouses to strength
rather than subdues to submission. The act itself,
on being issued from the King's press in Boston,
was seized upon and torn to pieces.[34]
All classes
determined that the hateful impost should fail in
its effect. In Virginia, nearly every lawyer who
had been practising in her courts, resolved rather
to abandon his profession than to use the stamps,
the very sight of which would have been a memorial
be found willing to take the office of distributor of
stamps, although the strongest desire was felt by
the English Ministry that all their agents should
be Americans.[36] A Mr. Mercer, to whom this office
was assigned in Virginia, immediately rejected it;
nor would it have been easy to secure a successor,
had the law gone fully into operation.[37]
But though the feeling of indignation was general,
the ruling authorities had not yet dared to
speak openly on the subject. Habit had too long
bound them, to be at once violated, and some of the
very ablest men in Virginia would have shrunk
from a protest against the right claimed by the
mother country. It was reserved for one man to
break the charm, and to remove at once the cloud
which yet concealed the dangerous crisis that was
approaching.
With a special view to the debate on the Stamp
Act, William Johnson of Louisa, vacated his seat
in the House of Burgesses, and made way for
Patrick Henry, who, on the 20th of May, was
placed on the Committee for Courts of Justice.[38]
Already the fame of the orator had gone abroad
through the state, and the wish was felt to have
his aid in the coming discussion. In this Assembly
we note the names of many who have filled a broad
space in the history of America. John Robinson
was the Speaker, and he had, also, long discharged
the duties of Treasurer to the Colony. He was
had been held by his family during a course of
years, and had imparted to him the character and
the feelings of the aristocracy of Virginia. He
was courteous in manner, and liberal in heart: his
very generosity betrayed him into indiscretions
which made him false to his public trust, and finally
wrought his downfall.
Peyton Randolph was the Attorney-General, and
was also a member of the House of Burgesses. He
had already distinguished himself in a contest with
Dinwiddie, involving the rights of the Colony,[39]
and
he was at all times ready to promote what he regarded
as the true interests of Virginia. Though
deeply learned in the law, he had but little of the
power of oratory, yet his solid attainments, and his
weight of character, made him invaluable in his
sphere. Richard Bland was a member of this
House: a ripe scholar, a patient and laborious student,
a lover of the antique, and a man profoundly
versed in the early history of the Anglo-American
settlements.
Next may be mentioned the eloquent and accomplished
Pendleton. The early education of
this gentleman had been defective, but a native dignity
of mind rose superior to youthful habit. Fostered
by the care of John Robinson, the Speaker,[40]
he
addicted himself to polite studies and to the law
and impressive speaker. A fine person presented
him with advantage to his hearers,—a silvery
and melodious voice charmed the ear, and a
constant flow of sweet and perspicuous words won
the heart. He possessed not the overwhelming
power which sweeps away an audience as in a
whirlwind of passion, but he could convince the
reason and fascinate the soul.
Richard Henry Lee has been truly called the
Cicero of the House.[41]
Nature had formed his face
in the Roman mould, and the whole contour of his
head and his person increased the resemblance.
He had studied classic literature with exquisite appreciation.
The rich colours of Lucretius, the
graces of Virgil, and the wit of Horace, had all become
his own. He loved History, and opened her
stores with indefatigable hand. He was not by
profession a lawyer; he knew little of the niceties
of special pleading, or of the artificial rules of the
English real property system, but he had studied
the Constitution of Britain and her Colonies with
deep scrutiny, and he knew all that an American
statesman needed to know. His manner as an
orator was perfect: even the hand which had become
withered, and which was covered with a
silken bandage, added to his effect; and so graceful
was his gesture, that many thought he had gained
it before a mirror. His voice was deeper than Mr.
often poured out strains of eloquence which captivated
his hearers, and carried them with him in
welcome slavery. Yet he was too smooth—too
flowing: he never struck those chords which startle
the soul, and cause the blood to run like liquid fire
through the veins.
No man wielded greater influence in the House
than George Wythe. Law had been his favourite
study, but with this he united a close acquaintance
with the models of ancient literature, and a love of
the earlier English writers, which imparted a peculiar
tone to his style. He was a powerful reasoner;
prompt in seizing the strong points of his subject,
witty and sarcastic in reply, yet fair, open, and
honourable in every conflict. He spurned all art,
and went directly to the point he sought; and if at
times a wily adversary gained an advantage, it was
more than compensated by the confidence felt by
all in the man whose integrity of character had
passed into a proverb.
Among these great men, and many others who
represented the wealth and intelligence of the Colony,
Patrick Henry was now to appear. He came
in all the simplicity of nature, but nature soon asserted
her dignity, and made art her minister for
accomplishing her great ends. Many had heard
of his power, yet few had any prescience of the
mighty change to be wrought through his influence.
His first effort displayed his strength. Habits
of extravagance and vice had gained ground in
the Colony, encouraged, it is to be feared, by the
gaming-table was his ruling passion. Seduced by
his own good nature, the Treasurer, Robinson, had
loaned the public money to his friends in so immense
sums, that at length he found exposure inevitable,
unless some happy expedient could be
found for his relief. With the aid of his friends in
the Assembly, he devised the plan of a public loan-office,
from which money should be loaned to individuals
on good landed security. Had this scheme
been adopted, the debt due to Mr. Robinson would
have been transferred to the public, and thus his
breach of trust would never have been known.[42]
Immediately after Mr. Henry had taken his seat,
this plan was proposed. Few members had any
knowledge of the secret object for which it was intended.
Some knew it who were among the finest
speakers and the most influential members of the
House, and there was every prospect that it would
be carried without serious opposition. But Patrick
Henry attacked it, and with his matchless power
of words, overwhelmed it in a moment. His clear
mind enabled him to see its dangerous tendency,
and his honest spirit looked with horror upon the
corruption that it would breed. In answer to the
argument that it would be beneficial to many who
would be ruined if their debts were suddenly exacted,
he asked if they expected to "reclaim the
spendthrift by filling his pockets with money;"
and by the working of a bold common sense,
he so affected members that the plan was voted
down by a heavy majority.[43] It is with regret that
we are compelled to relate the sequel: Mr. Robinson
died in the succeeding year, and on examining
his accounts, the huge deficiency was discovered,
and the reason for this proposed scheme was made
apparent.[44]
Not until near the close of the session was the
subject approached, which was beyond all others
interesting to every mind. The aristocracy were
yet disposed to remonstrate, and to pray rather than
to protest, and the more humble members needed a
leader to give strength to their action. It was at
this juncture that Patrick Henry appeared in his
true greatness, and gave an impulse to America
which she feels to the present day.
Finding his compeers in the Assembly divided
in sentiment and indisposed to action, he instantly
resolved to assume the lead. On the blank leaf of
an old law book he wrote the rough draft of those
celebrated resolutions which were soon circulated
through every colony. They were originally five
in number:[45]
the first declared that the original
settlers were entitled to all the "privileges, franchises,
people of Great Britain; the second, that these privileges
had been expressly secured to them by the
charters granted by James I.; the third, that taxation
by the people themselves, or their representatives
duly chosen, was an essential characteristic of
British freedom; and the fourth, that the colonists
of Virginia had uniformly enjoyed this right of
taxation by their own assemblies, that it had been
recognised by the King and people of Great Britain,
and that in no way had it ever been forfeited
or given up. The fifth is so remarkable that it
must be given entire: "Resolved, therefore, that
the General Assembly of this Colony have the sole
right and power to lay taxes and impositions upon
the inhabitants of this Colony: and that every attempt
to vest such power in any person or persons
whatsoever, other than the General Assembly
aforesaid, has a manifest tendency to destroy British
as well as American freedom."
When these firm resolutions, with their preamble,
were read, conflicting emotions arose in every bosom.
Loyalty and freedom, fear and hope, love of the
country from whom they drew their birth, and
hatred of the injustice she was striving to perpetuate,
all mingled strangely together, and kept each
heart in agitation. The most powerful men in the
House shrunk back, and prepared to oppose their
passage. They saw at once the broad line between
their feeble memorials, and these nervous and
manly protests. They felt that the last resolution,
in particular, arraigned the English Legislature,
boldly charged them with despotism and tyranny[46]
But Henry was equal to the task he had assumed.
Now, at length, he had a theme worthy of himself.
Not confined by technical rules or provincial limits,
but broad as the British empire; affecting the
rights of mankind, and appealing at once to the
highest powers of the intellect, and the warmest
feelings of the heart. He rejoiced in his subject,
and grasping it like a giant, he expanded it before
his astonished hearers, until its sublimity began to
force itself upon them. His words were pregnant
with a nation's freedom. He reasoned upon the
chartered rights of the Colony; he unfolded the
written grants of English monarchs, even in an age
of servitude, and showed the clauses guarantying
the privileges of America. He explored the depths
of the British Constitution, and, by long-established
precedents, proved the connexion between taxes
and the free consent of the people; then, leaving
charters and human conventions, he entered upon
an inquiry into the natural rights of man, and announced
doctrines then almost unheard, but which
have since become the basis of our government.[47]
Not without conflict was his triumph achieved.
The accuracy of legal learning, the refinements of
oratory, and the suggestions of long-tested wisdom,
were marshalled against him.[48]
Pendleton, Bland,
Wythe, and Randolph, all opposed him. It was
in the heat of this debate that the memorable scene
and old. Urged on by the strength of his feelings,
and glowing with the truth which seemed almost
by inspiration to rise in his mind, Henry had
reached a climax of eloquence:—"Cæsar," he cried,
"had his Brutus; Charles the First, his Cromwell;
and George the Third"—"Treason!" burst instinctively
from the lips of the President; "Treason!
treason!" resounded through the house. The
orator paused, then raising himself to his full
height, with eyes of fire, and a voice which thrilled
through every bosom, he concluded his sentence,
"and George the Third may profit by their example;
if this be treason, make the most of it."[49]
While this debate was in progress, a young
student of William and Mary College, stood in the
lobby of the house, and listened with reverence and
delight to the sounds of Patrick Henry's voice. He
was destined, in future years, to fill a large space
in the eyes of his country, and he was already
learning lessons from a master, far beyond whose
teachings on human liberty, he was himself afterwards
to advance. On the 29th day of May the
debate closed; the vote was taken, and the resolutions
were adopted by a majority of a single voice.
Immediately after the result was announced, Peyton
Randolph came to the door of the house, and
the excited young listener heard him exclaim, with
every mark of passion, "I would have given five
hundred guineas for a single vote." He knew that
Robinson, would have given a casting vote in
the negative.[50] Thus freedom triumphed, notwithstanding
the opposition of those who were, afterwards,
her warmest friends.
George Johnston, of Alexandria, had ably seconded
the efforts by which the victory was gained.
On the evening of the day on which the resolutions
passed, Mr. Henry left Williamsburg for his
home, cheered by the proud consciousness of having
led Virginia to her duty. The next morning the
Governor and Council were busy in efforts to have
the bold protests erased from the journals of the
House, and they partially succeeded. The fifth
resolution was so strong that even those who had
voted for all were startled as they read it, and consented
that it should be stricken out, provided the
others might stand. Thus the journals of the
House for May 30th, 1765, bear the four of which
notice has already been taken. Finding the Burgesses
infected with a spirit which threatened ruin
to the influence of the King, on the 1st of June the
Governor dissolved the Assembly.[51]
No sooner were the resolutions of Virginia made
known than they kindled a flame throughout America.
They furnished precisely what was needed
in the crisis to unite men in opposition to the claims
every side: newspapers which had been forward
in endeavours to reconcile the Colonies to the Stamp
Act, now came out boldly against it.[52] Non-importation
agreements were made by merchants and
wealthy planters. Stamp agents were compelled
to resign, and so strenuous was the spirit of resistance,
that by the 1st of November, when the law
was to take effect; "not a sheet of stamped paper
was to be found throughout the Colonies."[53] Clubs
were formed in nearly all the Provinces, bearing
the expressive name of "Sons of Liberty," whose
duty it was to correspond with similar bodies in
other places, and foster the spirit of freedom; and,
finally, Massachusetts presented a scheme of all
others best fitted for uniting America against the
common foe. She proposed that the plan for a
General Congress should be revived, and that each
Colony should send delegates to New York in
October.
The Legislature of Virginia having been dissolved,
she was unable to comply with this request,
and therefore her delegates did not sit in the First
American Congress. Twenty-eight members, from
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New
York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
and South Carolina, met on the appointed
day, and Timothy Ruggles, of Massachusetts, was
elected President.[54]
They proceeded to adopt resolutions,
forth, and their freedom from taxation, except by
their own Assemblies, is declared. Memorials to
the King, and to Parliament, were drafted, which
were conceived in a mild, courteous, and conciliatory
tone, not entirely welcome to some of the more
enthusiastic patriots; but which clearly conveyed
the grievances of America, and her claims upon her
mother.[55]
On the fatal 1st of November, signs of sadness
were seen in every part of the Colonies. In Boston,
muffled drums beat dead marches; bells tolled as
if funerals were in progress; long processions of
mourners passed through the streets; and a coffin,
containing the emblematic corpse of "Liberty,"
was solemnly interred. These were not mere
mummeries to catch the vulgar eye. They were
expressions of deep feeling which sought for utterance
in acts stronger than words. The only appearance
of submission to the Stamp Act was in
the shutting up of the ports for customs, and the
suspending of judicial business, and even these
gradually ceased. In Virginia, about the close of
November, the Courts were reopened and business
proceeded without the slightest regard to the hated
stamp requirements.[56]
This was the passing of the
Rubicon; when a law loses its moral power over
the mind of the subject, it will soon be openly despised
and disobeyed.
Meantime a change had taken place in the
displaced, and the Marquis of Rockingham, a
Whig nobleman of wealth and influence, had succeeded.
When Parliament convened in December,
the exciting topic was the Stamp Act and the resistance
of the Colonies. England thought of her
fleets and armies, and many proposed force; but
numberless petitions from every part of the kingdom
poured in, praying for a repeal of this law.
(1766.) Early in the succeeding year the debate
in the House of Commons commenced. It was
powerful in interest, and drew forth from the friends
of liberty appeals which will long be remembered.
Mr. Grenville yet argued for the continuance of
the law: he urged that America was protected and
therefore might be taxed; he told of Durham
and Chester, which had been taxed before they
were represented, and asked when America had
been emancipated? In a glow of generous indignation,
William Pitt denounced the act, and pressed
for its unconditional and immediate repeal. "I
rejoice," he said, "that America has resisted: three
millions of people so dead to all the feelings of
liberty, as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would
have been fit instruments to make slaves of all the
rest."[57] In reply to Mr. Grenville's question, when
the Colonists had been emancipated, he asked when
had they been enslaved? He showed that the cases
of Durham and Chester proved nothing, except that
even in a despotic reign, a monarch, ashamed that
being represented, had admitted their members to
the House of Commons. He spoke of the power
of England, and of the force threatened against
America: "I know the valour of your troops,—the
force of this country,—but in such a case success
would be hazardous; America, if she fell, would
fall like a strong man, she would embrace the
pillars of the state, and pull down the Constitution
with her."[58]
Slowly and reluctantly the enemies of freedom
yielded to the storm. Doctor Franklin was examined
in the presence of the House of Commons,
and by his practical wisdom, his simple and courteous
manner, and his transparent words, won
many friends for his country. On the 22d day of
February, a day already hallowed by the birth of
George Washington, the vote was taken, and the
bill repealing the Stamp Act passed the Commons
by a vote of two hundred and seventy-five to one
hundred and sixty-seven. It was immediately
carried, attended by nearly two hundred members,
to the House of Lords, where, after stern opposition,
it was likewise passed, twenty-eight Lords
entering a solemn protest against it, on its third
reading.[59]
On the 19th day of March, the King
gave it his sanction, and it became a law. But
with express design to prove that the repeal of the
claimed by America, this measure was accompanied
by a Declaratory Act, asserting the right of the
King and Parliament of Great Britain, by law "to
bind the Colonies and people of America, in all
cases whatsoever."[60] Thus the authority to impose
taxes was affirmed. England was destined to drive
her Colonies into independence.
When the repeal was announced, joy pervaded
every bosom in the Provinces. The brightest
hopes of the friends of loyalty in Virginia were
more than realized. In the first emotions of their
gratitude, the Assembly voted thanks to the King
and both Houses of Parliament, and decreed that
a statue and an obelisk should be raised to preserve
the memory both of the Sovereign and of the distinguished
statesman to whom they believed their
deliverance to be due.[61]
But we have reason to
believe that no measures were taken to carry this
resolution into effect.[62]
Subsequent oppression
came too soon to leave undisturbed their dreams of
happiness.
In the session of 1766, the breach of trust of
which Mr. Robinson, the Treasurer, had been
guilty, was made apparent; and, as it was manifest
that his place as Speaker of the House had exposed
him to the temptation of loaning to members,
it was resolved that in future the two offices should
be divorced. Peyton Randolph was elected President,
His integrity and skill fitted him for its
duties, and during the time he discharged them, no
cause of dissatisfaction was given.[63]
(1767.) As the session of the succeeding year wore
away, the health of Governor Fauquier, which had
long been declining, rapidly failed, and he died on
the 3d of March, 1768, in the 66th year of his age.
He had endeared himself to many in the Colony
by his graceful manners and social disposition.
His taste was refined, and his education had been
liberal: he made learning attractive, and endeavoured
to infuse a love of letters into his colonial
charge. Yet he had vices, both of opinion and of
practice, which made him a dangerous companion
for the susceptible hearts of Virginia. He had imbibed
much of the infidel spirit then so prevalent
in Europe, and made fashionable by the most
elegant writers of the French nation.[64]
He had an
insatiate passion for gaming. It has been said, that
on the return of the great navigator, Anson, from
his voyage round the world, he played at cards
with Fauquier, and in a single night won the whole
of his property, and afterwards, by way of showing
his compassion, exerted his influence to obtain for
him the government of Virginia.[65]
Untaught by
experience, Fauquier continued his course: he
gamed furiously in the Colony. During each vacation
he made a social tour among the rich planters
of the country, and everywhere at his approach
sums was lost and won; and, to the present day,
the contagion of his example may be felt in the
ancient Dominion.
John Blair, as President of Council, succeeded to
the vacant office, and convened the Legislature at
an earlier day than was usual, to provide for danger
threatened on the frontiers by Indians. But
a more imposing peril than this soon absorbed their
thoughts.
In England the Duke of Grafton had succeeded
Rockingham as Prime Minister, and Charles Townsend
had been made Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Not for a moment had ministers abandoned the resolve
to draw money from America by taxation.
Provoked by the violent opposition which had been
made in New York to the Stamp Act, Parliament
passed a law suspending the powers of the government
of that Colony until proper satisfaction should
be made. This law has been approved even by
the more liberal among English writers,[66]
but it excited
deep emotion in America, and drew from
Virginia expressions of sympathy for her oppressed
sister.[67]
Charles Townsend was not content with
this triumph. Active and excitable in mind, brilliant
in debate, and formidable as a party leader,
he was intriguing and unscrupulous as a politician.
He openly boasted that he knew a method by which
he could draw revenue from the Americans without
always alive to this subject, urged him to open his
plan. Incautious writers and declaimers in the
Colonies and in Britain, had tried to draw a distinction
between external and internal taxes. They
contended that England had a right to impose the
first but not the latter, forgetting that an external
tax or duty on imports might be just as much for
the purpose of raising revenue as a duty on stamps.
Cunningly availing themselves of this unsound
distinction, Ministers introduced a bill imposing
duties in America upon lead, painters' colours,
glass, paper, and tea, imported, and in the month
of May this bill became a law, having encountered
little opposition in either House.[68]
When this action was made known, the Burgesses
of Virginia again addressed a grave memorial
to the King and Parliament. Their argument
was now more solid, their tone more decided, and
their assertion of right more emphatic, than they
had ever been before.[69]
They exposed the folly of
the attempted distinction between external and internal
taxes, and proved that a duty on articles
which had become necessary to civilized life would
operate as a tax for revenue.[70]
They spoke strongly
of the injustice done to New York, and declared
that none of the Colonies were safe while these restrictions
remained. We note with interest and
to independence.
(1768.) In October of this year a new Governor
arrived. Norborne Berkley, Baron De Botetourt,
came out from Portsmouth in the Rippon, sixty-gun
ship, and was received in Hampton Roads
with all due honour.[71]
It has been supposed that
he had been instructed to assume more than wonted
dignity, and to dazzle the disaffected colonists by a
display of splendour reflected from the Crown. In
a beautiful carriage, presented by the King, he was
slowly drawn by six milk-white horses in gorgeous
trappings through the streets of Williamsburg. He
met the Assembly with all the rites and ceremonies
observed when the English Sovereign received
his Parliaments.[72]
But this empty show was
worse than vain. It gained no hearts and bewildered
no heads: it was distasteful to the Governor
himself; and failing to produce the desired effect,
he laid aside the burden. This excellent nobleman
felt his position in Virginia to be painful. He
was the first governor-in-chief who had come to
reside in the Colony since Lord Culpeper, and under
any other circumstances he might have been a
blessing to the people he ruled. Moderate in temper,
and devoted to peace, he earnestly desired to
see Virginia cordial in her submission to her mother;
but so strong was his sense of justice, that he
could not shut his eyes to the truth of her grievances.
should check the first approaches of rebellion, yet
his duty to the people, who loved him, and whom
he learned to love in return, forbade him to urge
harsh measures against them. Thus was he involved
in perplexity which must soon be mentioned.
(1769.) The Governor having presented no special
subject for their consideration, the Burgesses
took up the late measures of England, and passed
four resolutions, couched in firm but respectful language,
in which their rights are declared (May 16).
After denying the power of taxation, except by
themselves, they declare that persons accused of
crime in the Colony ought to be tried at home, and
that to seize them and send them to Britain for
trial, was "highly derogatory of the rights of British
subjects." They point to union in these resolutions,
and recommend that they shall be sent to
all the other Colonies for their concurrence.[73]
Lord
Botetourt seems not to have been prepared for this
action. The bold assertions of the Burgesses astonished
him: he saw the influence of the King
fading away in the land. He summoned the
Speaker and Assembly to the council chamber,
and addressed them in laconic terms.
"Mr. Speaker, and Gentlemen of the House of
Burgesses: I have heard of your resolves, and
augur ill of their effects. You have made it my
duty to dissolve you, and you are dissolved accordingly."
But now the spirit of freedom had risen too high
to be at once allayed. The measure of the Governor
was the occasion of a decisive step, which
went far in the path to Independence. Instead of
returning quietly to their homes, as they had done
before, when dissolved, the Burgesses, almost as
with one accord, reassembled at a private house in
Williamsburg, and formed the first revolutionary
"Convention" that Virginia had known. Nothing
like it in any respect can be found in her past history,
except the meeting called by Nathaniel Bacon
in the time of his rebellion[74]
—and the parallel
both in place and in purpose between these two
events, will not escape the notice of the philosophic
reader. When the representatives of the
people begin to debate public measures on their
own authority, they are fast approaching to self-government.
The Convention made no attempt to make laws:
they simply adopted a preamble, in which they expressed
their sense of the wrong done them by the
late acts of Parliament, and they then entered into
a non-importation agreement, binding themselves
to be frugal, to import no taxed article, and none of
the manufactures or products of Britain, until she
should return to the practice of justice. The
agreement is signed by an array of names which
cannot be read without feelings of veneration. The
noblest of Virginia's sons will be found among
them.[75]
Long-cherished prepossessions were fast
The effect of their action was soon apparent.
Copies of the agreement were spread through the
country, and thousands of signatures attested the
sentiments of the people. Old and young, great
and humble, wealthy and poor, united in opposition
to the claims of the mother country. The other
Colonies caught the flame kindled in Virginia, and
fanned it into conflagration. Meanwhile, England
was not ignorant of the course of her Colonists,
and for a time, at least, she again paused. The
Earl of Hillsborough, the Secretary of Foreign
Affairs, wrote to Lord Botetourt, assuring him that
it was not the intention of Ministers to draw revenue
by duties from America, and that at the next
meeting of Parliament, the customs on glass, paper,
and colours, would be repealed, as being adverse to
the interests of commerce. The generous Governor
glowed with delight in receiving these assurances,
and his letter communicating them to the Council
and House of Burgesses, expresses in nervous language
how much he felt interested for his colonial
charge.[76]
Once more hope revived; the Council and
Assembly united in sentiments of gratitude to the
Governor, and of respect for the King; but their
hopes were destined to speedy betrayal.
Charles Townsend died in the month of September,
and was succeeded in his office by Frederic,
Lord North, the eldest son of the Earl of Guildford.
(1770.) In January, the Duke of Grafton resigned
the Treasury, and Premier of England.[77] The
administration of this nobleman was memorable;
fatal to the best interests of Britain, and only beneficial
to America, because it drove her into war.
In the month of March, urged on by numberless
petitions from British merchants, he introduced a
bill repealing the duties on glass, colours, lead and
paper, but retaining that on tea. This last was retained
with express design to affirm the right to
tax, and in urging it, his Lordship openly declared
his policy: "To temporise is to yield; and the
authority of the mother country, if it is now unsupported,
will in reality be relinquished for ever:
a total repeal cannot be thought of till America is
prostrate at our feet."[78]
The bill in the form proposed
became a law, and was transmitted to
America.
Lord Botetourt was deeply wounded by this result.
His hopes, based on the assertions of Hillsborough,
vanished into air, and so much was he
mortified by the position in which his own government
had placed him, that he asked leave to resign.
While his application was pending, the pain of a
generous mind aggravated a disease of his body,
and he died during the summer, deplored not
merely by personal friends, but by all classes in
the Colony, capable of appreciating his worth.[79]
In
death he has not been forgotten; one of the most
beautiful counties in the valley bears his name,
of the Assembly,[80] perpetuates the memory of the
man who preferred the love of Virginia to the
smiles of his King.
After the death of Botetourt, William Nelson,
President of Council, administered the affairs of
the Colony. The appointment of a governor at
this crisis, had become a matter of great delicacy
and importance, and had the English rulers sought
through their dominions, they could hardly have
made a worse selection than the man on whom
their choice fell. (1772.) From the Province of
New York, Lord Dunmore was transferred to Virginia.
He is said to have been coarse in his
person, rude in his manners, and unscrupulous in
his morals: he wanted the courtesy, the refinement,
the sensitive love of justice possessed by his predecessor
in so eminent a degree.[81]
He brought
with him Captain Foy, as his private secretary, an
officer of the British army who had distinguished
himself in the bloody battle of Minden. To provide
well for his favourite, Dunmore resorted to a
practice honoured by the renowned examples of
Culpeper and Effingham, and invented a new list
of fees, which promised to bring him some revenue;
but the first Assembly after his arrival, scrutinized
the matter so rigidly, that he was obliged to desist.[82]
With much reason it has been supposed that a
military companion was selected by Dunmore with
a special view to the disturbed state of the Colony,
to adopt.
Though harsh and unprepossessing in his manners,
his Lordship had decided talents, and an
ability for diplomacy, upon which the English
Court placed some reliance. He detected a scheme
of extensive forgery of the public securities, and
brought the offenders to justice by means so stern
and summary, that the Assembly could not approve.[83]
But events of greater importance were
soon to attract his attention. (1773.) The Assembly
of this year, contained members of great power of
mind, and of uncompromising patriotism. Among
the youngest and most brilliant were Dabney Carr
and Thomas Jefferson. Mr. Carr was already a
rival of Patrick Henry at the bar. His person was
fine, his voice full of melody, his feeling keen, his
reason unclouded; his heart overflowed with love
to his country, and his tongue was ever ready to
express it. On the 12th March, he introduced important
resolutions, appointing "a standing committee
of correspondence and inquiry," to consist
of eleven members, whose duty it should be, to
watch Britain and commune with the other Colonies.
This measure was powerful in its operation,
and we may judge of its weight by the men placed
on the committee. They were the leaders of
America in the approaching struggle.[84]
It is sad
who had introduced it, survived the triumph of his
scheme. Mr. Carr died in Charlottesville, on the
16th of May, in the thirtieth year of his age.[85]
Every day brought nearer to explosion the storm
which was gathering in the British Colonies. It
was delayed as long as forbearance was possible.
Had the war been a sudden outburst, it would have
had as sudden a termination. But it was the
legitimate consequence of years, and even centuries
of oppression; and therefore it was destined,
when commenced, to end only with the total removal
of its cause. It was a war of principle, and
not of mere expediency. Of this, the best proof is
found in the conduct of the adverse parties, as the
contest drew near to its acme. Hoping to reconcile
the Colonists to the payment of the tax of three
pence on tea, England by law permitted the East
India Company to withdraw from her ports millions
of pounds of this commodity which they had there
in store, and to ship them to America without paying
any duty in the custom-house, of the mother
country. The effect of this was to make the price
of tea actually lower in America than it had been
before the duty was imposed. But the eyes of the
Colonists were now open to the subject; they were
not to be deceived by the appearance of fairness.
So long as duty was demanded in the ports of
America, so long was she taxed without her own
consent, and until this principle was abandoned, she
commodity.[86] Hence the well-known scene in the
harbour of Boston, where, on the 16th of December,
persons dressed as Mohawk Indians boarded a tea
ship, and in two hours hoisted out and threw overboard
three hundred and forty-two chests of her
cargo, and then quietly dispersed to their homes.[87]
(1774.) When news of this event reached England,
Ministers thought the time had come for violent
restraint. A bill was introduced, and passed in
Parliament, providing that after the 1st of June, the
port of Boston should be closed; her trade should
be cut off, and thus her energetic population would
have been consigned to idleness, and, after a time,
to poverty. But the time of safety was passed;
violence did but inflame the spirits of the people.
When the Boston "Port Bill" was made known in
Virginia, her Assembly was in session; and, without
a moment's delay, they adopted resolutions expressing
the deepest sympathy for their oppressed
fellow-patriots; setting aside the fatal 1st of June
as a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer, and
ordering that a suitable sermon should be preached
on the occasion.[88]
(May 25.) The day after these
resolutions passed, Lord Dunmore summoned the
lordly style: "I have in my hand a paper published
by order of your House, conceived in such terms
as reflect highly upon his Majesty and the Parliament
of Great Britain, which makes it necessary
for me to dissolve you, and you are dissolved accordingly."[89]
Forthwith the members repaired to the Raleigh
Tavern, in Williamsburg, and formed another association,
in which they spoke with indignant earnestness
of the measures against Boston; denounced
tea as the source of all their evils, and administered
a just rebuke to the East India Company for joining
hands with tyranny. They recommended that the
members to be elected for the next Assembly should
meet "in convention," at Williamsburg, on the
1st of August, and should then appoint deputies to
represent Virginia in the "General Congress" to be
held this year.[90]
Then going to their homes, the
members spread far and wide their influence. The
1st of June was a day of real mourning; the pulpit
began to speak on the temporal liberties of man;
each bosom caught the spirit, and it seemed as
though an electric shock had passed through every
part of the Colony.
The body assembled at Williamsburg on the 1st
of August, is generally spoken of as the "First
Virginia Convention." It was, indeed, the first
regularly constituted and authorized to act by the
of the same character had before existed. Its action
was entirely confined to the absorbing topic of
the day. The distress of Boston; the obstinacy of
the English Ministry; the duties on tea;[91] were the
grievances: non-importation of British commodities,
was the chief remedy; but they went farther,
and declared that unless their woes were healed
before the 10th of August, 1775, they would not
after that time export a pound of tobacco to Great
Britain. A member had been elected from Albemarle
to this Convention, who, though yet young
in years, had already assumed a prominence in the
councils of his country, which was afterwards ever
increasing. Thomas Jefferson was prevented, by
sickness from attending; but he sent his thoughts
in writing, which were afterwards published, under
the title of a "Summary View of the Rights of
British America." The doctrines sustained in this
composition were too bold to be adopted, even by
the patriots of 1774; but the tract was universally
admired. It was afterwards published in England,
and though eagerly read by opposition members,
it is said to have gained for its author the honour
of being included in a bill of attainder for treason,
The members appointed as deputies to Congress,
were Peyton Randolph, Richard Henry
Lee, George Washington, Patrick Henry, Richard
Bland, Benjamin Harrison, and Edmund Pendleton.
On the 4th of September, at Carpenter's
Hall, in Philadelphia, the venerable body assembled
which was to speak in behalf of the liberties of
three millions of men. To detail its action, would
not be consistent with the unity of this work.
Virginia's noblest sons took part in its counsels,
and led on to the conflict. Peyton Randolph was
in the chair; Patrick Henry and Richard H. Lee,
opened the argument in speeches of matchless
power. Its proceedings have become a part of
the history of America, and its very name is heard
with reverence and gratitude.
Meanwhile, Governor Dunmore was engaged
in schemes which have been enveloped in a cloud
of mystery, and which will, probably, never be
fully explained. He has been charged with having
desired to break the opposition of British America
to the mother country, by involving two of the
most powerful Colonies in war with each other
concerning their boundaries, and with producing
Indian hostilities, to divert the attention of Virginia
vague to bring conviction, yet the facts furnished
are suspicious. He employed a Pennsylvanian,
one Doctor Conolly, a man of popular arts, of intriguing
disposition, and of doubtful patriotism
He gave to him command of the fort at Pittsburg,
with the title of Major. A dispute between Pennsylvania
and Virginia as to their boundaries west
of Fort Pitt, was nursed into importance, and, but
for the forbearance and generosity shown by the
Assemblies of both provinces, they might have been
urged into civil war.[94]
But the Indian hostilities assumed a more serious
aspect. Single murders, on both sides, had been
committed by parties on the Ohio frontiers, and in
the month of April, several relatives of a distinguished
Indian chief had been slain, without adequate
provocation, by white men, under the direction
of one Captain Cresap.[95]
These events were
followed by bloody retaliation; the savage war-whoop
once more sounded among the bold pioneers
of the Ohio valley. Women and children were
put to death, or dragged into captivity. When
expresses arrived in Williamsburg, announcing the
danger, Lord Dunmore resolved to make a vigorous
attack upon the natives, and crush them at a blow.
officer of Botetourt County, should raise about one
thousand men, and march to the Ohio; while his
Lordship should put himself at the head of a similar
number, in the higher part of the valley, and
should proceed to Fort Pitt. It was intended that
the two forces should unite at Point Pleasant, now
in the county of Mason, and just in the fork of the
Ohio and Great Kanawha Rivers.
Immediately, these orders were carried into effect.
The counties of Berkeley, Hampshire, Frederick,
and Shenandoah, Augusta and Botetourt,
yielded more than two thousand riflemen, who
eagerly prepared for the field. They were men of
tried courage, and of astonishing skill in the use of
their weapon. General Lewis, at the head of a
detachment of more than a thousand, passed through
the trackless forest between Camp Union and Point
Pleasant. Captain Matthew Arbuckle was the
pioneer, and most skilfully was his duty performed.[96]
On reaching Point Pleasant, the 1st of October,
they found that Dunmore had not arrived, and,
doubtful of his plans, General Lewis sent scouts to
meet him and receive his orders. On the 10th,
while the army was in camp between the rivers,
two young men, who had ventured out to hunt,
were suddenly attacked by a large body of Indians.
One was slain, and the other fled wounded to the
camp, to rouse his comrades to battle. The whole
army was speedily in motion, and drawn out in
order four hundred yards from the camp. Fifteen
terrible was their fire, that many of the leading division
of whites were slain. Colonel Charles Lewis,
a brother of the General, was mortally wounded,
and with difficulty dragged himself into the camp,
where soon afterwards he expired.
But a reinforcement was at hand. Colonel Flemming
in a loud voice encouraged his men, and by
his example animated them to the conflict. He
received two balls through his left arm, and was
wounded in the lungs, yet he continued to cheer
on his command. In a short time every man in
each army was under cover: from behind trees they
sought their enemies with their weapons; the forest
rang with the sharp reports of the rifle,—and so
unerring was the fire, that few balls were thrown
away: nearly all who fell were shot in the head
or the breast. Colonel Field, while incautiously
pressing in pursuit, received a mortal wound, and
for a long time the victory was doubtful. The
savages were led on by Cornstalk, a gigantic
warrior, already well known in border warfare.
His huge frame was often seen gliding from tree
to tree, as he encouraged his men; and his stentorian
voice, crying "Be strong! Be strong!" sometimes
rose above the tumult of the battle.[97]
At length the skill and valour of the Virginians
prevailed. Holding out their hats from behind the
trees, the riflemen would often tempt the savages to
fire. The hat would then drop; and when the warrior
rushed forward to scalp his fancied prey, a rifle
morning until sunset, the combat raged without
intermission. The Indians began to give way, and
retire slowly from the field. Cornstalk urged them
to the fight, and with his own hand struck dead
one of his followers who showed signs of cowardice.
But the whites pressed upon them, and soon drove
them from the ground. Yet the victory, though
complete, had been dearly bought. One hundred
and forty men were either killed or wounded. Two
field officers were killed, and a third desperately
wounded. More than half the captains and subaltern
officers were among the slain or hurt. The
loss of the savages could not be precisely ascertained,
as they carried off the wounded, and are
said to have thrown the dead into the Ohio, in the
midst of the fight.[99]
The whole honour of this bloody battle must rest
with General Lewis and his gallant men. Dunmore
is entitled to no part of it, and little merited the
thanks which the Virginia Convention afterwards bestowed
on him.[100]
From Fort Pitt he had proceeded
down the Ohio to Hockhocking; and before the south
division under Lewis arrived, he concluded a treaty
of peace with the principal Indian tribes. The warrior
Cornstalk made a long harangue, and boldly set
forth their causes of complaint. Among the native
chiefs, it was observed that Logan, the pride of the
Cayugas, did not appear; but he assented to the
treaty, and despatched an interpreter to Dunmore
the occasion. This celebrated specimen of savage
eloquence has since become known through all enlightened
lands. It has been admired by Europe
and America; nor has it gained interest merely
because it was delivered under circumstances so
novel and romantic. Simple, grave, and full of the
purest pathos, it finds its way at once to the heart,
and brings immediately before us the desolated red
man, whose love to the whites had been repaid by
the murder of all who had his blood running in
their veins.[101] The only benefit Lord Dunmore ever
conferred upon Virginia was in bringing from the
west this noble oration.
This Indian war was the immediate precursor of
the memorable struggle between a civilized mother
and her own oppressed offspring. (1775.) In the
month of March, the Virginia Convention assembled
at Richmond, in the county of Henrico. It was
then a small town, consisting chiefly of wooden
houses rising over hills which ascended from the
banks of James River. The time-honoured church
on Richmond Hill was the place in which the Convention
met; and the picturesque beauties of this
spot are now heightened by the historic associations
which linger around it. The body contained the
patriots of the Colony. Already the sound of war
had been heard in the land; English fleets were
hovering on the coasts of America, and English
armies were quartered in her cities; yet the hearts
hoped for peace, purchased with less than liberty.
The first measures of the Convention were indecisive.
They expressed their satisfaction at the
course of the late Congress, and their thanks to
their own delegates who had acted in its councils.
They declared their pleasure in receiving a petition
and memorial to the King from the Assembly of
Jamaica, in which earnest offers of compromise
were proposed for the pending difficulties.
But they were not long to rest in this inglorious
calm. On the 23d of March, Patrick Henry presented
resolutions declaring that a "well-regulated
militia, consisting of gentlemen and yeomen," was
the natural defence of the country, alluding in
direct terms to the presence of British armies, and
the dangers threatening American freedom, and
finally proposing that the Virginia colony should
be put in a state of defence, and that measures
should be immediately taken "for embodying, arming,
and disciplining such a number of men as may
be sufficient for that purpose."[102]
This proposal
came like the shock of a thunderbolt upon the
"peace party" in the house; and when they were
in some measure recovered, they made a vigorous
stand against it. Richard Bland, Robert Carter
Nicholas, Edmund Pendleton, and Benjamin Harrison
all opposed it. Every argument that ingenuity
could suggest, and learning sustain, was brought
against it. They told of the weakness of America
and the strength of England: a country without
to the formidable power which had shaken Christendom
to its centre: they urged the duty of loyalty,
the advantages of connexion with Britain, the domestic
comforts they might enjoy, contrasted with
the horrors of civil war.
It was now that Patrick Henry appeared in
majesty. Rising slowly from his seat, he commenced
a speech which made every soul thrill with
ineffable emotion. Enough of this address has
been preserved to give to us some idea of the topics
he presented; but none can paint the living power,
the fire which animated his form and burned in his
words. With mighty strokes he hewed down the
defences which had been erected before the King
and the Parliament, and disclosed them in all their
deformity.
"Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves
longer. We have done every thing that could be
done to avert the storm which is now coming on.
We have petitioned—we have remonstrated—we
have supplicated—we have prostrated ourselves before
the throne, and have implored its interposition
to arrest the tyrannical hands of the Ministry and
Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our
remonstrances have produced additional violence
and insult; our supplications have been disregarded;
and we have been spurned with contempt from the
foot of the throne. In vain after these things may
we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.
There is no longer any room for hope.
If we wish to be free—if we mean to preserve inviolate
have been so long contending—if we mean not
basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we
have been so long engaged, and which we have
pledged ourselves never to abandon until the object
of our contest shall be obtained—we must fight!
I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms
and to the God of hosts is all that is left us.
"There is a just God who presides over the destinies
of nations, and who will raise up friends to
fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to
the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active,
the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If
we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late
to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but
in submission and slavery. Our chains are forged;
their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston.
The war is inevitable, and let it come. I repeat it,
sir, let it come.
"Gentlemen may cry peace! peace! but there is
no peace. The war is already begun. The next gale
that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the
clash of resounding arms. Our brethren are already
in the field. Why stand we here idle? What is it
that gentlemen wish?—what would they have? Is
life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at
the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty
God! I know not what course others may take; but
as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"
Amid silence, dead and solemn, the orator resumed
his seat. Not a murmur was heard; not a
whisper of comment disturbed the Assembly; feelings
heart. The past, the present, and the future—the
wrongs endured—the remedy offered—the slavery
of peace—the terrors of war—the fear of defeat—
the hope of success—all mingled together, and for
a time stilled every tongue. But the moment of
hesitation had passed. Quickly the blood returned
with redoubled impetus to its channels. Every lip
seemed ready to call to arms.[103] Richard Henry Lee
rose, and with graceful oratory seconded the resolutions.
His voice was not needed to add to the
effect of that eloquence which had seemed almost
enough to call the dead to life. The proposal of
Mr. Henry was adopted, and in a short time Virginia
was alive with military preparation. In every
county men were to be enrolled, arms prepared,
powder and ball provided. The eastern counties
were particularly recommended to raise companies
of horse, and to train them with all diligence to the
sound of firearms and the movements of the field.
All things indicated that peace could not long endure.
The words of Patrick Henry were prophetic.
The next breeze which blew from the north might
have swept over the plains of Concord and Lexington
while the combat between the British troops
and Massachusetts yeomanry was in progress; and
one day after this battle, a body of marines from
the armed English schooner Magdalen, acting
under the orders of Lord Dunmore, came up to
from the public magazine twenty barrels of powder,
which they stored before daybreak in the hold of
their vessel.[104] (April 20.) Thus the war of the
Revolution commenced in Virginia.
"Irretrievable ultimate ruin has —Alison, Hist. Europe, ii. 407.
thus been brought upon the state."
This was William Pitt's opinion:
"At the same time, let the sovereign
authority of legislative and commercial
control, always possessed by this
country, be asserted in as strong
terms as can be devised; and if it
were denied, I would not suffer even
a nail for a horseshoe to be manufactured
in America."—Grahame,
iv. 241; Blackstone's Com. i. 76-78.
Lord Chatham, in Grahame, iv.
241. Even Sir William Blackstone
impliedly gives countenance to this
doctrine. "It is the ancient indisputable
privilege of the House of
Commons that all grants of subsidies
or parliamentary aids do begin in
their house, and are first bestowed by
them."—Commen. i. 124, and post,
229.
Whose thunders shook the Philip of the seas
Burk says the rise was caused
by an extravagant speculator named
Dickenson, iii. 302; but Mr. Wirt
gives no sanction to this statement.
P. Henry, 24.
See Hening, vii. 240, 241; Wirt's
P. Henry, 24; Grahame, iv. 95, 96;
Hawks' Eccles. Hist. Va., 118, 119.
Mr. Wirt, upon a review of the
pamphlets, ascribes victory to the
clergy, P. Henry, 25, and see Dr.
Hawks, 118.
"Abiit—excessit—evasit—erupit!"
Cicero in Catal. Delphin. Class.
iv. 1303. The effect of Henry's eloquence
was more striking because
more immediate than that produced
by the great Roman orator. In no
other point will it be pretended that
the clergy of Virginia were like the
seditious Cataline.
Wirt's P. Henry, 28, 29; Grahame,
iv. 99; Burk, 302, 303, vol.
iii. It is amusing to note in Dr.
Hawks, the struggle between his
admiration of Henry's genius and
his evident disgust at his success.
Prot. Epis. Church in Va., 123, 124.
The Doctor could hardly be expected
to approve the decision. He insists
much upon the demurrer, and expresses
the horror of a lawyer at the
wide field of discussion which Henry
assumed.
This was all granted between
the years 1756 and 1763. See note
in Burk, iii. 280; Belsham's Great
Britain, v. 165, 166.
They were, Peyton Randolph
(Attorney-General), Richard Henry
Lee, Landon Carter, George Wythe,
Edmund Pendleton, Benjamin Harrison,
Richard Bland, Mr. Cary, and
Mr. Fleming.—Appen. to Wirt's
Life of Henry, Note A, 297.
Bissett's George III., 190; Miller,
iii. 51; Belsham, v. 168, 169;
Otis's Botta, i. 54; Grahame, iv.
201; Gordon, i. 112-116.
So says Mr. Wirt, P. Henry,
41, 42; but see Alden's Collec. Am.
Epitaphs, v. 20, where Mr. Pendleton
is said to have passed his early
years with Benjamin Robinson,
Clerk of Caroline County Court.
Wirt's P. Henry, 43. The reader
will not demand from me any apology
for having sought aid from Mr.
Wirt's elegant sketches of these
great men. How could I have found
more beautiful models?
See Mr. Jefferson's Letter to
Mr. Wirt, in Life of P. Henry, 45,
46; Tucker's Life of Jefferson, i.
41-43.
Note by Mr. Jefferson, in Wirt's
P. Henry, 46, 47; see Burk, iii. 332,
who says the default was discovered
before Mr. Robinson's death, and
that the mortification he experienced
hastened his end.
They will be found in full, as
given by Mr. Henry himself, in
Wirt's P. Henry, 49. Marshall gives
six, and reports them inaccurately,
Life of Washington, ii. 130, edit.
1804. Mr. Burk has the same error
as to the number, and says two were
discarded by compromise, iii. 306310.
Burk, iii. 309; Belsham, v. 185,
not perfect, Grahame, iv. 209,
Wirt's Henry, 55; Howe's Hist.
Collect. 297, 298.
Jefferson's account, in Wirt, 52;
Tucker's Jefferson, i. 43; Burk says
the resolutions were adopted by a
large majority, forty only voting
against them.
Gordon, i. 119; Burk, iii. 310;
Grahame, iv. 209, 210. Mr. Wirt
thinks the Governor did not dissolve
the Assembly, note, 54; but the fact
seems to me sufficiently proved.
See an example in the Pennsylvania
Gazette, 20the June, 1765,
Wirt's Henry, note, 56; Grahame,
ii. 210.
Pitt's Speech, in Belsham, v.
193; in Grahame, iv. 239, Burk, iii.
327, 328; Otis's Botta, i. 94.
Miller gives their reasons in
full, George III., 58, and with evident
approbation; but see Belsham,
contra, v. 197. It is difficult to believe
that Miller and Belsham belonged
to the same nation.
See the celebrated "Letters of a
Pennsylvania Farmer," written by
John Dickenson, Virginia Gazette,
beginning January 7, 1768.
This was the great point argued
in the "Letters of a Pennsylvania
Farmer," Virginia Gazette, Feb.,
1768.
Note, in Burk, iii. 363. In his
text, Mr. Burk adds two more horses,
342; and Mr. Grahame follows him,
iv. 290.
They were Peyton Randolph, R.
C. Nicholas, Richard Bland, Richard
Henry Lee, Benjamin Harrison,
Edmund Pendleton, Patrick Henry,
Dudley Digges, Dabney Carr, Archibald
Cary, and Thomas Jefferson —
Wirt, 69, 70; Burk, iii. 392; Tucker's
Life of Jefferson, i. 52, 53.
The London Times for January
2d, 1847, speaking of the proposal
in the late U. S. Congress, to tax tea
and coffee, says, "It is little more
than seventy years since the Colony
rebelled, rather than pay a duty of
3d. per pound on the former article.
The whole population rose in defence
of an untaxed teapot." However
undesignedly, the writer pays
a high tribute to the steady adherence
to principle shown by America
in the revolution.
The third article deserves to be
recorded: "Considering the article
of tea as the detestable instrument
which laid the foundation of the
present sufferings of our distressed
friends in the town of Boston, we
view it with horror; and, therefore,
resolve that we will not, from this
day, either import tea of any kind
whatever, nor will we use or suffer
even such of it as is now on hand to
be used in any of our families."—
Burk, iii. 384.
This tract is not now in general
circulation. The author examined it,
together with Richard Bland's "Inquiry
into the Rights of the British
Colonies," published in 1766, in the
Library at Cambridge, Mass., in February,
1847. The "Summary View,"
was republished in the "American
Archives," vol. i.; and in Jefferson's
Works, i. 100-116. See Tucker's
Life of Jefferson, i. 58-61.
Doddridge's Account, in Kercheval,
148, 149, Appendix to Jefferson's
Notes, 238-274; Withers'
Border Warfare, 117-120. This
work is rare in Eastern Virginia; a
copy has been kindly presented to
me by Thomas Mathews, Esq., of
Richmond.
| CHAPTER I. A history of Virginia | |