CHAPTER LXXI.
1768-1771.
Botetourt, Governor—Resolutions against the encroachments of Parliament—Assembly dissolved—Non-importation Agreement—The Moderates—Assembly called—Botetourt's Address—Association—Death of Botetourt—His Character—William Nelson, President—Great Fresh—American Episcopate—Assembly opposes it—Controversy—Methodists.
In November, 1768, Norborne Berkeley, Baron de Botetourt, arrived in Virginia as governor-in-chief. The season was delightful, with its tinted foliage, serene sky, and bracing air. Botetourt, just relieved from the confinement of a sea-voyage, was charmed with his new place of abode; the palace appeared commodious; the grounds well planted and watered. While his new residence was fitting up for him he daily enjoyed the hospitalities of the people. He found that while they would never willingly submit to be taxed by the mother country, yet they were ardently desirous of giving assistance, as formerly, upon requisition. In the mean time the duties complained of were collected without any resistance whatever. Botetourt, solicitous to gratify the Virginians, pledged "his life and fortune" to extend the boundary of the State on the west to the Tennessee River, on the parallel of thirty-six and a half degrees. This boundary, Andrew Lewis and Thomas Walker wrote, would give some room to extend the settlements for ten or twelve years.[556:A]
On the 11th day of May, 1769, when the assembly was convened, the governor rode from the palace to the capitol in a state-coach drawn by six milk-white horses, a present from George the Third, and the insignia of royalty were displayed with unusual pomp. The pageant, supposed to be intended to dazzle, served rather to offend. On that day and the following he entertained fifty-two guests at dinner.
When, in Massachusetts, the custom-house officers had demanded[557:A] from the courts writs of assistance for enforcing the revenue act, the eloquent James Otis had resisted the application in a speech which gave a mighty impulse to the popular sentiment. The same question was now argued before Botetourt and the council, forming the general court, and he concurred in declaring them illegal. During this session, Mr. Jefferson made an unsuccessful effort for the enactment of a law authorizing owners to manumit their slaves.
In February, parliament, refusing to consider a redress of American grievances, had advised his majesty to take vigorous measures against Massachusetts, and to make inquisition there for treason, and, if sufficient ground should appear, to transport the accused to England for trial before a special commission; and George the Third, a king of exemplary character, but obstinate temper, heartily concurred in those views. Upon receiving intelligence of this fact, the burgesses of Virginia again[557:B] passed resolutions unanimously, vindicating the rights of the colonies, claiming the sole right to levy taxes, and asserting the right of bringing about a concert of the colonies in defence against the encroachments of parliament; exposing the injustice and tyranny of applying to America an obsolete act of the reign of Henry the Eighth, warning the king of the dangers that would ensue if any American should be transported to England for trial, and finally ordering the resolutions to be communicated to the legislatures of the other colonies, and requesting their concurrence. Even the merchants of peaceable Pennsylvania approved these resolutions; Delaware adopted them word for word; and the colonies south of Virginia eventually imitated her example. An address was also prepared to be laid before the king. Botetourt took alarm at what he termed, in his correspondence with the government, "the abominable measure," and having convoked the assembly, addressed them thus: "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."
The burgesses immediately repaired in a body to the Raleigh, and unanimously adopted a non-importation agreement, drawn by George Mason, and presented by George Washington. The resolutions included one not to import, or purchase any imported slaves, after the first day of November, until the objectionable acts of parliament should be repealed. Mr. Mason, not yet a member of the assembly, was not present at this meeting. The moderate party in the assembly, while they had opposed measures which appeared to them injudicious and premature, nevertheless avowed themselves as firmly riveted to the main principle in dispute. Their views, they averred, had been made public in the several memorials to government; and from the position so assumed they were resolved never to recede. They had not, indeed, expected that parliament would ever explicitly acknowledge itself in the wrong; but it had been their hope that the dispute would have been left to rest upon reciprocal protestations, and finally have died away. The late measures of the British government had extinguished such delusive hopes. That government claimed the right of subjecting America to every act of parliament as being part of the British dominions; and at the same time that Americans should be liable to punishment under an act of Henry the Eighth, made to punish offences committed out of the realm. The deportation of Americans for trial, depriving them of the right of trial by a jury of the vicinage, appeared to be fraught with worse mischiefs than the stamp act, in as much as life is more precious than property.[558:A]
On the 9th of May, 1769, the king had, in his speech to parliament, re-echoed their determination to enforce the laws in every part of his dominions. Nevertheless, on the thirteenth the Earl of Hillsborough, secretary of state for the colonies, wrote to Botetourt, assuring him that it was not the intention of ministers to propose any further taxes, and that they intended to propose a repeal of the duties on glass, paper, and paints, not on the question of right, but upon the ground that those duties had been imposed contrary to the true principles of commerce. Botetourt, calling the assembly together, communicated these assurances, adding: "It is my firm opinion that the plan I have stated to you will certainly take place, and that it will never be departed from; and so determined am I to abide by it, that I will be content to be declared infamous, if I do not to the last hour of my life, at all times, in all places, and upon all occasions, exert every power with which I am, or ever shall be, legally invested, in order to obtain and maintain for the continent of America, that satisfaction which I have been authorized to promise this day by the confidential servant of our gracious sovereign, who, to my certain knowledge, rates his honor so high that he would rather part with his crown than preserve it by deceit." The council, in reply, advised the repeal of the existing parliamentary taxes; the burgesses expressed their gratitude for "information sanctified by the royal word," and considered the king's influence as pledged "toward protecting the happiness of all his people." Botetourt, pleased with the address, wished them "freedom and happiness till time should be no more." William Lee regarded this as mere bombastic rant. During this year appeared a pamphlet, asserting the rights of the colonies, entitled "The Monitor's Letters," by Arthur Lee.
Lord North succeeded the Duke of Grafton as prime minister, in January, 1770, and in the ensuing March all the duties on the American imports were repealed, except that on tea. Lord North, at the same time, however, avowed the absolute determination of the government not to yield the right of taxing the colonies.
The first association appears not to have been adhered to, and the English merchants declared that the exports to Virginia of the prohibited articles were never greater.
On the 22d day of June, 1770, a second association was entered into at Williamsburg, by the burgesses and the merchants of the colony appointing committees, to be chosen by the associators of each county, to enforce the non-importation agreement; resolving to promote industry and frugality; enumerating the articles not to be imported or purchased after a certain day, specially mentioning slaves and wine; engaging not to advance the price of goods, wares, and merchandise; binding themselves not to import or purchase any article which should be taxed by parliament for the purpose of raising a revenue in America.
The estimable Botetourt died in October, 1770, in his fifty-third year, and after an administration of two years. Promoted to the peerage in 1764, he had succeeded Sir Jeffrey Amherst as governor-in-chief in 1768, and was the first of that title since Lord Culpepper, who had condescended to come over to the colony. On his arrival it was his purpose to reduce the Virginians to submission, either by persuasion or by force; but when he became better acquainted with the people he changed his views, and entreated the ministry to repeal the offensive acts. Such a promise was, indeed, held out to him; but finding himself deceived, he demanded his recall, and died shortly afterwards of a bilious fever, exacerbated by chagrin and disappointment. He was a patron of learning and the arts, giving out of his own purse silver and gold medals as prizes to the students of William and Mary College. His death was deeply lamented by the colony, and the assembly erected a statue in honor of him, which is still standing, somewhat mutilated, in front of the college. At his death the administration devolved upon William Nelson, president of the council.
In May, 1771, a great fresh occurred in Virginia, the James in three days rising twenty feet higher than ever was known before. The low grounds were inundated, standing crops destroyed, corn, fences, chattels, merchandise, cattle, and houses carried off, and ships forced from their moorings. Many of the inhabitants, masters and slaves, in endeavoring to rescue property, or to escape from danger, were drowned. Houses were seen drifting down the current, and people clinging to them, uttering fruitless cries for succor. Fertile fields were covered with a thick deposit of sand; islands were torn to pieces, bars accumulated, the channel diverted, and the face of nature altered. At Turkey Island, on the James River, there is a monument bearing the following inscription: "The foundations of this pillar were laid in the calamitous year 1771, when all the great rivers of this country were swept by inundations never before experienced, which changed the face of nature and left traces of their violence that will remain for ages." One hundred and fifty persons were drowned by this rise in the rivers.
The assembly met in July, 1771. About this time the question of an American episcopate was agitated; and in some of the Northern colonies the measure was warmly contended for in the public papers. New York and New Jersey desired to secure the co-operation of Virginia in petitioning the king on this subject, and deputed the Rev. Dr. Cooper, President of King's College, New York, and the Rev. Mr. McKean, deputies to visit the South in this behalf; and at their urgent solicitation, Commissary Horrocks, himself aspiring to the mitre, as was supposed, called a convocation of the clergy to take the matter into consideration. Only a few attended; but after some vacillation they determined to join in the petition to the crown, the Rev. John Camm taking the lead in this proceeding. Four of the clergy in attendance, Henley and Gwatkin, professors in the College of William and Mary, and Hewitt and Bland, entered a protest against the scheme of introducing a bishop, as endangering the very existence of the British empire in America. The assembly having expressed its disapprobation of the project, and it being urged but by few, and resisted by some of the clergy, it fell to the ground; and the thanks of the house were presented, through Richard Henry Lee and Richard Bland, to the protesting clergymen for their "wise and well-timed opposition." Churchmen naturally sided with the English government, and the bench of bishops were arrayed in opposition to the rights of the colonies. The protest of the four ministers gave rise to a controversy between them and the United Episcopal Conventions of New York and New Jersey; and a war of pamphlets and newspapers ensued in the Northern and Middle States; and the stamp act itself, according to some writers, did not evoke more bitter denunciations, nor more violent threats, than the project of an episcopate: New England was in a flame against it. It was believed, that if bishops should be sent over they would unite with the governors in opposition to the rights of America. The laity of the Episcopal Church in America were, excepting a small minority, opposed to the measure. Neither the people of Virginia, nor any of the American colonies, were at any time willing to receive a bishop appointed by the English government. Among the advocates of the scheme the Rev. Jonathan Boucher took a prominent part, and he sustained it ably from the pulpit. He held that the refusal of Virginia to consent to the appointment of a bishop, was "to unchurch the church;" and his views on this subject were re-echoed by Lowth, Bishop of Oxford, in an anniversary sermon delivered before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. On this point of ecclesiastical government the members of the establishment in Virginia appear to have been looked upon as themselves dissenters. In one sense they were so; but their repugnance was to prelacy, not to the episcopate; a prelatical bishop was in their minds associated with ideas of expense beyond their means, and of opposition to the principles of civil liberty. Boucher, in a sermon that he preached in this year at St. Mary's Church, in Caroline County, of which he was then rector, says of the dissenters in Virginia: "I might almost as well pretend to count the gnats that buzz around us in a summer's evening."
The scheme of sending over a bishop had been entertained more than a hundred years before; and Dean Swift at one time entertained hopes of being made Bishop of Virginia, with power, as is said, to ordain priests and deacons for all the colonies, and to parcel them out into deaneries, parishes, chapels, etc., and to recommend and present thereto. The favorite sermons of many of the Virginia clergy were Sterne's.[562:A]
During this year died the Rev. James Horrocks, President of the College and Commissary. He had been at the head of William and Mary since the death of Rev. William Yates, in 1764. Mr. Horrocks was succeeded in both places by the Rev. John Camm.
John Murray, Earl of Dunmore, was transferred[562:B] from the government of New York to that of Virginia. The town of Fincastle, the title of one of his sons, in Botetourt County, was now incorporated. The Honorable William Nelson, president, died in this year. About this time the Methodists appeared in Virginia; they still avowed that attachment to the Church of England which Wesley and Whitefield both, in the early years of their career, had uniformly professed. Although they allowed laymen to preach, the communion was received by them at the hands of the clergy only; and they even affirmed that "whosoever left the church left the Methodists." They, therefore, now were visited with a share of the odium which fell upon the established church.
FOOTNOTES:
[556:A] Bancroft, vi. 228.
[557:A] 1769.
[557:B] May 16th.
[558:A] Letter of R. C. Nicholas to Arthur Lee, S. Lit. Messenger, 1858, p. 184.
[562:A] Old Churches, i. 25.
[562:B] 1772.
