"H. LAWRENCE, President.
"Whitehall, 7th September, 1658."
Superscription, to the "Governor and Council of his Highness' Colony of Virginia."
Upon the reading of this letter, the governor and council withdrew from the assembly; and the house of burgesses unanimously acknowledged their obedience to his Highness, Richard, Lord Protector, and fully recognized his power.[241:A] So much truth is there in Mr. Jefferson's remark,[241:B] that in the contest with the house of Stuart, Virginia accompanied the footsteps of the mother country. The government of Virginia under the Commonwealth of England was wholly provisional. By the convention of March the 12th, 1652, Virginia secured to herself her ancient limits, and was entitled to reclaim that part of her chartered territory which had been unjustly and illegally given away to Lord Baltimore. In this, however, owing to the perplexed condition of affairs in England, Virginia was disappointed; but she secured, by the articles of convention, free trade, exemption from taxation, save by her own assembly, and exclusion of military force from her borders. Yet all these rights were violated by subsequent kings and parliaments.[242:A]
The administration of the colonial government, under the Commonwealth of England, was judicious and beneficent; the people were free, harmonious, and prosperous; and while Cromwell's sceptre commanded the respect of the world, he exhibited toward the infant and loyal colony a generous and politic lenity; and during this interval she enjoyed free trade, legislative independence, civil and religious freedom, republican institutions, and internal peace. The Governors Bennet, Digges, and Matthews, by their patriotic virtues, enjoyed the confidence, and affection, and respect of the people; no extravagance, rapacity, corruption, or extortion was charged against their administration; intolerance and persecution were unknown. But rapine, corruption, extortion, intolerance, and persecution were all soon to be revived under the restored dynasty of the Stuarts.
Richard Cromwell resigned the Protectorate on the 22d day of April, 1659. Matthews, the governor, had died in the preceding January. England was without a monarch; Virginia without a governor. It was during this interval that public opinion in England was in suspense, the result of affairs depending upon the line of conduct which might be pursued by General Monk. The Virginia assembly, convening on the 13th day of March, 1660, declared by their first act that as there was then in England no resident, absolute, and generally acknowledged power, therefore the supreme government of the colony should rest in the assembly; and writs previously issued in the name of his Highness, the Lord Protector, now issued in the name of the Grand Assembly of Virginia. By the second act, Sir William Berkley was elected governor; he was required to call a grand assembly once in two years at the least, and was restricted from dissolving the assembly without its consent. The circumstances of this reappointment of Sir William Berkley have been frequently misrepresented; historians from age to age following each other in fabulous tradition, erroneous conjecture, or wilful perversion, have asserted that Sir William was hurried from retirement by a torrent of popular enthusiasm, and made governor by acclamation, and that Charles the Second was boldly proclaimed in Virginia, and his standard reared several months, some say sixteen, before the restoration; and thus the Virginians, as they had been the last of the king's subjects who renounced their allegiance, so they were the first who returned to it![243:A]
Error in history is like a flock of sheep jumping over a bridge; if one goes, the rest all follow. Sir William Berkley, as has been before mentioned, was not elected by a tumultuary assemblage of the people, but by the assembly; the royal standard was not raised upon the occasion, nor was the king proclaimed. The bulk of the Virginia planters undoubtedly retained their habitual attachment to monarchy and to the Established Church; and some royalist refugees had been driven hither by the civil war. Yet, as the colonists had formerly been greatly dissatisfied with some acts of the government during the reign of Charles the First, they certainly had much reason to approve of the wise, and liberal, and magnanimous policy of Cromwell. Besides this, a good many republicans and Puritans had found their way to Virginia. The predominant feeling, however, in Virginia as in England, was in favor of the restoration of Charles the Second. Sir William Berkley, in his speech addressed to the assembly on their proffer of the place of governor, said: "I do, therefore, in the presence of God and you, make this safe protestation for us all, that if any supreme settled power appears, I will immediately lay down my commission, but will live most submissively obedient to any power God shall set over me, as the experience of eight years has shewed I have done." In his address to the house of burgesses, he alludes to the late king, as "my most gracious master, King Charles, of ever blessed memory," and as "my ever honored master, who was put to a violent death." The Berkleys were staunch adherents of Charles the First, and extreme royalists. Referring in his address to the surrender of the colony, Sir William said, that the parliament "sent a small power to force my submission, which, finding me defenceless, was quietly (God pardon me) effected." Of the several parliaments and the protectorate he remarked: "And I believe, Mr. Speaker, (Theodorick Bland,) you think, if my voice had been prevalent in most of their elections, I would not voluntarily have made choice of them for my supremes. But, Mr. Speaker, all this I have said, is only to make this truth apparent to you, that in and under all these mutable governments of divers natures and constitutions, I have lived most resignedly submissive. But, Mr. Speaker, it is one duty to live obedient to a government, and another of a very different nature, to command under it." It thus appears that Sir William accepted the place hoping for the restoration of Charles the Second; but with an explicit pledge, that he would resign in case that event should not occur.[244:A] This speech was made March the nineteenth, and on the twenty-first the council unanimously concurred in his election. The members were Richard Bennet, (late Puritan Governor,) William Bernard, John Walker, George Reade, Thomas Pettus, William Clayborne, Edward Hill, Thomas Dew, Edward Carter, Thomas Swan, and Augustine Warner. Nearly all of these were colonels. The title of colonel and member of the council appears to have been a sort of order of nobility in Virginia. Sir William Berkley was elected two months before the restoration of Charles the Second, which took place on the 20th of May, 1660, that being his birth-day. Yet the word "king" or "majesty" nowhere occurs in the legislative records, from the commencement of the Commonwealth of England until the 11th day of October, 1660, more than four months after the restoration.[244:B] Virginia was indeed loyal, but she was too feeble to avow her loyalty.
An act was passed, entitled an act for the suppressing the Quakers; the preamble of which describes them as an unreasonable and turbulent sort of people, who daily gather together unlawful assemblies of people, teaching lies, miracles, false visions, prophecies, and doctrines tending to disturb the peace, disorganize society, and destroy all law, and government, and religion. Masters of vessels were prohibited from bringing in any of that sect, under the penalty of one hundred pounds of tobacco; all of them to be apprehended and committed, until they should give security that they would leave the colony; if they should return, they should be punished, and returning the third time should be proceeded against as felons. No person should entertain any Quakers that had been questioned by the governor and council; nor permit any assembly of them in or near his house, under the penalty of one hundred pounds sterling; and no person to publish their books, pamphlets, and libels.[245:A] This act was passed in March, 1660, shortly after the election of Sir William Berkley.
Of late years, certain masters of vessels trading to Virginia, in violation of the laws and of the articles of surrender granting the privilege of free trade, had "molested, troubled, and seized divers ships, sloops, and vessels, coming to trade with us." The assembly therefore required every master to give bond not to molest any person trading under the protection of the laws.
Act XVI. establishes free trade: "Whereas, the restriction of trade hath appeared to be the greatest impediment to the advance of the estimation and value of our present only commodity, tobacco, be it enacted and confirmed, That the Dutch, and all strangers of what Christian nation soever, in amity with the people of England, shall have free liberty to trade with us for all allowable commodities." And it was provided, "That if the said Dutch, or other foreigners, shall import any negro slaves, they, the said Dutch, or others, shall, for the tobacco really produced by the sale of the said negro, pay only the impost of two shillings per hogshead, the like being paid by our own nation." The regular impost being ten shillings, this exemption was a bounty of eight shillings per hogshead for the encouragement of the importation of negroes.[245:B]