To a large extent this is just what they did. Though Nott was no weakling, he was anxious to live in peace with both Council and Assembly. It was said of him that his "whole study was to do everybody justice."[1] Like other Governors when they first arrived and were unacquainted with men and conditions in the colony, he was dependent upon the Councillors for advice and guidance. Before he could learn the ropes, he died. Since four years elapsed before a new Governor arrived to take his place, the Council remained for half a decade the controlling power in the colony. From August, 1705, to July, 1710, the government was neither despotic nor democratic, but aristocratic.
Nathaniel Bacon, Nicholson, Spotswood, and others derided the "mighty dons" of the Council, pointing out that they came from humble families in England. These critics did not stop to consider that it was more to their credit to have won by their own efforts positions of wealth and power than to have inherited them. Virginia itself offered them the opportunity, but it was they who seized it.
The group of well-to-do planters whom the Council represented, in the early years of the eighteenth century were far from numerous. "In every river there are from ten to thirty men who by trade and industry have gotten very competent estates," wrote Colonel Quary. "Out of this number are chosen her Majesty's Council, the Assembly, the justices, and officers of the government."[2]
It must have been a humiliation to such proud men as William Byrd II, "King" Carter, and Benjamin Harrison that they were not admitted to the English peerage. But though there were no dukes, nor lords, nor knights among the Councillors, they had the right to certain titles which carried great distinction. The term "esquire" was given to members of the Council, and was invariably used by them in signing legal documents. If a man were not a Councillor, yet was prominent and wealthy, he had the right to sign himself "gentleman." The holders of high office in the militia—colonels, lieutenant colonels, majors, and captains—prized their titles highly and used them in conjunction with "esquire," or "gentleman."[3]
Nor did the English nobility command greater respect than did the members of the Council in Virginia. When a certain Humphrey Chamberlaine, of Henrico County, became angry with William Byrd I, and, stripping off his coat, drew his sword as if to attack him, he was arrested and clapped into jail. At his trial he excused himself by saying he was a stranger in the country and ignorant of its laws and customs. But the court, ruling that no one "could be insensible of the respect and reverence due so honorable a person as Colonel Byrd," fined him five pounds sterling.[4]
Although the basis of the wealth of the aristocracy was land, the holding of large tracts did not in itself bring riches unless the owner could find the labor necessary to work them. During most of the seventeenth century indentured workers were used extensively. But their cost and the fact that they served but four or five years limited the return they brought their masters. With the importing of slaves in large numbers in the last two decades of the seventeenth century and the first third of the eighteenth century, the cost of raising tobacco was greatly lowered. This not only doubled or tripled existing fortunes, but created many new ones. It is this which explains why the Virginia aristocracy, which so late as the last decade of the seventeenth century was little more than a group, by the mid-eighteenth century had become a numerous class.[5]
In their mode of life the aristocracy consciously imitated the English country squires. The large libraries which they accumulated served practical as well as cultural ends. The wealthy man who wished to build a residence pored over James Gibbs' A Book of Architecture, or Abraham Swan's The British Architect. In laying out his garden he consulted Kip's English Houses and Gardens, or John James' The Theory and Practice of Gardening. On his shelves were English books on law, medicine, religion, agriculture.
Fortunately some of the mansions of colonial Virginia have survived the ravages of time, fires, and wars, to bear witness to the charm and dignity of the plantation life of two centuries ago. Carter's Grove, Mount Airy, Gunston Hall, Westover, Brandon, and others constitute history in brick and wood. The lovely gardens, some of which have been restored in recent years, are in the formal style of Le Notre and Rose. The mansions were furnished with tables, chairs, bookcases by the English masters; on the tables were pitchers, goblets, and candlesticks by English silversmiths. The aristocrat dressed himself and his family in the latest English fashions, owned an English-made coach, imported English race horses, perhaps sent his son to Oxford, when he visited England had his portrait painted by Lely or Kneller.
It was inevitable that in so small a group as the early Virginia aristocracy there should be frequent intermarriages. In 1717 half of the members of the Council were related to each other by blood or marriage. James Blair and Philip Ludwell were brothers-in-law of Nathaniel Harrison; William Byrd's wife was the niece of Ludwell; William Bassett and Edmund Berkeley had married half-nieces of Ludwell; Ludwell's wife was Harrison's sister. Governor Spotswood habitually referred to them as "the family."
It was wrong, Spotswood pointed out, that a group of relatives should wield such power. Since they all sat on the General Court, it was to be expected that they would vote as a unit if the interests of any one of them were involved. "Whoever has lived here and frequented the General Courts held of late in Virginia, has abundant reason to know that there is a strong link of relatives on the bench, who by their majority have the determination of all causes," he wrote in 1718. "When one of their kindred is charged with enormous crimes, clerks may safely keep back the examination, and sheriffs keep back the witnesses.... When the King has been plaintiff in a civil action against one of that family, the cause could not be tried for want of judges to make up a bench exclusive of those who were akin to the defendant."[6]