CHAPTER LXX.

1766-1768.

Bland's Inquiry-Duties imposed by Parliament-Death of Fauquier-Succeeded by Blair-Baptists persecuted-Blair's Letter.

IN the year 1766 there was published at Williamsburg "An Inquiry into the Rights of the British Colonies," from the pen of Richard Bland.* In discussing the question, “Whether the colonies are represented in the British Parliament?" he traces the English constitution to its Saxon origin, when every freeholder was a member of the Wittenagemote or Parliament. This appears from the statutes 1st Henry the Fifth, and 8th Henry the Sixth, limiting the elective franchise, that is, depriving many of the right of representation in parliament. How could they have been thus deprived, if, as was contended, all the people of England were still virtually represented? He acknowledged that a very large portion of the people of Great Britain were not entitled to representation, and were, nevertheless, bound to obey the laws of the realm, but then the obligation of these laws does not arise from their being virtually represented. The American colonies, excepting the few planted in the eighteenth century, were founded by private adventurers, who established themselves, without any expense to the nation, in this uncultivated and almost uninhabited country, so that they stand on a different foot from the Roman or any ancient colonies. Men have a natural right to quit their own country and retire to another, and set up there an independent government for themselves. But if they have

The title-page is as follows: "An Inquiry into the Rights of the British Colonies, intended as an Answer to The Regulations lately made concerning the Colonies, and the Taxes imposed upon them, considered.' In a Letter addressed to the Author of that Pamphlet, by Richard Bland, of Virginia. Dedit omnibus Deus pro virili portione sapientiam, ut et inaudita investigare possent et audita perpendere. Lactantius." Williamsburg: printed by Alexander Purdie & Co., MDCCLXVI.

this so absolute a right, they must have the lesser right to remove, by compact with their sovereign, to a new country, and to form a civil establishment upon the terms of the compact. The first Virginia charter was granted to Raleigh by Queen Elizabeth, in 1584, and by it the new country was granted to him, his heirs and assigns, in perpetual sovereignty, as fully as the crown could grant, with full power of legislation and the establishment of a government. The country was to be united to the realm of England in perfect league and amity; was to be within the allegiance of the crown, and to be held by homage and the payment of onefifth of all gold and silver ore. In the thirty-first year of Elizabeth's reign, Raleigh assigned the plantation of Virginia to a company, who afterwards associating other adventurers with them, procured new charters from James the First, in whom Raleigh's rights became vested upon his attainder. The charter of James was of the same character with that of Elizabeth, with an express clause of exemption forever from all taxation or impost upon their imports or exports. Under this charter, and the auspices of the company, the colony of Virginia was settled, after struggling through immense difficulties, and without receiving the least aid from the British government. In 1621 a government was established, consisting of a governor, council, and house of burgesses, elected by the freeholders. In 1624 James the First dissolved the company, and assumed the control of the colony, which, upon his demise, devolved upon Charles the First, who, in 1625, asserted his royal claim of authority over it. To quiet the dissatisfaction of the colonists at the loss of their chartered rights, the privy council afterwards, in the year 1634, communicated the king's assurance that "all their estates and trade, freedom and privileges, should be enjoyed by them in as extensive a manner as they enjoyed them before the recalling of the company's patent." Moreover, Charles the First, in 1644, assured the Virginians that they should always be immediately dependent upon the crown. After the king's death Virginia displayed her loyalty by resisting the parliamentary forces sent out to reduce the colony, and by exacting the most honorable terms of surrender. Here the author of "the Inquiry," although exceedingly well informed in general as to the history of the colony,

falls into the common error that Charles the Second was proclaimed in Virginia some time before he was restored to the throne in England.

Thus Virginia was, as to her internal affairs, a distinct, independent state, but united with the parent state by the closest league and amity, and under the same allegiance. If the crown had indeed no prerogative to form such a compact, then the royal engagements wherein "the freedom and other benefits of the British constitution" were secured to them, could not be made good; and a people who are liable to taxation without representation, cannot be held to enjoy "the freedom and benefits of the British constitution." Even in the arbitrary reign of Charles the First, when it was thought necessary to establish a permanent revenue for the support of the government in Virginia, the king did not apply to the British parliament, but to the assembly of Virginia, and sent over an act under the great seal, by which it was enacted, "By the king's most excellent majesty, by and with the consent of the general assembly," etc. After the restoration, indeed, the colonies lost the freedom of trade which they had before enjoyed, and the navigation act of 25th Charles the Second not only circumscribed the trade of the colonies with foreign nations within very narrow limits, but imposed duties on goods manufactured in the colonies and exported from one to another. The right to impose these duties was disputed by Virginia; and her agents, in April, 1676, procured from Charles the Second a declaration, under his privy seal, that "taxes ought not to be laid upon the inhabitants and proprietors of the colony but by the common consent of the general assembly, except such impositions as the parliament should lay on the commodities imported into England from the colony." But if no protest had been made against the navigation act, that forbearance could in no way justify an additional act of injustice. If the people of the colonies had in patience endured the oppressions of the English commercial restrictions, could that endurance afford any ground for new oppressions in the shape of direct taxes? If the people of England and of the colonies stood, as was contended, on the same foot, being both equally and alike subjects of the British government, why was the trade of the colonies subject to restric

-1

tions not imposed on the mother country? If parliament had right to lay taxes of every kind on the colonies, the commerce of the colonies ought to be as free as that of England, "otherwise it will be loading them with burdens, at the same time that they are deprived of strength to sustain them; it will be forcing them to make bricks without straw." When colonies are deprived of their natural rights, resistance is at once justifiable; but when deprived of their civil rights, when great oppressions are imposed upon them, their remedy is "to lay their complaints at the foot of the throne, and to suffer patiently rather than disturb the public peace, which nothing but a denial of justice can excuse them in breaking." But a colony "treated with injury and violence is become an alien. They were not sent out to be slaves, but to be the equals of those that remain behind." It was a great error in the supporters of the British ministry to count upon the sectional jealousies and clashing interests of the colonies. Their real interests were the same, and they would not allow minor differences to divide them, when union was become necessary to maintain in a constitutional way their rights. How was England to prevent this union? Was it by quartering armed soldiers in their families? by depriving the colonists of legal trials in the courts of common law? or by harassing them by tax-gatherers, and prerogative judges, and inquisitorial courts? A petty people united in the cause of liberty is capable of glorious actions—such as adorn the annals of Switzerland and Holland.

The news of the repeal of the stamp act was joyfully welcomed in America, but the joy was premature; for, simultaneously with the repeal, parliament had declared that "it had, and of right ought to have, power to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever." Townshend,* afterwards chancellor of the exchequer, brought into parliament a bill to levy duties in the colonies on glass, paper, painters' colors, and tea, and it became a law. The duties were external, and did not exceed in amount twenty thousand pounds; but the colonies suspected the mildness of the measure to be only a lure to inveigle them into the net. The new act was to take effect in November, 1767. The flame of resistance,

* 1767.

smothered for awhile by the repeal of the stamp act, now burst forth afresh: associations were everywhere organized to defeat the duties; altercations between the people and the king's officers grew frequent; the passions of the conflicting parties were exasperated. Two British regiments and some armed vessels arrived at Boston.

In Virginia, the assembly, encountering no opposition from the mild and patriotic Blair, remonstrated loudly against the new oppressions. Opposition to the arbitrary measures of the British administration broke forth in England, and in London the fury of civil discord shook the pillars of the government.

Francis Fauquier, lieutenant-governor, died early in 1768, at the age of sixty-five years, ten of which he had passed in Virginia. He brought with him the frivolous tastes and dissipated habits of a man of fashion and a courtier; he was addicted to gaming, and by his example diffused a rage for play. He was generous and elegant, an accomplished scholar, and, in Mr. Jefferson's opinion, the ablest of the governors of Virginia. A county is named after him. His death devolved the duties of government upon John Blair, president of the council. He was a nephew of Commissary Blair, whom he had succeeded in the council. He had long represented Williamsburg in the house of burgesses, having been a member as early as 1736. During the trying period of his presidency, his vigilance and discretion were displayed in protecting the frontier from Indian invasion.*

In 1714 some English emigrant Baptists settled in southeast Virginia, and in 1743 another party settled in the northwest; but the most important accession came from New England, about the period of "the New Light stir." Those who had left the established church were called Separates, the rest Regulars. Their preachers, not unfrequently illiterate, were characterized by an impassioned manner, vehement gesticulation, and a singular tone of voice. The hearers often gave way to tears, trembling, screams, and acclamations. The number of converts increased rapidly in some counties. The preachers were imprisoned and

* Hugh Blair Grigsby's Discourse on Convention of 1776, pp. 69, 70; Old Churches, i. 160.