with the people." And Winthrop remarks, that "though the state did silence the ministers, because they would not conform to the order of England, yet the people resorted to them in private houses to hear them." That their success was but limited, will appear at a future period in this narrative. There is one clause in the act of conformity just recited which is worthy of notice, inasmuch as the subject which it embraced led afterward to much discussion and, indeed, litigation; and was finally adjusted by legislative interposition. It related to the rights of presentation and induction; the former of which was, by implication at least, given to the parish, and the latter to the governor. But before the passage of this act, it was a matter of dispute whether the parishes, as builders and endowers of all the churches, had not, by the law of England, the right of presentation; and after its enactment, many parishes still contended for the exercise of the right, under the law of England, independent of the statute.† But on whatever ground the right rested, it was certainly exercised by the parishes; and it is believed that it continued to be exercised up to the period of the American Revolution. As a specimen of the letters of induction commonly used, a copy of one, with the omission of names only, made from the original, is subjoined; in which it. will be remarked that the right of the parish to make the presentation seems to be recognised. "A. B., his majesty's lieutenant, and governor-general of the colony and dominion of Virginia, "To the vestry of Hungar's parish in Northampton county. "In virtue of the presentation which you have made to * See 2 Savage's Winthrop, 96; Hubbard's History of New-England, 411. A Letter to the Clergy of Vir ginia, by Richard Bland, Esq., one of the Representatives in Assembly for the county of Prince George. A pamphlet, published in 1660, me of the Rev. C. D., to be your minister, I do induct him into the real, actual, and corporal possession of the parish of Hungars, in the county of Northampton, with all the rights, profits, and appurtenances thereunto belonging." Particuliarity of statement on this point will not, perhaps, be deemed useless, when it is understood that the legislation of a future period, which most deeply affected the church in its temporal interests, involved a question as to the actual ownership of the church property; the right of presentation aided in settling that question: and at a future period of this history, it will be found important to remember that, from the beginning, the jus proprietatis was supposed to be in the body of people, or parish, by which the church edifice was erected, and its lands obtained. At this time another circumstance occurred which invites remark, inasmuch as history has connected it with the religious opinions of the colony. It seems that Mr. George Sandys, one of the agents of the colony in England, petitioned parliament, in the name of his constituents, for the restoration of the old company. The colony, however, formally disavowed the act, and entreated permission to remain under the royal government;* this measure is supposed to have been induced by attachment to the Church of England. The petition of Mr. Sandys was preferred to the long parliament; and the mother country was then passing through the troubles which resulted in the temporary overthrow of monarchy. The attachment of Virginia, as has already been stated, was to the Church of England; nor is there any reason to doubt that, notwithstanding the disaffection of some, among the great mass of the inhabitants it was a conscientious attachment. The proceedings of the long parliament, and the spirit of * 1 Hening's Virginia Statutes, at large, 230. those who ruled the disorganizers, were objects of suspicion in Virginia. The colonists saw plainly that the measures in progress tended to the subversion of the church; and they viewed the puritans (whom they cordially disliked) as engaged in an effort, not merely to subvert the throne, but to destroy the Church of England also. And this, it is said, induced the colony to favour the royal cause.* rence. There is probably some truth in this conjecture of the historian, but it is not the whole truth. The circumstance does, indeed, furnish evidence that Virginia preferred the Church of England, and entertained but little partiality for the puritans; and, according to the view just presented, she deserves, at least, to be complimented for political sagacity, in having foreseen results which were afterward verified by the facts. But there was more than this in the occurVirginia was loyal. She was the last colony to submit to the parliament. Hundreds of the cavaliers sought and found refuge within her borders. There is ample evidence in her history of a devoted attachment to the crown. And who, at this day, will reproach her on that account? It is but a disingenuous effort, in our love for the political institutions of our own country, to offer a lame and insufficient apology for loyalty to a throne, when exhibited by men, who had been taught by situation, habits, and education to deem loyalty a virtue. The descendants of the cavaliers, and there are some such in Virginia, have surely no cause to blush for the feeling of honour which kept their fathers faithful to what they thought to be duty. If, however, it was a fault in the colony to offer resistance to the republican principles and practices of the commonwealth, let the fault be put down to the true account-Virginia's loyalty; but let not the church in this country be injured at this day by an artful insinuation, that adherence to her principles involved attachment to monarchy; let her not 2 Burk, 75. be sacrificed to prejudices which are easily excited, but allayed with difficulty. The assembly of dissenters, collected by the missionaries from Massachusetts, whose efforts have been recorded on a previous page, amounted in 1648, to one hundred and eighteen members. It had experienced from its commencement the opposition of government; Mr. Durand its elder had been already banished by the governor; and in this year, Mr. Harrison, its pastor, having been ordered to depart from the country, sought congeniality of sentiment among the Congregationalists or Independents of New-England. One who was contemporary with the transactions here related, has left us the following statement, which presents a picture of persecution, for which no apology should be offered: "And there was in Virginia a certaine people congregated into a church, calling themselves Independents, which daily encreasing, severall consultations were had by the state of that Coloney, how to suppress and extinguish them, which was daily put in execution; as first, their pastor was banished; next, their other teachers; then many by informations clapt up in prison, then generally disarmed (which was very harsh in such a country where the heathen live round about them) by one Colonel Samuel Matthews, then a counsellor in Virginia, so that they knew not in those straights how to dispose of themselves." Mr. Harrison, on his return, represented that many of the council were favourably disposed towards the introduction of puritanism, and "one thousand of the people, by conjecture," were of a similar mind. There is but little doubt that the banishment of Mr. Harrison was connected with other considerations than those of religion. The time at which it occurred was but a few months prior * 1 Holmes's Annals, 289; 2 Savage's Winthrop, 334. † Leah and Rachell, or the two fruitfull Sisters of Virginia and Maryland. A pamphlet, published in 1656. The author was John Hammond. 2 Savage's Winthrop, 334. H to the execution of the unfortunate Charles; and the religious opinions of Mr. Harrison were taken as an index to his political sentiments; he was banished, probably, as much for the latter as the former; and the transaction affords another proof of the deep sympathy which Virginia felt for the fallen king. After the beheading of Charles, the parliament directed its attention to the subjugation of the colonies. Virginia made resistance; she now contained a population of twenty thousand, and was under the government of a man, who yielded to none, in attachment to the family of the late monarch. Sir William Berkeley resolved not to surrender without a struggle; and in this determination he was strengthened by the cavaliers, who, as has been before mentioned, had in large numbers sought a refuge in Virginia. Certain Dutch trading ships were also at the time lying off James Town, engaged in a traffic which had been interdicted by the parliament; and fearful of the loss of property, and perhaps of life, under the decision of the parliament's courts in England, the commanders of these ships determined to make common cause with Virginia. The vessels were accordingly filled with men, and moored in the most convenient position for pouring a broadside into an approaching enemy; while troops, commanded by the governor in person, covered the eminences that overlooked the waters which formed the peninsula. When the squadron approached James Town, the leaders of the parliamentary forces were startled by a preparation for resistance alike formidable and unexpected; and the officers of the commonwealth, not daring to hazard an attack, resorted to negotiation. Some of the members of the council happened to be the owners of a large quantity of goods which had been shipped for them in England, on board some of the vessels of the invading fleet, and their * 1 Holmes's Annals, 315. |