Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση
[ocr errors]

influence was sought in effecting an accommodation. They yielded to considerations of interest, produced a division of sentiment in the council, and at length, sorely against the wishes of the governor, it was resolved to capitulate. The measure having been determined on, all that Sir William Berkeley could do, was to unite all parties in the resolution to insist on the most honourable terms. In this he met with no difficulty; and the conditions of surrender having been discussed and agreed on in a grand assembly of governor, councillors, and burgesses, they were sent to the commander of the parliamentary forces, with a solemn assurance, that if they were not accepted without the slightest alteration or qualification the colony was prepared to endure the worst rather than submit. The parliamentary leader was most willing to accept of the surrender on their own terms; and truly has it been said of them, that they were “the most liberal and ample that were ever procured under similar circumstances;" and form “ an honourable and lasting record of the spirit and intelligence of Virginia."*

In these articles of capitulation, the governor and council were excused from taking the oath to the commonwealth for one year; and were not to be censured for praying for the king, or speaking well of him, in their private houses and neighbourly conference. It was also stipulated “ that the use of the Book of Common Prayer shall be permitted for one yeare ensueing, with reference to the consent of the major part of the parishes, provided that those which relate to kingship, or that government be not used publiquely, and the continuance of ministers in their places, they not misdemeaning themselves, and the payment of their accustomed dues and agreements made with them respectively, shall be left as they now stand, dureing this ensueing yeare.”+ * 2 Burk, 80, et seq. Beverly. + 2 Burk, 90 ; 1 Hening's Vir

ginia Statutes, at large, 362.

CHAPTER IV.

1651-1693.

Introduction of Puritans-Hatred of Puritanism--Reproved by Cromwell

--Virginia throws off obedience to the Commonwealth-State of the Church in 1661-Bad Character of many of the Clergy–Legislation of 1662—Intolerance towards Quakers—Conspiracy of Puritans-Dread of Popery—The Reverend Dr. Blair, first Commissary–His Character and Labours, Establishment of William and Mary College.

DURING the time which intervened between the surrender of Virginia to the commonwealth and the restoration of Charles the Second, little is to be found which illustrates the condition of the church. It is certain that the success of the parliamentary party led to the introduction into the colony of new residents who entertained but little affection for the Church of England ; and it may be that among these individuals, congregations were organized on the model which had been set up in the mother country; but it is also certain, that if such were the fact, the influence of this example was but slightly felt, and the great body of the people still retained their attachment for the church of their fathers. The legislation of the period under review affords us but little light. In 1653, we find a clergyman declared incapable of being a member of the House of Burgesses, as it might “produce bad consequences."* In 1655, “ many places were destitute of ministers, and like still to continue so, the people not paying their accustomed dues," and manifesting great negligence in procuring religious instruction ;t and in 1657, an act for settling church government

* i Honing'. Statutes, at large, 378.

# Ibid. 399.

provided that to the people of the respective parishes should be referred all matters touching the church wardens and vestry, agreements with their ministers, and, in general, such things as concerned the parish or parishioners.* The interference of the legislature, however, does not seem to have caused any change in the feelings or habits of the colonists, so far at least as the church was concerned. A contemporary describes them as “a people which generally bear a great love to the stated constitutions of the Church of England, in her government and public worship; which gave us (who went thither under the late persecutions of it) the advantage of liberty to use it constantly among them, after the naval force had reduced the colony under the power (but never to the obedience) of the usurpers.”+

Indeed, during the whole continuance of the protectorate, Virginia seems to have been an object of suspicion to Cromwell. Her attachment to the royal cause was known; and her silent endurance of the religious system which was then triumphant at home, was justly supposed to be an extorted acquiescence in what she could not remedy, rather than the voluntary submission of a cordial affection. There was a circumstance which occurred about this time, well calculated to increase Cromwell's distrust. A set of commissioners, at the head of whom was one Claiborne, a felon convict who had escaped from justice in Maryland during the reign of Charles the First, was employed, under the auspices of Cromwell, “in the holy work of rooting out the abominations of popery and prelacy in Maryland.”I This chief commissioner was well known in Virginia, for he had lived there, and from the concurrent testimony of the historians of the times, his character seems to have

| Hening's Statutes, at largo, 1 2 Burk, 113. Leah and Rachelt, 433.

or the two fruitfull Sisters of Vir: Virginia's Cure, an advisive nar. ginia and Maryland. A pamphlet of rative concerning Virginia, p. 22.

1658.

been well understood. “It was not religion,” says a writer of that day, “it was not punctilios these commissioners stood upon; it was that sweete, that rich, that large country they aimed at."* Virginia dared to sympathize with the victims of Claiborne's oppression, and to afford relief to such of them as sought an asylum within her borders; " and," says the historian quoted above, “this supposed attempt in Virginia to interrupt the work of righteousness, was looked on as the instigation of Satan, to retard the establishment of God's religion and the dominion of the saints.”+ It called forth from the Protector a severe reproof to the governor and council, in which he descanted on the presumption and impiety of this interference,” and admonished Virginia in future to attend solely to her own concerns. I

The circumstances above related furnish, it will be observed, testimony to something more than the fact of Cromwell's suspicion of Virginia. There could have been, in the mass of the people, little or no disposition cordially to co-operate in the diffusion and establishment of puritanical opinions and practices in Virginia, when they were so ready to afford a refuge to those who fled from them in Maryland.

Sir William Berkeley, who, by the articles of capitulation in 1651, had secured to himself the right of transporting himself and his effects to Europe within one year, still lingered in the colony under various pretexts; and thus is the suspicion strengthened that he secretly indulged the hope of a restoration of royalty, and remained on the spot to avail himself of any circumstances which might scem favourable to the production of such an event. large number of cavaliers had been driven abroad by Cromwell, and crowds of them resorted to Virginia ;9 and there is reason to believe that there was a secret and unsus

A very

* Leah and Rachell. + 2 Burk, 113.

1 Ibid. I Holmes's Annals, 315.

pected correspondence carried on between these refugees and the ex-governor.*

One of those refugees, a devoted loyalist and a relative of Sir William Berkeley, has left a narrative of the voyage which he, together with others of the king's adherents, made to Virginia. From him we learn that the colony was looked upon by the cavaliers as an asylum for them, in which they were certain of finding those who sympathized with them in their sufferings, and shared with them in their political attachments; and the house and the purse of Sir William Berkeley “ were open to all of the royal party who made Virginia their refuge.”+

Upon the death of the governor Matthews, in the beginning of 1659, the Virginians, according to the statements of the earlier historians, resolved to throw off the government of the protectorate ; and repairing in crowds to the residence of Sir William Berkeley, who was then living in retirement, requested of him to resume the government of the colony. He, it is said, declined, unless they would solemnly promise to adventure their lives and fortunes with him for the king. The pledge was given ; and in January, 1659, Charles the Second was proclaimed in Virginia, and Berkeley resumed the government, sixteen months before the king was restored to the throne. I

Later writers have, however, doubted the correctness of this statement, and have laboured hard to prove that Virginia was essentially republican at this period, and cared but little for the restoration of royalty.s There may be a deficiency of proof to establish the fact of a tumultuous assemblage having requested Berkeley to resume the reins of government; but a fair exposition of the records of that

* 2 Burk, 114.

Chalmers, b. i. 125; 1 Holmes's An† Journal of a Voyage to Virginia, nals, 311. by Colonel Norwood ; Churchill's Ø 1 Hening's Stat., at large, 513 Collection of Voyages, vol. vi. p. 170. note, 526 note; Bancroft's United # Beverly, p. 55 ; 2 Burk, 118; States, 240 to 253. Bancroft is in

debted entirely to Hening.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »