USA > Virginia > Virginia colonial decisions : the reports by Sir John Randolph and by Edward Barradall, of decisions of the general court of Virginia, 1728-1741, v. I > Part 10
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31
96
VIRGINIA COLONIAL DECISIONS
By this time both the controversy and the weather had gotten quite warm, for it was June 3, 1704. But the Vestry, with some evidence of lack of confidence in its position, though with no idea of surrendering, brings up a side issue and states directly that the entry of those instructions on their books was "not made by order of the Vestry, but by his Excellency's immediate command to the Clark," which was an intimation that "the Clark " had better learn who his real master was.
And the Rev. Mr. Whately (as " the Clark " spells his name) comes in person before the Vestry and makes a diplomatic speech, telling them that what he did was by the Governor's command, and " I have never said to any person that I have a right to this parish, nor do I insist on a right to it."
This looked like a way out of it all, for if the Rev. Mr. Wheatley didn't claim the place, who could? But the day was probably warm, and, as the entry shows, it was then too late in the evening to consider the matter further, so its consideration was referred to the next Vestry. Still, before they adjourned, they put on the record a very respectful and quite con- ciliatory address to the Governor, which, however, they closed with the declaration that "We shall also use our Sincere Endeavors to supply ye vacancy, and give due obedience to the Law." This they could do if the Rev. Mr. Wheatley was out of it, as indeed he had substantially told the Vestry he was.
So at the next Vestry, on the 12th of June, 1704, the churchwardens were empowered to procure a minister, declaring also that Mr. Wheatley's recent preaching was "not any way with their consent or approbation, and that they think themselves no way obliged to pay him for ye same,"-which
97
THE CHURCH
looks like a complete defiance of the attorney-general's opinion. But Mr. Wheatley was there with another olive branch and to show that he was making no claim, delivered to Col. Ludwell the sum of ten pounds, charity money, which was in his hands.
However, the matter was not over yet, for the Gover- nor commanded the Vestry to attend him at the college on Monday, the 19th instant, about ten o'clock. Whether they met or what occurred is not recorded, but an information was exhibited by the attorney-general in the name of the Queen against the Vestry, and they were commanded to answer the information at the next General Court. Therefore the Vestry empowered the two churchwardens " to defend and manage ye said suit."
Cool weather had by this time calmed the antago- nism of Governor and Vestry. The Governor had shown a conciliating disposition by sending to the Vestry an altar cloth, with some money for the poor, and ex- pressing the desire that his offer might be recorded in the vestry book as his usual quarterly gift. But while the Vestry thanked his Excellency for the cloth and the money, they were somewhat wary about recording things from him, remembering how those instructions got in the book, so they found a technical objection to making this entry then, promising to examine into the matter by the next Vestry.
But now, on October 25, 1705, this troublesome case comes to an end, not by decision of court, or obedience to the opinion of the attorney-general, but either the diplomacy or the genuine unselfishness of the Rev. Mr. Wheatley brought about a happy conclusion. The Vestry entered an order standing by all that they had said and done; but, while refusing to pay Mr. Wheatley for his past preaching at the Governor's
98
VIRGINIA COLONIAL DECISIONS
command, they gave him, "as a gratuity," sixteen thousand pounds of tobacco, and engaged him to preach until the following May. But he had taken quite a hold on the Vestry, and remained the minister until he died, in the fall of 1710, at which time Edward Barradall, Jr., was six years of age, and John Randolph seventeen, and both boys had no doubt often listened, or at least been where they might have listened, to his sermons,-young Barradall not thinking of manu- script reports, and surely not of recording and per- petuating for our entertainment the opinion of the attorney-general which declared the right of Mr. Wheatley to preach in Bruton Church.
The Rev. James Blair, known then and to posterity through all these years as "Commissary Blair," although he was at this time also the president of the young William and Mary College, was chosen rector of the parish and so remained through a long incum- bency, indeed up to the time of his death, in the spring of 1743, which was just a few months before Barradall died. John Randolph had died some six years before, on the 9th of March, 1737. Both men had been mem- bers of the Vestry of Bruton parish; both had died at near the early age of forty; both were lawyers of dis- tinction and writers of law reports; had held high office in the colony; and the manhood years of each had been spent under the pastorate of Commissary Blair.
The Rev. Mr. Blair was a very uncommon man and made an unusual stir in his day, and what he did and what came of it was necessarily a good part of the concern of the two men, a picture of whose sur- roundings it is the chief object of this chapter to give. So a few words about the Commissary.
Mr. Blair was a Scotchman and came to Virginia
99
THE CHURCH
as a missionary when he was twenty-nine years of age. He was rector of the Jamestown Church and in about four years was appointed Commissary, which to military ears means that the bearer of this title is in the peace department of the army. The Rev. Mr. Blair was never in any peace department of any organization, and the meaning of his title was that he was the highest ecclesiastical functionary in the colony, having the right to a seat in the council, to preside at ecclesi- astical trials, and pretty much all the powers of a bishop, except the right of ordination, consecration and confirmation.
Very early he interested himself in the cause of education, and was the founder of William and Mary College, making several trips back to Europe on its behalf. As indicated, he was a fighter, mild and gentle as he looks in his portrait1 on the college walls, with his long curly wig and his gown and bands. In doing what he thought he ought to do, he regarded neither governors nor his fellow clergy, and for the accom- plishment of all his plans he manifested this same pugnacious sense of duty.
In the one incident of his life which I shall here briefly refer to, and which might have interested John Randolph, but not the infant Barradall, as it occurred prior to 1708, I am following the narrative of John Esten Cooke in his history, and the authority of Bishop Meade.2
The then Virginia Governor, Francis Nicholson, had been the Governor of New York, but because of some small tyrannies there, he was deprived of his office, and was made, instead, Governor of Virginia. After two years in Virginia he was transferred to
'Williamsburg, 115.
*Old Churches, Ministers, etc. Vol. I, 159.
100
VIRGINIA COLONIAL DECISIONS
Maryland, but in 1698 he came back to Virginia and resumed the governorship.
Although a good deal of a demagogue, he was fond of display and often quite high and mighty in his manners. But at last he made a great fool of himself by falling intemperately in love with Miss Martha Burwell, one of the nine pretty daughters of Major Lewis Burwell. His manifestations of affection were of such a character that his passion was promptly rejected by the young lady, which, says Bishop Meade, " completely upset what little reason there was in Governor Nicholson of famous memory." He raved in public over his disappointment; denounced outrageously his successful rival and Miss Bur- well's union1 with him; declared to Commissary Blair that if the lady should marry any other man he would cut the throats of the bridegroom, the minister, and the justice who should issue the license. He was even jealous of the minister of the parish, Rev. Mr. Fouance, assaulting him and pulling off his hat. Commissary Blair was a stout friend of Miss Burwell, and at once took in hand her case with the Governor, which had become a public offence. He ridiculed Nicholson and laughed at his threats, and, chiefly at his instance, the council took prompt steps and preferred charges against him, and he was brought to trial at London.
In a fight in a court of law, whatever he may have been in a court of love, the Governor was no fool, and he was no coward in either. He made a grand fight and clouded the issue by some sharp blows at the clergy for their too great hilarity at the Raleigh Tavern. But he lost his case and his office too, and all that he
'She married Col. Henry Armistead of " Hesse " in Gloucester County, Va. Williamsburg, 21.
101
THE CHURCH
gained was a severe letter from the Bishop of London to the Virginia Clergy begging them not "to play the fool any more."1
Meanwhile, Commissary Blair reigned supreme in his kingdoms of church and college, for, though of the militant order, he was a good Christian man, self-denying and of fine ability. He lived a life of pre-eminent usefulness and died at a good old age, lamented and beloved by all the people.2
The story of the church, which carried us to the beginning of the Revolution, has brought us back again to the early part of the eighteenth century, and before we finish this chapter, with some reference to the great change in its condition produced by the results of the Revolution, we want to see what happened to the Quakers under the Governor who came, after an inter- val of two years, next to the amorous Nicholson. But of more importance than the Quakers is an incident of his coming, which seemed afterwards, and will seem for all time, to do away with discrimi- nations because of or penalties imposed for differences of opinion on religious or other matters, or no opinion at all, on a subject not capable of adjustment in this world, and probably not of near so much importance to differ about as we are prone to think, in the next.
Col. Alexander Spotswood, he of the Golden Horse- shoe, succeeded to this office, in 1710, as the deputy of the Earl of Orkney, who was the royal sinecure Governor, holding the title and drawing the pay for forty years without ever performing a single act of government. Spotswood had been a soldier under Marlborough, and had distinguished himself for both
"Old Churches, Ministers, etc. Vol. I, 160.
'See more of him in the chapter on Education, post, Chapter VII, in connec- tion with the story of the college which he founded.
102
VIRGINIA COLONIAL DECISIONS
military skill and courage, receiving a severe wound at the battle of Blenheim. He came of an ancient Scottish family which carried the coat of arms of the house of Gordon, but was born at Tangier, his father at that time a military surgeon, and on duty in that English colony in Africa.
Spotswood was not only the most energetic and efficient Governor the colony had ever had, but his coming was distinguished by an event as memorable on American soil as the granting of Magna Charta had ever been in the history of England. He brought with him the gift of the benefit of the habeas corpus act, which had been denied by the English Govern- ment when the General Assembly had endeavoured to extend it by their own authority.1 If he had not otherwise distinguished himself in the service of the colony, this alone would have justified his great popu- larity and long continued fame.
Although thirty-four years of age when, in 1710, he came to Virginia, Spotswood was a bachelor, but that did not prevent the burgesses from building him a palace at Williamsburg at a cost of 3,0002 pounds, nor did it prevent him from fulfilling all the rites of hospitality that were expected of a Royal Governor of Virginia.
In 1724, when he was forty-eight years old, he went back to London for a wife,3 but he had, two years
1Dr. R. A. Brock. Letters of Alexander Spotswood. Vol. I. Introduction IX. But at the same time it is said that no enactment by the assembly regarding the habeas corpus act appears until August, 1736. Henning. Vol. IV. 489.
"It finally cost over six thousand pounds.
3Ann Butler Brayne, daughter of Richard Brayne, Esq., of Westminster. Introduction, Spotswood's Letters, XIV. For names of families in Virginia descended from this marriage see Introduction. Id., XVI.
Col. Spotswood died June 7. 1740, and on November 9, 1742, his widow (for whose genealogy see Virginia Historical Magazine, Vol. II, 340) married the Rev. John Thompson. (See ante page 39.) From this marriage one child, a daughter, was born, and a numerous posterity in Virginia (the half kin of the first set) trace their descent from this marriage. If further complication of relationship were needed,
--
1.
:
-
103
THE CHURCH
before that, ceased to be Governor; for having quar- relled with Dr. Blair, as the unlucky Nicholson had, but not because of the same offence, he too, although a mighty fighter, was overthrown by the Commissary.1 But before he was thus unhorsed by the doughty doctor, Spotswood had had his tilt with the Quakers. Of them he wrote as " broaching doctrines so mon- strous as the brethren in England never owned, and which cannot be suffered in any government,"2 but so, indeed, in that day, was any doctrine that was not strictly orthodox. Some time later the Baptists, for the crime of denying all ordination and claiming that every one had a right to preach, were therefor dealt with by the law. So it was hardly to be expected that for a greater degree of unorthodox opinion the Quakers should fail to suffer the lash of orthodoxy, and they did not. Bishop Meade3 makes it clear that the extent of the penalties inflicted in most of these cases of early persecution have been much exaggerated, probably from the excess of religious zeal that entered
it is found in the fact that the Rev. John Thompson, surviving his first wife (the widow Spotswood) married again, and left issue from which also there are many descendants. An unusually interesting account is given by William Byrd of Westover, of his visit to the Spotswoods at Germana in 1732. His numerous refer- ences to " Miss Thekey," the old maid sister of Mrs. Spotswood, are quite enter taining. "Miss Thekey" did, however, after all, get married to a Mr. Elliott Benger (Virginia Historical Magazine. Vol. II, 340). This narrative of Col. Byrd is quoted in most of the histories of the times, but is given quite fully in the History of Orange County, by W. W. Scott. 87 et seq. (See " A Progress to the Mines." Writings of Col. Wm. Byrd-Bassett, 333). It was for Germana that Col. Spots- wood set out in 1716 with some fifty companions and a most remarkable supply of wines and liquors of all sorts, and ascending the " Blue Mountains " passed through Swift Run Gap and down into the beautiful valley below, and thus seemed to dissolve the spell that for so long had hindered its exploration, and to open up to rapid occupation a country much superior by nature to the lower section with which the colonists had so long contented themselves, although this grand and fertile valley was so near, and only shut from sight by a chain of mountains of inconsiderable height and pierced by many gaps, affording comparatively easy access.
'Old Virginia and Her Neighbors. Vol. II, 387
*Old Churches, Ministers, etc. Vol. I, 427.
3Id. See also the note about and review of " Southern Quakers and Slavery, pages 168-172, Virginia Historical Magazine, vol. VII, where the subject is fairly treated and valuable references given.
1
104
VIRGINIA COLONIAL DECISIONS
into the politics of the state before and immediately after the revolution, and which, having been once so written, have been handed down to the later genera- tions with the usual additions.
By 1710 the Church at Williamsburg that had been so often repaired had "grown ruinous,"1 and a great movement was made to have a new church, consistent with the dignity of the capital city. Governor Spots- wood, as he did in anything that concerned the public interests, lent a hearty hand, and worked well in harness with Dr. Blair. Such a team could not fail to pull through; so, by December 15, 1715, the new church was "finished," and by another year all the material of the old church, except the brick, had been disposed of. But while it is related that the church was finished in 1715, it is also said that it was shingled in 1717, which leaves an uncomfortable sensation of . worshipping by skylight !
But the new church later, and now also with the roof on, was laid off in pews and a gallery, appropriate to the dignity of those who were to sit in them.2 In part of the gallery, as usual, were the college boys, with the right to a lock and key to the door by which they got there.
Even a private individual, though he was a dis- tinguished lawyer,3 was allowed to erect a gallery for his personal use at his own expense, and others after- wards were allowed to do the same. The Governor had his place, with platform, canopy and chair, and there were places where the burgesses sat, and an organ and a bell, and a wall was built around most of the two acres of churchyard, where are the graves
1 Williamsburg, 98.
*See ante page 93 for location of Barradall's and Randolph's pews.
3Williamsburg, 99. John Halloway was the lawyer. But as this was not properly a part of the church it was not restored. His pew was No. 6, in the nave.
105
THE CHURCH
of so many who were then engaged in making the infant State, although they did not know it.1
Now we must leave this more interesting part of the subject, and come for just a little while to the days of the Revolution, to a time so destructive to the institution identified so closely with all that affects this story of the Virginia Colony from its very beginning.
The State, which was England, from being the object of the most intense loyalty and affection, had, for causes so well known, became the object of hatred and detestation. And the Church, which was a part of the State, naturally shared that revulsion of feeling, at least of that large part of the population which was hostile to it, independently of mere political reasons. The Presbyterians had suffered from it, and had good memories, and this slogan was added among the people to these twin unpopularities by the pungent sentence, " A State without a King and a Church without a Bishop."
It is true Virginia had no bishop, but one had been talked about, although it did seem as if those denomi- nations which got along so nicely without this third order and were so well content with two, might have been satisfied to let those have it who wished it.
But some of the clergy, still content to cling to Church and State after the State refused to do so, had become the public enemy, and if the rule is that no man can safely serve two masters, they would hardly be let to serve three; especially when the boys were beating the drums and wearing cockades in their hats, that did not have the colors of old England.
How far this disloyalty of the clergy went is a vexed
'For an interesting account of all this see " Williamsburg," 100 et seq., and for an account of the restoration of the church some two hundred years after, see " Bruton Church Restored," by Rev. W. A. R. Goodwin, A. M., to whom the credit for this fine work is principally due.
--
106
VIRGINIA COLONIAL DECISIONS
question. The Rev. Dr. J. R. Graham says1 that in striking contrast with the course of the Presbyterian clergymen, the great majority of the clergy of the Estab- lished Church stood for the King against the Americans, as it seemed to be their respective interests to do.
Dr. Graham gives no authority for the statement that " a great majority of the clergy " were disloyal, except a quotation from Dr. Chandler, who was one of them, and who said that " Episcopacy and monarchy are, in their form and constitution, best suited to each other. Episcopacy can never thrive in a republican government, nor republican principles in an Episcopal Church,"-which statement is wholly controverted by subsequent events.
But Dr. Graham, no doubt, wrote from the estab- lished traditions of the great communion of which he is a much loved and very eminent member, and that he believed the statement is best proved by the fact that he wrote it.
Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge's account is more an assault upon the aristrocratic tendencies of the ruling class of the colony, than it is upon the clergy. He gathers together the intolerances of the age, and groups them as if they were all entertained by the Established Church against the dissenters,-the narrow discriminations made by the law against all other denominations, and the instances of unworthiness among the clergy, culled from its history during more than a century and a half, as if they supported the charge that "here and there might be found a man of exemplary life and high character,"2 whereas this " here and there " really counted the unexemplary. He does not distinctly de- clare that a great majority of the clergy were disloyal
'The Planting of Presbyterianism, 129
'English Colonies in America, 60.
107
THE CHURCH
but he seems by contrast to suggest it, in the sen- tence, " The dissenters to a man, were on the patriotic side, and public opinion could not consistently over- look religious freedom in a struggle for political liberty."1 His tone too, through the pages devoted to this subject, is one of general denunciation, and of such harshness as to mar the apparent fairness which generally characterizes his narrative, otherwise so interesting and attractive.2
On the other hand, Bishop Meade says :3 " The attach- ment of some few of the clergy to the cause of the King subjected the church itself to suspicion, and gave further occasion to its enemies to seek its destruction." Neither has Bishop Meade cited authority for this statement, but it is susceptible of proof that he had at the time in his possession the evidence, presently to be referred to, that entirely sustains what he has said. But the matter has been subjected to an in- vestigation almost as severe and quite as reliable as a trial in a court of justice.
Mr. R. S. Thomas of Smithfield, Va., lawyer and scholar, published, in 1907, the result of his careful examination of this question. There were ninety-five parishes in the colony, or rather in what had then become the state. Three of the parishes had no min- ister, but in the ninety-two parishes were ninety-six incumbents, and there were also nine others who had no parishes, making in all one hundred and five. The history of each one of these was examined into sepa- rately, and it is remarkable how much material was
'English Colonies in America, 59.
While reflecting so upon the loyalty of the clergy of the Virginia Church Mr. Lodge probably did not know that of the one hundred and forty-three gradu- ates of Harvard residing in Massachusetts, who were tories, nine were of the Established Church, while eleven were members of the Congregational Church. " The Loyalty of the Clergy." R. S. Thomas, 18.
$Old Churches, Ministers, etc. Vol. I, 16.
108
VIRGINIA COLONIAL DECISIONS
discovered from which fair inferences could be drawn. Of these one hundred and five no evidence whatever could be discovered, one way or the other, about six; six were proved to be disloyal to the colony and one loyal up to 1781 but disloyal afterwards; the remaining ninety-two were fully proved to be loyal to Virginia. In some cases (there were twenty by the count) of those pronounced loyal the entry is, "Not a word against him." Of these Mr. Thomas says, "I could not in all cases find positive and affirmative evidence of the loyalty and exemplary conduct of each and of every minister. In some cases I had to infer it, and I did not hesitate to do so. When I found a minister in a parish before and during the war, or during and after the war, and could not find one word to his preju- dice, I have inferred he was loyal and exemplary, because if he had not been he had a plenty of enemies to pick him to pieces and to ruin any except the very best of reputations."
Perhaps there is no better test of a man's character than to have it said that no one had anything to say against him.
Though not directly to the purpose here, it is fair to note that this investigation was also addressed to the question of the moral and religious character of the ministers, with the result that eighty-eight were pronounced exemplary; three were pronounced not exemplary, and one disreputable; the remainder were, for one cause and another (in one instance of a quarrel with the Vestry) not passed on. One was pronounced " disloyal and disreputable in the extreme," and one of the same name, but of a period seven years earlier, is spoken of as "this great moral reprobate and monster."
Among the number pronounced loyal was General
--- ----
...
109
THE CHURCH
Muhlenberg of Shenandoah (Dunmore) County; and a number of the clergymen were found to be members, and sometimes chairmen of the Committees of Defense, while no clergyman of any other church was found so serving.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.