*

Berkeley, on July 29, issued a proclamation denouncing him as a rebel, setting a price on his head and commanding his followers to disperse. Bacon became highly indignant at such treatment, and after issuing a manifesto in rejoinder to Berkeley's proclamation, he immediately retraced his steps to Jamestown, and upon his arrival there the governor fled in dismay. Steps were at once taken thoroughly to reorganize the government, the people being called together and writs issued for a new election of burgesses in September.t After this had been done, Bacon again set out to subdue the Indians, but again he had hardly gone from the town when Berkeley began to contrive by promises of pay and plunder to recover his lost authority. In this he unexpectedly succeeded, though his triumph was only a passing one; for Bacon made a rapid descent from the upper country, invested and speedily took Jamestown, and in order to prevent a recurrence of Berkeley's actions, ordered the city to be burned to the ground.‡ Meanwhile a large body of troops under Colonel Brent had been sent against Bacon, but when they learned of his success, they quickly dispersed without attempting to try the issue with Bacon's troops. Success had now attended every move made by Bacon, and he was at liberty to carry

For which see Fiske, vol. ii., p. 78 et seq. † Cooke, Virginia, pp. 264-272. Cooke, chap. xviii.

375

out any design he might conceive, though it can never be known just what his plans were, for at this juncture he was suddenly stricken down by the hand of death. This occurred on October 26, 1676.* As Bacon was the inspiration of the whole movement against Berkeley, with him died also all systematic effort to obtain redress of grievances.†

Being now without a leader, such of Bacon's supporters as had not dispersed to their homes were taken by Berkeley's troops; and the latter being again restored to power, pursued a course of malignant revenge which not only was disgraceful to his own name and position, but was entirely unnecessary. During the succeeding months, no less than 25 of Bacon's adherents were put to death. Thomas Horsford was hanged, as was also Drummond, formerly governor of the colony of South Carolina.‡ Berkeley's rule was finally marked by so much blood

*

Many historians give this date as October 1, but the 26th seems to be correct.

† Mr. Ware, in his Memoir of Nathaniel Bacon, says "there seems no good reason to doubt the purity of his motives, and the singleness and simplicity of his character." Mr. Ware doubts the correctness of the opinion advanced by Hening that Bacon was taken off by poison. See Sparks, American Biography, vol. xiii., pp. 239-306; also John Fiske, Old Virginia and Her Neighbours, vol. ii., pp. 45-107; Cooke, p. 288 et seq.; Edward Eggleston, Nathaniel Bacon, in Century Magazine, vol. xl.; the documents published in the Virginia Magazine of History (1893-8); Mary N. Stanard, The Story of Bacon's Rebellion (1908); Burwell, Narrative of Bacon's Rebellion, in Massachusetts Historical Collections, vol. ii.

‡ Cooke, Virginia, p. 295.

shed that the Assembly strongly protested and the king's commissioners, who had arrived shortly before to inquire into the rebellion, were shocked and endeavored to put a stop to this wholesale slaughter.* Berkeley's conduct aroused great indignation in England, and King Charles is reported to have exclaimed when news of his doings reached him: "The old fool has taken away more lives in that naked country, that I did here in England for the murder of my father." On April 27, 1677, amid great rejoicing among the people, Berkeley returned to the mother country, and in a short time fell sick and died on July 13, 1677.†

Bacon's rebellion, however, resulted in but little good to the colonists themselves. While they succeeded in securing some trifling concessions in answer to their complaints, the majority of the abuses which had been the primary cause for

Howe, Historical Collections of Virginia, pp. 78-80.

+ Doyle (English Colonies, vol. i., pp. 241257), gives a good resumé of the entire rebellion taken from original documents. See also Bancroft, vol. i., pp. 455-474; the contemporary account by T. M." (The Beginning, Progress and Conclusion of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia in the Years 1675 and 1676), in Force's Collection of Historical Tracts, vol. i., no. 8 and in Maxwell's Virginia Historical Register, vol. iii.; Hildreth, vol. i., pp. 526-555; A Narrative of the Indian and Civil Wars in Virginia in the Years 1675 and 1676, by an unknown writer; An Account of our late Troubles in Virginia, by Mrs. Ann Cotton of Q. Creeke; A Review, Breviarie and Conclusion by the Royal Commissioners Herbert Jeffreys, John Berry and Francis Morrison, who visited Virginia after the rebellion.

the rebellion remained in full force. "Bacon's Laws," which had been enacted by the popular assembly were annulled, the franchise was restricted to freeholders alone and the Assembly chosen by it was only to meet biennially, and even then was not to remain in session for more than a fortnight.* The Navigation laws were now more strictly enforced, which greatly reduced the price of the Virginia staple, tobacco; and, saddled with the additional burden of supporting a body of English troops, and forbidden even to set up a printing press, the Virginians were compelled to bear their burdens as best they might, hoping only that the day of Judgment would soon arrive.

For the next few years the government of the colony very much resembled the government of the mother country, in the rapacity and profligacy of its administrators. In 1680 Culpepper induced Arlington to cede his share of the grant to him. Culpepper had also been invested with the office of governor for life, as the successor of Berkeley. As the spirit of sordid avarice infecting the English court had dictated the petition for these various grants, Culpepper conducted his administration in a similar manner, and in 1680 his conduct was rewarded by banishment from the court to the government of a distant province. He determined to make the

cers of the Duke of York refused to allow this claim, and in their opposition were equally as stubborn as the Dutch had been when they were masters in New Netherlands.* In Maryland, as in Virginia, tobacco was the principal article produced, and the introduction of slave labor gave a great impulse to the industry; but, on the other hand, the enactment of the Navigation Act cut off a valuable revenue to the colony from the impost of tobacco exported in Dutch vessels. A tax of two shillings per hogshead was laid on all tobacco exported, one-half of the proceeds being used to defray colonial expenses and the other half appropriated as a personal revenue to the proprietor.†

At this period of her existence Maryland had been a source of more profit to the proprietary than any of the other American colonies, which was chiefly due to the wise and prudent measures of Baltimore, who in his old age was able to receive a handsome return for the money which he had put out in establishing the colony. In 1675, at the time of his death, the province was divided into ten counties and contained about 16,000 inhabitants, of whom the larger part were Protestants. As this was the case, and as the clergy of Maryland had no settled incomes like the clergy in Virginia, the Rev. Mr. Yeo of Patuxent wrote a letter to the Arch

*The South in the Building of the Nation, vol. i., pp. 162–163.

Browne, Maryland, pp. 116–118.

379

bishop of Canterbury complaining of this, in addition complaining of the low state of morals in the colony. He said because they received no stated salary their position was not as respectable as that of their Virginia brethren nor so well calculated to effect good as it ought to be.* After Lord Baltimore's death, his successor, Charles Calvert, went to England, and the Bishop of London, in whose jurisdiction the colonies were placed, made earnest endeavors to induce Lord Baltimore to provide maintenance for the Church of England clergy in the colony. Baltimore resisted this claim for some time, but yielded in the end. Popular feeling, however, was now unfavorable to the Catholics, not only in England but also in the colony, and Charles II. sent instructions to the colony that the possession of office should be confined to Protestants alone, which was an assumption of authority on his part entirely unauthorized by the terms of the charter granted to the first Lord Baltimore, in which the crown had no authority or control over the proprietary. Nevertheless, the instructions of the king received little attention in the colony.

While Baltimore was in England, the Protestants of the colony attempted to raise a rebellion because of the fact that the proprietary was a Catholic. In 1680 the new proprietor, Charles Calvert, had secured the en

* Ibid, p. 129.