with Holland, is well known to the most Christian King; 

 and they having the like advantage now upon us in respect 

 of our Revenue as they then had in respect of our Expences, 

 to what streights they may, and are like to drive us, is not 

 hard to guess.™ 



The influence of Virginia on the policy of Charles 

 II has never been fully assessed. Could it be that 

 the falling off of customs from Virginia and the 

 plantations during 1676 and the expenditures in- 

 volved in putting down Bacon's Rebellion placed 

 Charles in a financial quandary from which it proved 

 impossible to emerge except by radical alterations in 

 policy? It seems possil)le that the situation in Vir- 

 ginia may have been a decisive factor in subsequent 

 English relations with both France and Holland. In 

 any case Charles II, perhaps consciously influenced by 

 events in Virginia, broke his tenuous agreement with 

 France and, by marrying his niece, Mary, to William 

 of Orange, allied himself with Holland. After these 

 changes in foreign policy were in effect, the King 

 again confronted Parliament with a request for funds. 

 The fact that Charles II remained unsuccessful in deal- 

 ing with Parliament does not of course mean that the 

 situation in \'irginia did not exert a significant influ- 

 ence on his changes in policy. Charles II reigned in 

 the dim beginnings of a new era; his difficulties with 



war with .Algiers and ""other things make his Revenue fall 

 short . . . ," Anchitell Grey, ed., Debates of the House of Com- 

 mons, from the Tear 1667 to the Year 1694, London, 1763, vol. 4, 

 p. 224. Although we know the King and his ministers were 

 concerned with the rebellion, it is hard to find evidence of 

 Parliamentary interest. Andrew Marvell wrote to Sir Henry 

 Thompson, November 14, 1676, giving an account of Bacon's 

 Rebellion as received from a ship just arrived from Virginia 

 (Huntington Library, San Marino, California, HM 21813); 

 nevertheless, in An Account of the Growth of Popery, and Arbi- 

 trary Government in England. More Particularly, from the Long 

 Prorogation, of November, 1675, Ending the 15th. of February, 1676, 

 till the Last Meeting of Parliament, the 16th. of July 1677 (Amster- 

 dam, 1677) Marvell makes no mention of the rebellion. There 

 are few references to the rebellion in the journals of the two 

 Houses or in official proclamations. Nevertheless, it is danger- 

 ous to suppose that the Virginia colony was out of mind. 

 European afl'airs were central to the thought of Englishmen at 

 the time, especially in official circles. Colonial affairs were on 

 a lower level of consideration and, indeed, merited attention 

 only when they erupted in violence or in loss of revenue. Like 

 many problems of the modern day, however, their importance 

 was significant in fact though insignificant in theory. 



'» Charles H, '"Instructions to our Right Trusty and well 

 beloved Cousin Louis Earl of Feversham sent by us to the 

 Court of France," November 10, 1677, in Letter-Book of 

 Coventry, British Museum, .-Additional MS. 25119, p. 8. 



Parliament and with the colonies could be resolved 

 only by political expedients that had not yet evolved. '' 



Bacon's Rebellion and its aftermath caused a distinct 

 change in the relationship between the Virginia 

 Assembly and the CIrown. The King's failure to 

 reward those who had supported the Governor's 

 authority caused a reversal of sentiment in both 

 houses of the A.ssembly. What "anti-imperialist" 

 feeling was created in Virginia in 1676-1677 can 

 truly be said to have derived not from the rebels who 

 fostered the rebellion but from the loyalists who 

 put it down. 



It is customarily thought that the Assembly of June 

 1676 represented a democratic reform movement 

 aimed directly at the royal government of the colony. 

 Although historians may represent its legislation as 

 "radical," nothing the Assembly of June 1676 did — 

 with the possible exception of passing a law allowing 

 all freemen, rather than property-holders only to 

 vote — was such as to upset either King or Governor. 

 Moreover, Berkeley had already allowed freemen to 

 vote in the elections to the June Assembly, and all 

 freemen had had the vote in Virginia up until 1670 

 when the law was altered to bring it into conformity 

 with English practice. The King did not object to 

 the "reform" character of the laws of June 1676 but 

 to the pressure exerted on the Assembly by Bacon and 

 500 armed men. Furthermore, all evidence suggests 

 that this pressure was exerted not in behalf of reform 

 legislation but to obtain clear authority for Bacon to 

 fight the Indian war as he pleased. ^- 



The June Assembly can in fact appropriately be 

 thought cf as having resoundingly endorsed the 

 principle of royal authority in the colony as repre- 

 sented by the King's lieutenant, Sir William Berkeley. 

 The June Assembly went on record that: 



Whereas the Right Honourable Sir William Berkeley 

 Knight our good Governour hadi for many yeares most 

 wisely, gratiousK" Lovingly and justly governed this whole 

 Country, and still continues to governe the same with all 

 possible prudence Justness and mercy, this house in a deep 

 .Sence of the premisses doth humbly intreate and request 

 his honor that he will [jlease still to continue our Governor.'' 



Having passed this action, the burgesses begged the 

 King not to accept the Goveiiior's resignation. 



31 Mr. K. H. Haley has written the most detached account 

 of "The Anglo-Dutch Rapprochement of 1677" (English His- 

 torical Review, vol. 73, October 1958, pp. 614-648), but he 

 finds no overt evidence of a Virginia connection. 



'2 Washburn, op. cit. (footnote 19), ch. 4. 



M Ihid., p. 56. 



PAPER 17: THE EFFECT OF B.A.CON S REBELLION 



149 



