It was in the postrcbcllion assciuhlics of February 

 and October of 1677 that dissatisfaction with imperial 

 domination really arose. Not only Berkeley and the 

 Council but also the burgesses of the February As- 

 sembly found the attitude of the King's three commis- 

 sioners mistaken and insulting. The commissioners 

 told the burgesses how to perform their duties as they 

 told the Governor how to do his. The burgesses and 

 the Governor reacted similarly; they all ignored the 

 commissioners' directives, suspecting that these repre- 

 sentatives of the Crown were exceeding their instruc- 

 tions, as indeed they were.'* Governor and burgesses 

 proceeded in their accustomed courses, trusting that 

 the King would eventually support their actions and 

 repudiate the commissioners. They were mistaken 

 in this belief. Partly through ignorance and partly 

 through poor administration, the King upheld these 

 recently delegated commissioners rather than his long- 

 established authorities. The possibility of one royal 

 authority arraigning another — a situation that had 

 been feared by Francis Moryson, one of the coinmis- 

 sioners, and by Sainuel Pepys, of the Navy Board^ — had 

 become a reality. ^= 



We have now arrived at a more valid starting point 

 than Bacon's Rebellion for the conflict between the 

 people's representatives and the King's Governor that 

 culminated a hundred years later in the expulsion of 

 Lord Dunmore. The crisis began on April 27, 1677, 

 when Lieutenant Governor Herbert Jeffreys, one of 

 the three commissioners and commander of the troops 

 sent Ijy the King, proclaimed himself Governor. 

 Berkeley, already on his way back to England but not 

 yet aboard ship, reacted angrily, accusing Jeffreys of 

 having an "irresistable desire to rule this Countrey" 

 and asserting that his action could "neither be Justified 

 by your [Jeffreys'] Commission, nor mine nor any 

 visible Listructions you [Jeffreys] have from His most 

 sacred Majestic. . . ." "And no [know] Sir," Berke- 

 ley admonished the Colonel, "that I may not conceale 

 my owne imperfections and pride of hart from you I 

 will confesse to you that I beleeve that the inhabitants 

 of this Colony will quickly find a difference betweene 

 your managment and mine . . . .""^ 



As Berkeley had foretold, the people did soon notice 

 a difference in the two administrations. The disen- 



chantment of the House of Burgesses with the King's 

 vicegerent was manifested in a bold action of Oc- 

 tober 23, 1677. Lender the leadership of their clerk, 

 Robert Beverley, one of Berkeley's fiercest supporters, 

 the burgesses formally protested to Jeffreys, calling the 

 seizure of their journals by the commissioners in the 

 previous April "a Great Violation of our Priviledges." 

 The Assembly declared: 



This House doe Humbly .Suppose his Majestic would not 

 Graunt or Command [such a power in the Commissioners] 

 for That They find not the same to have been Practized by 

 Any of the Kings of England in The Like Case. And 

 Because This Commission was Never yett Published or put 

 upon record this House doc Humbly pray your Honor will 

 Please to Grant them a Veiw of the same, and that your 

 Honor as his Majesties Governor and Representative here, 

 will Please to give this House such satisfaction that they may 

 be assured noe such violations of their priviledges shall be 

 offered for the Future.^' 



Jeffreys, sick and near death, retorted weakly that 

 he could not produce a copy cf the commission.'* 

 King Charles H, in considerably better health than 

 Jeffreys, exploded with rage when he was informed 

 of the protest and directed Lord Culpeper, Jeffreys' 

 successor, to signify his "high resentment" of the As- 

 sembly's "Seditious declaration," which he ordered 

 expunged from the Virginia records.'^ 



The rights of the Council were as vigorously de- 

 fended as those of the House of Burgesses. One of the 

 first controversies centered around fiery Philip Lud- 

 well, Berkeley's right-hand man during the rebellion. 

 Lieutenant Governor Jeflreys had prevented Ludwell 

 from suing rebels for property they had stolen from 

 him. One night, heated by drink, Ludwell clenoimced 

 Jeffreys as "a pitiful Little Fellow with a perriwig" 

 who had "broke more Laws in Si.x Months time 

 than .Sir William Berkeley Did in 35 Years Govern- 

 ment ...."" If the courts allowed Jeffreys to pro- 

 tect the rebels, said Ludwell, "they ntust allow and 

 own the said Governor to rule by an Arbitrary power." 

 Jeffreys ordered Ludwell tried for "scandalizing the 



3» Jhid., pp. 94, 101, 128-129. 



3a Francis Moryson to Henry Coventry, September 6, 1676, 

 Longleat, vol. 77, folio 204; "Particulars to be considered in the 

 dispatch of .Sir John Berry to N'irginia," loc. cil. (footnote 9). 



30 William Berkeley to Herbert Jeffreys, April 28, 1677, 

 Longleat, vol. 78, folio 34, quoted in Washburn, op. cil. 

 (footnote 19), pp. 132-133. 



3" Longleat, vol. 78, folio 123. 



3' Jeffreys" answer to the assembly was made on the same day 

 as the protest, October 23, 1677 {ibid., folio 124). 



3» Order of King in Council, December 21, 1681, as reported 

 in Virginia Council proceedings, Virginia Magazine of History 

 and Biography, 1910, vol. 18, p. 245, and in Hening, op. cil. 

 (footnote 14), p. 560. 



150 



BULLETIN 225: CONTRIBtlTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 



