628 



FARMERS' K E G I S T E 11. 



[No. 9 



il will be proper firsl lo mlverl. lo unoilier porliori 

 ol" tlie arlicie of your Vv'iiliamsliurg coiiuilxilor, 

 where lie luulerlukes to discredit lo a certain de- 

 gree, the authority of that manuscript. "This ac- 

 count [the iStall'ord manuscript of T. M.] may be 

 substantially true, but it certainly contains many 

 errors. Il stales that Bacon was unanimously 

 chosen a member, and was taken prisoner on his 

 way lo that assembly ; that he saw Inm in his seat 

 as a councillor, when the assembly was in session, 

 of which he was a member. I'here is no instance 

 ol" a man's being boih burgess and councillor at 

 the same time." 



The Ibllo'.ving words related by T. M. author 

 of the Stalibrd manuscript, as spoken by Law- 

 rence lo him, seem to evince clearly, thai T. M. 

 did by no means intend to convey the idea, that 

 Jiacon was both burgess and councillor at the same 

 time. '-Forasmuch as the taking JMr. Bacon 

 again into tlie councill, was first to keep li'im out of 

 the assembly,^'' &c. 



But even admitting that T. JM. had slated it, 

 (which it seems manilest that he has not) yet it is 

 not absolutely certain, but that such a siatement 

 might have been irue, lor I find the Ibllowing res- 

 olution : 



'•May 1st, 1652. 



"Whether the governour and council shall be 

 members of this assembly or no ; generally voted, 

 they shall be, lakin<i the oath the Ijurgesses lake." 

 Rand. M. S., Jef M. S., Men. Stat., vol. i. p. 373. 



Your Williamsburg correspondent proceeds: 

 "It also stales, that Sir William Berkley issued a 

 proclainaiion against Bacon, prior lo the 5th of 

 June, 1676, when Bacon went down to lane his 

 seat in that assembly," and concludes that "the 

 strongest presumption is, that the proclamation 

 against Bacon was issued after his attack on 

 James Town." Now T. M's. account in this 

 particular, is confira.ed by Keith's Hist, of Va. p. 

 160, and Marshall's Lile ol War,hinglon fold edi- 

 tion) vol. i. p. 198. 



Again your cones|)ondent olijccis, "that assem- 

 bly pas.^ed an act disabling Edward Hill and John 

 Stith to bear olfice." This act charges ilicin with 

 being the greatest fomenters ol' the late distur- 

 bances, the writer of the above article [T. M.] 

 states Ihat Edward Hill was a member of that as- 

 sembly." 



in answer to this, it maybe observed, that there 

 is nothing incredib'e in the supposition, that Ed- 

 ward Hill while sitting a member of the house of 

 burgesses, was disfrancliised. In England, mem- 

 bers of parliament, great lords even, have not sel- 

 dom been translated in a hackney coach, from St. 

 Stephen's chapel, to ihe tower ol London. The 

 case of Sir Francis Burden will readily occur to 

 the reader. 



"It is not probable tliat Bacon would have been 

 so unguarded, as lo go to the legislature, when he 

 was proclaimed an outlaw." 



On this it is only necessary to remark, that Ba- 

 con had the people and the legislature both on his 

 side ; a safeguard sulllcient to Ibrtily a less resolute 

 and impetuous man than Bacon. 



Such are some of the errors objected to the 

 Stafford manuscript; whether they are of sulKcient 

 force to throw a cloud of discredit on that docu- 

 ment may be safely submitted to the ingenious 

 reader. The following is Mr. Jeflerson's opinion 

 of this manuscript, as conlaincd in liic i»iclace 



theccio : "Ft appears to have been written by a 

 person intimately acciuainted with its origin, pro- 

 gress and conclusion, thirty years after it took 

 place, when the jjassions of the day had subsided, 

 and reason might take a cool and deliberate re- 

 view of the transaction. It was written too, not 

 for the public eye, but lo satisfy the desire of min- 

 ister Lord Oxford ; and the candor and simplicity 

 nfthe narration cannot fail to command belief.'''' 



This manuscript is relieil upon, by Uening Stat, 

 vol. 2. p. 130 ; Bancroft's Hist, ot' U. Slates, vol. 

 2. grand rebellion passim, II" then the authority 

 of this manuscript is established, it may be refer- 

 red to, ill regarci to the loUowing observation of 

 your Williamsburg contributor: "it does not ap- 

 pear that they [Lawrence and Drummond] were 

 concerned with Bacon prior to June, 1676." 



On the contrary, Lawrence appears to have 

 been generally considered, at the time, the prime 

 mover and mainspring of the rebellion; "the re- 

 ceived opinion in Virginia, which very much at- 

 tributed the promoting these perturbac'ions to Mr. 

 Lawrence, and Mr. Bacon and his other adhe- 

 rents were esteemed as but wheels agitated by tlie, 

 weight of his former and present rcsentmenls." 

 Stall'. M. S. 



I return now to an inquiry, into the grounds of 

 the statement in the Intelligencer, quoted before: 

 "an article under ihis head published in the Pe- 

 tersburg Intelligencer, states that Nailianiel Ba- 

 con (called ihe rebel) was a memberof the council. 

 \ doubt it. Where is the evidence'?" In reply, 

 I would rely first, on T. M's. account, who says 

 "about a minute after this, the governor starting 

 up from his chair, a third lime, said "iMr. Bacon! 

 if you will live civilly but till next (juarter court, 

 (doubling the words) but till next tiuarter court, 

 ril promise to restore you againe to yo'r place 

 there, pointing with his hand to Mr. Bacon's seat, 

 he haoing been of the councill before these trou- 

 bles, though lie had been a very short time in Vir- 

 ginia, bul was deposed by the foresaid proclama- 

 c'on ; and in the afternoon passing by the court 

 door, in my way up to our chamber, / saw Mr. 

 Bacon on his quondam seat with the gooernr and 

 councill, which seemed a marvellous indulgence 

 to one whom lie had so lately proscribed as a 

 re bell." 



And this liict he reiterates in several different 

 forms of expression, so that it is quite inconceiva- 

 ble ihat there can be any mistake in the case, es- 

 pecially as it regards so conspicuous a man as the 

 younger Bacon. So that the statement, if not 

 true, must be a downright palpable wilfljl fiilse- 

 hood, as will be evident lo any one who will read 

 the account. But your Williamsburg correspon- 

 dent does not deny ihat this account is "substan- 

 tially true," therelbre, unless a document "sub- 

 lially true" can contain a gross flilsehood, it fol- 

 lows, ex necessitate rei, by his own admission, and 

 the internal evidence of the document itseifj that 

 the statement in (juestion is true. 



Nor is il possible to conceive, that T. M. could 

 have conlbunded the younger Bacon, with the 

 elder, as will appear sufficiently manilijst from tlie 

 following passage in his account: "And so nmch 

 was true, that this Mr. young Nathaniel Bacon 

 [not yet arrived lo 30 years] had a nigh relation, 

 namely. Col. Nathaniel Jlacon ol' long standing in 

 the counril, a very rich politick man, and childless, 

 designing this kinsman Ibrhisiieir, wlio [not with- 



