Yet amid the melancholy confusion of the times, important changes for the better were taking place. Never again was an English Governor to exercise the despotic power that had been Sir William Berkeley's. This was not due to the greater leniency of the British government, or to lack of ambition in the later Governors. But the Rebellion and the events following it, had weakened the loyalty of the people and shown them the possibility of resisting the King's commands. The commons, angered at the severity of the punishment inflicted upon the rebel leaders, and disappointed in the royal promise that their grievances should be redressed, regarded the government with sullen hostility. The wealthy planters resented what they considered Charles' ingrat.i.tude for their loyal support in the hour of need, and complained bitterly of his interference with their attempts to restore their ruined fortunes.

Throughout Berkeley's administration their interests had seemed to be identical with those of the Governor, and they had ever worked in harmony with him. With the advent of Colonel Jeffreys, however, they had been thrown into violent opposition to the executive. Their success in thwarting the policies of the Lieutenant-Governor, and in evading and disobeying the King's commands gave them a keen appreciation of their own influence and power. They were to become more and more impatient of the control of the Governors, more and more p.r.o.ne to defy the commands of the English government.

The awakened spirit of resistance bore rich fruit for the cause of liberty. The chief difficulty heretofore experienced by the commons in defending their rights was the lack of intelligent and forceful leaders.

These they now secured through the frequent quarrels of the wealthy planters with the Governors. More than once Councillors, suspended from their seats for disobedience, came forward as leaders in the struggle to preserve the rights of the people. In this capacity they rendered services of the highest importance. Strangely enough some of the leading spirits of the old Berkeley party became, by their continued opposition to the executive, champions of representative government in the colony.

Had it not been for the active leadership of Robert Beverley and Philip Ludwell the cause of liberty might well have perished under the a.s.saults of Charles II and James II.

The House of Burgesses was gradually becoming more representative of the people. The intimidation of voters practiced by the loyal party immediately after the Rebellion could not be continued indefinitely. As the terror inspired by Berkeley's revenge upon the rebels began to wane, the commons insisted more upon following their own inclinations at the polls. Moreover, the incessant quarrels of the Governors with the members of the aristocracy made it impossible for any clique to control again the electoral machinery. As the sheriffs and justices were no longer so closely allied with the executive as they had been in the Restoration period, false returns of Burgesses and other electoral frauds were apt to be of less frequent occurrence.

Thus, during the years immediately following the Rebellion, forces were shaping themselves which were to make it possible for the colony to resist those encroachments of the Crown upon its liberties that marked the last decade of the rule of the Stuart kings, and to pa.s.s safely through what may well be called the Critical Period of Virginia history.

FOOTNOTES:

[720] P. R. O., CO389.6-177.

[721] Ibid.

[722] The commission had consisted at first of Sir John Berry, Colonel Francis Moryson and Thomas Fairfax. P. R. O., CO1-37-53.

[723] P. R. O., CO389.6-113, 174.

[724] P. R. O., CO389.6-113.

[725] P. R. O., CO389.6-121, 174, 175.

[726] P. R. O., CO389.6-113.

[727] P. R. O., CO389.6-137, 139, 140, 144; CO1-38-7.

[728] P. R. O., CO389.6-116.

[729] P. R. O., CO5-1371-149, 154.

[730] P. R. O., CO1-40-110; CO5-1371-27, 33, 62, 63, 64.

[731] P. R. O., CO1-39-11, 17; CO5-1371-68, 69, 62, 63, 64, 78, 79, 81, 82, 132.

[732] P. R. O., CO5-1371-152.

[733] P. R. O., CO5-1371-132.

[734] CO1-40-1 to 37; CO1-40-43; CO5-1371-81, 82.

[735] P. R. O., CO1-40-23.

[736] P. R. O., CO5-1371-27, 33.

[737] P. R. O., CO1-39-38.

[738] P. R. O., CO5-1371-17, 20.

[739] Ibid.

[740] P. R. O., CO5-1371-27, 33.

[741] Ibid.

[742] P. R. O., CO5-1371-55, 60.

[743] P. R. O., CO5-1371-90, 94.

[744] P. R. O., CO391.2-173, 178.

[745] P. R. O., CO5-1371-90, 94.

[746] P. R. O., CO5-1371-83, 85, 90, 94.

[747] P. R. O., CO289.6-121.

[748] P. R. O., CO5-1371-50, 83.

[749] P. R. O., CO5-1371-93, 94.

[750] P. R. O., CO1-40-88.

[751] P. R. O., CO1-39-24.

[752] P. R. O., CO5-1371-32.

[753] P. R. O., CO5-1371-55, 60.

[754] P. R. O., CO5-1371-32, 38.

[755] P. R. O., CO5-1371-276, 286.

[756] This Thomas Mathews was probably the author of the T. M. account of Bacon's Rebellion.

[757] P. R. O., CO2-39-31; CO5-1371-276, 286.

[758] P. R. O., CO5-1371-125, 127.

[759] P. R. O., CO1-39-38; CO1-41-79.

[760] T. M., p. 24.

[761] P. R. O., CO1-39-35; Hen., Vol. II, p. 550.

[762] P. R. O., CO1-39-35; Hen., Vol. II, p. 553.

[763] P. R. O., CO5-1371-152.