fell under the spell of advancing democracy. It must be remembered that the bulwarks against such advances, strong as they were, had much less strength in Virginia than in England. The absence of a powerful territorial nobility weakened the position of the landed proprietors. Moreover, though in name the English Church in Virginia was a replica of the Church of England, in fact it developed into something wholly different. In England the parson was appointed for life and held a position completely independent from any interference on the part of his parishioners, although he might be in a position of subservience to the local magnate who was very often the patron of his living. Very different was the Church system as it prevailed in Virginia. Here the parish was the local unit for the administration of religious affairs, the parish being represented by the vestry, a body elected by the free vote of the parishioners or at a later date by the suffrage of the freeholders and householders. To the vestry belonged the appointment of their parish clergyman, though actual induction was placed in the hands of the governor. Vestries, however, were able to elude the necessity of this step by appointing their ministers only from year to year, thus avoiding the consequences that would have followed from such induction. After it the minister could claim a life tenure of his living, and became at once independent of his congregation's favour or disfavour. This state of things, under which all that concerned the Church and religion in Virginia was delegated to the mercy of the people,1 was naturally resented by many of the clergy and undoubtedly it increased the difficulty of finding suitable Englishmen for the Virginian ministry. There was undoubted force in these criticisms and they were powerfully supported by the able and shrewd commissary, James Blair. On the other hand, formal induction might foist upon an unhappy parish a minister who proved incompetent or even worthless. It was impossible for people in Virginia to obtain the same knowledge of the character of candidates as could be obtained by a patron in England. Moreover, Beverley, who spoke with authority, maintained that very rarely was a minister dismissed without grave cause, and that no qualified clergyman ever returned to England for want of preferment in Virginia. With this controversy, however, we are not here concerned; the one point that interests us is the manner in which such a system of Church establishment favoured the development of democratic aspirations.

It was not only in dissident New England that politics had affixed its mark to religious controversy; in the old dominion itself, the original home of loyalty and obedience, Church and State found themselves at angry issue. Many causes contributed to the inefficiency of the Virginia clergy, amongst which were the size of the parishes 1 Godwyn, Negro's and Indian's Advocate, pp. 167 seqq. 2 Present state of Virginia, 1697-8.

3 Beverley, Hist. of Va. p. 213.

THE CHURCH IN VIRGINIA

787 and the low rate of pay, which often obliged a clergyman to embark upon duties other than those of his calling. The treatment of the clergy in the matter of pay was a standing grievance which embittered the social life of Virginia and Maryland. Although glebes were regularly provided, in many cases the land was of a worthless character. There were continuous efforts on the part of the laity to diminish the sums received by the clergy in estimating the worth of tobacco. These culminated in the notorious Twopenny Act of 1755, which provided that for ten months payments which had previously been made in tobacco might be converted into money at 2d. per lb. or 16s. 8d. per cwt. It was urged that this law discriminated against the clergy by robbing them of the advantage of years when the price of tobacco ranged high. At the moment the grievance did not turn out to be serious, but in 1758 in anticipation of another failure in the crop a similar law was enacted for a year. This time the Act entailed serious losses on the clergy and it was finally disallowed. That, however, did not prevent it from taking effect until its disallowance was publicly notified in Virginia. The attitude taken up by the clergy in this matter was the cause of the fierce attack made by Patrick Henry in 1762 upon the Church of England in Virginia. The enthusiasm aroused by his diatribes shows the instability of its position.

Another influence that was bound to react upon the social life of the people was the more or less democratic character of the House of Assembly. It is true that during the last years of Berkeley's régime the House reflected the reactionary and autocratic character of the governor; but, taking the period as a whole, the Assembly elected by the freeholders represented the temper of the common people far more effectively than did the House of Commons in England. As early as the first decade of the eighteenth century we find Spotswood, no mean judge of men and things, deploring the tendency of the Virginian electors to prefer for their members men who were not gentlemen. But when such a state of things was beginning to prevail in the political world, how was it possible that it should not also influence social relations?

Whatever the future might have in store, at first it seemed as though another England was to burst into bloom on the American continent. Again and again in wills is found the use of the word "home" to describe England. Communication was constant between the two countries, the sea captains who made the annual voyage being willing intermediaries. In some ways society seemed to be more exclusive than it was in contemporary England. Thus in 1673 an unfortunate tailor was fined 100 lb. of tobacco for running a horse in a race, “a sport", it was solemnly affirmed, "for gentlemen alone".1 The houses of the leading planters were built to recall as far as possible English

1 York County Records, vol. 1, 1671-94, p. 34, quoted in Bruce, P. A., Social life of Virginia, p. 194.

manor houses. The cultivation of the staple crop, tobacco, promoted the extension of landed estates, virgin soil being required for its most successful growth. Side by side with the great landowners were the freeholders, whose estates were small. These yeomen for the most part belonged to an inferior class socially, but with the possession of the political suffrage they were destined in time to gain the ascendancy. Still, at the beginning, they were little regarded in the social life of Virginia. The isolation in which the planters lived ensured to the passing guest a cordial welcome. Moreover habits of hospitality were encouraged by physical conditions. Most of the principal houses were situated on the banks of navigable waters. A boat was generally the most convenient way of approaching a friend; and when a party was given by some leading planter, a sailing vessel would bring a large number of guests who were picked up in the course of its voyage. Even to strangers the hospitality of Virginians was proverbial. "Virginia", wrote the author of Leah and Rachel,1 "wants not good victual, wants not good dispositions, and as God has freely bestowed it they as freely impart with it." Nor was it only the rich who showed hospitality. Even "the poor planters", wrote the historian of Virginia, "who have but one bed, will very often sit up or lie upon a form or couch all night to make room for a weary traveller to repose himself after his journey". One reason for this generous hospitality was the abundance of food. Game was plentiful throughout the colony, especially partridges, wild turkey and pigeons; whilst along the sea coast were great flocks of wild geese and ducks. The Virginian to a great extent lived in the saddle, and the pursuit of horses that ran wild in the forest gave to anyone the opportunity of obtaining a mount. Popular diversions, besides horse-racing and shooting, followed on the lines of those in England. Dancing and drinking played a leading part, though there seems to have been less drunkenness than in the mother country. Among games, that of ninepins was especially popular, as was playing with dice and cards. Betting was a habit very prevalent; and in some circumstances it received recognition from the law courts. At marriages and funerals English customs were followed and exaggerated, though the distance in many cases of the parish church led to the frequent celebration of marriages in private houses. There was little mingling of blood with the native Indians, and the marriage of John Rolfe with Pocahontas is the only instance of such a marriage during the early years of the colony when white women were few in number.

There were, however, certain public gatherings for which no precedents could be found in England. Such were the weekly meetings of the congregations before and after the Sunday services, the general muster and the general court day. Inasmuch as attendance at church was compulsory, the absentees from the Sunday meeting-place were Beverley, Hist. of Va. p. 258.

1 Force, Hist. Tracts, vol. m.

INTELLECTUAL LIFE

789 few and far between. The general muster held for an entire county drew together much greater numbers, whilst its military character compelled the attendance of all classes of the community above the grades of servant and slave. The monthly court day was only attended by men, and was in the nature of a business meeting, wherein political questions such as the character of candidates for the House of Burgesses were freely discussed. It appears, however, that the gathering was often enlivened by drunken revelry, due perhaps to the absence of the restraining influences of feminine companionship.

Such was the social life of colonial Virginia; we have now to consider what place it held in the intellectual development of the country. If its intellectual standing were to be gauged by published output, the case would indeed be a sorry one. The distinguished historian of American colonial literature, M. C. Tyler, sought to enhance its dignity by crediting to Virginian inspiration the various works by Captain John Smith, George Percy, etc., in which Englishmen gave their impressions of the new world around them. But such works can no more be counted products of Virginia than are books of travel relating to new countries to be credited to the inhabitants of such countries. Leah and Rachel, by J. Hammond, was the first work that can be termed genuinely American. In sober fact colonial Virginia produced very little in the way of literature. Beverley's history, reflecting the best characteristics of an independent and selfrespecting community, and the younger Byrd's graphic account of his expedition to draw the boundary line between Virginia and North Carolina, were the most considerable of its achievements. Nor were the reasons why a literary class failed to develop far to seek. A poet of nature might indeed have sprung into being amidst the primeval forests of Virginia; but none such appeared, and for every other form of literature the soil was eminently uncongenial. The isolation of colonial life was an obstacle, and the friendly gatherings which took place were not of a nature to encourage the writing of books. Again the difficulties that stood in the way of education, the absence of a university for nearly eighty years and of a printing press for a still longer period were factors making for literary sterility; whilst the persecution of Quakers, Dissenters and Catholics barred the way to the opening for intellectual controversy.

But literary output is by no means an altogether fair criterion of a community's intellectual capacities. The interest felt in education was made manifest in various ways. Again and again provisions in wills are concerned with bequests for the future education of children.1 In the case of orphans the county court showed extreme solicitude with regard to the same subject.2 No small proportion of the richer planters sent their children overseas to receive an English education.

1 See numerous instances in Bruce, P. A., Institutional Hist. of Virginia in the seventeenth cent. 1, 296–307. 2 Ibid. 1, 308-15.

Amongst these Richard Lee acquired such learning that in after life he wrote marginal notes in his books in Latin, Greek and Hebrew.1 The younger Byrd was educated in Holland as well as in England and well repaid in after years the trouble taken in his upbringing. By those who were unable or unwilling to send their sons to England, private tutors were generally employed; very often the children of neighbouring houses joined forces to make a single class. Sometimes the tutor made himself useful in ways outside his functions as teacher. In some cases these tutors were imported from England; not infrequently they were under indentures-but in no case was there evidence of any criminal taint such as too often was found amongst the teachers in the early years of New South Wales. Nor were schools wholly absent, as has been alleged. The old Field School was an institution prevailing in many country districts, the clergyman often adding to his income by looking after this institution; whilst the readers who took the place of the parish clergymen in their absence very often acted as teachers. The public authorities seem generally to have shown their zeal "for the encouragement of learning and instruction of youth...by inviting able tutors". Beside these private schools were several free grammar schools, set on foot and endowed by Virginian planters. There is ample evidence that Berkeley was telling an untruth when in 1671 he thanked God that there were no free schools in Virginia. Whether or not such "learning" in his words "had brought disobedience and heresy and sects into the world", it seems evident that the people of Virginia did not share his opinion.

Although the great scheme of the Virginia Company for an Indian College came to nothing, and the projected college of 1660-1 was also a failure, towards the close of the century the growth of the colony in wealth and population was sufficiently great to render possible the establishment of the College of William and Mary. Yet without the active interest and assistance of Governor Nicholson, the success of the project might have been further delayed. English sympathies were enlisted by a visit of Blair to England, who emphasised the argument that the proposed college would be a bulwark for the English Church. The story may or may not be true which represents the English Attorney-General, when told that the colonists had souls to save, as making answer, "Souls! damn their souls! make tobacco!" but in any case this was not the attitude adopted by the Government. A charter was obtained in February 1693, and in August 1695 the foundation stone was laid of the new buildings, and two years later the work of the grammar school was begun. Ten years later "the Humanity Professor" himself confessed that the college still remained a mere grammar school without professors in Philosophy, Physics, Mathematics or Divinity. Still, the ball had been set rolling, and it 1 Lee, E. J., Lee of Virginia, p. 75.