’ 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2018 with funding from 
 Duke University Libraries 
 
 https://archive.org/details/loyalisminvirgin01harr 
 
LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 A THESIS 
 
 IN HISTORY 
 
 PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE 
 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT 
 OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE 
 OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 ISAAC SAMUEL HARRELL 
 
 c 
 
 PHILADELPHIA 
 
COPYRIGHT, 1926 
 BY DUKE UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 PRESSES OF 
 
 THE SEEMAN PRINTERY INCORPORATED 
 a DURHAM, N. C. 
 
HlLjx, '—I 2 - 7 " 
 
 /. J~£> C<i>- 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 This study was begun with the view of deter¬ 
 mining the extent of loyalty to the British govern¬ 
 ment in Virginia during the American Revolution. 
 As the investigation proceeded the alignment be¬ 
 tween economic interests and political parties be¬ 
 came evident, and, in the light of information 
 derived from material hitherto unused, the study 
 of Revolutionary politics has evolved into a mono¬ 
 graph in economic history. The terms Loyalist 
 and Patriot were political badges to designate 
 men who were divided in their opinions; many 
 factors contributed to this division,—social, poli¬ 
 tical and economic. This study is an attempt to 
 analyze only the economic factors. There is no 
 inclination to minimize social and political aspects 
 of the Revolution except in so far as the facts 
 presented modify the emphasis. The constitu¬ 
 tional controversy is a more or less familiar story, 
 and it has not been deemed necessary to repeat 
 it here. 
 
 The first chapter, an analysis of the economic 
 conditions peculiar to Virginia in the decade pre¬ 
 ceding the Revolution, is necessary to what fol¬ 
 lows. The scarcity of fertile lands and the increase 
 
VI 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 in the price of these lands, coupled with the pub¬ 
 lic and private indebtedness of the Virginia plan¬ 
 ters, explain in part the unanimity of the Revo¬ 
 lutionary movement and the absence of loyalty to 
 the king among the aristocratic planters. The 
 second chapter is a study of the strength, organi¬ 
 zation, and activity of the loyalists in Virginia. 
 The third, fourth, and fifth chapters treat of the 
 punishment of the loyalists by the patriot govern¬ 
 ment during the war, the period of the Confedera¬ 
 tion, and the years from the ratification of the 
 Constitution to Jay’s Treaty. Throughout em¬ 
 phasis is placed, not upon the constitutional and 
 political aspects of loyalism, but upon the economic 
 forces in Revolutionary Virginia. 
 
 This study was prepared during my tenure, in 
 the years 1923-1924, of the George Leib Harrison 
 fellowship in History in the University of Penn¬ 
 sylvania. It is a sincere pleasure to record my 
 gratitude to Professor St. George L. Sioussat, of 
 the University of Pennsylvania, for the guidance 
 he has given me at every stage in the preparation 
 of this study. I am under many obligations to 
 Dean Herman V. Ames, of the University of 
 Pennsylvania, whose kindness and encouragement 
 have helped me in every way. I am indebted to 
 Professor William K. Boyd, of Duke University, 
 who first directed my interest to the Revolution 
 
PREFACE 
 
 Vll 
 
 in the South. I wish to thank Professor William 
 T. Laprade, of Duke University, and Professors 
 McKinley and Nichols, of the University of Penn¬ 
 sylvania, who have read the manuscript. It is 
 proper that I acknowledge the assistance rendered 
 me by Mr. Morgan P. Robinson, of the Virginia 
 State Library, and indirectly the aid of Dr. H. 
 J. Eckenrode, through his study The Revolution 
 in Virginia. 
 
 Isaac S. Harrell. 
 
 New York City. 
 June, 1926. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER PAGE 
 
 I. ECONOMIC ANTECEDENTS OF THE REVOLUTION 
 
 IN VIRGINIA 3 
 
 II. CIVIL WAR IN VIRGINIA 30 
 
 III. LEGISLATION AND FINANCE, 1775-1783 66 
 
 IV. LOYALISTS AND DEBTS, 1782-1788 113 
 
 V. THE TREATY OF PEACE AND THE CONSTITUTION 153 
 
 CONCLUSION 179 
 
 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 183 
 
 INDEX 
 
 193 
 
LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 ECONOMIC ANTECEDENTS OF THE 
 REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA 
 
 Despite the events of the preceding decade, in 
 1773 loyalism was the logical state of mind in 
 Virginia; loyalism called for the maintenance of 
 the long established social, religious, and political 
 order. In religion, in social customs, in personal 
 contact, Virginia, of all the colonies in North 
 America, was most closely akin to the mother 
 country. The English Church was established 
 by law and supported with taxes. The landed 
 gentry imitated the manners and tastes of the 
 English nobility; they educated their sons at 
 English universities and read the latest English 
 books. The planters borrowed money from Eng¬ 
 lish brokers to operate their tobacco plantations 
 and sold their products to English traders. If 
 their depleted finances would permit, they made 
 occasional visits to that mother country of which 
 they were so proud. From Virginia, more than 
 from any other colony, the English government 
 expected loyalty. Yet a Virginian drafted the 
 Declaration of Independence; another Virginian 
 led the patriot armies in the field; and Virginia 
 
4 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 furnished the model for state constitutions and 
 bills of rights. “The influence of the Henrys, 
 Lees and Washingtons, have overpowered other 
 provinces and most fastly checked loyalty,” wrote 
 the British spy, Paul Wentworth, in his notes on 
 political parties in America in 1778. 1 
 
 This transition from loyalty to rebellion is at¬ 
 tributed, in part, to the constitutional controversy 
 between the colony and England. The exercise 
 by the governor of his power to suspend colonial 
 legislation caused continual inconvenience and 
 hardship. The governor had not exercised this 
 power in Virginia prior to 1729, and from that 
 date until 1764 the suspending clause was added 
 to fewer than sixty laws; from 1764 to 1773 this 
 clause was added to seventy-five laws. 2 Several 
 years frequently elapsed after the passage of a 
 measure before any action was taken by the King, 
 and then it might be disallowed or, else, approved 
 with amendments that completely changed the 
 intent of its framers. 3 Extra fees, especially the 
 pistole fee on land grants, became a matter of 
 great irritation to Virginians. Dissenters were 
 increasingly numerous, and by 1774, according to 
 
 * B. F. Stevens, Manuscripts in British Archives Relating to 
 America, 1773-1783, V. No. 487. 
 
 * P. S. Flippin, The Royal Government in Virginia, 1624-1775, 
 
 p. 200. 
 
 * C. R. Lingley, Transition in Virginia, p. 24. 
 
ECONOMIC ANTECEDENTS 
 
 5 
 
 the estimate of Jefferson, they included more than 
 half of the people in the colony. They were work¬ 
 ing in and out of the assembly for the disestab¬ 
 lishment of the Church. 4 The theory rapidly 
 developed in Virginia that no outside authority 
 should legislate on the internal affairs of the 
 colony. 
 
 In Virginia the House of Burgesses led the 
 Revolution in its inceptive stages. This circum¬ 
 stance, as Eckenrode indicates, 5 contrasts with 
 the Revolutionary movement in New England, 
 where the middle and lower classes supported the 
 changing order. The landed gentry of Virginia, 
 bred in a sphere of freedom and holding posi¬ 
 tions of ease and prominence in their communi¬ 
 ties, were jealous of any encroachment upon their 
 civil and political rights, whether this encroach¬ 
 ment was by the royal governor, by the liberty 
 loving delegates from the mountains, or by the 
 imperial authority three thousand miles across the 
 ocean. The planters had leisure for reading poli¬ 
 tical tracts published in England and America and 
 for discussing, in letters and conversation, politi¬ 
 cal theories and social tendencies. They developed, 
 
 4 H. J. Eckenrode, Separation of Church and State, ch. i; W. 
 T. Thom, The Struggle for Religious Freedom in Virginia: The 
 Baptist; H. R. Mcllwaine, Struggle for Religious Toleration in 
 Virginia. 
 
 5 H. J. Eckenrode, The Revolution in Virginia, p. 39. 
 
6 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 as did no other class of colonials, a very definit 
 opinion of the political nature of the British em 
 pire and of their own rights as British citizens ii 
 that empire. To these Virginians, the colonia 
 controversy from 1763 to 1775 was fundamentally 
 a dispute over the constitution of the empire. 
 The principle, rather than the tax on tea, sugar 
 or stamps, impelled leading Virginians to enter the 
 struggle for reform. 7 The cause of Massachu 
 setts was essentially the cause of Virginia, o: 
 America, of all the empire. 
 
 Landon Carter was a typical conservative 
 statesman of the Old Dominion. With several 
 large plantations worked by slaves, many worldly 
 comforts, a good social position, aijd heavy 
 debts, he cultivated tobacco and talked politics 
 He “saw early that the Agents and King intendec 
 to subject us to slavery” and claimed for himsel: 
 the honor of being among the first to sound pro¬ 
 test in the Virginia assembly. In 1775 he wanted 
 to reform the empire. If the British Government 
 “should be so mad” as to refuse reform, he was 
 “willing to be compelled to independence,” but he 
 
 8 An excellent example of the constitutional controversy in 
 Virginia is the pamphlet, Consideration of the Present State of 
 Virginia (1774) attributed to the Attorney-General, John Ran¬ 
 dolph, and Consideration of the Present State of Virginia Ex¬ 
 amined by Robert Nicholas. 
 
 7 H. J. Eckenrode, The Revolution in Virginia, chs. i, ii. 
 
ECONOMIC ANTECEDENTS 
 
 7 
 
 would never take it through choice, “agreeable to 
 the sophisticated non-sense of Common Sense, a 
 mere cookery among the Congress.” He “chose 
 to be compelled to independency rather than have 
 it out of choice, because as a constitution of 
 Government, none is so good as the British.” 8 
 
 In considering the transition from loyalty to 
 rebellion, these constitutional disputes and the 
 inherent self reliance of colonials have received 
 extensive and merited attention, but economic 
 conditions in the colony should not be entirely 
 overlooked or too lightly dismissed. The politi¬ 
 cal philosophy of a people is seldom unaffected 
 by the material situation. Two rich treasure 
 houses of information pertinent to the economic 
 history of Revolutionary Virginia have hitherto 
 remained unexplored—the Patent Books in the 
 State Land Office and the Auditor’s Books in the 
 manuscript division of the Virginia State Library. 
 These unexplored sources furnish illuminating 
 information upon three phases of the Revolution 
 in Virginia—the land problem, public finance, and 
 private debts. 
 
 Due to wasteful methods of cultivation and the 
 rapid increase of population, the material well 
 being of many Virginians in 1775 depended upon 
 their development of unoccupied land. The lead- 
 
 8 William and Mary College Quarterly, XX. 177. 
 
8 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 ing historian of the Revolution in Virginia has 
 dismissed the plausibility of the notion that con¬ 
 flicting interests in land claims “forced the land 
 hungry Virginians to go into the Revolutionary 
 movement,” because “lands in the wilderness at 
 that time were too plentiful and too cheap to fight 
 about.” 9 Lands were plentiful indeed, yet, as 
 more than one colonial empire builder from Geor¬ 
 gia to Massachusetts knew to his great discom¬ 
 fort, it was extremely difficult to secure a title to 
 any lands west of the mountains that would stand 
 test before a court. As early as 1759 Governor 
 Dinwiddie reported to the Board of Trade that 
 the best lands in Virginia had been taken up. 
 The population of the colony increased from less 
 than three hundred thousand in 1750 to over half 
 a million in 1775. In 1774 Governor Dunmore 
 reported to Lord Dartmouth that quitrents were 
 being collected from ten million acres. 10 The price 
 of government lands was fixed at ten shillings per 
 hundred acres, but the market price, fluctuating 
 with supply and demand, was much higher—two, 
 three, and sometimes four pounds an acre for well 
 located meadow lands in the tide-water and pied¬ 
 mont sections. 11 Patrick Henry considered ten 
 
 8 H. J. Eckenrode, The Revolution in Virginia, p. 39. 
 
 10 Dunmore to Dartmouth, Public Record Office C. O., 5, 1352, 
 Library of Congress Transcripts. 
 
 11 J. C. Ballagh, Letters of Richard Henry Lee, I. 48. 
 
ECONOMIC ANTECEDENTS 
 
 9 
 
 pounds per hundred acres a low price for well 
 located lands in the west. 12 So great was the de¬ 
 mand for land that tracts lying between former 
 and old surveys in the settled part of the colony 
 were sought out, surveyed, and patented. Be¬ 
 tween March, 1772, and July, 1774, 1164 grants 
 were made for approximately three hundred 
 thousand acres, scattered hither and thither from 
 Princess Anne to Augusta County. The demand 
 for land was insatiable, but the supply east of the 
 line fixed under the Proclamation of 1763 was 
 exhausted by 1774. 
 
 Would-be land owners looked longingly into the 
 fertile fields of what are now Kentucky and Ohio. 
 The Lees of Virginia had organized the Mississ¬ 
 ippi Land Company with Dr. Arthur Lee as their 
 principal agent in London. 14 George Mason, 
 among the foremost of the radical political 
 leaders, visualized a Virginian empire in the 
 west. 15 Patrick Henry was jealous for Virginia’s 
 claim under her charter, and when Richard Hen¬ 
 derson proposed that he become a member of the 
 
 U W. W. Henry, Patrick Henry, I. 121. 
 
 13 Patent Books, Virginia Land Office, passim. See also Dun- 
 more to Dartmouth, December 24, 1774, Public Record Office 
 C. O., 5, 1353. Library of Congress Transcripts. 
 
 14 C. W. Alvord, Mississippi Valley in British Politics, II. 93, 
 110, 123. 
 
 35 K. M. Rowland, Life and Correspondence of George Mason, 
 I. 152-8. 
 
10 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 Louisa Company and a proprietor of Kentucky, 
 Henry protested that “the lands belonged to Vir¬ 
 ginia” and that Henderson’s title was worthless. 16 
 By 1774 Virginia’s claim to these rich lands was 
 threatened by the extreme likelihood that the royal 
 government would grant the Ohio and Kentucky 
 country not to a Virginia company, but to the 
 Walpole Company, managed by the Whartons of 
 Philadelphia, including Lord Camden and the Earl 
 of Hertford of the English court, and sponsored 
 by George Grenville. 17 Dunmore wrote Dart¬ 
 mouth that there was great apprehension in Vir¬ 
 ginia lest the Philadelphia company should secure 
 a charter from the crown and Virginia thus lose 
 her claims based upon the charter of 1609 and 
 Indian treaties. Dartmouth replied: 
 
 the opinion which your Lordship says has prevailed in 
 Virginia of His Majesty’s determination upon the propo¬ 
 sitions for a new Government upon the Ohio was certainly 
 well founded, and therefore you ought to be very cautious 
 of taking any steps with regard to the lands intended to 
 be included within the limits of that Government, and the 
 impropriety of grants west of the limits of Virginia must 
 be obvious to you and every proposition of settlement in 
 that country under the plea of Indian purchases is not 
 only a violation of the King’s rights, but diametrically 
 opposite to and inconsistent with those principles of policy 
 that have hitherto operated against settlements in such 
 situation . 18 
 
 ” Deposition of Patrick Henry, Executive Communications, 
 1776. 
 
 17 Alvord, Mississippi Valley in British Politics, II. 93. 
 
 18 Dartmouth to Dunmore, July 6, 1774, Public Record Office, 
 C. O., 5, 1352, Library of Congress Transcripts. 
 
ECONOMIC ANTECEDENTS 
 
 11 
 
 The royal government, by a restrictive and selfish 
 policy, raised a legal barrier between coveted 
 lands and ambitious Virginians. 
 
 Apart from the activities of the Virginia land 
 companies, some farseeing Virginians purchased 
 claims to bounty lands offered by Governor Din- 
 widdie in his proclamation of 1754. Under the 
 leadership of George Washington and Captain 
 William Crawford and with the approbation of 
 Governor Dunmore, the more enterprising claim¬ 
 ants had two hundred thousand acres surveyed 
 and apportioned after the Indian treaty at Fort 
 Stanwix. 19 The British government, however, 
 closely watched these proceedings. Dunmore was 
 instructed to send a detailed list of the surveys to 
 Lord Dartmouth. Virginians also purchased 
 claims to bounty lands offered “to officers and sol¬ 
 diers of our armies” under the royal Proclamation 
 of 1763. As the lands east of the Proclamation 
 line were exhausted, they sought to have their 
 claims located west of that line. In July, 1773, 
 Governor Dunmore issued ten patents, totalling 
 13,616 acres, in accordance with the Proclamation 
 of 1763. 20 The Governor was sharply repri- 
 
 “ Virginia Gazette, January 14, 1773. 
 
 “Patent Books, Virginia Land Office, passim. George Wash¬ 
 ington received 2183 acres; John Connolly, 2000 acres. 
 
12 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 manded for permitting these surveys, when the 
 reports reached the Colonial Office. “I think fit 
 to suggest to you”, Dartmouth wrote to Dunmore 
 April 6, 1774, “that independent of the general 
 impropriety of laying out any lands within that 
 tract until His Majesty’s pleasure be finally 
 known, it seems to me at least very doubtful 
 whether provincial officers and soldiers are in¬ 
 cluded in that proclamation, and therefore I trust 
 that you will grant no patents for such locations 
 or allow no further locations to be made upon 
 such claims until you shall have received further 
 orders from the King.” 21 This reprimand and 
 more definite instructions, which followed in Sep¬ 
 tember, 1774, 22 stopped the location of bounty 
 
 ai Dartmouth to Dunmore, April 6, 1774. Public Record Of¬ 
 fice, C. O., 5, 1352, Library of Congress Transcripts. 
 
 “ Lord Dunmore was of the opinion that settlements west of 
 the mountains should be restricted, but, as this policy was not 
 considered when the grants to Walpole and others were made, 
 he thought the practicable thing would be to open the country 
 to the Virginians. “I have learnt from experience,” he wrote to 
 Dartmouth, “that the established authority of any government in 
 America, and the policy at home are both insufficient to restrain 
 the Americans, and they do and will remove as their avidity and 
 restlessness incite them. They acquire no attachment to place, 
 but wandering about seems engrafted in their nature, and it is a 
 weakness incident to it, that they should forever imagine that 
 the lands further off are still better than those upon which they 
 are already settled. 
 
 “I have had, my Lord, frequent opportunities to reflect upon 
 the emigrating spirit of the Americans, since my arrival in this 
 government. There are considerable bodies of inhabitants, set¬ 
 tled at greater and less distances, from the regular frontiers of, 
 I believe, all the colonies. In this colony proclamations have 
 been published from time to time to restrain them. But im- 
 
ECONOMIC ANTECEDENTS 
 
 13 
 
 lands west of the mountains. Patrick Henry, 
 Hugh Innes, Peter Jefferson, and many lesser ex¬ 
 soldiers and speculators held unsurveyed claims. 23 
 These claims could not be located until there was 
 a change in the royal policy. 
 
 In the third place, the western aspirations of 
 these would-be landowners were manifested by 
 Lord Dunmore’s War. In order that surveys 
 might be made, it was necessary that the trouble¬ 
 some Shawnee Indians be driven out. Dunmore’s 
 War was conducted to accomplish this. It is im¬ 
 
 pressed from their earliest infancy with sentiments and habits 
 very different from those acquired by persons of a similar con¬ 
 dition in England, they do not conceive that government had any 
 right to forbid their taking possession of a vast tract of country, 
 either uninhabited, or which serves only as a shelter to a few 
 scattered tribes of Indians. Nor can they be brought to enter¬ 
 tain any belief of the permanent obligations of treaties made with 
 those people, whom they consider as but little removed from the 
 brute creation. These notions, my Lord, I beg it may be under¬ 
 stood, I by no means pretend to justify. . . . Three considerations 
 offer themselves for His Majesty’s approbation. The first is to 
 suffer these emigrants to hold their lands of and incorporate with 
 the Indians; the dreadful consequence of which may be easily 
 foreseen, and which I leave to Your Lordship’s judgement. The 
 second is to permit them to form a set of Democratic Govern¬ 
 ments of their own upon the back of the colonies, a scheme 
 which for obvious reasons, I comprehend cannot be allowed to 
 be carried into execution. The last is that which I propose to 
 Your Lordship, to receive persons in these circumstances, under 
 the protection of some of His Majesty’s Governments already 
 established and in giving this advice, I have no thoughts of 
 bringing dishonor upon the Crown. On the contrary the measure 
 appeared to me as the wisest, and safest that could be entered 
 into under the circumstances above mentioned.” Dunmore to 
 Dartmouth, December 24, 1774, Public Record Office, C. O., 5, 
 1353, Library of Congress Transcripts. 
 
 23 Patent Book A, 330, 331, 333. F, passim. 
 
14 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 possible to estimate to what extent personal inter¬ 
 ests influenced the policy of Governor Dunmore. 24 
 While governor of New York, he purchased fifty 
 thousand acres subject to the usual quitrent and 
 made application for other lands, rent free. 25 He 
 was suspected by the colonial office of being inter¬ 
 ested in the Illinois Land Company. 26 Be this as 
 it may, Virginians heartily supported the war for 
 pushing back their Indian foes and opening new^ 
 lands for settlement. The expedition brought pro¬ 
 test from Pennsylvanians, who were skeptical of 
 Dunmore’s personal motives, and from Sir Wil¬ 
 liam Johnson, who feared that a general Indian 
 uprising would be the result. This war opened 
 
 24 On May 16, 1774, Lord Dunmore had forwarded a petition of 
 David Franks, William Murray, John Campbell, Alexander Ross, 
 Bernard Gratz, and others of Philadelphia for an extensive grant 
 of land west of Virginia to Lord Dartmouth. The Illinois Land 
 Company was founded by David Franks and Company, rivals of 
 the Whartons for the Indian trade. Dunmore, in his transmission 
 of the petition, approved of the grant. Again, the Governor of 
 Virginia urged that, despite all efforts to the contrary, settlers 
 were crossing the mountains (see note 22), and this grant to the 
 Illinois Land Company would insure a lawful government under 
 British control. Dunmore was accused of being personally inter¬ 
 ested in the enterprise, but this he later denied. Dunmore to 
 Dartmouth, May 16, 1774, Public Record Office, C. O., 5, 1352, 
 Library of Congress Transcripts. 
 
 25 Dunmore to Dartmouth, December 24, 1774, Public Record 
 Office, C. O., 5, 1353, Library of Congress Transcripts. 
 
 M Dunmore’s explanation of his interest in western lands was 
 accepted as satisfactory by Lord Dartmouth. The explanation 
 left “no room in the Royal Breast to doubt of the uprightness of 
 your Lordships intentions.” Dartmouth to Dunmore, March 3, 
 1775. Public Record Office, C. O., 5, 1353, Library of Congress 
 Transcripts. 
 
 1 
 
ECONOMIC ANTECEDENTS 
 
 15 
 
 the door for the settlement of Kentucky and the 
 winning of the West; it cleared the way for the 
 claims of Virginians to the fertile lands in the 
 blue-grass country. But it was frankly disap¬ 
 proved of by the royal government. 27 
 
 37 There has been an attempt to characterize the battle at Point 
 Pleasant as the first battle of the Revolution (See J. T. McAl- 
 lester in Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, IX. 
 395-407). McAllester takes the position “that everyone in Vir¬ 
 ginia knew the Revolution was coming” in 1774 and that Lord 
 Dunmore, in conjunction with his agent, Dr. John Connolly, 
 planned the annihilation of the frontier militia. The Governor 
 sent this militia into an apparently hopeless contest with the 
 Indians, while he was absent with the regiments from the east. 
 Years after the battle, General Lewis made a statement to this 
 effect. Contemporary opinion in Virginia held that the war was 
 against the Indians and the Pennsylvania interest in the west: 
 “Lord Dunmore wants 1200 men to fight the Pennsylvanians” 
 (Diary of Landon Carter, William and Mary College Quarterly, 
 XIV. 183). Others saw in the war an opportunity to get claims 
 to western lands surveyed. Colonel William Preston, in calling 
 out the militia of Fincastle County, rejoiced “that the opportunity 
 we have so long wished for is now before us.” (R. G. Thwaites 
 and L. P. Kellogg, Dunmore’s War, p. 67). Lyman Draper 
 characterized this war as the “most popular event of Dunmore’s 
 administration” {Ibid., p. 425). A contemporary In Pennsylvania 
 wrote from the western part of the colony at the outbreak of the 
 war that it was an attempt “of Virginia land jobbers to execute 
 plans formed for their private emolument” (Ibid.). John Bow¬ 
 ers, for six years a member of the Virginia assembly from Bote¬ 
 tourt County, disapproved of the war as unjustifiable and without 
 authority, and “it merely was to get their lands surveyed that 
 Lord Dunmore and Colonel Lewis had undertaken it” (Virginia 
 Magazine of History and Biography, XIII. 46). The British 
 government knew nothing of the expedition; “I am at loss to 
 guess at the motives which led to the hostilities against the Shaw¬ 
 nee,” Dartmouth wrote to Sir William Johnson, February 1, 1775, 
 (New York Colonial Documents, VIII. 531). The war was in 
 no respect the beginning of the Revolution. The soldiers who 
 had accompanied Dunmore to the frontier drew up resolutions 
 of confidence in the Governor. Several months later, when Dun¬ 
 more was enraged over the threats of Patrick Henry, he swore 
 “that he had once fought for Virginians, and that, by God, he 
 would let them see he could fight against them” (Virginia Maga- 
 
16 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 Upon his return from the western campaign, 
 Lord Dunmore found awaiting him from Lord 
 Dartmouth a letter dated September 8. It ex¬ 
 pressed well the British policy in the west. Dun- 
 more was called sharply to account for the encour¬ 
 agement he had given to surveys and settlements 
 beyond the mountains and especially for the sup¬ 
 port he had given the Illinois Land Company, a 
 rival of the Walpole Company. “Admitting it to 
 be advisable, as Your Lordship contends, upon 
 grounds of general policy to allow settlements 
 under the authority of the government of Virginia 
 beyond that line [the Proclamation line of 1763] 
 (of which myself and the rest of the King’s Ser¬ 
 vants entertain very grave doubts),” while treaties 
 with the Indians exist, “every attempt on the part 
 of the King’s Subjects to acquire title to and take 
 possession of lands beyond the line fixed by His 
 Majesty’s Authority and every encouragement 
 given to such attempt, can be considered in no 
 other light than a gross indignity and dishonor 
 to the Crown.” The King “expresses his great 
 displeasure at your action”, and if it were not 
 for his kindness he “would make use of other 
 
 zine of History and Biography, XIII. 49). Virginia was deter¬ 
 mined to make the most of this war against the Indians and 
 Pennsylvania agents; the following summer a delegation was sent 
 by the assembly to treat with the Shawnee Indians on the basis 
 of Dunmore’s victory (See Virginia Magazine of History and 
 Biography, XIV. 54-75). 
 
ECONOMIC ANTECEDENTS 
 
 17 
 
 marks of Royal displeasure.—It is the King’s 
 pleasure that you do exert every power and au¬ 
 thority which the constitution has vested in you, 
 to preserve inviolate the engagements entered into 
 in the King’s name with the Indians, and to pre¬ 
 vent any settlement whatever being made upon any 
 pretense beyond the line settled at the Congress 
 at Lochaber in October, 1770.—You are to make 
 no grants nor exercise any other jurisdiction than 
 shall be absolutely necessary to preserve public 
 peace and prevent violence and bloodshed” in that 
 district. Dunmore was directed to send imme¬ 
 diately a list of all the land grants made during his 
 administration. 28 The Governor had written Dart¬ 
 mouth that he knew nothing of the Proclamation 
 of 1763 and the policy of not granting lands west 
 of the mountains. This, Dartmouth ironically 
 observed, “must have been a very extraordinary 
 neglect of the Council.” 29 Several weeks later 
 Dunmore was censured for opening war against 
 the Indians without making “known your inten- 
 tion to His Majesty’s Superintendent for the 
 Northern District and consulting him upon it.” 30 
 
 28 Dartmouth to Dunmore, September 8, 1774, Public Record 
 Office, C. O., 5, 1352, Library of Congress Transcripts. 
 
 "Dartmouth to Dunmore, October 5, 1774, Public Record Office, 
 C. O., 5, 1352, Library of Congress Transcripts. 
 
 "Dartmouth to Dunmore, January 7, 1775, Public Record Of¬ 
 fice, C. O., 5, 1353, Library of Congress Transcripts. 
 
18 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 With these strict orders and under severe repri¬ 
 mand, Dunmore could no longer give his consent 
 to surveys of lands west of the mountains; subse¬ 
 quent grants were smaller and confined to terri¬ 
 tory east of the Appalachians. 31 
 
 Neither the established authority of the govern¬ 
 ments in America nor the imperial policy of the 
 mother country was able to retard the restless pio¬ 
 neers. The British ministry decided to open grad¬ 
 ually the west for settlement. The Board of Trade, 
 after an extensive investigation, made recommen¬ 
 dations to the Privy Council in October, 1773, and 
 new instructions for granting lands were sent to 
 the royal governors in 1774. But these instruc¬ 
 tions did not calm the irate Virginians. Free 
 grants were prohibited; the newly prescribed sys¬ 
 tem of surveys prevented indiscriminate locations; 
 lands were to be sold at auction, and quitrents in 
 Virginia were doubled. 32 Thomas Jefferson held 
 the view that the land did not belong to the king, 
 and, as “his majesty has lately taken on him to ad- | 
 vance the terms of purchase and of holding to 
 double of what they were—It is time for us to lay 
 this matter before his majesty, and to declare that 
 
 11 Patent Book E, 1-40 passim. 
 
 ” Public Record Office, C. O., S, 241. Library of Congress 1 
 Transcripts. Conveniently found in S. E. Morison, The American \ 
 Revolution 1764-1788, pp. 97-100, or in New York Colonial Docu¬ 
 ments, VIII. 357. 
 
ECONOMIC ANTECEDENTS 
 
 19 
 
 he has no right to grant lands of himself.” 33 A 
 committee of lawyers, appointed by the Virginia 
 convention of 1775 to determine whether the 
 King could advance the terms of granting lands, 
 recommended that all persons forbear purchas¬ 
 ing or accepting grants on the conditions pre¬ 
 scribed in the new regulations. 34 
 
 Agricultural Virginia, dependent upon land for 
 a livelihood, looked to the west. If Virginia’s 
 claim to the west was to be honored, there must 
 be a change in the policy of the royal government, 
 or that government must be abolished in Virginia. 
 There was no prospect of a change in the policy of 
 the royal government. The Walpole grants were 
 ready to pass the Seal, and the lands beyond the 
 mountains would be lost forever to Virginia. 
 
 The western policy of Virginia subsequent to 
 the Declaration of Independence is even more 
 indicative of the aspirations of leading Virgin¬ 
 ians. One of the last official acts of Lord Dun- 
 more as governor of Virginia was the outlawing 
 of Richard Henderson, who attempted to make 
 a settlement in Kentucky on lands purchased from 
 the Indians. The Revolutionary government 
 played Dunmore’s role to its logical conclusion. 
 
 33 Thomas Jefferson, Writings (Ford edition), II. 85. 
 
 34 Dunmore to Dartmouth, March 14, 1775, Public Record Of¬ 
 fice, C. O., 5, 1353, Library of Congress Transcripts. 
 
20 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 Virginia blocked Henderson’s schemes, first in is! 
 the Continental Congress and then at Williams- so 
 burg. George Rogers Clark visited Patrick la 
 Henry, governor of Virginia, in the summer of in 
 '1776 and secured from him an order for gun- 1! 
 powder for the defense of the Kentucky settle- n 
 ments. Henderson’s purchase was declared void, d 
 and Virginia provided a government for the terri- 1. 
 tory. 35 Nor were the Virginians willing that Con¬ 
 gress should establish a claim over these lands. On i 
 July 8, 1778, almost contemporary with the final 
 action in Virginia on the claims of Henderson and 
 Company, Patrick Henry discouraged an expedi¬ 
 tion that Congress was preparing to send against 
 Detroit. Virginia, he declared, was in no position 
 to aid any such undertaking. 36 At the same time, 
 Henry, as governor, heartily supported with Vir¬ 
 ginia men and Virginia money George Rogers 
 Clark in his conquest of the Northwest. Posts 
 on the Mississippi were seized. Governor Hamil¬ 
 ton was brought a prisoner to Virginia. The 
 Indians were quieted. By force of arms, Virginia 
 reestablished the claim to that country which she 
 was so near losing in 1775. 
 
 The coveted West once more a part of Vir¬ 
 ginia, the policy of expansion, checked by the Brit- 
 
 35 A. Henderson, Conquest of the Old Southwest, chs. xiv, xv, 
 xvii. 
 
 33 Papers of the Continental Congress, LXXI. 
 
ECONOMIC ANTECEDENTS 
 
 21 
 
 ish government, was resumed. Thomas Jeffer¬ 
 son presented his draft of the first Virginia land 
 law to the assembly in May, 1779. All surveys 
 made before 1778 by surveyors of William and 
 Mary College 37 were to be valid. The large grants 
 made by the royal governor and his council were 
 declared void, unless such grants had been fol¬ 
 lowed by actual survey. Settlers who were on 
 the land prior to January 1, 1778, were to receive 
 patents for their lands up to four hundred acres; 
 six hundred and forty acres were to be set aside 
 in each village for public use; no quitrents were 
 to be charged. Despite the protest of the Conti¬ 
 nental Congress, a land office was opened by the 
 state, and lands were put on sale at the old price 
 of ten shillings per hundred acres. 38 Patrick 
 Henry had sold military certificates issued under 
 the Proclamation of 1763 to Thomas Madison, 
 and Madison immediately proceeded to have sur¬ 
 veys made. Henry paid forty pounds sterling in¬ 
 to the land office and took out patents for ten 
 thousand acres. 39 Henry Lee, 40 Levin Powell, 41 
 
 37 In colonial Virginia surveys were made under the supervision 
 of William and Mary College. 
 
 38 For the protest of Congress, see Journals of the Continental 
 Congress, XV. 1226-28. The Virginia land law, a neglected land¬ 
 mark in the national land system, is printed in full in W. W. Hen- 
 ing. Statutes of Virginia, IX. 35-50. 
 
 39 Patent Book A, 330-333; F, 400-470. 
 
 40 Ibid ., F, 274. 
 
 41 Ibid., F, 356. 
 
22 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 Hugh Innes, 42 Andrew Lewis, 43 Hugh Mercer, 44 
 Georg-e Washington, 45 William Christian, 46 and 
 many other Virginians secured the lands that the 
 British government had denied them. Before the 
 end of the Revolution approximately four thous¬ 
 and grants for one million, three hundred and 
 fifty thousand acres had been made, followed by 
 surveys and the deeds recorded in the Virginia 
 land office. 47 Four fifths of these grants were 
 issued to Virginians. There were a few large 
 grants made under the Proclamation of 1763, 48 
 but the greater number of grants were for tracts 
 of between one hundred and fifty and three 
 hundred acres. No one who had hoped to secure 
 lands across the mountains could be unaffected by 
 this change in policy. What the British ministry 
 had closed fast to loyal Virginians, the Revolu¬ 
 tionary government opened to the patriots upon 
 most liberal terms. 
 
 Furthermore, the colony could hardly have been 
 unaffected by the condition of public finance. The 
 
 42 Patent Book, F, passim. 
 
 43 Ibid., E, passim. 
 
 44 Ibid., E, passim. 
 
 45 Ibid., E, passim. 
 
 “Ibid., A, passim. 
 
 47 Patent Books A to F, passim. 
 
 48 For example, William Christian received a patent for 7000 
 acres (Patent Book A) ; Andrew Lewis, 7000 acres (Patent 
 Book E) ; and Hugh Mercer, a patent for 10,000 acres (Ibid.). 
 
ECONOMIC ANTECEDENTS 
 
 23 
 
 three principal sources of revenue were the quit- 
 rents, which yielded between ten and fifteen 
 thousand pounds, the custom duties, with a yield 
 of from six to nine thousand, and the poll tax, 
 which ranged from one to five thousand per year. 
 In 1773 there was a favorable balance of eight 
 thousand pounds from the quitrents and nearly 
 two thousand from the customs, after the royal 
 officials in Virginia had been paid. 49 This balance, 
 however, was not at the disposal of the colonial 
 assembly, but was subject to the control of the 
 royal treasury. The cost of local government was 
 increasingly great, and the poll tax, the principal 
 revenue of the assembly, was exploited to meet 
 these growing expenses. 50 Virginians could not 
 have regarded with complacence the increase of 
 poll taxes while a surplus, created from, the quit- 
 rents and customs, was being paid into the royal 
 treasury. 
 
 At the same time, the taxpayer and colonial 
 treasury were being strained to the utmost to 
 redeem the paper money issued during the Seven 
 Years War. Redemption was remarkable. Dur¬ 
 ing the war Virginia had authorized £450,000 of 
 paper. In 1767 only £206,757 were outstanding. 
 
 *“ Dunmore to Dartmouth, February 7, 1775, Public Record Of¬ 
 fice, C. O., 5, 1353, Library of Congress Transcripts. 
 
 K W. Z. Ripley, The Financial History of Virginia 1609-1776. 
 
24 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 However, in 1769, £10,000 were issued to meet 
 the contingent expenses of government, and, in 
 1771,£30,000 were issued for the relief of planters 
 whose tobacco had been destroyed in the public 
 warehouses by the freshets of the previous spring. 
 Despite this increase of £40,000, only £54,391 
 were outstanding in 1774. 51 This rapid contrac¬ 
 tion of the currency created discontent and unrest 
 among Virginians, many of whom were deb¬ 
 tors. This discontent was considerably increased 
 when it was discovered that John Robinson, the 
 late treasurer and the leader of the political ma¬ 
 chine of the tidewater aristocrats, had loaned 
 £103,000 of paper money that should have been 
 destroyed to bankrupt politicians who had sup¬ 
 ported the machine. 52 Discontented Virginians 
 raised a cry for more paper money. In 1765, 
 and again in 1767, the House of Burgesses passed 
 a bill to establish a loan office, but the council de¬ 
 feated the measure. 
 
 Added to these conditions, and partly ensuing 
 from them, was the unfavorable trend of foreign 
 exchange. Colonial planters bought heavily in 
 England from 1765 to 1775, especially during the 
 
 “ WU[iam and Mary College Quarterly, XX. 228. A most sug¬ 
 gestive and interesting account of the finances of Virginia from 
 1763 to 1775, written by the colonial treasurer, Robert Carter 
 Nicholas, and first printed in the Virginia Gazette. 
 
 “ W. E. Dodd, Statesmen of the Old South, pp. 16-18. 
 
ECONOMIC ANTECEDENTS 
 
 25 
 
 period immediately following the repeal of the 
 Townshend—Aets. The balance of trade was 
 against Virginia. Usually Virginia exchange was 
 about fifteen per cent, under par on London. In 
 1772 the exchange fell to twenty-five per cent, 
 under par, and in May, 1773, at the semi-annual 
 meeting of the Virginia merchants, the rate was 
 fixed at thirty per cent, below par. At this point 
 bullion began to move. The colonial treasurer, 
 Robert Carter Nicholas, complained that he was 
 unable to keep the usual reserve of fifteen or twen¬ 
 ty thousand pounds in gold and silver in the treas¬ 
 ury. By 1774 the colonial reserve was exhausted, 
 and the treasurer was unable to redeem the fifty- 
 four thousand pounds of paper then in circulation. 
 The bullion had gone to Europe. Public credit 
 Segan to totter. Discontent and the demand for 
 paper money became more emphatic. 53 But the 
 British government, fostering the interests of the 
 merchants, was the unwavering opponent of a 
 paper currency. Revenue was going from Vir¬ 
 ginia into the royal treasury; the colony was los¬ 
 ing its supply of bullion to offset the unfavorable 
 balance of exchange; public credit was tottering, 
 and these conditions produced a social and econo¬ 
 mic situation favorable to the growth of Revolu¬ 
 tionary propaganda. 
 
 “ William and Mary College Quarterly, XX. 228. 
 
26 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 More appalling than the deplorable condition of 
 the public finance was the heavy indebtedness of 
 the Virginia planters to British merchants. These 
 debts had become “hereditary from father to son 
 for many generations, so that the planters were a 
 species of property annexed to certain mercantile 
 houses in London.” Jefferson estimated that 
 “certainly £2,000,000 sterling and possibly more 
 . was due from Virginia to British merchants.” 54 
 In 1791 a group of merchants in Great Britain 
 submitted to their government a statement of 
 amounts due them from American customers in 
 1775. The total, with fourteen years interest, 
 • amounted to £4,930,656; £4,137,944, over five 
 sixths of the total, was due from states south of 
 'f Pennsylvania; £2,305,408, over half of this 
 , amount, was due from Virginia. 55 With their 
 plantations, slaves, and sometimes household fur¬ 
 niture hypothecated, the planters were in an al¬ 
 most inextricable position in 1775; it seemed that 
 n othing le ss tha n virtual repud i atioiVcould 1rel£^e 
 them . 
 
 In May, 1774, when the Revolution was in its 
 inceptive stage, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick 
 Henry made the sweeping proposal before the 
 extra-legal meeting of the assembly that all pay- 
 
 ' “Jefferson, Writings, IV. 201. 
 
 65 S. F. Bemis, Jay’s Treaty, p. 103. 
 
ECONOMIC ANTECEDENTS 
 
 27 
 
 ments on British debts should stop. 56 The con¬ 
 servatives, however, were not yet ready for the 
 leadership of these radicals. In October, 1777, 
 when the principles of rifle democracy were su¬ 
 preme, a law was passed which provided in part 
 for the sequestration of these debts. 57 
 
 These debts involved the leading families of 
 Virginia. John Randolph’s lather owed the Lon¬ 
 don firm, Capel and Osgood Hanbury, eleven thou¬ 
 sand pounds sterling; he was also a heavy debtor 
 to Jones and Farrell. 58 Archibald Cary was in debt 
 to the Hanburys for over seven thousand pounds 
 and to Archibald Lidderdale and Company for 
 nearly three thousand pounds. 59 Kippen and 
 Company, of Glasgow, and Jones and Farrell, of 
 London, held bonds against Thomas Jefferson for 
 approximately ten thousand pounds. 60 Benjamin 
 Harrison, later governor of Virginia, owed two 
 thousand pounds to British trading houses, most 
 of it to the Hanburys. 61 Patrick Henry, Burr 
 Harrison, Edmund Pendleton, George Webb, 
 
 " Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 1773-1776, V - 
 p. 139. James Parker, June 17, 1774, wrote from Williamsburg 
 to Charles Steuart, a former Virginia merchant, that Henry, 
 
 R. H. Lee, and George Mason were for stopping payments on 
 British debts. Magazine of History, III. 153. 
 
 " See below, pp. 80f. 
 
 88 Auditor’s Cash Boolf, May 4, 1780. 
 
 "Ibid., May 23, 1780. 
 
 “Jefferson, Writings, IV. 348, 357. 
 
 “Auditor’s Cash Book, May 8, 1780. 
 
28 
 
 LOYALISM IN \ IRGINIA 
 
 William Brent, William Harrison, Joseph Jones, 
 the Balls, the Lees, the Flemings, and the Marsh¬ 
 alls took advantage of the Revolutionary provision 
 to pay sterling debts due to British merchants in 
 depreciated Virginia currency. 62 Ryland Randolph 
 paid a debt of nearly six thousand pounds. 63 Ben¬ 
 jamin Waller took £6578 in depreciated Virginia 
 currency to the Virginia loan office and discharg¬ 
 ed sterling debts due to seven British merchants. 64 
 Such were the advantages that the Revolution 
 offered to the indebted planter. In addition to 
 these more outstanding Virginians mentioned, 
 five hundred debtors paid depreciated paper money 
 into the state loan office 65 to discharge sterling 
 debts due to British merchants. The political 
 philosophy of such Virginians could not have been 
 unaffected by their economic situation. 66 
 
 There is here no inclination to underestimate 
 the political theories involved in the American 
 
 93 Ibid., 1778-1780, passim. 
 
 63 Ibid., May 21, 1778. 
 
 64 Ibid., 1778-1780, passim. 
 
 9S Ibid. Many of the small debtors paid off mortgages held 
 against them by British merchants. A great majority of the 
 debts were for merchandise. 
 
 99 Eckenrode has indicated that the Revolution in Virginia was 
 led by the upper class. Two members of Dunmore’s council, 
 John Page and William Nelson, became active patriots. Not 
 more than two or three graduates of William and Mary College 
 were loyalists. Of the three hundred and eight attainted by the 
 law of 1778 in Massachusetts, sixty-five were Harvard graduates. 
 Powerful economic forces explain in part this puzzling contrast. 
 See Eckenrode, Revolution in Virginia, especially chapter ii. 
 
ECONOMIC ANTECEDENTS 
 
 29 
 
 Revolution, to question the devotion of Wash¬ 
 ington, the patriotism of Henry, or the political 
 astuteness of Jefferson. B jjt an examination o f 
 the constit utional principles that appealed to leacP 
 ing citizens does not afford a complete explana^ 
 flono f^the momento us movemenFwhich trans¬ 
 for med Virginia, the~^hd5t~rritT 3 r ^ 
 in No rth America, into a staunch supp orterTrtTie 
 Revolutionary^ doctrines. Lands to the westT" 
 
 claimed by Virginia under charters, won from 
 France partly by Virginia men and with Virginia 
 money, and sorely needed by Virginia in 1775, 
 were being exploited by an irresponsive govern¬ 
 ment—bartered and pawned to court favorites, 
 politicians, and speculators. The rapid con trac¬ 
 t ion of the rnrrem w— to-J neet the demands of th e 
 British trading interests and th^ xuLi ons trend -of 
 Virgioia-^ xchait g^- arcentnated the diverse econo ¬ 
 m ic inter ests nf- t he c o l o ny and the mnlliex -^w- 
 trv. The planters were hopelessly in debt to the 
 British merchants. Gm jent political theorie s 
 in the col onies and the economic interest s_j&f the 
 planters were in harmony. \ 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 CIVIL WAR IN VIRGINIA 
 
 The bulwarks of loyalism were gradually dis¬ 
 integrated by economic forces, yet many conser¬ 
 vatives persisted in their attachment to the mother 
 country. There were possibilities of a strong 
 loyalist party, but skilful leadership, toleration, 
 and imagination were essential. The last colonial 
 governor, John Murray, Earl of Dunmore, pos¬ 
 sessed none of these qualities. He was stubborn, 
 narrow-minded, and indiscreet. His policy alien¬ 
 ated the support of the ultra-conservatives; dis¬ 
 like and distrust of the royal representative placed 
 the radicals in control and sealed the fate of the 
 loyalist party in Virginia. 
 
 Revolutionary propaganda took root slowly 
 among the conservatives in the colony. During 
 the decade preceding 1775, the Virginia assembly 
 periodically passed resolutions upholding their 
 rights as Englishmen and drank toasts to the king, 
 his ministers, and the royal governor. Each pro¬ 
 test became more emphatic, but the toasts were 
 never omitted. The assembly of March, 1773, the 
 last assembly in Virginia to enact legislation ap¬ 
 proved by a royal governor, was prorogued. It 
 
CIVIL WAR IN VIRGINIA 
 
 31 
 
 was the beginning of the end. The next session 
 ended yet more abruptly. In May, 1774, news of 
 the Boston Port Bill reached Virginia. Robert 
 Carter Nicholas proposed to the assembly that 
 June 1, the day the bill was to become effective, 
 be observed as a day of fasting. On May 26 
 Governor Dunmore, angry at the proceedings, dis¬ 
 solved the assembly and made his way to the fron¬ 
 tier to drive back the Shawnee Indians. The day 
 following the dissolution of the assembly, the 
 members met in a tavern at Williamsburg and 
 appointed a committee of correspondence to con¬ 
 sult with the other colonies. 1 A few days later, 
 while many delegates were yet in Williamsburg, 
 news arrived of the determined opposition of Bos¬ 
 ton. A convention in the colony was called for 
 August to elect delegates to a general congress 
 to meet in Philadelphia. In this convention, as 
 in the convention that assembled the following 
 March, the conservatives were in control. “Our 
 patriots Peyton Randolph, the Lees, Robert Car¬ 
 ter Nicholas, and Pendleton”, wrote Jefferson, 
 “stopped at the half-way house of John Dickin¬ 
 son.” 2 
 
 But events moved rapidly in the spring of 1775; 
 fighting had taken place in New England; Lord 
 
 1 Lingley, Transition in Virginia, ch. ii. 
 
 ’Jefferson, Writings, I. 12. 
 
32 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 Dunmore became alarmed and ordered gunpowder 
 to be removed from the powder house to a ship 
 of war. The radicals, led by Patrick Henry, 
 threatened the Governor with the militia, but the 
 conservatives preserved peace. When the dele¬ 
 gates assembled in May in response to the Gover¬ 
 nor’s summons, the militia also appeared. Dun- 
 more offered the assembly the conciliatory meas¬ 
 ures of Lord North, but these were refused. The 
 Governor, fearing for his personal safety, took 
 refuge on board a British ship at Yorktown. 
 Later, thinking Yorktown and its vicinity an un¬ 
 safe place for a royal governor and his family, 
 Dunmore established his headquarters at Gosport, 
 a village on the Elizabeth River not far from 
 Norfolk. The assembly sanctioned the action of 
 the extra-legal conventions of August, 1774, and 
 March, 1775. A third convention in July, 1775, 
 called for two regiments of militia, appointed a 
 conservative committee of safety, and ordered an 
 election. The radicals won their first victory in 
 excluding all dissenting clergymen and teachers 
 from participation in this election. The govern¬ 
 ment of the colony was placed in the hands of the 
 committee of safety during the absence of the 
 Governor. 3 
 
 3 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, IX. 15, 55-60. 
 
CIVIL WAR IN VIRGINIA 
 
 33 
 
 Loyalism predominated in two sections of the 
 colony: Norfolk, in the extreme southeast, and 
 about Fort Pitt, in the extreme northwest. Nor¬ 
 folk, a town of six thousand people, was the com¬ 
 mercial center of the colony. Many of the resi¬ 
 dents were un-Americanized Scottish merchants, 
 who, as factors and agents for British trading 
 houses, controlled the trade of the colony. They 
 had no interest in the constitutional quarrel be¬ 
 tween the colony and the mother country; their 
 great desire was peace, harmony, and good busi¬ 
 ness. The commercial policy of the British gov¬ 
 ernment, which the colonies in the North were 
 attempting to break down, protected their trade. 
 These merchants had nothing in common with the 
 radicals, who proposed to stop payments due them 
 from the planters. The continental association 
 was injurious to their business, and they were re¬ 
 luctant to obey its regulations. The committee of 
 safety for Norfolk informed the convention in 
 July, 1775, that non-importation and non-expor¬ 
 tation would bring great distress upon a town 
 almost entirely dependent upon trade. 4 The mer¬ 
 chants of Norfolk protested and petitioned the 
 assembly for relief, but the petitioners were se- 
 
 4 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XIV, 51. 
 
34 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 verely censured and the petition dismissed. Sev¬ 
 eral merchants were summoned before the local 
 committee of Isle of Wight for not respecting the 
 rules of the association. 5 * Robert Shedden, a 
 Scottish merchant at Norfolk, in violation of the 
 non-importation agreement, sent orders to An¬ 
 drew Lynn, of Glasgow, in November, 1775.® The 
 committee of Accomac declared Arthur Upshur 
 out of favor with the country and fined him a 
 hundred pounds for disobeying rules of the asso¬ 
 ciation. 7 George Perdue found himself in con¬ 
 siderable difficulty for selling needles for double 
 the price usually charged. 8 
 
 Among these loyal merchants at Norfolk, Lord 
 Dunmore sought refuge in June, 1775. He had 
 with him one hundred and twenty-five regular sol¬ 
 diers, whom he thought reliable. With the excep¬ 
 tion of “Mr. Wormley, Mr. Corbin, Rev. Mr. 
 Camm, Mr. Byrd and the Attorney General,” there 
 were none who had been prominent in the govern¬ 
 ment whom he could trust. 9 The merchants, how- 
 
 5 Proceedings of the Committee of Safety, Isle of Wight, pp. 
 42, 43. 
 
 * Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XIV. 51. 
 
 1 Journal of the House of Delegates, October 1776, p. 110. 
 
 8 Proceedings of the Committee of Safety, Isle of Wight, pp. 
 42, 43. 
 
 8 Dunmore to Dartmouth, June 25, 1775, Public Record Office, 
 C. O., 5, 1353, Library of Congress Transcripts. 
 
CIVIL WAR IN VIRGINIA 
 
 35 
 
 ever, openly supplied the exiled Governor with 
 provisions. 10 
 
 Fort Pitt, in the extreme northwest, was a 
 frontier trading post claimed by Virginia and 
 Pennsylvania. After his war against the Shawnee 
 Indians, Dunmore had placed Dr. John Connolly 
 in charge of Virginia’s interest about the fort. 
 Connolly followed up Dunmore’s victories and 
 made a treaty with the Indians. 11 Of greater im¬ 
 portance to the royal government was the loyalism 
 Connolly probably kept alive about Fort Pitt. 
 
 10 The House of Delegates had twenty-two merchants brought 
 before it in the spring of 1775 for trading with Dunmore. Dun- 
 more to Dartmouth, June 25, 1775, Public Record Office, C. O., 
 5, 1353, Library of Congress Transcripts. 
 
 11 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XIV. 78-79; 
 54-75. Connolly had experienced great difficulties with the Penn¬ 
 sylvania authorities; they arrested him on June 21 (1775), but 
 he was released before June 29. This arrest had nothing to do 
 with Connolly’s loyalty. Some inhabitants from West Augusta, 
 after Dunmore’s flight, had petitioned the Continental Congress to 
 erect a government over the western country. This petition was 
 sent to Virginia by one of her delegates in Congress, and Vir¬ 
 ginia immediately took steps to conclude a peace with the Indians. 
 James Wood was sent by that colony to summon the Indians, 
 but already, before the arrival of Wood, Connolly, in conjunction 
 with the committee from West Augusta, had held a conference 
 with the Indians (June 19-July 6) and concluded a treaty. There 
 is no convincing evidence of Connolly’s disloyalty to Virginia 
 prior to his visit to Dunmore in August, 1775, unless it be an 
 address delivered to Dunmore from the frontier. This address 
 has no date, but was drawn up at Fort Pitt and bears Connolly’s 
 name; Connolly was not at Fort Pitt after his visit to Dunmore, 
 and the address must have been prepared before he left the 
 frontier in July, 1775. The Pennsylvania authorities were antag¬ 
 onistic to Connolly as an agent from Virginia and not as a loy¬ 
 alist. Connolly’s own account of his activities ( Pennsylvania 
 Magazine of History and Biography, XII, XIII) was written to 
 secure a pension. 
 
36 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 In July, 1775, Connolly left the northwest to 
 visit Dunmore. He wrote to George Booth, a 
 member of the Virginia convention from West 
 Augusta County, that he hoped his treaty would 
 be satisfactory to the convention at Richmond, “as 
 it has been particularly so to the inhabitants of our 
 country.” The Pennsylvania agents, he wrote, 
 have done everything to “prejudice my character 
 and depreciate the character of my public service. 
 . . . It has been diligently propagated through the 
 country that I, as a ministerial tool, would be ex¬ 
 tremely solicitous to forward their designs and 
 should be ready to support every measure which 
 Lord Dunmore might recommend to me; I have 
 only to assure you that such insinuations are mali¬ 
 cious and foreign to truth.” 12 Connolly acknowl¬ 
 edged that he was under obligations to Lord 
 Dunmore, 13 but “such things will go no further 
 with me than they ought to. I distinguish be¬ 
 tween a ministerial office and a friend.” He asked 
 that he be permitted to visit Lord Dunmore “on 
 personal business.” 
 
 In the British Public Record Office there is an 
 address from John Campbell, John Cannon, John 
 Connolly, Edward Ward, Alexander McKee, 
 George Gibson, Simon Girty, Alexander Ross, 
 
 “ Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XIV. 78. 
 
 13 Ibid. Dunmore had given Connolly several grants for lands. 
 
CIVIL WAR IN VIRGINIA 
 
 37 
 
 Benjamin Harrison, and “several hundred inhabi¬ 
 tants of transmountain Augusta” to Lord Dun- 
 more assuring him of their appreciation of the 
 great service he had rendered the frontier. They 
 were not, the address declares, misled by wild 
 rumors, but were loyal to him and to the king. 
 Dunmore sent this address to Dartmouth Septem¬ 
 ber 24, 1775. 14 It is possible that Connolly deliv¬ 
 ered it to Dunmore when he visited him in August. 
 
 Dr. Connolly was on board ship with Dunmore 
 several weeks, and while there they probably 
 worked out the “Connolly Plot”. 15 Connolly was 
 to raise a regiment of militia among his own and 
 Dunmore’s friends about Fort Pitt, and Alexan¬ 
 der McKee, an Indian trader, was to raise a regi¬ 
 ment of Indians. Together they were to march 
 to Alexandria, Virginia. Dunmore, with the loy¬ 
 alists he could muster in the east, proposed to join 
 Connolly’s forces on the Potomac and thus to sever 
 the northern from the southern colonies. Con¬ 
 nolly left Dunmore to lay the plan before General 
 Gage in Boston and to induce Gage to send troops 
 and supplies to aid Dunmore. 
 
 Dunmore proceeded with his plan to join Con¬ 
 nolly on the Potomac. He wrote Dartmouth, Oc- 
 
 14 Dunmore to Dartmouth, September 24, 1775, Public Record 
 Office, C. O., 5, 1353, Library of Congress Transcripts. 
 
 15 For details of the “Plot” see R. G. Thwaites and L. P. Kel¬ 
 logg, Revolution in Upper Ohio, p. 136. 
 
38 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 tober 5, that he was confident he could secure all 
 the volunteers needed if he erected the king's stan¬ 
 dard, but he was waiting until arms arrived before 
 he called for enlistments. 18 He employed effective 
 methods to quiet the opposition of the local press: 
 “The public prints of this little dirty Borough of 
 Norfolk has for sometime past been wholly em¬ 
 ployed in exciting the minds of all ranks of people 
 in the spirit of sedition and rebellion, by the gross¬ 
 est misrepresentation of facts, both public and 
 private.” One Saturday noon, in early October, 
 Dunmore sent a small detachment of soldiers on 
 shore, seized the press, paper, ink, and two of the 
 printers. The local militia was called out, but 
 those who responded showed no disposition to 
 fight; a crowd of citizens watched the seizure 
 without attempting to prevent it. Press and 
 printers were transferred to Dunmore’s service 
 on board his ship. The mayor and aldermen sent 
 a mild protest to the marooned Governor. 17 In 
 fact, sentiment in Norfolk favored Dunmore; a 
 meeting was held, and he was invited to occupy 
 the town. 18 The association had worked so dis¬ 
 astrously for the merchants that a majority of the 
 
 16 Dunmore to Dartmouth, October 5, 1775, Public Record Of¬ 
 fice, C. O., 5, 1353, Library of Congress Transcripts. 
 
 17 Ibid. 
 
 18 Eckenrode, The Revolution in Virginia, p. 66. 
 
CIVIL WAR IN VIRGINIA 
 
 39 
 
 people in Norfolk had no sympathy with the pa¬ 
 triot assembly at Williamsburg. 
 
 The patriots at Williamsburg distrusted the 
 merchants at Norfolk and prepared to send troops 
 to the disaffected town. The local militia of Prin¬ 
 cess Anne and Norfolk Counties were assembled 
 at Kempsville, the county seat of Princess Anne. 
 It was rumored that aid was being sent to them 
 from North Carolina. 19 Dunmore, adding a few 
 Negroes and a score of Scottish clerks to his regu¬ 
 lars, proceeded against the three hundred colonials 
 at Kempsville. The patriots, aware of Dunmore’s 
 approach, placed their troops in ambush, and Dun- 
 more walked into the trap. The ill-disciplined 
 local militia did not open fire, but fled to the woods, 
 when they might easily have gained a victory. A 
 few, it is said, were too drunk to run away and 
 were taken prisoners. 20 This victory greatly en¬ 
 couraged the loyalists. Dunmore proclaimed 
 martial law in the colony and set up the king’s 
 standard. 21 The next day three hundred took the 
 oath of allegiance at Kempsville; a few days later 
 five hundred subscribed at Norfolk. The stan¬ 
 dard was set up in Princess Anne, Norfolk, and 
 Nansemond Counties, and it was reported that up- 
 
 19 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XIV. 130-36. 
 
 “John Page to Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Papers, XI. 51. 
 
 91 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XIV. 247. 
 
40 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 ward of three thousand subscribed to the oath. 22 
 
 Shortly after the victory at Kempsville, Dr. 
 Connolly, prevented by military operations from 
 taking a northern route to Fort Pitt after his con¬ 
 sultation with General Gage at Boston, as had 
 been planned, arrived in Virginia by sea. His 
 reports from Boston were favorable. The inhabi¬ 
 tants of Princess Anne County drew up resolu¬ 
 tions pledging themselves to support the crown 
 and Dunmore with the last drop of their blood. 23 
 The exiled Governor, confident of success, deter¬ 
 mined to act with vigor. Connolly was given a 
 commission as lieutenant colonel; Dr. John F. D. 
 Smythe was appointed a surgeon and Allen Cam¬ 
 eron a lieutenant in the regiment Connolly was to 
 raise—The Royal Foresters. On November 18 
 the three were hurried off to Detroit to execute 
 their part of the plan. Dunmore’s small boats 
 sailed boldly up and down the rivers and bays, 
 plundering plantations and storehouses and se¬ 
 ducing Negroes to leave their masters. Little 
 discrimination was made between the loyal and 
 the disaffected. 24 On November 17 he offered 
 freedom to slaves who would join his forces. He 
 organized two regiments of militia, The Queen’s 
 
 ” Intercepted Letters, Papers of Continental Congress, II. 398. 
 
 ” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XV. 18. 
 
 “ Eckenrode, The Revolution in Virginia, ch. ii. 
 
CIVIL WAR IN VIRGINIA 41 
 
 Own Loyal Virginia Regiment and a Negro regi¬ 
 ment of runaway slaves, Lord Dunmore’s Ethio¬ 
 pian Regiment. Even the conservatives were 
 alarmed. 
 
 Robert Carter Nicholas, of the “conservative 
 household”, recommended to the assembly that 
 it would be well to secure hostages. 25 The con¬ 
 servative committee of safety at Williamsburg 
 was forced to act. Two regiments of militia were 
 ordered to Norfolk; North Carolina promised to 
 send a third. Lord Dunmore fortified himself 
 with some five hundred troops at Great Bridge, 
 where each regiment must pass to reach Norfolk. 
 Here, on December 11, Dunmore was defeated 
 and forced to fall back to Norfolk. 26 The pa¬ 
 triot forces entered the loyalist town on Decem¬ 
 ber 14 and forced Dunmore to return to his ships 
 in the harbor. 
 
 On January 1, 1776, Dunmore received one 
 hundred and thirty-four soldiers and three thous¬ 
 and stand of arms, part from General Gage and 
 part from St. Augustine. 27 Encouraged by rein¬ 
 forcements, Dunmore fired upon the patriot 
 troops, who were celebrating the New Year by a 
 
 25 Robert Carter Nicholas to the Assembly, November 25, 1775, 
 Jefferson Papers, II. 191. 
 
 2I! Dunmore to Dartmouth, December 23, 1775, Public Record 
 Office, C. O., 5, 1353, Library of Congress Transcripts. 
 
42 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 blusterous parade in the loyalist town. They re¬ 
 turned the fire. 28 Dunmore consulted with Cap¬ 
 tain Bellew, a naval officer, and decided to set fire 
 to the warehouses on the docks that patriots used 
 as ambush to molest the British ships. Dunmore 
 set the precedent of firing Norfolk, a town ar¬ 
 dently in sympathy with him; the patriots spared 
 nothing in the disaffected district. Fifty houses, 
 valued at £3648, were destroyed by fire from Dun- 
 more’s ships; 863 houses, valued at £110,807 and 
 personal property valued at £8000 were destroyed 
 by the patriot troops. In February the remain¬ 
 ing 416 houses were burned by order of the con¬ 
 vention to prevent Dunmore from using Norfolk 
 as a base. 29 The loyalist town was devastated; a 
 royal governor had hurled the first fire brand. 
 
 That part of the “Connolly Plot” which was en¬ 
 trusted to Dr. Connolly and his lieutenants came 
 to a more abrupt failure than the part Dunmore 
 had undertaken. A week after leaving Dunmore, 
 the three were captured in Frederick County, 
 Maryland. Connolly was brought before the Con¬ 
 tinental Congress and imprisoned. Dr. Smythe 
 made his escape from the Frederick County jail, 
 but was later captured near Fort Pitt and taken to 
 
 28 Ibid., January 4, 1776. 
 
 20 Journal of the House of Delegates 1835, Appendix. A full 
 report of the losses at Norfolk in 1776. 
 
CIVIL WAR IN VIRGINIA 
 
 43 
 
 Philadelphia. 30 After the imprisonment of Con¬ 
 nolly and the failure of Dunmore, Alexander Mc¬ 
 Kee, commissioned to raise the Indians for par¬ 
 ticipation in the ‘‘Plot”, went to Fort Detroit. In 
 June, 1776, John Nevill, in charge of the Virginia 
 forces garrisoning Fort Pitt, wrote the committee 
 of safety that “some of the leading men in this 
 quarter were strongly suspected of disaffection to 
 the common cause.” The arrival in the early sum¬ 
 mer of two ships with one hundred and fifty regu¬ 
 lars and a supply of arms for the British garrison 
 at Fort Detroit aroused the general fear that Mc¬ 
 Kee and the Indians were to harrass the frontier. 31 
 But McKee became interested in land speculation, 
 and the “Connolly Plot” came to an end. 
 ^Dunmore continued his plundering expeditions 
 throughout the spring and summer of 1776. Many 
 Negroes left the plantations to take advantage of 
 his proclamation of November 17, 1775. 32 Our 
 typical conservative, Landon Carter, who believed 
 the British government the best on earth, found 
 his vocabulary inadequate to express his contempt 
 
 for “that D-Dunmore” after ten of his slaves 
 
 had taken silver from his house, provisions from 
 
 30 Journals of Continental Congress, IV. 394, 415, 445. 
 
 31 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XVI. 53-55. 
 
 32 Robert Carter Nicholas to Thomas Jefferson, November 25, 
 1775, Jefferson Papers, II. 191. 
 
44 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 his storehouse, a new boat from the wharf, and 
 had gone to seek their fortunes with the exiled 
 Governor. 33 He was “compelled to independ¬ 
 ency.” Edmund Pendleton and Robert Nicholas, 
 conservatives, denounced Dunmore and all his 
 works. 34 Lord Dunmore had forfeited all chances 
 of bringing the conservatives into the loyalist 
 party. 
 
 Rewards for loyalism in Virginia were mea¬ 
 ger. Dunmore was unable to supply provisions 
 for those who followed him from Norfolk to the 
 ships. Levin Powell wrote from Williamsburg 
 in 1776 that “the women and children whose be¬ 
 havior makes them think it dangerous to remain 
 on shore and are now on board Dunmore’s ships 
 have been obliged to send to our officers begging 
 provisions and firewood.” 35 The lot of Andrew 
 Sprowle was extremely hard. Sprowle was one 
 of the wealthiest men in Virginia and for thirty- 
 six years president of the court of Virginia mer¬ 
 chants. He had provided barracks for the royal 
 soldiers when Dunmore was in possession of Nor¬ 
 folk. When the patriots entered the town in De¬ 
 cember, 1775, Sprowle took refuge on board one 
 
 33 William and Mary College Quarterly, XVI. 268. Diary of 
 Landon Carter. 
 
 34 Edmund Pendleton to Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Papers, 
 II. 285. 
 
 35 Randolph Macon College, Branch Papers, I. 34. 
 
CIVIL WAR IN VIRGINIA - 45 
 
 of his vessels in company with Dunmore. The 
 patriots destroyed his property in Gosport and 
 Portsmouth and took possession of his plantation, 
 “Souls Point”. “These distresses were too much 
 for Mr. Sprowle’s advanced age. He fell a sacri¬ 
 fice, May 29, 1776, still on board a vessel at Guin’s 
 Island, Virginia.” His wife, who had accompan¬ 
 ied him, obtained permission from Dunmore to 
 visit her son, a prisoner in the patriot jail at Hali¬ 
 fax, North Carolina. The Williamsburg commit¬ 
 tee of safety refused her permit and sent her back 
 to Dunmore, who would not “suffer her on board 
 her own vessel.” After being driven back and 
 forth between Dunmore and the patriots, Cap¬ 
 tain Hamond secured her passage to Glasgow. 
 She was placed on the Virginia pension list for 
 one hundred and fifty pounds a year, but “Lord 
 Dunmore wantonly struck her off for no reason 
 that she can learn.” 36 The undestroyed Sprowle 
 property in Virginia was later sequestered and 
 sold. Dunmore gave Mrs. Sprowle no protection 
 in Virginia or aid in England. 
 
 Local and central committees of safety and the 
 military authorities were entrusted with safe¬ 
 guarding patriot interests against the disaffected. 
 
 36 Petition of Katherine Sprowle to Thomas Townsend, Esq., 
 July 22, 1782, Public Record Office, C. O., 5, 1344, Library of 
 Congress Transcripts. 
 
46 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 The local committees about Norfolk, either be¬ 
 cause of loyal proclivities or helplessness to act 
 against a majority, were lenient in their treatment 
 of the loyalists. The local committee of safety 
 arrested John Goodrich, who had deserted the 
 Virginia service and undertaken to supply Dun- 
 more with powder. Although there could have 
 been no question of his guilt, he was given his 
 liberty. “Queer Committees of our safety,” ob¬ 
 served Landon Carter. 37 On April 3, 1776, 
 Robert Shedden, son-in-law of Goodrich, was 
 arrested and brought before the Norfolk com¬ 
 mittee and charged with communicating with 
 Dunmore; he was acquitted. By order of the 
 Williamsburg committee of safety, he was re¬ 
 arrested the first of May and placed in jail, “be¬ 
 cause by his conduct he appears unfriendly to 
 America.” 38 
 
 The central committee at Williamsburg and the 
 assembly were more positive in their policy to¬ 
 wards the loyalists, though not harsh. In De¬ 
 cember, 1775, the assembly offered pardon to any¬ 
 one who had given aid to the enemy, if he would 
 take an oath of allegience to the provisional gov¬ 
 ernment within two months; if he failed to take 
 the oath, he would be liable to arrest and his 
 
 37 William and Mary College Quarterly, XVII. 34. 
 
 38 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XVI. 40. 
 
CIVIL WAR IN VIRGINIA 
 
 47 
 
 estate to seizure. The execution of the law de¬ 
 volved upon local committees, and these commit¬ 
 tees were lenient. 39 In the summer of 1775, twen¬ 
 ty-two citizens, among them Neil Jamieson and 
 Archibald Ritchie, were summoned before the 
 assembly, but they gave satisfactory account of 
 their conduct and were dismissed. 40 In May, 1776, 
 thirteen white men and twelve Negroes, arrested 
 in Norfolk, were sent to Williamsburg for trial. 
 Their cases were heard by the convention in June; 
 the Negroes were sent to work in the lead mines 
 of the state; several of the whites, including the 
 Goodriches, were given a parole, and others were 
 discharged. 41 
 
 The military authorities, upon their occupation 
 of the disaffected district about Norfolk, were not 
 so lenient with the loyalists. The house of Neil 
 Jamieson, who had acted as a supply agent for 
 Dunmore, 4 ' was deliberately burned by order of 
 General Lee as an example to any who might sup¬ 
 port Dunmore. 43 The military authorities recom¬ 
 mended that the residents be moved to the interior 
 
 3B Hening, Statutes of Virginia, IX. 101. 
 
 40 Dunmore to Dartmouth. June 25, 1775, Public Record Office, 
 C. O., 5, 1353, Library of Congress Transcripts. 
 
 41 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XV. 414; 
 XVII. 112. Journal of the Virginia Convention 1776, p. 97. 
 
 42 Dunmore to Dartmouth, January 4, 1776, Public Record Of¬ 
 fice, C. O., 5, 1353, Library of Congress Transcripts. 
 
 43 Eckenrode, The Revolution in Virginia, pp. 91-92. 
 
48 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 of the country to prevent any intercourse between 
 them and Dunmore’s ships. The inhabitants, how¬ 
 ever, protested, pleading the “obvious difficulties 
 that would attend removal of four or five hundred 
 at one time” over the bad roads, and feigned at¬ 
 tachment to the patriot cause. 44 The recommen¬ 
 dation was carried into execution with little vigor. 
 
 The loyalists were crushed. Dunmore had de¬ 
 serted them; patriots harrassed them on every 
 hand. Their city homes were destroyed, and they 
 were driven from their plantations. Some char¬ 
 tered the ship Albion and went to England; 43 
 others took passage to Scotland on merchant ships. 
 Some went to the West Indies. Many merchants 
 sought safety with the British army in the North, 
 directing that goods they had ordered for Vir¬ 
 ginia be delivered to them there. Neil Jamieson 
 was a considerable trader in New York through¬ 
 out the Revolution. 46 One hundred and twelve 
 Scottish merchants from Virginia opened shops in 
 Philadelphia when the British occupied that city. 47 
 
 Few Virginia loyalists performed active ser¬ 
 vice for the king during the war. After the de¬ 
 feat at Great Bridge, Dunmore’s loyalist regi- 
 
 44 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XVII. 173-5. 
 
 45 Journal of the Hoxtse of Delegates, May 1777, p. 97. 
 
 44 Stevens, Manuscripts in British Archives Relating to America, 
 1773-1783, XII. 1241. 
 
 47 W. H. Siebert, Loyalists in Pennsylvania, p. 45. 
 
CIVIL WAR IN VIRGINIA 
 
 49 
 
 ment, The Queen’s Own Loyal Virginia, was in¬ 
 corporated with the Queen’s Rangers. Captain 
 John Saunders, 48 John Agnew, 49 a former chap¬ 
 lain of the Suffolk Parish, and his son, were the 
 only Virginia loyalists to attain distinction in 
 military service. 
 
 The loyalists who used discretion remained in 
 Virginia throughout the war. Archibald Ritchie, 
 father of the noted Virginia editor, did not leave 
 the state, although several times summoned before 
 local committees and once before the assembly to 
 answer for his loyalist sentiment. Richard Cor¬ 
 bin lived quietly on his plantation, unmolested, 
 while his son was in the British service. Ralph 
 Wormley, whose loyalism was well known, re¬ 
 mained at his plantation, “Rosegill”. William 
 Cunningham and Company, British merchants, 
 kept an agent in the state throughout the war. 
 Such instances, however, were exceptional; by 
 1777 those most active in the loyalist cause had 
 departed from the state. Dunmore had failed 
 to furnish them even the support that he could 
 have given, and, as the agent of the Virginia 
 loyalists later reported, “for those who remained 
 in Virginia nothing was possible but a submission 
 
 48 E. A. Jones, Journal of Alexander Chesney, p. 108. 
 
 49 Lorenzo Sabine, Loyalists of the American Revolution, I. 
 154-155. 
 
50 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 and acquiescence” to the patriot government. 
 They had been so betrayed by Dunmore that “they 
 were ever cautious of their action.” 50 
 
 Despite the neglect of the loyalists by Dunmore, 
 many who remained in Virginia were ready to as¬ 
 sist the king’s cause if the king’s troops were near. 
 They had no occasion to assist the British until 
 the theater of war was shifted to the south. At 
 the time General Phillips and General Arnold 
 passed through Virginia with their armies, at¬ 
 tempt was made to arouse the loyalists, especially 
 those on the Eastern Shore of Maryland and Vir¬ 
 ginia. In the vicinity of Petersburg, a number of 
 inhabitants drew up a petition to the Virginia 
 assembly setting forth the distress of the country 
 “and the expediency of accepting the terms then 
 held out by the British.” 51 However, the dis¬ 
 patches from the Eastern Shore were intercepted 
 in Maryland, and the plans came to naught. 
 
 The spirits and the hopes of the loyalists were 
 again revived upon the approach of the armies 
 from the south. Agents from Governor Wright 
 of Georgia and Colonel Brown, commander of the 
 Georgia loyalists, became active on the frontier. 
 In the summer of 1779 the report was spread in 
 
 50 Colonel Upham’s report on the Virginia loyalists to Gov¬ 
 ernor Franklin, November 6, 1781, Public Record Office, C. O., 5, 
 175, Library of Congress Transcripts. 
 
 61 Ibid. 
 
CIVIL WAR IN VIRGINIA 
 
 51 
 
 the back-country that the colonies had been sold 
 to France, and the people were returning to their 
 allegiance to the British king. John Henderson, 
 in what is now Kentucky, was told that already 
 sixty thousand colonials had joined the king’s 
 army. Agents, purporting to have come from 
 John Robinson, offered six shillings six pence 
 : sterling per day and four hundred and fifty acres 
 of land with the quitrent free for twenty-one 
 > years to all who would enlist. Those who refused 
 to enlist were to be seized by the loyalists and sent 
 to the British in Georgia. 52 Some enlisted. The 
 British planned that these enlisted loyalists, 
 joined by others recruited in North and South 
 Carolina, should capture the lead mines in Vir¬ 
 ginia and then proceed to Winchester. There, in 
 conjunction with the loyalists from Detroit, they 
 would release the British and German prisoners 
 confined under the convention of Saratoga. 5 5 B ut 
 the danger from the loyalists on the Virginia 
 frontier was never great. They needed a British 
 base from which to operate; Kentucky was mid¬ 
 way between the British posts on the Lakes and 
 the back-country of the Carolinas to the south. 
 
 62 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XXVI. 373. 
 
 62 Ibid., p. 376. There were between seven and eight hundred 
 British and about fifteen hundred German prisoners at Winchester. 
 Jefferson to Huntington, November 3, 1780. Papers of Conti¬ 
 nental Congress, LXXI. 
 
52 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 The British agents, for the most part Indian 
 traders, were able to do little more than keep the 
 Indians in a hostile mood. 54 In the summer of 
 1779 Colonel Preston was sent to suppress a 
 loyalist uprising on the Monongahela. 55 The fol¬ 
 lowing year, Preston, with the aid of Captain 
 Lynch, so effectually quelled an uprising in the 
 southwestern counties that no further attempt 
 was made to arouse loyalist sentiment. 56 The 
 number of loyalists on the Virginia frontier could 
 never have been large; Dunmore, in 1777, in a 
 report to Dartmouth, named only twelve persons 
 in the back-country who were well disposed to 
 “His Majesty’s Government”; eight of these were 
 at Fort Pitt and included such characters as Alex¬ 
 ander McKee, the Indian trader, and Alexander 
 Ross, a Scottish merchant. 57 
 
 In the east there was enthusiastic cooperation 
 with the British as they advanced from the south. 
 Lord Dunmore had joined the British at Charles¬ 
 ton in 1780, anticipating the restoration of Vir¬ 
 ginia to the crown and his reassumption of the 
 governorship. Loyalists on the Rappahannock 
 
 “Report of James Scott, Public Record Office, C. O., 5, 80, 
 Library of Congress Transcripts. Scott was an Indian trader 
 and British agent. 
 
 “ Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XXVI. 373. 
 
 M Ibid., VII. 6. 
 
 " Dunmore to Dartmouth, February, 1777, Public Record Office, 
 C. O., 5, 1353, Library of Congress Transcripts. 
 
CIVIL WAR IN VIRGINIA 
 
 53 
 
 i thought the overthrow of the patriot party nearly 
 effected. Middlesex County, according to report, 
 {became “a hole of Toryism”. The “name of 
 AVormley, Beverley, Frasier and Ritchie is ever 
 joined to that of Tory.—Hobbs Hole is a Tory 
 sink.” 58 Trade was carried on with the British who 
 came into the Chesapeake; Fauntleroy Dye, at one 
 time an inspector of tobacco in Richmond, was 
 reported by Richard Henry Lee and Richard 
 Parker for corresponding with the enemy and 
 holding meetings of disaffected persons in his 
 house. Dye declared publicly that if he was 
 drafted for the militia he would join the British. 59 
 He and several of his accomplices, after offering 
 some resistance, were arrested and charged with 
 openly assisting the enemy and encouraging deser¬ 
 tions. They were sentenced to confinement with¬ 
 out bail for the remainder of the war. 60 
 
 In the summer of 1780, seventy-five were con¬ 
 fined in the Bedford County jail as suspected of 
 corresponding against the United States. 61 The 
 governor ordered Ralph Wormley, Jr., Phillip 
 Grymes, Simon Frazer, Archibald Ritchie, and 
 seven other persons on the Rappahannock arrested 
 
 68 Calendar of Virginia State Papers, II. 181. 
 
 "Ibid., p. 155. 
 
 60 Ibid., p. 174. 
 
 “ Virginia Legislative Petitions, in Virginia State Library Re¬ 
 port, V. 211. 
 
54 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 and taken to Richmond. 62 Reverend John Lyons 
 of St. George Parish, Accomac County, was ar¬ 
 rested for selling three hundred bushels of wheal 
 to the enemy and for “openly discouraging” and 
 speaking disrespectfully of jthe American cause. 
 He was tried by court martial and sentenced to 
 five years imprisonment. 63 
 
 As Lord Cornwallis’ army approached Vir¬ 
 ginia, loyalism in the state took on new life. 
 Governor Jefferson announced that no neutrality 
 would be recognized, 64 and Lord Cornwallis de¬ 
 manded an oath of allegiance. Forced to choose 
 between the two, “Princess Anne and Norfolk 
 and all Nansemond below Suffolk took protection” 
 from Cornwallis by subscribing to the British 
 oath. 65 Few held out in “the Counties of Eliza¬ 
 beth City, York, James City and Warwick when 
 these Counties were called in by Cornwallis to be 
 paroled.” 66 Colonel Upham reported “that if the 
 Standard had been raised the probability is that 
 all the Lower Counties would have come in.” 
 However, the standard was not raised, and, al- 
 
 ea Calendar of Virginia State Papers, III. 456. 
 
 “Ibid., pp. 305, 340, 344, 350, 362, 509, 511, 544, 586. 
 
 “ Ibid., I. 445. 
 
 65 Ibid., II. 189-90. 
 
 68 Colonel Upham’s report to Governor Franklin, November 6, 
 1781, Public Record Office, C. O., 5, 175, Library of Congress 
 Transcripts. 
 
CIVIL WAR IN VIRGINIA 
 
 55 
 
 : though Cornwallis demanded an oath of allegi¬ 
 ance, those loyalists who offered their services to 
 his Majesty’s armies were curtly refused. 67 Prob¬ 
 ably one hundred and fifty Virginia loyalists 
 sought protection with Cornwallis and were with 
 him when he surrendered at Yorktown. He at¬ 
 tempted to place these loyalists on the same basis 
 in the capitulation as his troops, but the Americans 
 insisted that the loyalists were citizens, not sol¬ 
 diers, and must be given over to the civil authori¬ 
 ties. The loyalists, especially those who had 
 joined Dunmore at Great Bridge, had then taken 
 refuge with the British army in the North and 
 had now returned to Virginia with the British 
 forces, were certain that their lot with the civil 
 authorities would not be an easy one. Eight of 
 the most notorious were set on board the sloop 
 of war Bonetta, which, according to the terms of 
 capitulation, was to sail to New York unsearched. 
 Other loyalists applied for passage, but, as they 
 did not have the proper papers, the captain of the 
 vessel refused to permit them on board. Several 
 received hints that they were to be badly used by 
 their former fellow citizens and attempted to hide 
 themselves on the Bonetta, but they were dis¬ 
 covered, roughly handled, and roundly cursed by 
 
 " Ibid. 
 
56 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 the captain, who swore he could not carry all 
 Virginia to New York on one sloop. 68 
 
 After the surrender at Yorktown, the civil au¬ 
 thorities took no immediate steps to punish the 
 loyalists. The provisioning and guarding British 
 troops taxed every resource of the state. By 
 December 17, 1781, a million and twenty-five 
 thousand pounds of depreciated currency had been 
 advanced to recruiting officers to obtain guards, 
 and less than one hundred recruits enlisted. 69 At 
 Winchester the shelter was poor and the guard in¬ 
 sufficient ; one hundred of the enemy soldiers hired 
 themselves to farmers; some married American 
 girls and applied for citizenship, while others 
 crossed the mountains to the frontier. Two hun¬ 
 dred Yorktown prisoners were quartered in Wil¬ 
 liamsburg, but no guard was provided. The sol¬ 
 diers created general alarm in the quiet old capi¬ 
 tal by robbing stores for provisions and sometimes 
 burning houses. 70 These disorders quelled, atten¬ 
 tion again turned to the loyalists. 
 
 In the fall of 1781 Colonel Thomas Newton re¬ 
 ported to Governor Nelson that Norfolk and 
 Princess Anne Counties threatened to become a 
 nest of loyalists. Trading with the enemy, who 
 
 “ Ibid. 
 
 <19 Calendar of Virginia State Papers, II. 546, 672. 
 
 ,# Ibid., p. 233; III. 70, 101. 
 
CIVIL WAR IN VIRGINIA 
 
 57 
 
 had good money, was more profitable than trad¬ 
 ing with citizens, who had only the Virginia 
 currency. The loyalists who were paroled caused 
 much trouble—“many of them are now living in 
 affluence and have plenty and the good men who 
 left their homes are starving for want of necessi¬ 
 ties.” 71 The loyalists were so numerous about 
 Norfolk that the officers feared to do their duty, 
 “but if examples are not now made of several who 
 have actually been in arms with the British every 
 person will find it to their advantage to be 
 Tories.” 72 Colonel William Wishart and Colonel 
 Dobney led a crusade in Princess Anne County 
 against the returned loyalists. Eighteen were 
 arrested and jailed for treason; of these, fourteen 
 were accused of bearing arms against the state, 
 and four of treasonable practices. 73 
 
 Thirty loyalists about Yorktown were arrested 
 and sent to the Richmond jail in December. 74 
 Two tavern keepers, Richard Hogg and Gabriel 
 Galt, and two merchants, John Cox and Zachariah 
 Rowland, all of Richmond, were committed on 
 bond of one thousand pounds specie to appear for 
 trial before the “Supreme Executive” on charge 
 
 11 Ibid., II. 542. 
 
 n Ibid„ p. 591. 
 
 73 Ibid,, pp. 611, 626. 
 
 74 Ibid., p. 634. 
 
58 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 of disaffection. 75 William Calderhead, a British 
 merchant who had enlisted with Dunmore, fought 
 with the British at the Battle of Great Bridge, and 
 left Virginia early in the war, was among the 
 refugees at Yorktown. He was tried before a 
 court in Chesterfield County and sentenced to 
 parole at the house of Niel Buchanan. 76 Richard 
 Burnley of Virginia and Basil Jackson of Mary¬ 
 land, loyalists at Yorktown, were among those 
 who had made an unsuccessful attempt to secure 
 passage to New York on the Bonetta. They were 
 arrested by the patriots and marched off to Rich¬ 
 mond with a score of other loyalists. Burnley, 
 exhausted from want of food, was permitted to 
 return to his home, where he died five days later. 
 Jackson was jailed at Richmond. He employed 
 counsel, was brought to trial on a writ of habeas 
 corpus, and, as no witness appeared against him, 
 was released. After further difficulties in Vir¬ 
 ginia, he made his way to the British in New 
 York. 77 
 
 Because of the difficulty of transporting pris¬ 
 oners and witnesses to Richmond, a law of No¬ 
 vember 17, 1781, provided that the governor 
 might appoint special judges in each county to 
 
 75 Calendar of Virginia State Papers, II. 626. 
 
 ’"‘Ibid., III. 56. 
 
 77 Deposition of Basil Jackson, Public Record Office, C. O., 5, 
 175, Library of Congress Transcripts. 
 
CIVIL WAR IN VIRGINIA 
 
 59 
 
 try those accused of treason. 78 When the special 
 court met in Princess Anne, there was a near riot, 
 but by “spirited exertion they were quelled.” 79 
 The county lieutenant of Norfolk had difficulty 
 in finding “three men to act as judges in a court 
 for trying the traitors, they were all taken up 
 and we have sufficient proof to hang many of 
 them.” 80 In the Henry County court, Isaac 
 Donelson was tried in January, 1782, and admitted 
 to bail. Several loyalists were convicted, among 
 them John Holland of Nansemond County, but 
 appeals were granted to the general court, and 
 
 I then to the assembly. The assembly was lenient 
 in granting pardon, often requiring only that the 
 offender leave the state immediately. 81 Through¬ 
 out the Revolution, no person suffered death for 
 treason in Virginia by order of a court or the 
 assembly. 82 
 
 Indifference to the patriot cause should not be 
 confused with loyalty to Great Britain. Indiffer¬ 
 ence was so great by 1777 that it was necessary to 
 pass a draft law to obtain soldiers. Under this 
 law, each county was allotted its quota of militia; 
 
 78 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, X. 460. 
 
 78 Calendar of Virginia State Papers, III. 101. 
 
 60 Ibid., p. 102. 
 
 81 For acts of pardon to persons condemned for treason see 
 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, XI. 21, 120, 152. 
 
 88 See petition of John Holland in Journal of House of Dele¬ 
 gates, May, 1783, p. 15. 
 
60 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 if any county failed to furnish the designated 
 number, the local field officers were to assemble 
 all men subject to military service and have them 
 draw lots. Slips equal to the number to draw 
 were prepared with the word “service” written 
 on as many slips as soldiers were required. 83 The 
 drawing sometimes occasioned riots. In Augusta 
 and Rockbridge Counties, the papers for laying 
 off the draft districts were seized by mobs and 
 destroyed. 84 In Hampshire County, in April, 
 1781, the draft officers were challenged by a mob 
 led by John Claypole; the defiant mob boldly 
 drank the king’s health in a nearby tavern. 85 The 
 situation became too serious for the local authori¬ 
 ties, and three companies of mounted militia were 
 sent from Frederick County to suppress the rebel¬ 
 lion. Claypole and his followers, among them 
 many deserters from the army, surrendered; they 
 were pardoned. 86 
 
 In Accomac County, between a hundred and 
 fifty and two hundred men assembled, April 28, 
 1781, the day for the drawing of the draft, to 
 protest against the law, and when Colonel George 
 Corbin, the county lieutenant, attempted to pro¬ 
 ceed, they seized his papers. The drawing was 
 
 83 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, IX. 337-40. 
 
 84 Calendar of Virginia State Papers, III. 107. 
 
 85 Ibid., p. 40. 
 
 ** Ibid., pp. 113, 163, 262, 681. 
 
CIVIL WAR IN VIRGINIA 
 
 61 
 
 postponed until the following Thursday week. 
 On that day the mob returned, took possession of 
 the courthouse, placed a sentinel at the door, and 
 declared they would resist the draft to the extent 
 of their lives. The leaders were later arrested, 
 tried by court martial, and sent to the army. 87 
 In Northampton County there was difficulty 
 over both draft and taxes. 88 In Lancaster County 
 the county lieutenant summoned the newly drafted 
 militia, but they appeared as a mob, seized the 
 papers, disarmed the officers, and left. 89 In Bed¬ 
 ford the county lieutenant made no attempt to 
 draft the county quota of militia in March, 1781, 
 for to have done so “would have caused a general 
 disturbance.” 90 
 
 These rioters over the draft laws and taxes 
 were not “loyalists”. By their contemporaries, 
 they were often called “Tories”, but this oppro¬ 
 brium did not necessarily signify loyalty to Great 
 Britain. Occasionally some diligent patriot pro¬ 
 fessed to discover that this “disaffection” resulted 
 from British activity, but the available evidence 
 indicates that these outbursts were nothing more 
 than rebellion against taxes and military service. 
 
 87 Ibid., II. 97-100. 
 
 85 Ibid. 
 
 '"‘Ibid. I. 394. 
 
 Ibid., p. 590. 
 
62 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 The number of loyalists in Virginia was small, 
 at no time during the Revolution exceeding a 
 few thousand. Their activity and numerical 
 strength varied with circumstances. After the 
 exodus of 1775-76, the loyalists were not in a 
 majority in any community, unless in a limited 
 area on the Rappahannock or the Eastern Shore. 
 Sabine mentions only one hundred and fifteen 
 Virginia loyalists; of the two thousand five hun¬ 
 dred claims filed with the British government for 
 loyalist property loss during the Revolution, only 
 one hundred and forty were from Virginia. 
 
 The loyalists came from no particular class 
 and from no one section. The Scottish traders 
 about Norfolk, before their departure, formed the 
 nucleus of the loyalist party. An analysis of the 
 one hundred and forty loyalist claims from Vir¬ 
 ginia filed with the parliamentary commissioners 
 in London and Halifax indicates that these claims 
 represent ninety-three claimants. Fifty of these 
 ninety-three designate themselves as merchants, 
 thirteen as officials, eight as ministers, eight as 
 planters, four as physicians, three as teachers and 
 seven give miscellaneous occupations. Equally 
 significant is the fact that only thirteen of the 
 ninety-three designate themselves as natives of 
 Virginia, while sixty-four designate themselves 
 
CIVIL WAR IN VIRGINIA 
 
 63 
 
 as natives of the British Isles temporarily in Vir¬ 
 ginia, all but fifteen having arrived after 1760. 91 
 Of the seventy-two members of the Virginia Mer¬ 
 chants Association listed in the Virginia G< zette 
 of October 18, 1774, only three or four were later 
 patriots. The official class furnished a small quota 
 to the King’s supporters: Reverend John Camm, 
 Ralph Wormley, Richard Corbin, Garvin Corbin, 
 and William Byrd, all of old Virginia families and 
 at one time members of the Virginia council, were 
 loyalists. 92 John Randolph, the King’s attorney- 
 general in Virginia, and a brother of Peyton Ran¬ 
 dolph, left Virginia with his daughters at the out¬ 
 break of the war, but his son, Edmund Randolph, 
 joined the patriot party, became governor of Vir¬ 
 ginia and the first attorney-general of the United 
 States. 
 
 Of the approximately one hundred ministers of 
 the Church of England in Virginia at the out¬ 
 break of the Revolution, eleven became members 
 of the local committees of safety: Thomas Smith 
 was chairman of the committee in Westmoreland, 
 Miles Seldon of the committee in Henrico, and 
 Alexander Purdie of the committee in Brunswick. 
 Peter Muhlenburg, a minister from Dunmore 
 
 n Loyalist Transcripts (New York Public Library), XXVII, 
 LVIII, LIX, passim. 
 
 "Two members of Dunmore’s Council, John Page and William 
 Nelson, went with the patriot party. 
 
64 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 County, became a major general and led Vir¬ 
 ginia troops with distinction; Charles M. Thurs¬ 
 ton, from Frederick, gave no less display of pa¬ 
 triotism in the assembly as a representative from 
 his county. Thirty-four other ministers of the 
 Church of England, by one act or another, mani¬ 
 fested their loyalty to Virginia. Thirteen of the 
 clergy of the established Church leave records of 
 their disloyalty: John Agnew joined Dunmore at 
 Norfolk and later went into the Queen’s Rangers; 
 William Andrews, of Southampton County, Alex¬ 
 ander Cruden, of Essex, William Harrison, of 
 Prince George, and John Bruce left Virginia dur¬ 
 ing the war. Jonathan Boucher, at one time 
 clergyman in Westmoreland County and counting 
 George Washington among his parishioners, left 
 Virginia on the eve of the Revolution. John 
 Lyons, of Accomac, and John Wingate, of Orange 
 County, remained in the state, but gave the pa¬ 
 triots trouble. Alexander Gordon, of Halifax, re¬ 
 signed his parish and for a time lived in Peters¬ 
 burg. Thirty-nine ministers of the established 
 Church leave behind no record of their loyalty 
 either to Virginia or England. 93 The Baptists were 
 patriotic, although some of them had scruples 
 
 93 B. S. Thomas, Loyalty of the Church of England in Virginia, 
 is the basis of this classification. Statements of the author have 
 been checked whenever possible, and in some instances the results 
 have been changed. 
 
CIVIL WAR IN VIRGINIA 
 
 65 
 
 ' against serving in the militia. 94 “The Metho- 
 " dists,” wrote Josiah Parker, county lieutenant for 
 r Isle of Wight, “are preaching the gospel of pas- 
 11 sive obedience and point out the horror of war 
 in so alarming a manner that it has caused many 
 to declare they will sutler death rather than kill 
 e even an enemy—this is a new doctrine and incul- 
 [ cated by some sensible preachers of England, 
 1 which, I am told, is paid by the Ministry through 
 1 Wesley for this purpose. It must be discounte¬ 
 nanced or all the Tories will plead religion as ex¬ 
 cuse and get license to preach.” 95 On the other 
 hand, Philip Bruce, a Methodist minister in east¬ 
 ern Virginia, was a zealous supporter of the 
 Revolution. 96 
 
 No social or religious differences divided the 
 i loyalists and patriots in Virginia. From all 
 classes and all sects, there came a sprinkling of 
 loyalists. But at no time were they sufficiently 
 numerous or active to menace greatly the patriot 
 success. 
 
 01 Thom, The Struggle for Religious Freedom in Virginia. 
 
 05 Calendar of Virginia State Papers, II. 151. 
 
 06 Bennett, Methodism in Virginia. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 LEGISLATION AND FINANCE, 1775-1783 
 
 In October, 1775, the Continental Congress dis¬ 
 cussed Lord Dunmore’s predatory policy in Vir¬ 
 ginia. Chase and Johnson, of Maryland, supported 
 Richard Henry Lee and George Wythe, of 
 Virginia, in urging Congress to adopt immediate 
 and vigorous measures to make Dunmore a priso¬ 
 ner. Others, notably Zubly, of Georgia, who later 
 joined the loyalist party in his state, thought the 
 imprisonment of a royal governor would tend to 
 alienate the sympathy of the friends of America 
 in Europe; Zubly said he had come to Congress 
 with “two views, one to reconcile the rights of 
 America, and another to effect reconciliation. If 
 a Royal Governor was captured what would be 
 done with him”. Congress, anxious to win the 
 conservatives to the Revolutionary cause, adopted 
 a resolution on October 6 recommending “to the 
 several Provincial Assemblies or Committees of 
 Safety” that persons be arrested whose going at 
 large might endanger their respective communi¬ 
 ties. 1 In March, 1776, Congress, alarmed by 
 loyalism in New York, recommended that the 
 
 1 Journal of the Continental Congress, III. 280, 482-3. 
 
LEGISLATION AND FINANCE 67 
 
 local governments disarm all persons notoriously 
 disaffected and “refusing to associate themselves 
 in arms” for the defense of American liberty. 2 
 
 At the beginning of the Revolution, the local 
 governments looked to the Continental Congress 
 .1 to formulate a policy toward the loyalists, but 
 . Congress, by recommendations and resolutions, 
 
 ] placed the responsibility with the provincial gov- 
 : ernments in the states. Congress lagged; the 
 states went forward. By the end of 1776 eleven 
 independent state governments had been estab¬ 
 lished; they raised troops, collected taxes, made 
 and executed laws, and, among other things, un¬ 
 dertook the suppression of loyalism. Once in 
 control of loyalist legislation, the state govern¬ 
 ments opposed congressional interference. In 
 1776 Congress, suspecting that the loyalists in 
 Queens County, New York, intended to go to the 
 aid of Boston, directed all disaffected in that 
 county be disarmed and forbidden to trade and 
 travel. 3 The provisional government in New 
 York protested against this regulation of its local 
 affairs and later sent a committee to Philadelphia 
 that secured the withdrawal of the resolutions of 
 Congress. On December 30, 1777, Congress or¬ 
 dered all loyalists or Americans in British ser- 
 
 3 Journal of the Continental Congress, V. 205. 
 
 3 Ibid., p. 441. 
 
68 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 vice who should be taken in arms by the American 
 forces to be sent to the respective states to which 
 they belonged, there to suffer the penalties pre¬ 
 scribed by the states. 4 This was the final sur¬ 
 render by Congress of control over the loyalists. 
 
 On the sea, the jurisdiction of Congress over 
 loyalist property was more far-reaching, in the¬ 
 ory, if not in practice. In July, 1776, a committee, 
 appointed by Congress to formulate a policy re¬ 
 specting British property taken on the sea, recom¬ 
 mended that all goods, merchandise, and ships be¬ 
 longing to the subjects of the king of Great Brit¬ 
 ain and all others “who aid, adhere to, or in any 
 way assist him”, taken on the high sea, be con¬ 
 fiscated. The recommendations were passed in 
 the form of resolutions. 5 These resolutions were 
 declared law in Virginia, and, according to Vir¬ 
 ginia law, rulings of the admiralty court of Con¬ 
 gress were to be final in the state admiralty 
 courts. 6 But, in actual practice, admiralty juris¬ 
 diction, as loyalist legislation, remained largely 
 with the states. Each state, anxious to make as 
 many captures as possible and thereby to swell 
 the local treasury, offered rewards to successful 
 captors. In Virginia one third of the prize was 
 
 4 Ibid., IX. 1069. 
 
 ‘Ibid., V. 572, 591, 605. 
 
 * Hening, Statutes of Virginia, IX. 202-206. 
 
LEGISLATION AND FINANCE 69 
 
 given to the captors and the remainder, after the 
 expenses had been deducted, was paid into the 
 state treasury. In 1776 Captain Taylor seized 
 four sloops having on board some Negroes who 
 had been with Dunmore. Virginia sold the 
 Negroes for six hundred and forty-two pounds. 7 
 Disputes between Virginia and Maryland over 
 loyalist and British property seized in the Chesa¬ 
 peake were frequent. The amount of goods taken 
 in the Chesapeake and about the Capes was never 
 large. Enemy trade was insignificant, unless a 
 British fleet was nearby to give protection. 8 The 
 states, however, took precaution to safeguard 
 their interests in all loyalist property that was 
 seized, on land and sea; in actual practice, Con¬ 
 gress exercised little authority. 
 
 After the futile attempts of Congress in Octo¬ 
 ber, 1775, and March, 1776, that body abandoned 
 anti-loyalist legislation, and the individual states 
 formulated such policies of suppression and pun¬ 
 ishment as local circumstances demanded. Follow¬ 
 ing the congressional recommendations of Octo¬ 
 ber, 1775, Virginia, in December of the same year, 
 prescribed a mode of punishment for enemies of 
 
 7 Journal of the House of Delegates, May 1777, p. 88. 
 
 8 There were about seventy vessels, varying in size and equip¬ 
 ment, in the service of Virginia during the Revolution. See 
 “Virginia Navy in the American Revolution” in Southern Liter¬ 
 ary Messenger, XXIV. 
 
70 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 America in that colony. Any white person who v 
 had furnished intelligence to the enemy, had sup- ei 
 plied him with provisions, or had borne arms n 
 against the colony, would be pardoned for the of- I 
 fense if he took an oath of allegiance to the pro- \ 
 visional government within two months. If such 
 person failed to take the oath, he was to be ar¬ 
 rested and brought before a local court. Five 
 persons appointed by the local committee of safety 
 presided over this court. Here the accused was 
 given a jury trial, and, if found guilty, was liable 
 to imprisonment and his estate to sequestration. 
 Proceeds from the sequestered estates were to be 
 used for the benefit of the colony. Appeal could 
 be taken from the decision of the local court to 
 the central committee at Williamsburg, which 
 body alone had the power to pardon. Slaves 
 guilty of aiding the enemy, if taken in arms, were 
 to be exported to the West Indies and exchanged 
 for powder. If this proved impracticable, the 
 local government should utilize their labor. 9 About 
 Norfolk a few of the inhabitants had aided Dun- 
 more, and many others had taken the British oath 
 after the fight at Kempsville. 10 When the patriot 
 militia appeared in Norfolk in December, 1775, 
 many citizens took advantage of the liberal pro- 
 
 9 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, IX. 101. 
 
 10 See above, p. 39. 
 
LEGISLATION AND FINANCE 71 
 
 ^ visions of this act and, in order to save their prop- 
 • erty, swore allegiance to the Williamsburg govern- 
 > ment as readily as they had subscribed to the 
 British oath a month earlier. Others, known to 
 have been with Dunmore, who did not take the 
 oath, were arrested and, because the military au¬ 
 thorities thought the local committees too lenient 
 in punishing their disaffected neighbors, were 
 sent in chains to Williamsburg for trial before 
 the central committee of safety. 11 
 
 The piratical raids of Lord Dunmore on the 
 Chesapeake plantations provoked the Virginia 
 assembly to pass a more stringent law in May, 
 1776, for the punishment of loyalists. This sec¬ 
 ond law provided that anyone aiding, abetting, or 
 assisting an enemy of the colony “upon conviction, 
 shall forfeit his, her, or their estates, real and 
 personal, to the use of the commonwealth, and be 
 imprisoned for such a time as the Committee shall 
 direct.” 12 The first law made punishment discre¬ 
 tionary with the committee; the law of May, 1776, 
 prescribed sequestration of property and imprison¬ 
 ment as a penalty for loyalism. 
 
 In June Virginia established a state govern¬ 
 ment, definitely and officially declaring separation 
 
 11 Peter Force, American Archives, Fourth Series, IV. 75; Rich¬ 
 mond College Historical Papers, I. The letters of William 
 Woolford. 
 
 12 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, IX. 130-32. 
 
72 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 from Great Britain. Increased vigor character¬ 
 ized subsequent legislation against loyalists. In 1 
 October, 1776, proposed legislation against loy¬ 
 alists became a point of general disagreement be¬ 
 tween the lower and upper branches of the assem¬ 
 bly. A joint session of the two bodies was held. 
 George Mason, who had little sympathy for loy¬ 
 alists, led the discussion for the lower house. 13 ‘ 
 The result was a law, passed December 12, pro¬ 
 viding that anyone who joined the enemy in levy¬ 
 ing war or who adhered to the enemy in giving 
 them aid or comfort, would be guilty of treason, 
 and, upon conviction, suffer death without benefit 
 of clergy. The estate of the convicted was to be 
 seized by the state. Under this law the governor 
 had the power to stay execution, but only the 
 assembly could pardon. 14 Persons guilty of an 
 offense less than treason, i.e., anyone who upheld 
 the authority of the king of Great Britain but com¬ 
 mitted no overt act, should be fined not more than 
 twenty thousand pounds and imprisoned for not 
 more than five years. 15 Two copies of these laws 
 were sent immediately to each county, ordered 
 read in the churches, and published in public 
 places. 
 
 13 Journal of the House of Delegates, October, 1776, pp. 123, 
 125, 127. 
 
 14 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, IX. 168. 
 
 15 Ibid., pp. 170-73. 
 
LEGISLATION AND FINANCE 73 
 
 In May, 1777, the assembly took another step 
 , to separate the loyalists and the patriots. A law 
 . was passed requiring every male inhabitant above 
 the age of sixteen to renounce allegiance to the 
 British government and pledge fidelity to the new¬ 
 ly created state government. Justices of the 
 peace in each county were to tour their districts 
 and offer the oath to each citizen. Lists of those 
 who took the oath and of those who refused to 
 subscribe were to be filed with the clerks of the 
 county courts. Persons entering the state were 
 to be tendered the oath upon their entrance, and 
 if any newcomer refused to subscribe, he was to 
 be imprisoned until he gave bond to depart. 16 In 
 Henry County six hundred and eighty-five per¬ 
 sons took the oath before January 1, 1778; eleven 
 refused, but several of these later subscribed. 17 
 In October, 1777, the assembly imposed a penalty 
 of double taxes on all who had not subscribed to 
 the oath by May 1, 1778. The next year the 
 penalty tax was tripled. 18 There were many in 
 Virginia who failed to subscribe to the oath by 
 the allotted time, but their failure appears to have 
 been due more to neglect or ignorance than to dis¬ 
 loyalty to the state government. For example, 
 
 111 Ibid., pp. 281-83. 
 
 17 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, IX. 139-42. 
 
 18 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, IX. 349. 
 
74 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 David Coleman, of Amelia County, testified that 
 he had not subscribed to the oath because he knew 
 nothing of it. 19 Joshua Timoly and Simon Miller 
 declared that the justices had never offered them 
 the oath. 20 Forty citizens on the Monongahela 
 River protested against penalties imposed upon 
 them, because no opportunity to subscribe had 
 been offered. 21 On May 1, 1778, the day by which 
 all inhabitants of the state were to have sub¬ 
 scribed, there yet remained many non-subscribers. 
 An unsuccessful attempt was made in the assembly 
 to extend the time ; 22 a later session of the assem¬ 
 bly provided that all delinquents who would take 
 the oath should have the fines they had paid cred¬ 
 ited to their future taxes. 23 
 
 The merchants require separate attention. At 
 the beginning of the Revolution there were ap¬ 
 proximately two thousand merchants in Virginia, 
 a majority of them of foreign birth. 24 Some of 
 these merchants, notably those about Norfolk, 
 persisted in loyalism and were subject, of course, 
 to the legislation against loyalists. Others were 
 
 18 Legislative Petitions, No. 208. 
 
 20 Ibid., Nos. 209, 210. 
 
 21 Ibid., No. 270. 
 
 22 Journal of the House of Delegates, May 1778, p. 48. 
 
 23 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, IX. 547. 
 
 24 A. M. Schlesinger, Colonial Merchants and the American 
 Revolution, p. 601. 
 
LEGISLATION AND FINANCE 75 
 
 t willing to swear their allegiance to the patriot 
 government and petitioned the convention in the 
 summer of 1775 that a line of proper conduct be 
 laid down for them. George Mason drew up an 
 ordinance prescribing an oath, which he thought 
 “no good man could object to”; the merchants at 
 Richmond declared themselves pleased with it. 25 
 A majority of the merchants, despite their Scot¬ 
 tish or English birth, desired to remain in the state 
 as neutrals. Charles Duncan, a prominent Scottish 
 merchant near Petersburg, in a petition to the 
 convention in 1775, stated the position of many 
 of his fellow tradesmen. Duncan explained that 
 his purpose in the colony was to sell wares, not to 
 meddle in politics. He desired the good will of 
 the people and had attempted to persuade his 
 neighbors that he was not disloyal to America. 
 The neighbors would have none of it. “Their pas¬ 
 sions are heated and they disregard peaceful mem¬ 
 orials” and demand that “I leave the property I 
 have accumulated [and enlist in the militia] or 
 remain to protect it at” their displeasure. 26 
 
 The October session of the assembly of 1776 
 discussed for several weeks the perplexing prob¬ 
 lem of the neutral merchant. Some members were 
 apprehensive of the effect upon the state if the 
 
 “ Calendar of Virginia State Papers, I. 268. 
 
 26 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XIV. 395. 
 
76 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 mercantile class was dealt with too harshly, but 
 the indebted planters, anxious to be free of their 
 creditors, were determined upon their banish¬ 
 ment. The foreign-born merchant, anxious to 
 safeguard his business, might be neutral in action, 
 but it was well known that he was anti-Revolu- 
 tionary in sentiment. On December 18, the House 
 of Delegates, in a committee of the whole, after 
 much discussion, passed a resolution instructing 
 the governor to put in force immediately the Sta¬ 
 tute Staple of 27 Edward III, chapter 17, against 
 all the “natives of Great Britain who were part¬ 
 ners with agents, storekeepers, assistant store¬ 
 keepers, or clerks for any merchant in Great 
 Britain—except only such as heretofore uniform- 
 ally manifested a friendly disposition to the Amer¬ 
 ican cause, or are attached to this country by hav¬ 
 ing wives or children here.”* 7 The Statute Staple 
 provided that foreign merchants should depart 
 within forty days, “and in the meantime they were 
 not to be hindered in their passage.” 28 If it ap¬ 
 peared to the council that the merchants were un¬ 
 able to secure their passage to a foreign port, the 
 vessels of the commonwealth should be used to 
 deport them. Any merchant coming under the 
 description of the above act, found in Virginia 
 
 27 Journal of the House of Delegates, May 1777, p. 88. 
 
 28 See Statutes of the Realm, I. 339. 
 
LEGISLATION AND FINANCE 77 
 
 t after the time prescribed for his departure, was 
 ■ to be confined as an enemy. These resolutions, 
 
 • with the Statute Staple, were published in the 
 i Virginia Gazette and became effective January 
 1, 1777. 29 
 
 After 1776, the state permitted no neutrality, 
 and many of those merchants who were unwilling 
 to subscribe to the oath of allegiance prepared to 
 depart from Virginia. Thomas Reid, agent in 
 Northumberland County for McCall, Denniston 
 and Company, when he received notice of the 
 Statute Staple, “reduced his dealings in as clear 
 a form as possible, taking bills, bonds and notes in 
 settlement”; when possible he made collections and 
 closed accounts. Frequently, in settlement, he 
 found it necessary to take assignment of bonds. 
 If he could make no settlement, lists of balances 
 were made out, and, if possible, the debtor was in¬ 
 duced to acknowledge the debt. As he thought 
 it unsafe to attempt to carry the bonds from the 
 state, the agent hid them in an iron box in an old 
 house. This done, Reid left Virginia. 30 Several 
 merchants secured passage on the ship Albion in 
 May, 1777; others left in merchant vessels. Some 
 returned to England or Scotland; many went to 
 
 ” Virginia Gazette, December 20, 1776. 
 
 30 An undated petition in Letters to Madison, Madison Papers, 
 
 .XXV. 
 
78 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 the British lines to await the termination of the 
 war. A few trusted chance and remained in Vir¬ 
 ginia without subscribing to any oath. Five mer¬ 
 chants in Northumberland were reported later as 
 disaffected and within the meaning of the resolu¬ 
 tions of December, 1776. 31 Scottish merchants re¬ 
 mained in Richmond and Petersburg throughout 
 the Revolution. 32 A petition from Mecklenburg 
 County to the House of Delegates in May, 1777, 
 reported that merchants were in that county in 
 violation of the resolutions and asked that they be 
 forced to depart. 33 
 
 In early Revolutionary days there was great 
 danger that the patriot cause would be defeated 
 by a well organized loyalist party in America. 
 Early legislation, therefore, had as its chief object 
 the expulsion of the disaffected and the suppres¬ 
 sion of loyalist sentiment. In this Virginia was 
 preeminently successful. 
 
 The suppression of loyalism, however, was 
 overshadowed more and more by the supreme 
 struggle to finance the war, and, after 1777, loy¬ 
 alist legislation become closely identified with state 
 finances. 
 
 31 William and Mary College Quarterly, XX. 129. 
 
 32 Samuel Mordecai, Richmond in Bygone Days, ch. ii. 
 
 33 Journal of the House of Delegates, May 1777, p. 13. 
 
LEGISLATION AND FINANCE 79 
 
 Recourse to paper money was natural and in¬ 
 evitable, but the success of paper money depended 
 upon the state’s ability to keep it in circulation 
 at a moderate rate of exchange. Paper money 
 was made legal tender by the state government, 
 but a majority of the merchants retained a sense 
 of value which outweighed patriotism; although 
 they might subscribe to an oath of allegiance and 
 remain in the state, they were reluctant to accept 
 the fiat money, which, in actual value, stood at a 
 ratio of one and one-half to one in January, 
 1777, and three to one in October. A law of May, 
 1776, imposed a fine of twenty-five per cent, of the 
 sum involved on anyone who refused to accept 
 paper currency as legal tender. 34 Another law 
 of May, 1777, stipulated that if a merchant or 
 factor refused payment in paper money, although 
 the contract might call for sterling, interest on 
 the debt was to cease. 35 A petition, signed by 
 a hundred and eighty-five persons in Mecklen¬ 
 burg County, sent to the assembly in May, 1777, 
 set forth that the merchants and their factors, de¬ 
 spite all laws, declare “that the paper money now 
 in circulation is of little or no value, and abso¬ 
 lutely refuse to receive the same in discharge of 
 the debts due to British merchants with whom 
 
 34 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, IX. 143-48; 286-89. 
 
 35 Ibid., pp. 297-98. 
 
80 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 they are concerned.” 36 Money in Virginia was 
 becoming more plentiful each day. The Revolu¬ 
 tionary government by January 1, 1778, had is¬ 
 sued paper money for £946,492 ; 37 only £91,246 
 had been raised by taxes. 38 The indebted planter 
 was in a position to pay off his debts with depreci¬ 
 ated paper; if he, through his allegiance to the 
 patriot cause, was compelled to accept the paper 
 money, why should not his creditor, the enemy, be 
 compelled to take it ? Should the anti-Revolution- 
 ary merchant be permitted to refuse the state’s 
 currency and thus drive paper to a new lower level, 
 while the patriot struggled to maintain its parity? 
 
 A state loan office, under direction of the treas¬ 
 urer, had been established in May, 1777, to bor¬ 
 row money for Virginia. Its function was much 
 the same as the state branch of the Continental 
 loan office. 39 To aid the state loan office, to ap¬ 
 pease the clamor of petitioners, and to maintain 
 the currency, a general sequestration law was 
 passed in October, 1777. This law provided that 
 debts due British subjects from citizens of Vir¬ 
 ginia could be paid into the loan office of the state, 
 
 36 Legislative Petitions, No. 89. 
 
 37 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, IX. 286-89; Journal of the 
 House of Delegates, May 1777, p. 141. 
 
 38 See the report of the Treasurer in Journal of the House of 
 Delegates, October 1776, pp. 100, 124; also Journal of Senate, 
 October 1777, January 8, 1778. 
 
 39 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, IX. 283. 
 
LEGISLATION AND FINANCE 81 
 
 ' and the auditor would give the debtor a certificate 
 of payment that would discharge the debtor from 
 ’ all future obligations to the creditor. 40 
 
 The clause providing for the payment of British 
 debts into the loan office was as beneficial to the 
 planter as it was obnoxious to the merchant. Vir¬ 
 ginia citizens owed between two and three million 
 pounds sterling to British merchants. 41 Ob¬ 
 viously, if these debts could be paid in paper 
 > money, now worth one-third its face value and 
 depreciating each day, the gain to the individual 
 would be great. For the state, the possible advan¬ 
 tages would be equally important; it would in¬ 
 crease the demand and the value of the currency, 
 and the sums paid into the treasury would provide 
 a sinking fund. Liabilities of the citizens would 
 be transformed into assets of the state. 
 
 The first payment into the loan office under this 
 law was made on March 2, 1778, when Paul Car¬ 
 rington paid £324 in paper to discharge a sterling 
 debt for the same amount due to James Campbell 
 and Company. 42 At that time the paper money 
 of Virginia stood five to one. 43 Between March 
 
 40 Ibid., pp. 377-80. 
 
 41 Jefferson, Writings, IV. 55. This estimate by Jefferson of 
 the amount due from Virginia is probably partial to the debtors, 
 of whom he was one. 
 
 43 Auditor’s Cash Book, 1777-1778, p. 107. 
 
 43 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, X. 460-68. 
 
82 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 and November, 1778, £27,022 in paper with a 
 specie value of £5404 was paid into the loan office 
 to discharge debts. By January 1, 1778, only 
 £41,706 had been paid in, 44 too small an amount 
 to render material aid to the financial system. 
 Taxes collected in 1778 amounted to approxi¬ 
 mately £150,000, and £445,000 of paper money 
 was issued. 45 In 1779, £92,552 was paid into the 
 loan office to discharge British debts. However 
 beneficial to debtors who made the payments, it 
 caused but a ripple in the state finance. During 
 the same year, £1,690,000 of paper money was 
 issued; 46 the value of the currency fell from six 
 to one to forty to one. 47 The sum received at the 
 loan office did nothing to check the depreciation. 
 In January, 1780, the currency was rated at forty- 
 two pounds of paper for one pound sterling; by 
 May it fell to sixty. The impossibility of forcing 
 the currency as legal tender was realized. Al¬ 
 ready, in May, 1779, the laws imposing penalties 
 upon those who asked more for gold than paper 
 had been repealed. 48 The sound money in the 
 state had long been withheld from circulation. 
 
 44 Auditor’s Day Book, passim. 
 
 45 Journal of the Senate, October 1778, p. 39. 
 
 “Auditor’s Day Book, passim; Journal of the House of Dele¬ 
 gates, October 1779, p. 116. 
 
 47 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, X. 460-68. 
 
 48 Ibid., p. 125. 
 
LEGISLATION AND FINANCE 83 
 
 A petition signed by four hundred citizens of 
 Berkeley and Frederick Counties protested against 
 creditors who, despite all laws, refuse to accept 
 paper. 49 The small amount paid into the loan 
 office under the law of October, 1777, was insuffi¬ 
 cient to restore the financial stability of the state. 
 The benefits of the payments became smaller to 
 the state as the money depreciated, although the 
 payments increased. The hopelessness of the sit¬ 
 uation and the possibilities of future difficulties 
 led the assembly of May, 1780, to repeal the law 
 providing for the payments into the loan office. 50 
 No payments were made after May 23, 1780. 
 
 From the first of January, 1780, until May, 
 when the payments were stopped, £139,307 were 
 paid to the state, £119,522 being paid in April and 
 May, when one pound sterling was equivalent to 
 sixty pounds of the Virginia currency. In all, 
 £273,554 of paper money, with a sterling value of 
 £15,044, was paid into the treasury to discharge 
 British debts. Five hundred and twenty-two pay¬ 
 ments were made by nearly as many persons, 
 three hundred and thirty-seven falling in the five 
 months of 1780, when the law was in operation. 51 
 
 49 Legislative Petitions, No. 332; Journal of the House of Dele¬ 
 gates, May 1779, p. 37. 
 
 “ Hening, Statutes of Virginia, X. 227. 
 
 51 Auditor’s Day Books, passim, 1778-1781. See also a report 
 in Public Record Office, C. O., 5, 1344, Library of Congress 
 Transcripts. 
 
84 
 
 LOYAL/SM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 Jefferson wrote Jones and Farrell, merchants of 
 Bristol, that at the beginning of the Revolution 
 he had sold lands and, when the bonds became due, 
 he was paid in money “that was not worth oak 
 leaves.” This money Jefferson paid into the Vir¬ 
 ginia loan office to discharge a debt due these 
 merchants. He promised to repay the amount. 63 
 An interesting list could be made of Revolutionary 
 patriots who took advantage of this opportunity 
 to pay their debts. 53 The state received sums due 
 to thirty-three mercantile houses; the names of a 
 number of individuals, some of them doubtless 
 factors for merchants, appear on the treasury 
 books. The debts had been contracted for slaves, 
 thorough-bred horses, manufactured articles, 
 loans, and sums advanced for the education of 
 planters’ sons in England. 34 After the Treaty of 
 Paris, these debts and their Revolutionary pay¬ 
 ment gave much trouble to debtor and creditor. 55 
 
 A second feature of the law of October, 1777, 
 provided for the sequestration of real and per¬ 
 sonal property in Virginia belonging to British 
 
 “Jefferson, Writings, IV. 201. 
 
 63 See above, pp. 27-28. 
 
 64 Auditor’s Books, passim. The receipt books for sums paid 
 into the auditor’s office under this law were lost during the in¬ 
 vasion in 1780; only the entries in the Auditor’s Cash or Day 
 Book remain. A careful search of each page of these books for 
 the period has been made. 
 
 “See below, pp. 130, 132, 161-176. 
 
LEGISLATION AND FINANCE 85 
 
 subjects. This was no new policy. By a resolu¬ 
 tion of the assembly, June 15, 1776, the property 
 of Lord Dunmore had been seized and placed in 
 the hands of commissioners. The personal prop¬ 
 erty was sold at public auction and his farms 
 leased. 50 John Wilkie was convicted of disloy¬ 
 alty in May, 1776, by a special court appointed by 
 the committee of safety in Norfolk, and his prop¬ 
 erty was sold for two hundred and forty-two 
 pounds. 57 The law of October, 1777, provided 
 that all real and personal property of British sub¬ 
 jects should be entrusted to commissioners for 
 each estate. Any profits derived from the man¬ 
 agement of the estate were to be paid into the 
 state treasury; all unpaid rents due to British 
 subjects went to the state. Suits where British 
 subjects were plaintiffs and American citizens 
 defendants were to be suspended, but if Ameri¬ 
 can citizens were plaintiffs and British subjects 
 defendants, the court should proceed to trial. 
 
 “ The commissioners in Berkeley County sold the personal 
 property of Dunmore on October 4, 1776 (including eleven 
 Negroes, twenty-one cattle, “two old horses and one mare,’’ pro¬ 
 visions, and some household furniture) for £1118. Edmund 
 Randolph and John Blair, commissioners in Williamsburg, hur¬ 
 ried up the sale, that it might take place when the assembly was 
 in session. Dunmore’s library, silver candle sticks, furniture, 
 carriage, etc., were sold for £2572. Porto Bello and the Farm 
 were leased to Dr. James Carter. Journal of the House^off 
 Delegates, October 1776, pp. 39, 83, 131. 
 
 61 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XV. 290. 
 
86 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 This act did not disturb the title of the British 
 subject, but sequestered his property to the use of 
 the state. When seven persons joined the British 
 in May, 1778, the governor ordered their prop¬ 
 erty to be sequestered according to this act. 58 
 
 In October, 1778, forty citizens of Hampton, 
 near Norfolk, petitioned that property of Osgood 
 Hanbury, which had already been sequestered, be 
 annexed to the town and sold. The Hanbury 
 property included a desirable water front, which 
 local traders were eager to possess. The House 
 of Delegates deferred action on the petition until 
 the following May. 59 This desire of some citizens 
 to obtain possession of the property of the loyal¬ 
 ists was natural and widespread. They exerted 
 their influence on the next session of the assembly. 
 The estates, they indicated, were not success¬ 
 fully managed by the commissioners appointed 
 under the sequestration law of 1777; the profits 
 were small; the property depreciated for want of 
 proper attention and was liable to destruction; 
 prices were good, and the estates should be sold. 
 If the state at any time in the future decided to 
 restore the estates, the money for which they were 
 sold could be paid to the former owners. More¬ 
 over, the funds to be derived from the sale would 
 
 58 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography ; XXX. 289. 
 
 68 Legislative Petitions, No. 224. 
 
LEGISLATION AND FINANCE 87 
 
 be of great benefit to the depleted treasury of the 
 state. 60 Thomas Jefferson was appointed to draw 
 up a bill to provide for the sale of the sequestered 
 property. He reported his draft on May 29, and 
 from that date until the end of the session it was 
 the chief topic of debate in both branches of the 
 assembly. After a division between the house and 
 the senate, they reached an agreement the last day 
 of the session and enacted a bill for the sale of 
 loyalists’ estates. 61 
 
 This law vested in the commonwealth property 
 in Virginia belonging to British subjects—the 
 personal property by forfeiture, the real property 
 by escheat. The process of escheat followed 
 closely the practice of English law. Escheators 
 were appointed in each county, except in the 
 Northern Neck, by the governor upon recommend¬ 
 ation from the county court. In the Northern Neck 
 the sheriff performed the duties of escheator. The 
 escheator was to hold a court of inquest at a con¬ 
 venient place, impanel a jury, and take evidence 
 against alleged British subjects. A return of the 
 finding of the county court should be made to the 
 
 60 By the end of 1778 nearly £2,000.000 of paper money had 
 been emitted. Less than £250,000 had been raised by the sheriffs; 
 the land office had yielded the state about £50,000. Any deficiency 
 between receipts and expenditures was made up by the issue of 
 paper money. 
 
 “ Journal of the House of Delegates, May 1779, pp. 32, 77. 
 Journal of the Senate, May 1779, p. 53. 
 
88 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 clerk of the general court, and these returns should 
 remain in the general court one year, during which 
 time the estates sequestered were in possession of 
 the escheators. Two months after the year had 
 elapsed, if no successful appeal was made from 
 the finding of the county court of inquest, the 
 clerk of the general court notified the escheator, 
 and he proceeded with the sale of the property. 
 The sale was public, and two appointed commis¬ 
 sioners were present to certify the returns of the 
 sale to the auditor. The purchaser of the proper¬ 
 ty received a deed from the state land office, where 
 all deeds of purchasers of British estates were 
 recorded with titles to unpatented lands. 62 The 
 
 62 November 27, 1777, Congress recommended to the states that 
 the real and personal estates of such persons as had forfeited 
 their right to protection be seized and sold and the receipts in¬ 
 vested in Continental Loan Office certificates ( Journal of the 
 Continental Congress, IX. 971), Rhode Island confiscated the 
 property of certain disaffected persons, naming them in the act; 
 North Carolina, in November 1777, confiscated the property of 
 loyalists and of British merchants. Georgia passed a confis¬ 
 catory act, March 1, 1778; Pennsylvania passed such an act, 
 March 6, 1778, and Connecticut, on May 14, 1778. In New 
 Hampshire, property was confiscated by an act of November 28, 
 1778, and New Jersey followed, December 11. In New York, 
 real estate was held in trust, as it was under the sequestration 
 act in Virginia, until October 22, 1779, when an act was passed 
 attainting fifty-nine persons, whose property was to be sold. In 
 Virginia, no bills of attainder were passed (except in the case 
 of the renegade Josiah Philips—see American Historical Review, 
 I. 445). In England, when property was confiscated, it was cus¬ 
 tomary to do so by process of office found. An inquest was held 
 by an escheator over the property in question, and the title was 
 declared to lie in the crown. Sometimes, as in the case of an 
 act of parliament in the reign of Philip and Mary declaring the 
 property of Sir Thomas Wyatt to be vested in the crown, con- 
 
LEGISLATION AND FINANCE 89 
 
 deed made by the land office in consequence of the 
 sale was to be good against all claims whatsoever, 
 but the former owner might claim the money paid 
 to the commonwealth for the estate. 63 The eschea- 
 tor received three per cent, of the receipts from the 
 sale of the first thousand pounds and one and one- 
 half per cent, thereafter. 
 
 The property of all “real British subjects” came 
 within the meaning of this act. The term “real 
 British subjects” included all British subjects who 
 were absent from the United States on April 19, 
 1775, and had given no evidence since that time 
 of their allegiance; all persons who by overt act 
 had adhered to the enemy; all persons who were in 
 the United States on April 19, 1775, but who 
 left before the commencement of the act of Octo- 
 
 fiscation was completed without any process of office found. 
 Such instances were the exception. In the case of Wyatt, it was 
 specifically stated that tfae confiscation was to be without the 
 process of office found. Seizure of the property of those guilty,’ 
 of treason was early established in English law. John and his 
 successors insisted upon it when they enriched themselves by 
 seizing the terrae Normanorum, the English lands of those who 
 preferred to be Frenchmen rather than Englishmen, when the 
 victories of Philip Augustus forced upon them the choice between 
 the two nationalities (Frederick Pollock and F. W. Maitland, 
 History of English Laiv [Sec. Ed.], I. 292, 332; II. 498). The 
 English process was followed closely in the seizure of property in 
 Virginia (Josiah Tucker, Blackstone, II. 60). In North Carolina 
 and other states, property was seized and sold by virtue of an act 
 of assembly without any process of office found. For an analysis 
 of the legislation against the loyalists in the different states, see 
 C. H. Van Tyne, Loyalists in the American Revolution, appendixes 
 B and C. \ 
 
 1 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, X. 66-70, 115-117. 
 
 
90 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 ber, 1776, 64 and all who were ordered to depart 
 under the Statute Staple directing merchants to 
 leave Virginia. Any person forfeiting property 
 in another state for loyalism was to have his 
 property in Virginia seized and sold. 65 
 
 Escheators proceeded to hold courts of inquest 
 over the property of British subjects in the fall 
 of 1779. On October 7 an inquest was held in 
 Isle of Wight County, and the property of ten 
 merchants was vested in the commonwealth. 86 
 Inquests were ordered to be held over the prop¬ 
 erty of George William Fairfax, who had never 
 taken the oath of allegiance. 67 The law of May, 
 1779, with its sweeping classification of “real 
 British subjects,” condemned the property of 
 every absentee landlord who had not proved that 
 his heart was with the patriots; although absent 
 from Virginia, one could not be a neutral in the 
 conflict. Petitions from the absentee or his agent 
 prayed for one reason or another that his prop¬ 
 erty be spared. John Baylor, 68 Archibald Mc¬ 
 Call, 69 and Lucy and John Paradise 70 sent peti¬ 
 tions to the assembly in October, 1779, declaring 
 
 64 See above, pp. 75-76. 
 
 85 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, X. 70-71. 
 
 m William and Mary College Quarterly, VIII. 272. 
 
 87 Journal of the House of Delegates, October 1776, p. 25. 
 
 “Ibid., pp. 17, 31. 
 
 88 Ibid., p. 27, Legislative Petitions, No. 304. 
 
 70 Journal of the House of Delegates, October 1779, p. 20. 
 
LEGISLATION AND FINANCE 91 
 
 their allegiance to Virginia, pleading extreme cir¬ 
 cumstances or unavoidable absence from the com¬ 
 monwealth, and praying that their estates be ex¬ 
 empt from the law. Sarah Jordome 71 and Eliza¬ 
 beth Ramsey 72 had gone to England to educate 
 their children and asked that their estates be 
 saved. Craven Peyton, manager of Lord Fair¬ 
 fax’s estate, asserted that the inquest held over 
 the property of Denny Fairfax was in error; 
 Fairfax had gone to England in 1773 to visit rel¬ 
 atives and intended to return to Virginia. He 
 requested that the assembly pass an act to prevent 
 the sale of the property. 73 Ebenezer McHarg, 
 David Ross, and John Fisher asked to be per¬ 
 mitted to take the oath of allegiance and save their 
 property. 74 “Sundry inhabitants of Loudoun 
 County” protested against the law of escheat as 
 indiscriminate; they thought the commonwealth 
 should go no further than sequestration. 75 A pe¬ 
 tition was sent from Caroline County to the assem¬ 
 bly objecting to the policy of selling the estates; 
 the petitioners thought the policy was, unjust and 
 would lead to difficulties in the future. 76 
 
 71 Ibid., p. 4. 
 
 72 Ibid., p. 15. 
 
 73 Ibid., pp. 62-63. Legislative Petitions, No. 413. 
 
 74 Journal of the House of Delegates October 1779, p. 27. 
 
 76 Ibid. 
 
 ™ Ibid,, p. 10. Neither the petition from Caroline nor Loudoun 
 Counties are among the legislative petitions. 
 
92 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 Governor Jefferson cautioned the assembly not 
 to depend too much upon the receipts from the 
 sale of British estates as a source of revenue. 
 Petitions from absentee landlords indicated that 
 the plan of escheat would involve much litigation, 
 and probably the titles would not be clear for a 
 generation. 77 The House of Delegates, in October, 
 1779, undertook to solve some of the problems 
 connected with escheat. A committee of seven 
 (later increased to fifteen), including Patrick 
 Henry, Thomas Nelson, and George Mason, in¬ 
 vestigated the problem of selling British estates, 
 examined the petitions to the assembly, and, on 
 November 16, recommended changes. 78 The law 
 was so amended as to confirm all bona fide pur¬ 
 chasers of British estates before May, 1779; any 
 citizen of Virginia holding a mortgage on seques¬ 
 tered British property could file a petition in chan¬ 
 cery and stop the sale. The amended law also pro¬ 
 vided that anyone who had left Virginia and had 
 gone to England for education or to join his 
 family could have his property restored if he 
 would return and claim it before two years had 
 elapsed or, in case of a minor, before he reached 
 his majority. That sales might be hastened, it 
 
 77 Jefferson, Writings, I&65. 
 
 78 Journal of the House of Delegates, October 1779, pp. 16, 32, 
 76, 89, 101. 
 
LEGISLATION AND FINANCE 93 
 
 was provided that the findings of the court of in¬ 
 quest were to remain in the general court one 
 month, not one year as provided in the law of 
 May, 1779. 79 The purchaser’s title, derived from 
 the commonwealth, was at all time to be valid 
 against any claim whatsoever. If at any time in 
 the future the findings of the court of inquest 
 should prove defective, the former owner could 
 lay claim only to the proceeds of the sale. 80 In 
 anticipation of immediate returns from the sale of 
 sequestered estates, one and a half million pounds 
 was appropriated out of the net receipts to meet 
 the requisitions of Congress. 81 
 
 All the certificates of British sequestered prop¬ 
 erty kept among the papers of the council “were 
 lost during the British invasion ;” 82 but there re¬ 
 main three sources to indicate the extent of the 
 sales and the amount of the receipts. First, and of 
 most importance, are the books in the land office, 
 where all sales of sequestered lands were recorded. 
 Before 1814 the land office kept no separate 
 records of the sales of escheated property, but 
 kept the papers for escheated lands on a separate 
 
 ,8 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, X. 154. 
 
 80 Ibid., p. 201. The law was evidently framed by George 
 Mason. Journal of House of Delegates, October 1779, pp. 120-29. 
 
 81 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, X. 165-71. 
 
 “Jefferson, Writings, III. 37. Calendar of Virginia State 
 Papers, VII. 43-57—a report of the papers destroyed. 
 
94 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 file until the grants were issued. When the grants 
 were issued, they were recorded with the grants 
 for unappropriated lands. 83 This method of re¬ 
 cording grants makes it necessary to go through 
 all of the land books, page by page, and, after 
 most careful examination and tabulation, it is 
 almost impossible to estimate exactly from these 
 alone the amount of property sold under the se¬ 
 questration act of 1779. The land office issued no 
 grants for escheated property in many of the 
 counties. Second, the entries in the auditor’s 
 books indicate the amount paid into the Virginia 
 treasury by the escheators. The escheators in a 
 majority of the counties made no returns what¬ 
 soever to the auditor. It is possible escheators 
 sold loyalist property, collected for the sales, but 
 made no returns or irregular returns. Yet it is 
 altogether probable that the commonwealth sold 
 no loyalist property in a majority of the counties; 
 the auditor’s books check fairly accurately, but 
 not in all instances, with the records in the land 
 office. Thirdly, there are returns from some of the 
 county escheators, incomplete from all the counties 
 except one (Norfolk County), where the number 
 of loyalists was greatest. Together, these three 
 
 83 Letter from the Register of the Land Office, December 13, 
 1820. Pamphlet in the Virginia State Library. 
 
LEGISLATION AND FINANCE 95 
 
 sources give an all but complete list of the loyalist 
 property sold in Virginia. 
 
 The sale of sequestered property began in 
 1779. On December 13 of that year, Thomas 
 Hardy, escheator in Isle of Wight, sold at public 
 auction for £67,377, Virginia currency, the loy¬ 
 alist property condemned by a court of inquest in 
 October. 84 In February and March, 1780, prop¬ 
 erty in Mecklenburg County was sold for £29,- 
 023. 85 In August Matthew Godfrey, escheator in 
 Norfolk County, sold the real and personal prop¬ 
 erty of fifty loyalists for £987,239; additional 
 sales in May, 1783, increased the returns for 
 escheated property in that county to approxi¬ 
 mately £1,000,000. 86 The escheator from Amherst 
 paid £454,709 into the auditor’s office from the 
 sale of loyalist property; 87 the escheator from 
 Gloucester paid in £220,463; 88 from Fluvanna, 
 £465,721 ; 89 and from Lancaster, £172,055. 90 
 
 84 Auditor’s Papers, No. 15. The property formerly owned by 
 Oswald and Company brought £7040—all of its real estate in 
 Smithfield. A house and lot of John Williams in Smithfield 
 sold for £1010; property of Andrew Lynn in Smithfield brought 
 £16,000; a lot belonging to Hunter and Blair, £150; John Good¬ 
 rich’s plantation and personal property, £39,200; real estate of 
 John Hyndman, £4573, and the personal property of John Lynn, 
 £104. 
 
 86 Ibid., Dinwiddie and Company, Cunningham and Company, 
 and Andrew Spiers, all merchants, were the heaviest sufferers. 
 
 88 Ibid. 
 
 87 Auditor’s Cash Books, passim. 
 
 88 Ibid. 
 
 88 Ibid. 
 
 80 Ibid. 
 
96 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 The value of the personal property of loyalists 
 forfeited to the commonwealth was insignificant. 
 Merchants banished under the Statute Staple were 
 permitted to remove whatever property they 
 could; the chattels they did leave behind deteri¬ 
 orated in value or were misappropriated during 
 the period of sequestration. In Norfolk County, 
 for example, of the £1,000,000 paid into the 
 treasury by the escheator, only £50,212 was for 
 personal property; £48,910 of this came for the 
 sale of Negroes that had been left on the planta¬ 
 tions. Occasionally the escheator’s returns note 
 an office desk, a chair, picture, wagon, or drink¬ 
 ing glasses. 91 
 
 An examination of the records in the land 
 office indicates that prior to 1790 that office issued 
 titles for 34,066 acres of land escheated to the 
 commonwealth as British property. 92 The great¬ 
 er part of the escheated real property was in towns 
 and villages—warehouses, stores, dwelling houses 
 and undeveloped lots, formerly the property of 
 British merchants who had joined Dunmore or 
 who had left Virginia when the Statute Staple 
 was put in force. In Norfolk County ninety-two 
 deeds were issued for city property and nineteen 
 
 91 Auditor’s Papers, No. IS. (A box of papers on escheated 
 property.) • 
 
 93 Patent Books, A-Z, passim. 
 
LEGISLATION AND FINANCE 97 
 
 deeds for rural property. 93 There are records in 
 the land office of approximately one hundred and 
 fifty lots sold in Blanford, Smithfield, Suffolk, 
 Alexandria, Manchester, and Petersburg, and the 
 return from these sales form a large part of the 
 receipts from the counties in which these towns 
 are located. 94 Paul Loyall purchased one and a 
 half acres and a building in Norfolk, formerly 
 the property of William Orange, for £50,000. 95 
 Henry Lee purchased four lots in Dumfries, for¬ 
 merly the property of Cunningham and Company, 
 for £13,320. 96 John Goodrich’s city property in 
 
 1,3 Auditor’s Papers, No. 17. This box of papers contains com¬ 
 plete accounts of sequestered property in Norfolk. Among the 
 British subjects whose property in Norfolk County was seques¬ 
 tered and sold, were: John Greenwood, £51,500; Andrew Steph¬ 
 enson, £1100; Thomas McKnight, £1450; William Farrar, £12,900; 
 Benjamin Knight, £8500; Andrew Sprowle, £241,380; Willoughby 
 Morgan, £500; Robert Gilmore, £11,200; James Campbell. £15,- 
 637; Niel Jamieson, £37,100; Talbot Thompson, £6000; Thomas 
 Applewhite, £30,000; James Dunn, £2200; James Davidson, 
 £10,700; Jonathan Flibeck, £28,650; Joshua Hodges, £850; 
 Thomas Farrar, £1600; John Crammond, £9200; William Chisholm, 
 £43,850; William Orange, £98,200; James Campbell Calvert and 
 Company, £9000; John Hardy, £4600; William Johnson, £2600; 
 John Ballatine, £5100; Collins Wray, £9900; John Agnew, £47.400; 
 Roger Stuart, £16,400; John Goodrich, Sr., £60,150; Robert 
 Shedden, £67,200; James Miller, £14,150; Benjamin Bannerman, 
 £29,660; Thomas Stewart, £34,962; William Rankin, £4500; 
 Alexander Montgomery, £4500; John Goodrich, Jr., £4000; John 
 Brown, £3400; James Hodges, £2200; John Greenwood, £1500; 
 Robert Gilmore, £4000; George and John Bowness, £53,410; John 
 Ewing, £10,100. 
 
 M Auditor’s Papers, No. 17. Patent Books, passim. 
 
 M Patent Book, L. 524. 
 
 m Ibid., A, 438. 
 
98 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 Norfolk was sold to Richard Nester for £57,000 ; 97 
 Thomas Allmand purchased the Goodrich planta¬ 
 tion in Nansemond County for £22,000, and An¬ 
 drew Mackie bought the plantation in Isle of 
 Wight for £36,000. 98 The Norfolk property of 
 Andrew Sprowle, President of the Virginia Mer¬ 
 chants Association, was sold to twelve persons 
 on August 18, 1780, for £239,220." Cunning¬ 
 ham and Company had property in Chesterfield, 
 Mecklenburg, Dinwiddie, Prince William, Henri¬ 
 co, and Lunenburg Counties sequestered and sold. 
 It was the property of the foreign-born colonial 
 merchant and not the property of the Virginia 
 planter that was sequestered and sold during the 
 Revolution. The auditor’s cash books have en¬ 
 tries totalling £3,041,167, paid into the state 
 treasury for the sale of escheated property, real 
 and personal. 100 With the exception of £13,126, 
 this money was paid to the commonwealth prior 
 to 1782 in depreciated paper currency; the bene¬ 
 fits to the state were small. 101 
 
 91 Patent Book, K, 113. 
 
 98 Auditor’s Papers, No. 17. 
 
 99 Ibid. 
 
 100 Auditor’s Books, 1779-1795, passim. 
 
 101 By April 5, 1780, county escheators had paid £721,000 into 
 the treasury; from May to August, 1780, £1,135,106, and during 
 the last five months of 1780, £954,653 were paid into the treasury, 
 making a total of £2,811,744 prior to January 1, 1781. In 1781, 
 £148,330; in 1782, £9400; in 1783, £6595, and in 1785, £131 were 
 paid to the auditor by the county escheators and sheriffs for the 
 sale of escheated property (Auditor’s Books). 
 
LEGISLATION AND FINANCE 99 
 
 Not all of the escheated property was sold. The 
 act providing for the sale of loyalist property 
 stipulated that escheated real estate in Richmond 
 was to have the title of the commonwealth estab¬ 
 lished by the process of office found, and the prop¬ 
 erty was to be used for such purposes as the 
 state might direct. 102 The property of James Mc¬ 
 Dowell was set apart for the auditor’s office, that 
 of French Crawford for the treasurer’s office. 103 
 The building of Ninan Ninzies was leased to 
 Penet, Windel and Company as a repair shop 
 for the ordnance department ; 104 until the capi- 
 tol was completed in 1789, the assembly met in a 
 house that had belonged to Cunningham and 
 Company. 105 
 
 In addition to property set apart for the state 
 government, other escheated estates were given 
 to schools. The lands in Kentucky belonging to 
 Robert McKensie, Henry Collins, and Alexander 
 McKee, with all other escheated lands in Ken¬ 
 tucky, not to exceed twelve thousand acres, were 
 granted to Transylvania University. 106 Four 
 hundred and twelve acres in Prince Edward 
 
 102 Executive Papers, October, 1786. Hening, Statutes of Vir¬ 
 ginia, X. 67-71. 
 
 108 Executive Papers, October, 1786. 
 
 1W Journal of the House of Delegates, October 1779, p. 108. 
 
 105 Journal of the House of Delegates, May 1783, p. 91. 
 
 108 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, X. 287; XI. 282, 287. 
 
100 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 County, formerly the property of Alexander 
 Spiers and Company, British merchants, were 
 given to Hampden and Sidney College. 107 The 
 lands of Robert Bristow in Prince William County 
 escheated to the commonwealth in 1779 and were 
 wastefully administered by the state for fifty 
 years; they were eventually vested in the Literary 
 Fund and by that fund were divided and sold in 
 1834. 108 
 
 Other sequestrations and sales involved dis¬ 
 putes and litigation. The real and personal prop¬ 
 erty of John Hamilton, who had joined the British 
 in 1775, was escheated and offered for sale. Chris¬ 
 topher Godwin petitioned the House of Delegates 
 that the property in question did not belong to 
 Hamilton but had been leased to him by the peti¬ 
 tioner. The property was restored to Godwin. 109 
 Lands granted to John Connolly by Lord Dun- 
 more were sequestered in 1780. Immediately after 
 the war, John Campbell, who had been a prisoner 
 in the British lines, returned and claimed that he 
 and Joseph Simons owned part of the land and 
 held a mortgage against Connolly for the re¬ 
 mainder. The state ordered Connolly’s share to be 
 
 107 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, XI. 392. 
 
 108 Acts of Assembly, 1822-23, p. 86. Acts of Assembly, 1833-34, 
 p. 25. 
 
 109 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, X. 207. Journal of House of 
 Delegates, October 1779, pp. 34. 72, 94. Legislative Petitions, 
 No. 407. 
 
LEGISLATION AND FINANCE 101 
 
 sold and the mortgage of Campbell and Simon 
 paid. 110 
 
 The assembly was petitioned to restore other 
 estates that had been sequestered, or, if sold, to 
 reimburse the former owner according to the 
 provisions of the law of October, 1779. Walter 
 King Cole was permitted to “heir” the property 
 of Walter King that had been escheated. 111 The 
 lands of John Harmer had been sequestered and 
 his slaves seized. John Harmer, pleading his Vir¬ 
 ginia citizenship, was given possession of the lands 
 and was paid for the slaves that had been sold. 112 
 The lands of Samuel Gist, a British subject, had 
 escheated to the state, but were restored to Mary 
 Anderson, his daughter and heiress. 113 The as¬ 
 sembly stopped the sale of lands belonging to 
 Richard Goodall, in Caroline County, and directed 
 those lands that had not been sold be given to 
 Parke Goodall; Parke Goodall was reimbursed 
 for the lands disposed of by the state. 114 The 
 escheated estate of John Kerr, a British subject, 
 was permitted to go to his grandchildren and later 
 was restored by law to Edward Kerr, a son, when 
 he took the oath of allegiance to Virginia. 115 The 
 
 uo Hening, Statutes of Virginia, XI. 227, 474, 321; XII. 395. 
 m Ibid., XI. 35. 
 ia Ibid.; also X. 371. 
 m Ibid., XI. 55. 
 
 114 Ibid. 
 
 1,5 Ibid., p. 148; XII. 681. 
 
102 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 estates of John Mills, of Fairfax County, and 
 James Buchanan, of Falmouth, British merchants, 
 were seized by the state when the owners died. 
 Each estate was later restored to executors to 
 support the needy widows. 116 John Sutton came 
 from Great Britain and took the oath of allegiance 
 upon the death of his uncle, James Connell, of 
 Alexandria, and was permitted to inherit the es¬ 
 tate. 117 The commonwealth purchased the es¬ 
 cheated property of Edward Baine. In May, 
 1781, a law was passed providing that the prop¬ 
 erty should be restored and the owner indemnified 
 for the use of timber if Baine would take the 
 oath of allegiance. 118 
 
 Numerous claims were brought against the es¬ 
 tates that were sold. James Maxwell and Richard 
 Evers Lee filed claims against Andrew Sprowle 
 for one thousand pounds. 119 The Journal of the 
 House of Delegates is sprinkled with claims 
 brought against the Goodrich estate. Mary Hurt 
 presented a claim of five hundred pounds against 
 the sequestered estate of John Bowness. 120 
 
 A bill to suspend the act on escheats and for¬ 
 feitures was drafted by Nicholas, Hunter, and 
 
 11,1 Ibid., XI. 155; XII. 203. 
 
 111 Hening, Satutes of Virginia, X. 372. 
 
 118 Ibid., p. 452. 
 
 119 Ibid., XIII. 211, 219. 
 
 120 Ibid., p. 82. 
 
LEGISLATION AND FINANCE 103 
 
 Henry and presented to the House of Delegates 
 on December 1, 1781, six weeks after Cornwallis’s 
 surrender. It was discussed in the committee 
 of the whole on December 14 and rejected. 121 
 Two weeks later a bill was passed appropriating 
 all funds derived from the sale of sequestered 
 estates for the redemption of the depreciated 
 soldiers’ certificates. 122 In October, 1784, in con¬ 
 formity with the Treaty of Paris, the assembly 
 passed an act declaring there should be no future 
 confiscation, but expressly provided that this act 
 should in no way affect the sale of lands that 
 already had been sequestered. 123 
 
 The provision of the law of October, 1784, 
 which safeguarded to the commonwealth lands 
 already sequestered but not sold, protected Vir¬ 
 ginia’s claim to the Fairfax estate. The Fairfax 
 heirs owned lands, approximating 5,282,000 acres, 
 between the Rappahannock and the Potomac 
 Rivers. Lord Thomas, sixth Lord Fairfax, held 
 one sixth of this property in fee and, as the heir 
 to the Fairfax estate, held the remaining five- 
 sixths by entail. Although Lord Fairfax had been 
 resident in Virginia for nearly half a century 
 prior to his death, he did not subscribe to the 
 
 m Journal of the House of Delegates, October 1781, pp. 24, 36, 39. 
 
 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, X. 462. 
 
 121 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, XI. 446. 
 
104 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 oath of allegiance. From his land office at Green¬ 
 way Court, near Fredericksburg, he granted lands 
 throughout the Revolution, remained in undis¬ 
 turbed possession of his property, and his tenants 
 were permitted to deduct from their taxes the 
 quitrents paid to him. He died two months after 
 the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, bequeathing 
 his one-sixth interest held in fee to his nephew, 
 Denny Martin, then residing in England. The 
 remaining five-sixths interest held by entail went to 
 Thomas, Lord Fairfax’s brother, Robert, seventh 
 Lord Fairfax, likewise an Englishman. 124 
 
 Thomas, Lord Fairfax, the non-juring Vir¬ 
 ginian, was unmolested by the Virginia assembly, 
 but his heirs, Englishmen, were not so fortunate. 
 In October, 1782, the assembly, fearing the quit- 
 rents might fall to alien enemies, sequestered the 
 rents in the Northern Neck into the treasury of 
 the state. 125 In 1785 an act of the assembly 
 abolished these quitrents and directed that the 
 land books in the proprietor’s land office be moved 
 to the state land office. All grants and surveys 
 based on entries in the proprietor’s office were to 
 be issued by the state land office, and unappro¬ 
 priated lands in the Northern Neck were to be 
 
 124 E. C. Broome, Northern Neck Lands, an accurate and inter¬ 
 esting study of the Northern Neck. 
 
 125 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, XI. 128. 
 
LEGISLATION AND FINANCE 105 
 
 granted by the state on the same terms as other 
 unpatented lands. 126 The land office at Richmond, 
 by virtue of this law, resumed the granting of 
 lands where it had been left off upon the death of 
 Thomas, Lord Fairfax. 127 
 
 Denny Martin Fairfax, alias Denny Martin, 
 was not disturbed by the law of 1782 in his pos¬ 
 session of the Manor of Leeds, the South Manor, 
 and several smaller estates, amounting in all to 
 approximately two hundred and twenty thousand 
 acres, as these estates had been surveyed and 
 were appropriated lands. The heir, however, re¬ 
 fused to recognize this law of 1782 as sequestering 
 either the appropriated or unappropriated lands, 
 but merely recognized it as a law abolishing quit- 
 rents due to him from his estate. Nothing was 
 done by the state to complete a title to any of the 
 lands by the process of office found, and, except 
 in so far as the law directing the books to be re¬ 
 moved from the proprietor’s land office to the 
 land office of the state divested the proprietor of 
 the title, the lands legally belonged to the proprie¬ 
 tor. The Treaty of Paris prohibited any future 
 
 IM Ibid., XII. 112. 
 
 m Northern Neck Land Books, passim. Virginia continued to 
 keep the record of lands in the Northern Neck separate from the 
 lands in the west. The only change in the machinery of the 
 execution of the grant was that the governor, and not the pro¬ 
 prietor, signed the grants. 
 
106 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 confiscated of loyalist property, and, by the law 
 of October, 1784, Virginia gave a pledge not to 
 violate this part of the treaty. The Fairfax heirs, 
 contending that the law of 1782 had not seques¬ 
 tered their property, but had only abolished the 
 quitrents and moved the land office and that the 
 property could not be sequestered or confiscated 
 without violating the Treaty of Paris and the Vir¬ 
 ginia law of 1784, continued to grant titles to the 
 unappropriated lands. The state, contending that 
 sequestration of the disputed lands had begun be¬ 
 fore the Treaty of Paris and therefore that the 
 obligations of the treaty did not extend to the 
 Fairfax estate, proceeded to grant the unappropri¬ 
 ated lands from its office in Richmond. The pro¬ 
 prietors took steps to evict anyone who claimed 
 parts of the disputed lands by a title from the 
 state. 
 
 Title to lands in the Northern Neck remained 
 in this unsettled condition until 1792. In that 
 year renewed agitation against the British was 
 occasioned by the hearing of the British debt 
 cases in the recently established federal courts. 128 
 In March, 1793, a contributor to the Virginia 
 Sentinel and Gazette, writing under the pseudo¬ 
 nym Crito, appealed to the Virginia assembly to 
 
 ^ See below, p. 163f. 
 
LEGISLATION AND FINANCE 107 
 
 have the title to the vast Fairfax estate investi¬ 
 gated. The writer complained that the property 
 was held by an alien enemy, that from four to six 
 thousand pounds yearly had been paid to the late 
 Lord Fairfax, and that, during his life, the pro¬ 
 prietor had collected no less than two hundred 
 thousand pounds from inhabitants of the North¬ 
 ern Neck. The Revolution was incomplete while 
 such privileged inequalities remained. Crito 
 attempted to arouse his fellow-citizens by antici¬ 
 pating the day when these vast stretches of land 
 would form several congressional districts con¬ 
 trolled by loyalist landowners, a bulwark of 
 toryism and the stronghold of British interests. 129 
 Such an appeal was certain to arouse republican 
 Virginia. 
 
 Recent settlers on the disputed lands, many of 
 them Germans, were anxious to have their claims 
 to the lands quieted; they petitioned the Virginia 
 assembly in 1793 for relief. The assembly of 
 November, 1793, requested the governor to in¬ 
 vestigate the title to the Fairfax lands in the 
 Northern Neck and to take the proper steps to 
 quiet all claims against the state. 130 The execu¬ 
 tive called upon the state and county courts to 
 
 120 Virginia Sentinel and Gazette, March 11, 1793. 
 
 130 Journal of the House of Delegates, November 1793, pp. 129, 
 131. 
 
108 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 make a report of all escheated property. Twenty- 
 eight escheators were appointed during the first 
 six months of 1794 to fill offices that in some in¬ 
 stances had been vacant for several years, and 
 each escheator was instructed to proceed with es¬ 
 cheats that had begun under the act of October, 
 1779; 131 circular letters were sent to all escheators 
 calling for complete reports on property that had 
 escheated. 132 Robert Brooke, the attorney-gen¬ 
 eral, was directed to aid escheators in establish¬ 
 ing the title of the commonwealth. 133 Sequestra¬ 
 tion and confiscation were taken up with vigor 
 where they had been left off a decade before. 
 Jefferson and his associates were forming the 
 anti-British, Republican party. 
 
 Proceeding upon the basis that the law of 1782 
 sequestering the quitrents in the Northern Neck 
 and directing the removal of the land books to 
 Richmond was the beginning of escheat, courts 
 of inquest were held over property claimed by the 
 Fairfax estate in Frederick, Fauquier, Shenan¬ 
 doah, Fairfax, and Berkeley Counties. 134 In 
 Fauquier, where an estate of ninety thousand 
 acres was involved, the verdict was for the com- 
 
 131 Council Journals, XXIII. 71-217, passim. 
 
 132 Ibid., p. 53. 
 
 133 Ibid., p. 62. 
 
 134 Calendar of Virginia State Papers, VII. 4, 5, 131, 158, 255, 
 286, 296, 297, 352, 353, 470. 
 
LEGISLATION AND FINANCE 109 
 
 monwealth. 135 Denny Martin Fairfax took an 
 appeal to the district court, and, when that court 
 upheld the findings of the county court of inquest, 
 he carried his appeal to the Virginia Court of 
 Appeals. In Frederick County, the decision of 
 the local court of inquest was against the com¬ 
 monwealth; in other counties, the courts of in¬ 
 quest could reach no decision. 136 Following the 
 appeal by Denny Martin Fairfax from the deci¬ 
 sion in Fauquier County to the Virginia Court of 
 Appeals, the governor in council advised the es- 
 cheators “in those counties in which any other 
 lands of the said Denny Fairfax may be lying 
 not to proceed to take inquest thereon” until a 
 decision is reached by the courts. 137 Republican 
 antipathy to the courts began before 1800. 
 
 In the meantime, Denny Martin Fairfax had 
 continued to grant titles to unappropriated lands 
 in the Northern Neck. The legal contest be¬ 
 came a three-cornered one: The Fairfax heirs 
 claiming under old charters and grants, the state 
 claiming under Revolutionary confiscation and 
 sequestration laws, and the settlers claiming by 
 a title from one of the above or by occupancy. 
 The situation was somewhat clarified when a land 
 
 135 Ibid., pp. 352-53. 
 
 Ibid., pp. 131, 296, 297. 
 
 137 Council Journals, XXIII. 153; Governor’s Letter Book, 
 1794-1800, pp. 9-11. 
 
110 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 syndicate, formed by Robert Morris of Philadel¬ 
 phia and including Morris’ son-in-law, James 
 Marshall, James Marshall’s brother, John Mar¬ 
 shall, Rawleigh Colston, a brother-in-law of the 
 Marshalls, and Henry Lee, Governor of Vir¬ 
 ginia, in 1793 or 1794, arranged for the purchase 
 of the interest held in fee by Denny Martin Fair¬ 
 fax. The result of the tangle was a compromise 
 between the state and the land syndicate claiming 
 under the Fairfax title. It was agreed that all 
 lands that had not been appropriated before 1793 
 were to be ceded to the state, and the state was to 
 relinquish all title to lands that had in any way 
 been appropriated by the Fairfax heirs prior to 
 1793. 138 This compromise, effected in 1796, 
 settled the dispute to all practical purposes. The 
 state acquired little or no land by this arrange¬ 
 ment, for the Fairfax heirs or squatters had sur¬ 
 veyed, granted, or settled upon practically all the 
 lands claimed by the Fairfax estate. The benefi¬ 
 ciaries were the settlers upon the land, and the 
 land syndicate that purchased the surveyed but 
 ungranted Fairfax lands for their title was recog¬ 
 nized by the compromise as valid, whether it came 
 from the proprietor or from the state. It was a 
 triumph of Republican agrarianism in Virginia. 
 
 138 Journal of the House of Delegates, November 1796, pp. 89. 
 114, 52, 61, 108. Samuel Shepherd, Statutes at Large, II. 22. 
 
LEGISLATION AND FINANCE 111 
 
 Later litigation in the United States Supreme 
 Court was important for its political and constitu¬ 
 tional significance; the compromise of 1796 set¬ 
 tled the practical question of who should possess 
 the land. 139 
 
 Legislation against the loyalists was effective 
 and successful in so far as it purposed to suppress 
 the disaffected. As a source of revenue to the 
 state, loyalist legislation entirely failed. Approx¬ 
 imately four million pounds of depreciated paper 
 money was paid into the Virginia treasury for 
 escheated property and British debts, and part 
 of this was later repaid to claimants and debtors. 
 The amount collected from loyalist property was 
 insignificant compared with the paper issues of 
 the state. The real property that was seized and 
 sold was small, especially in the rural districts. 
 Sequestration and sales during and after the war 
 did not evict large plantation owners and make 
 way for a new social and economic order. It is 
 interesting to note that the policy of sequestra¬ 
 tion and sale of lands in Virginia discriminated 
 against the foreigner rather than against the 
 enemy. With the exception of Andrew Sprowle 
 and the Goodrich family, the property sold be¬ 
 longed to persons whose actual residence was in 
 
 13 * See Hunter vs. Fairfax, 1 Mumford, 218-238. Fairfax vs. 
 Hunter, 7 Crunch, 686-696. 
 
112 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 England. The Corbins, the Wormleys, the 
 Byrds, Archibald Ritchie, and Philip Grymes re¬ 
 mained in undisturbed possession of their estates. 
 Virginia, however, did come into possession of a 
 vast domain in the west. Many sons of the colo¬ 
 nial aristocracy, already in debt, and ruined by the 
 economic upheaval of the Revolution, disposed of 
 their estates in the east and sought their fortunes 
 in this undeveloped country. 140 The winning of 
 the territory in the west, not the confiscation of 
 lands in the east, paved the way for a new social 
 order in Virginia. 
 
 140 Lord Carmarthen complained to John Adams that British 
 merchants were losing debts due from Virginia by migration of 
 the debtors to Kentucky. William Grayson to James Madison, 
 November 1, 1785; May 22, 1786. Letters to Madison, Madison 
 Papers, XIV. Sheriffs defaulted and went west. Calendar of 
 State Papers, IV. 595-96. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 LOYALISTS AND DEBTS, 1782-1788 
 
 The payment of debts into the state loan office 
 and the sale of escheated property in Virginia 
 brought no relief to the finances of the state. 
 The four million pounds of depreciated paper re¬ 
 ceived from these sources failed to check the 
 steady depreciation of the currency that inevita¬ 
 bly followed each new issue. When the sales of 
 escheated property began in December, 1779, 
 £2,636,682 of paper money had been issued, with 
 taxes pledged to redeem it. Tax collections were 
 deficient; the currency declined in value so rapid¬ 
 ly that even had the taxes been collected, assess¬ 
 ments would have been insufficint to meet expen¬ 
 ditures. In May, 1780, the amount of paper cur¬ 
 rency was nearly doubled by an issue of £2,000,- 
 000; duties and a tax on windows were pledged to 
 redeem the issue, and, should this prove deficient, 
 the public buildings at the old capital, Williams¬ 
 burg, were to be sold. 1 In October of the same 
 year, the treasurer was authorized to issue £6,000,- 
 000, and if this amount was inadequate, with the 
 
 1 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, X. 279. 
 
114 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 advice of the governor in council, he could issue 
 an additional £4,000,000. This currency was to 
 pass at the rate of forty to one, and at some fu¬ 
 ture date provisions were to be made for its re¬ 
 demption. 2 The auditor emitted the entire £10,- 
 000,000. 3 One and two-thirds million pounds ad¬ 
 ditional was issued to sink Virginia’s quota, due to 
 the Continental Congress. The next year the 
 treasurer was driven to extreme measures by the 
 British invasion, and the government printing 
 press issued an additional £36,125,000. 4 The ef¬ 
 fect was inevitable. In January, 1781, the rate of 
 exchange was seventy-five to one; in April it was 
 one hundred to one; by August seven hundred, 
 and by December one thousand to one. 5 In July, 
 1781, the currency ceased to be legal tender, and, 
 after November, the state refused to accept it for 
 taxes. The receipts of the state, from October, 
 1780, to October, 1781, were £60,823,216, includ¬ 
 ing the paper money emitted, but at the end of the 
 year the treasury had a deficit of £3,277,000. 6 In 
 May, 1781, although by law the money was legal 
 tender at forty to one, an army officer, in behalf of 
 his soldiers, complained that no one would accept 
 
 3 Ibid., pp. 347-50. 
 
 3 Journal of the House of Delegates, November 1781, p. 60. 
 
 4 Ibid. 
 
 5 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, X. 462-70. 
 
 " Journal of the House of Delegates, November 1781, p. 60. 
 
LOYALISTS AND DEBTS 
 
 115 
 
 the money the soldiers received for their services 
 for more than three hundred to one. 7 Horses were 
 valued at from three thousand to four thousand 
 pounds each, cows at five hundred, pigs one hun¬ 
 dred, Negroes at ten thousand. 8 Peter Hogg, in 
 October, complained that all public faith was gone 
 and that the people would not sell provisions to 
 the army for paper money at any price. 9 The 
 county lieutenant of Botetourt wrote to the gover¬ 
 nor that paper currency was no longer any in¬ 
 ducement to anyone to furnish supplies for the 
 army or to enlist in the militia. 10 In October and 
 November, cattle and sheep were driven into 
 Norfolk in large numbers from North Carolina, 
 but the army could buy none for paper money. 11 
 Colonel John Cropper, county lieutenant for 
 Accomac County, expressed his regret in Novem¬ 
 ber that “Mr. Gooter had been compelled to re¬ 
 sign” his position as agent for supplying the 
 troops because his salary of four thousand pounds 
 of tobacco, or its equivalent in state money, was 
 insufficient—“it would not feed his wife.” 12 A 
 man would rather have five shillings in ready 
 
 7 Calendar of Virginia State Papers, II. 86. 
 
 8 William and Mary College Quarterly, VII. 41. 
 
 8 Calendar of Virginia State Papers, II. 539. 
 
 10 Ibid., pp. 382, 586. 
 
 11 Ibid., p. 546. 
 
 u Ibid., p. 595. 
 
116 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 money for his service than an order to be car¬ 
 ried to Richmond for five pounds; “the deprecia¬ 
 tion has been so rapid that before a man could 
 get his money it was of no value—one hard dollar 
 will purchase more than 1000 of the best state 
 paper in circulation.” 13 The men and officers of 
 the Virginia line presented a lengthy appeal to the 
 Virginia assembly in November, complaining of 
 the great hardship of being paid in worthless 
 paper. 14 
 
 Congress, after the emission of $241,552,780, 
 had closed the press, and, to avoid the worthless 
 paper with which the states met their requisitions, 
 called for specific articles by a resolution of Octo¬ 
 ber 19, 1779. These articles, when collected, were 
 almost useless to the government; the problem of 
 collecting supplies and moving them to places 
 wanted was an insurmountable difficulty. Con¬ 
 tinental bills had stood at forty to one in March, 
 1780, and by the following January were one 
 hundred to one; by May they had ceased to pass 
 as currency. 15 On October 16, 1781, Robert Mor- 
 
 13 Calendar of Virginia State Papers, II. p. 595. 
 
 ” Ibid., p. 629. 
 
 16 D. R. Dewey, Financial History of the United States, ch. ii, 
 passim. By September 10, 1779, Congress had ordered $202,- 
 011,660 to be issued. The emissions ordered on February 12, 
 1776, and November 2, 1776, amounting to $562,780, had not been 
 printed; $41,500,000 had been called in. There were $159,948,880 
 
LOYALISTS AND DEBTS 
 
 117 
 
 ris wrote to Governor Nelson that the finances of 
 the country had collapsed; the war no longer 
 could be financed with paper currency; foreign 
 governments refused to aid a government that 
 did nothing to help itself; “specific supplies are 
 at once burthensome to the people and almost use¬ 
 less to the government”, and recourse must be 
 had to hard money. 16 On October 19, 1780, the 
 Continental treasurer sent a circular letter to the 
 states reviewing the financial situation and call¬ 
 ing upon them to do something to reform the 
 system. 17 The difficulties in Virginia with her 
 own, as well as the Continental, currency amply 
 illustrated the hopelessness of the situation. 
 
 In March, 1781, Virginia undertook to place 
 its currency on a sounder basis. An act of 
 the assembly provided that all paper turned in 
 for taxes should be burned, except the two issues 
 authorized in October, 1780. 18 The military in¬ 
 vasion of that year necessitated the issue of an 
 endless supply of paper, and the redemption poli¬ 
 cy was checked when the legislature in May, 1781, 
 repealed a law of the previous year anticipating a 
 
 of Continental currency in circulation on September 10, 1779. 
 Approximately $400,000 were issued subsequent to this report. 
 Jefferson Papers, IV. 680. 
 
 10 Calendar of Virginia State Papers, II. 550. 
 
 17 Ibid., p. 553. 
 
 16 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, X. 400. 
 
118 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 general funding system. 19 Realizing the worth¬ 
 lessness of the issue, the legislative body provided 
 that the old money should cease to be a legal 
 tender, except in the payment of taxes, after July 
 1, 1781. Before the assembly adjourned, it 
 offered a ten thousand pound bounty for every 
 enlistment and authorized an issue of twenty 
 million pounds. 
 
 When the assembly met the following October, 
 the money was scarcely worth the paper it was 
 printed upon. It had ceased to be legal tender; 
 tobacco was the medium of exchange. A bill to 
 stop the sale of sequestered estates was rejected, 
 and all future funds arising from these sales were 
 appropriated to redeem military certificates. 20 A 
 plan was adopted for calling in and funding 
 all paper money hitherto issued by the state. On 
 or before October 1, 1782, all holders of the state 
 paper were to present it to the treasury and re¬ 
 ceive for it loan office certificates at the rate of a 
 thousand to one. The certificates were to bear 
 six per cent, interest and were to be transferable 
 upon assignment. 21 All certificates not funded by 
 October 1, 1782, were to be forfeited. Subse¬ 
 quent legislation extended the time for funding 
 
 19 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, X. 413. 
 
 20 Ibid., p. 462. Journal of the House of Delegates, October 
 1781, pp. 24, 26, 39, 55. 
 
 21 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, X. 458. 
 
LOYALISTS AND DEBTS 
 
 119 
 
 to June 1, 1783, 22 then to December 1, 1783 ; 23 
 and later to 1786. 24 
 
 The funding system brought a revolution in 
 Virginia finance. The salary of the treasurer was 
 reduced from five thousand pounds, as fixed in 
 
 1779, before the great depreciation, to six hun¬ 
 dred pounds; salaries of other officials had a like 
 reduction. 25 Bounties for enlistments were cut, 
 and a scale of depreciation for the redemption of 
 old military certificates was arranged. 26 Fore¬ 
 seeing the perplexities of the taxpayer, taxes were 
 reduced and made payable in flour, hemp, deer¬ 
 skins, or specie. 27 Time for collection of taxes 
 was postponed, and execution of judgments 
 against sheriffs was suspended until 1785. 28 
 
 The repudiation of the currency and the rever¬ 
 sion to hard money were as disastrous to the deb¬ 
 tor as the inflation of the currency during the war 
 had been to the creditor. The amount of cur¬ 
 rency in circulation contracted enormously. The 
 balances of the treasurer’s report from December, 
 
 1780, to December, 1781, were £60,823,216; the 
 
 22 Ibid., p. 133. 
 
 23 Ibid., p. 192. 
 
 21 Ibid., p. 397. 
 
 25 Ibid., p. 493. 
 
 28 Ibid., p. 462. 
 
 21 Ibid., p. 501. 
 
 23 Ibid., p. 462. 
 
120 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 balances from April 13, 1782, to November 30, 
 1782, were £99,948. 29 Between 1782 and 1787 
 petitions were sent to Richmond by the sheriffs of 
 forty-three counties pleading their inability to 
 collect taxes and asking to be relieved from their 
 bonds; all plead the scarcity of money and the 
 poverty of the people. 30 The sheriff of Bucking¬ 
 ham County said his arrears in taxes were “due 
 to no fault of mine but to the poverty of the 
 people.” 31 The sheriff of Powhatan put up prop¬ 
 erty for sale that belonged to delinquent tax¬ 
 payers, but no one would bid upon it. 32 The 
 sheriff of Princess Anne “repeatedly seized the 
 property of those who were in arrears and adver¬ 
 tised it for sale, but such was the temper of the 
 people and the scarcity of money, in many cases 
 no one would bid, so that your petitioner, not¬ 
 withstanding his utmost endeavors, was incapable 
 of completing his collections for 1784.” 33 In 
 Mecklenburg the sheriff had distrained property 
 for the taxes of 1783 and repeatedly offered it at 
 auction, “but for want of money there have been 
 
 28 Journal of the House of Delegates, October 1781, p. 60. 
 Journal of the House of Delegates, October 1782, p. 77. 
 
 30 Calendar of Virginia State Papers, IV. 10, 77, 82, 87, 111, 121, 
 154, 174, 185, 223, 231, 377. 
 
 32 Ibid., p. 87. 
 
 32 Ibid., p. 185. 
 
 33 Ibid., p. 121. 
 
LOYALISTS AND DEBTS 
 
 121 
 
 no sales.” 34 The sheriff of Louisa petitioned re¬ 
 lease from his bond for taxes; the property had 
 been seized, but, “on account of the scarcity of 
 specie and the poverty of the inhabitants, it went 
 exceedingly lowseveral persons whose property 
 had been distrained came in the night and carried 
 off their slaves, horses, and chattels which the 
 sheriff held, “not that they had been opposed to 
 the payment of taxes but they could not suffer 
 their property to sell for a trifle.” In his petition 
 the sheriff of Louisa sent affidavits to show the in¬ 
 ability of the people to pay their taxes. William 
 Duval testified that he had purchased lands in 
 Louisa valued at twenty shillings for two shillings 
 an acre. 35 If taxes were paid, payments were in the 
 commodities provided by law and not in specie. 36 
 
 34 Ibid., p. 154. 
 
 35 Ibid., p. 82. 
 
 36 On July 1, 1782, specie in hand in Albemarle, Amelia, Augusta, 
 Amherst, Bedford, Caroline, Charlotte, Culpepper, Campbell, Fair¬ 
 fax, Fauquier, Fayette, Gloucester, Greenville, Halifax, Hamp¬ 
 shire, Mecklenburg, Orange, Pittsylvania, Rockbridge, Spotsyl¬ 
 vania, and Stafford Counties was £472; specific articles were 
 9514 bushels of corn, 3127 bushels of wheat, 3909 bushels of oats, 
 223 bushels of rye, 5 bushels of barley, and 17,539 pounds of 
 bacon. Calendar of Virginia State Papers, III. 203. Among the 
 counties reporting delinquent taxes in 1785 were: Albemarle, 
 £2304; Augusta, £1253; Bedford, £2489; Gloucester, £3752; 
 Henry, £3245; Lunenburg, £1627; Northumberland, £1349; Pow¬ 
 hatan, £1121; Rockingham, £2638; Spotsylvania, £1353. The 
 total in arrears was £40,000. Calendar of Virginia State Papers, 
 IV. 10. In May, 1787, the solicitor returned judgments against 
 forty-nine sheriffs for delinquent taxes from 1782 to 1786, for a 
 total of £79,952. In his report to the governor, the solicitor 
 stated that in many cases the execution of the judgment against 
 
122 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 In order to secure the much coveted specie, sol¬ 
 diers sold their new certificates obtained under the 
 funding system at greatly reduced rates; “they 
 sold them for a mere nothing;” in March, 1782, 
 one soldier parted with a certificate for “£48 for 
 £4 paid in hand.” 37 Specie loans on military cer¬ 
 tificates were difficult to obtain on any terms. 38 
 
 On January 7, 1783, John Ambler, the treas¬ 
 urer, reported to the governor that he had at¬ 
 tempted to convert some of the specific articles 
 of the state into money, but “I do not believe 
 there is scarce a man in the city of Richmond who 
 can lay down the sum of £75.” 39 Indeed, the 
 happy days of paper money in Virginia had 
 passed. 
 
 the sheriffs had been stayed several times. In many instances 
 the property for delinquent taxes had been seized by the sheriff 
 and exposed to sale, “and the executions were returned to the 
 state with the endorsement ‘not sold for want of bidders’,”. Cal¬ 
 endar of Virginia State Papers, IV. 595-96. 
 
 31 Calendar of Virginia State Papers, III. 87. 
 
 38 Hunter, Banks and Company of Petersburg, John Lyne and 
 Company of New Castle, Carter Baxton and Company of West 
 Point, Samuel Beal of Williamsburg, Massachusetts, Alexander 
 Ross, and other merchants purchased many of these certificates 
 and later exchanged them for western lands. Calendar of Vir¬ 
 ginia Papers, III. 80. See Patent Books, 1783-1787. Henry 
 Banks obtained 40,000 acres for treasury warrants, Patent Book, 
 N, 433-60. See also Books P and R, passim. The greater part 
 of the lands granted in Virginia subsequent to the Revolution 
 were for military certificates. By 1788, Virginia had granted 
 2,500,000 acres for Continental soldiers and 3,500,000 for the 
 state militia. Calendar of Virginia State Papers, IV. 477. 
 
 38 Calendar of Virginia State Papers, III. 417. See also J. 
 Ambler to J. Madison, April 6, 1782, for an account of Virginia 
 finances. Letters to Madison, Madison Papers, XIII. 
 
LOYALISTS AND DEBTS 
 
 123 
 
 The conclusion of the war added a new thorn 
 in the flesh of the Virginia debtors. British 
 creditors came to Virginia demanding payment of 
 the debts due to them, not payment in paper 
 money, but in sterling; the planters had no ster¬ 
 ling and could not obtain it. Jefferson estimated 
 that the debts due British merchants from Vir¬ 
 ginia were ten times as great as the money in 
 circulation. 40 Prices were low; surplus tobacco 
 flooded the market, selling from eighteen to 
 twenty-three shillings per hundred weight from 
 1785 to 1787. Negroes purchased at a hundred 
 pounds each before the war sold for from twenty 
 to thirty pounds. 41 
 
 Hector McAllester, formerly a merchant at 
 Portsmouth, 42 and William Calderhead, a mer¬ 
 chant of Norfolk, 43 returned to Virginia to col¬ 
 lect amounts due them when Cornwallis entered 
 the state. Hardin Burnley and his partner Brack- 
 enridge were at New Castle in January, 1782, up¬ 
 on a similar mission. 44 James Riddle, a former 
 merchant, was driven from the state in April, 
 1782, when he tried to collect debts. John Mc¬ 
 Lean, Thomas Milner, and John Younghusband* 
 
 “Jefferson, Writings, IV. 202. 
 
 41 Calendar of Virginia State Papers, IV. 229, 273. 
 
 "Ibid., II. 250. 
 
 "Ibid., III. 56. 
 
 44 Ibid., p. 12. 
 
124 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 former merchants, petitioned the assembly in No¬ 
 vember, 1782, to be allowed to return to Virginia, 
 become citizens, and have their property safe¬ 
 guarded. 45 Congress entered into an agreement 
 with the British at New York to allow them to 
 export tobacco, and when the ships went to Vir¬ 
 ginia for the product they carried with them many 
 former Virginia merchants who had sought re¬ 
 fuge within the British lines during the war. 
 Other British merchants entered under flags of 
 truce and petitioned the governor in council to 
 be allowed to remain to care for their affairs; 
 regardless of the decision of the council, they usu¬ 
 ally remained until driven from the state by the 
 civil authorities or sometimes by mobs. 46 A law 
 of 1776 forbade alien enemies to enter the state, 
 but the attorney general, when consulted by the 
 governor, gave it as his opinion that this law could 
 not be used to bar the return of these merchants, 
 for they came mostly from New York and Phila¬ 
 delphia, and the term “alien enemy” as used in the 
 law meant “those enemies suspected of treason”. 47 
 
 A general “stay law” had been passed in No¬ 
 vember, 1781, to offset the funding act of that 
 
 45 Journal of the House of Delegates, November 1782, pp. 11, 
 25, 26. 
 
 48 Calendar of Virginia State Papers, III. 251. 
 
 47 Ibid. 
 
LOYALISTS AND DEBTS 
 
 125 
 
 session; 48 the May assembly of 1782, in response 
 to popular clamor, repealed this law and passed 
 a law specifically providing that no debt due a 
 British merchant should be recoverable in any 
 court in the state. If the debt was in the posses¬ 
 sion of a citizen of Virginia, the plaintiff had to 
 prove that it was obtained by a bona fide purchase 
 before May 1, 1777, the day set for the departure 
 of British merchants under the Statute Staple. 
 This law was to be in effect until December 1, 
 1783. 49 It was ineffective in excluding creditors. 
 Absentee merchants returned to Virginia in the 
 summer of 1782 and applied for the oath, attesting 
 their allegiance to the state. Ignorant or slightly 
 '‘disaffected” justices often administered the oath, 
 and when the refugee was called to account he 
 presented his certificate of citizenship. 50 
 
 The assembly of October, 1782, attempted to 
 prevent the evasion of this law by passing a law 
 prohibiting British merchants from entering the 
 state; any magistrate who administered the oath 
 to a British subject was to be punished. 51 Gover¬ 
 nor Harrison issued a proclamation in December 
 
 48 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, X. 471. 
 
 ^ Ibid., XI. 75. 
 
 60 When Thomas Hyde was arrested and imprisoned in Suffolk 
 he called for the oath of allegiance. Calendar of Virginia State 
 Papers, III. 296. 
 
 51 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, XI. 136. 
 
126 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 forbidding persons who had professed loyalty to 
 the British king to enter Virginia. Anyone vio¬ 
 lating this proclamation was to be arrested and 
 taken to Richmond. 52 Commodore Barron, at 
 Norfolk, was instructed to be especially watchful 
 for refugees attempting to enter the state. 53 In 
 order further to protect the Virginia debtors 
 against those who threatened them with suits for 
 British debts, it was provided that the plaintiff 
 seeking to collect a debt must show in open court 
 that the bond (if it were for a debt due a British 
 merchant) was acquired by purchase before April 
 19, 1775. British subjects were excluded from 
 the courts altogether. If the plaintiff failed to 
 prove that he had acquired any British bond he 
 attempted to collect prior to the date specified, he 
 was to be fined treble costs. Lands, chattels, and 
 commodities were to be accepted for domestic 
 debts at prices fixed by a joint commission of the 
 -debtor and creditor. 54 Resolutions adopted by the 
 assembly upheld the sequestration and sale of 
 British property as legally justifiable and declared 
 the attempts of the British government to have it 
 restored by the terms of peace “are wholly in- 
 admissable”; the peace commissioners of the 
 
 52 Council Journals, 1782, pp. 38-39. Calendar of Virginia State 
 Papers, III. 400. 
 
 63 Council Journals, 1782, pp. 49-50. 
 
 M Hening, Statutes of Virginia, XI. 176. 
 
LOYALISTS AND DEBTS 
 
 127 
 
 United States, they thought, should not submit 
 “that the laws made by any independent state of 
 the union be subjected to the adjudication of any 
 power or powers on earth.” 55 Copies of these 
 resolutions were sent to Congress, and the Vir¬ 
 ginia delegates were instructed to use their influ¬ 
 ence to have them sent to the American peace 
 commissioners then negotiating in Paris. 56 
 
 On February 15, 1783, the first news of the 
 preliminary peace reached Norfolk; by the middle 
 of March the terms were well diffused among the 
 people. 57 The fourth article of the Peace of Paris 
 provided that creditors on either side should meet 
 with no lawful impediment to the recovery in 
 full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts 
 heretofore contracted; the fifth article obligated 
 Congress to recommend to the states restoration 
 of all estates, rights, and properties belonging to 
 
 “ Journal of the House of Delegates, October 1782, p. 69. 
 
 M Jefferson attempted to have a provision inserted in the in¬ 
 structions to the American commissioners instructing them to 
 urge “with perseverance the necessity of a reasonable forbear¬ 
 ance in the levy of debts due within these states to British sub¬ 
 jects,” but this clause was stricken from the resolutions. Jeffer¬ 
 son, Writings, III. 355, 360. Franklin upheld the cause of the 
 American debtor in the negotiations; Adams said “he did not 
 want to cheat anybody.” Lord Shelburne was personally inter¬ 
 ested in the loyalists, having married into the Penn family. 
 While peace negotiations were being conducted in Paris, the Brit¬ 
 ish creditors were pressing their claims at the British Court., 
 Edmund Fitzmaurice, Life of Lord Shelburne, II. 127, 137, 19J, 
 202 . 
 
 " Calendar of Virginia State Papers, III. 436. 
 
128 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 real British subjects which had been seized during, 
 the war; the sixth article provided that there 
 should be no future confiscations. 58 The attitude 
 of the Virginia debtors towards such terms can 
 be easily imagined. Virginia felt that her inter¬ 
 est had been neglected; her debts of over three 
 millions sterling, 59 larger than the debts of all the 
 other states combined, had been sacrificed for 
 the New England fisheries. 60 In 1784, when 
 John Tyler learned of Jefferson’s appointment to 
 follow Franklin as minister to France, he wrote 
 to Jefferson that he could see no reason why he 
 should go to Europe, “now that the Treaty had 
 been made final. Your services might have been 
 great indeed when the preliminaries were entered 
 into, because Virginia would have had a friend 
 who knew the circumstances of the people and 
 how unjust it was to consent to the payment of 
 the debts”. 61 
 
 58 W. M. Malloy, Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, 
 Protocols and Agreements between the United States of America 
 and other Powers, I. 586-90. 
 
 59 Joseph Jones wrote Jefferson from Richmond December 29, 
 1783, that he believed at least £3,000,000 sterling and probably 
 more were due to British subjects from Virginia. Jones did not 
 think the people of Virginia were able to pay so large an amount 
 and suggested that some arrangement should be made. Jefferson 
 Papers, X. 
 
 60 Jared Sparks, Diplomatic Correspondence of the American 
 
 evolution, X. 92, 93, 96. 
 
 81 Tyler to Jefferson, May 20, 1784, in Jefferson Papers, X. 
 
LOYALISTS AND DEBTS 
 
 129 
 
 The treaty brought a burst of indignation from 
 all parts of Virginia. Should, or should not, Vir¬ 
 ginia, an independent state, accept and execute a 
 treaty whose terms were so unfavorable for her? 
 Resolutions, petitions, speeches, and letters at¬ 
 tempted to answer this question. A set of resolu¬ 
 tions, adopted in Halifax County, appeared in 
 the Virginia Gazette on June 7, 1783, opposing 
 the treaty in general and especially the article pro¬ 
 viding for the “payment of debts contracted be¬ 
 fore the Revolution” as unprecedented and ruin¬ 
 ous “to the suffering citizens of this state, who, 
 we think are unable to comply with the demands, 
 without producing great injury to the state itself. 
 The debts of the British merchants are equally 
 forfeited with their rights of property among us, 
 and we can never consent that the good citizens 
 of this state shall lay at the mercy of British 
 creditors on account of such debts; neither do we 
 think there is any authority in the laws to compel 
 the payment of such debts to British subjects.” 
 The signers of the resolutions pledged themselves 
 forever to oppose the treaty and called upon the 
 Virginia assembly, then in session, to protect their 
 interests. 62 On May 24 a vigorous article in the 
 same paper made an appeal that the old distinc¬ 
 tion between Whig and Tory should not be for- 
 
 ei Virginia Gazette, June 7, 1783. 
 
130 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 gotten and that the people as a body oppose the 
 extension of any civil privileges to the loyalists. 63 
 George Mason wrote to Patrick Henry that the 
 question was frequently heard in conversation: 
 “If we are now to pay the debts due to the British 
 merchants what have we been fighting for all this i 
 while?” 64 Great alarm was expressed lest the state i 
 should assume the payment of the debts that had 
 been discharged by payments into the loan office 
 under the law of May, 1777, and the burden of the 
 depreciated currency be thus placed on the tax 
 payer if the treaty were executed. The people of 
 Frederick 65 and Essex 66 Counties petitioned the 
 assembly in May, 1783, that under no circum¬ 
 stances should the state assume responsibility for 
 this class of debts. Inhabitants of Halifax ex¬ 
 pressed fear that these debts would be shifted to 
 the taxpayers. A second petition from Halifax 
 “prayed that the legislature may reject such part 
 of the treaty as provides for the payment of 
 debts.” 67 
 
 The Treaty of Paris obligated the state to repeal 
 all laws which prevented the return of loyalists 
 who had not borne arms against America; those 
 
 63 Virginia Gazette, May 24, 1783. 
 
 M Pr^n^y , Life of Patrick Henry . IL 187. 
 
 ,5 Virginia Gazette, December 27, 1783. 
 
 M Legislative Petitions, No. 865. 
 
 " Journal of the House of Delegates, May 1783, pp. 37, 65. 
 
LOYALISTS AND DEBTS 
 
 131 
 
 who had borne arms against the state should be 
 allowed to return and remain undisturbed for a 
 year to settle their affairs. This provision like¬ 
 wise caused bitter protest in Virginia. A peti¬ 
 tion from Essex County was presented to the 
 House of Delegates on June 4 opposing the re¬ 
 turn of any British subjects; 68 a petition signed 
 by three hundred inhabitants of Hanover was 
 presented on June 7 objecting to the repeal of 
 any laws which prohibited the return of the loy¬ 
 alists ; 69 a similar petition from Henrico was pre¬ 
 sented June ll. 70 
 
 However, there were some citizens who had 
 bought up the bonds held against the Virginia 
 debtors when the merchants left the state and, 
 “by the transfer of these British debts, many 
 citizens were supporting British interests to the 
 injury of other citizens.” 71 Others realized the 
 importance of the loyalists and especially the 
 loyal merchants to the Shelburne ministry and 
 feared a renewal of the war if the treaty was not 
 executed in Virginia. 72 In June, 1783, it was 
 rumored in the state that loyalists in London 
 
 •Ibid., p. 37. 
 
 ® Ibid,., p. 41; Virginia Gazette, June 14, 1783. 
 
 70 Journal of the House of Delegates, May 1783, p. 48. 
 
 71 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, XI. 179. 
 
 ” George Mason was of this opinion. See Rowland, Life, Cor¬ 
 respondence and Speeches of George Mason, II. 45. 
 
132 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 were insisting that New York should not be evac¬ 
 uated until Congress and the states acted upon 
 the treaty stipulations respecting the restoration 
 of property. 73 Others, among them John Tyler, 
 thought that the treaty was a bad one, but Vir¬ 
 ginia should not “reflect too much on the business 
 but provide the most easy means of getting over 
 them [the debts] with honor.” 74 In Essex County, 
 where loyalism had manifested itself throughout 
 the war, the contest was most bitter. Resolu¬ 
 tions were adopted in that county in July sup¬ 
 porting the treaty as honorably negotiated and 
 calling upon Virginia faithfully to execute it. 75 
 An anonymous writer from Essex in the Vir¬ 
 ginia Gazette contended that a failure to pay the 
 debts would only justify the assertion so common¬ 
 ly made in England—that the colonies revolted 
 to keep from paying their just debts. 76 Citizens 
 from Halifax instructed their delegates to “oppose 
 to the utmost of their power the smallest infrac¬ 
 tion of the late treaty of peace,” and if any ob¬ 
 jected to the cancellation of payments made into 
 the loan office to discharge debts, they were to 
 “call for the ayes and nays, so the corn could be 
 
 73 Virginia Gazette, June 28, 1783. )•' 
 
 74 Tyler to Jefferson, May 20, 1784, in Jefferson Papers, X. 
 
 76 Virginia Gazette, July 5, 1783. ‘ 
 
 76 /frit/., October 25, 1783. 
 
LOYALISTS AND DEBTS 
 
 133 
 
 separated from the tares.” 77 At a meeting in 
 Winchester, resolutions were adopted declaring 
 that those who opposed British subjects entering 
 the state were only attempting to avoid the pay¬ 
 ment of their debts; they thought debts ought to 
 be paid and opposed a proclamation of the gover¬ 
 nor issued on July 2 prohibiting British subjects 
 from migrating into Virginia. 78 Other citizens 
 of Berkeley County thought the doors should be 
 thrown open and that the British should be in¬ 
 vited to come into the state; the great need of the 
 country was man-power, and this need should 
 not be sacrificed to the interest of the debtor s.! 0 
 
 Closely akin to the subject of British debts 
 was that of citizenship. The courts, as has been 
 noted, were closed to British subjects, but there 
 were always those who were ready to swear their 
 allegiance to the state, if by doing so they could 
 collect their accounts. Aliens could not hold title 
 to real estate unless by special agreement; the 
 British had attempted to include such an agree¬ 
 ment in the Treaty of Paris, but with no success. 80 
 Merchants, unable to collect in sterling debts due 
 them, must ultimately rely upon the real estate of 
 the planters. Many merchants were anxious to 
 
 "Ibid,., June 7, 1783. 
 
 78 Ibid., December 27, 1783. 
 
 79 Ibid. 
 
 80 Such a provision was made in Jay’s Treaty, Article IX. 
 
134 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 return and resume their trade. Therefore, the 
 question of citizenship was of great importance 
 to the Virginians as well as to British subjects. 
 This, with the question of sequestered property 
 and debts, was the most widely discussed topic in 
 the state from May to December, 1783. 
 
 Sixty-nine “of the most respectable inhabitants 
 of Northumberland” expressed sympathy with 
 those who had lost property under the acts of 
 sequestration, but thought the “treaty should be 
 interpreted with the utmost rigor,” as it affected 
 those mercantile classes who had left the state 
 at the beginning of the war. They feared that 
 if the British were not carefully watched they 
 would undo all that had been accomplished by the 
 Revolution. 81 At a meeting of the board of 
 officers of the Virginia line in Fredericksburg on 
 July 13, 1783, Colonel William Heth, of the Vir¬ 
 ginia Continental line, in a public speech, vigor¬ 
 ously attacked the loyalists and called upon all 
 true patriots to unite in preventing their return. 
 The following day the same assembly unanimous¬ 
 ly adopted resolutions following the sentiment ex¬ 
 pressed by Colonel Heth. 82 “A number of respec- 
 able inhabitants of Caroline County” objected to 
 the admission of those who had left the state in 
 
 81 South Carolina Gazette, September 20, 1783. 
 
 "Ibid., July 22, 1783. 
 
LOYALISTS AND DEBTS 
 
 135 
 
 the hour of distress. Citizenship was a privilege 
 and should be granted only to the most deserving. 
 They were likewise opposed to the payment of 
 debts. 83 A writer in the Gazette for November 
 8 likened all the British merchants who wished to 
 return and be admitted to citizenship to Judas— 
 both were after the silver. 84 Meriwether Smith, 
 at one time a member of Congress from Virginia, 
 wrote a pamphlet against the return of the loyal¬ 
 ists and scattered it over the state. In the spring 
 of 1784 he prepared a second pamphlet against 
 the returning British. 85 Several petitions were 
 laid before the assembly in May, 1783, and an at¬ 
 tempt was made to repeal the laws that were not 
 in conformity with the treaty, but, as the assembly 
 had received no official notification of the treaty, 
 action was deferred until the next assembly. 
 
 In the meantime, the entire question of the treaty 
 was laid before the governor and council. British 
 
 83 Ibid., October IS, 1783. 
 
 84 Virginia Gazette, November 8, 1783—signed “A Sentinel 
 from Caroline County.” 
 
 85 B. Randolph to J. Monroe, January 2, 1784, in Letters to 
 Monroe. A writer from Tappahannock, Essex County, attacked 
 Meriwether Smith’s pamphlet—“Shall we allow a few scurvy 
 sneaking debtors to come forward and verify the charge of our 
 enemies”—that we went to war to escape our debts, see Virginia 
 Gazette, November 29, 1783. On January 3, 1784, Smith made a 
 reply. Ibid. He alleged he was not personally concerned. 
 Smith, in his pamphlet of May, 1784, paralleled the confiscation 
 of British debts with the conduct of the Dutch during the war 
 with Spain. Edmund Randolph to Thomas Jefferson, April 24, 
 1784, in Jefferson Papers, X. 
 
136 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 refugees had attempted to return, in compliance 
 with the fourth and fifth articles of the treaty, 
 and local authorities were uncertain whether the 
 law of October, 1782, should be enforced against 
 them. Captain John Wormley, who had been in 
 British service during the war, was granted per¬ 
 mission to remain in Virginia until further no¬ 
 tice. 86 Three or four Scottish merchants made 
 their appearance in Petersburg; the inhabitants 
 of the town were so provoked that a meeting was 
 held on June 20, and they were asked to leave. 87 
 On July 2 the governor laid before the council 
 letters “received from Andrew Johnston and sev¬ 
 eral other British subjects announcing their ar¬ 
 rival in the state” for the purpose of “trade and 
 collection of debts.” 88 He asked the advice of the 
 council. The council was at a loss as to the course 
 that should be taken, but suggested that the British 
 in the state be allowed twenty-one days to depart; 
 the governor, the council advised, should issue a 
 proclamation prohibiting anyone who had 
 departed under the Statute Staple from returning, 
 and the executive should seek the advice of the 
 
 “For the case of Wormley, see Calendar of Virginia State 
 Papers, III. 483; Council Journals, 1782-83, pp. 8, 192, 202; 
 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, XI. 314. 
 
 87 Joseph Jones to James Madison, June 21, 1783, in P. L. Ford, 
 Letters of Joseph Jones, p. 123. 
 
 88 Council Journals, 1783, pp. 251, 256-7. 
 
LOYALISTS AND DEBTS 
 
 137 
 
 assembly. 89 The proclamation was issued, 90 but 
 several returning merchants obtained permission 
 from the governor and council to remain in the 
 state. Joseph Williamson, who had been a mer¬ 
 chant in Essex County, but joined the British and 
 with several small boats made an attempt to burn 
 Tappahannock during the war, obtained permis¬ 
 sion from the governor to carry a cargo of merch¬ 
 andise up the Rappahannock. He was warned by 
 the citizens to leave, but took no heed. On October 
 10, 1782, despite the letter of protection from 
 governor and council which Williamson had in his 
 pocket, he was given a generous bath of tar and 
 feathers. The governor and council ordered that 
 indictments be brought against the offenders, but 
 the citizens of Essex expressed their approval of 
 the tar and feathers by electing to the next ses¬ 
 sion of the assembly William Gatewood, whose 
 name headed the list of the indicted. 91 Spencer 
 Roane, the second member of the assembly from 
 Essex, secured the passage of an act in the May 
 session, 1784, squelching the indictment, as the 
 mobbing had “taken place previous to the ratifi- 
 
 89 Ibid. 
 
 90 Virginia Gazette, July 5, 1783. 
 
 91 Council Journals, 1782, p. 290. See Edmund Randolph to 
 Thomas Jefferson, April 24, 1784, in Jefferson Papers, X. 
 
138 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 cation of the Definitive Treaty by Great Bri¬ 
 tain.” 92 
 
 Governor Harrison laid the question of the re¬ 
 turn of the British before the assembly, when it 
 met, November 1, 1783. “To allow all the British 
 to return might be attended with the greatest in¬ 
 convenience to the state and the American cause.” 
 Most of the British, he said, who had attempted to 
 return, had borne arms against the state or had 
 departed under the Statute Staple. If these mer¬ 
 chants were allowed to return, they might have 
 great influence “among the planters who are un¬ 
 der heavy obligations to them—I am not unin¬ 
 formed that the proclamation has raised some 
 clamors in the country but I am happy to find that 
 they generally originated with those who have 
 evermore inclined to bow to the yoke of slavery 
 than to assist in the establishment of American 
 Independence.” 93 The letter was delivered to the 
 house on November 4, and the next day a com¬ 
 mittee of fourteen, with John Taylor of Caroline 
 as chairman, was ordered to prepare and bring in 
 a bill “for repealing a former act, and declaring 
 who shall be deemed citizens of this common- 
 
 82 Herring, Statutes of Virginia, XI. 373. 
 
 83 Governor’s Letter Book, October 20, 1783. Also Executive 
 Communications, 1782-1786. 
 
LOYALISTS AND DEBTS 
 
 139 
 
 wealth.” 94 The report of the committee was dis¬ 
 cussed on November 10, and again, in the com¬ 
 mittee of the whole, on November 29. 95 John 
 Tyler was opposed to permitting the British to 
 return without making discrimination against 
 those who had been most active in their loyal- 
 ism. Patrick Henry thought that there was 
 no danger from the British who would return; 
 they had mistaken their interest. But, Henry 
 argued, the war was over; the great need of 
 the country was men to develop the untold 
 wealth. “Shall we, who have laid the proud 
 British lion at our feet, now be afraid of his 
 
 M Journal of the House of Delegates, October 1783, p. 9. Pat¬ 
 rick Henry had introduced a bill in the May session of the as¬ 
 sembly to repeal all laws against the migration of British subjects 
 into Virginia. He was supported by Richard Henry Lee. Joseph 
 Jones and John Tyler opposed Henry’s bill and contended there 
 should be some discrimination made among the British. The 
 bill was debated in the house on May 21 and postponed, by a 
 vote of fifty-six to twenty-seven, until the next session. Joseph 
 Jones to James Madison, June 8, 1783, in Ford, Letters of Joseph 
 Jones, p. 116. See also Journal of House of Delegates, May 
 1783, p. 76. George Mason, who thought that “the accounts of 
 British creditors could be safely trusted to Virginia juries,” pro¬ 
 posed a bill to allow all British subjects to obtain judgments, 
 but the judgments were to be executed in five annual install¬ 
 ments. Violent opposition to Mason’s bill was led by Richard 
 Henry Lee. The bill was discussed in the committee of the 
 whole on June 20 and postponed until the next session by a vote 
 of sixty-six to twenty-three. See Rowland, Life, Correspond¬ 
 ence and Speeches of George Mason, II. 45; Ford, Letters of 
 Joseph Jones, pp. 110, 120; Journal of the House of Delegates, 
 May 1783, p. 70. Patrick Henry was a supporter of immigration 
 but opposed to the payment of the debts. 
 
 85 Journal of the House of Delegates, October 1783, pp. 13, 39. 
 
140 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 whelps!” 96 A compromise was reached on De- 1 
 cember 1, providing that former acts prohibiting i 
 British subjects from entering the state and ac- t 
 quiring citizenship should be repealed. A new ; 
 citizenship law prohibited all persons resident in 
 any of the states on April 19, 1775, and later join¬ 
 ing the enemy, and all persons who acted with, or 
 under the authority of, the Board of Refugees 
 Commission in New York, from entering Vir¬ 
 ginia. All others who were resident in the state 
 on April 19, 1775, and prohibited by any law from 
 returning to the state, were given permission to 
 immigrate, but they were denied all political 
 rights. 97 
 
 The liberal provisions of this law were poorly 
 executed by the Virginians. The merchants who 
 had gone to New York and Philadelphia during 
 the war had been compelled to do guard duty; in 
 some counties such persons were placed in the 
 class of those who had joined the enemy, and they 
 were refused admission. 98 The citizens of Port 
 Royal, Caroline County, held a meeting in May, 
 1784, and ordered several merchants who had re¬ 
 turned in accordance with the law of October, 
 
 Journal of the House of Delegates, October 1783, p. 41; also 
 Henry, Life of Patrick Henry, II. 193-95. 
 
 87 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, XI. 323, 324. Virginia Gazette, 
 December 27, 1783. 
 
 88 Calendar of Virginia State Papers, III. 551. 
 
LOYALISTS AND DEBTS 
 
 141 
 
 1783, to depart at once." In Portsmouth, at a 
 meeting of the inhabitants on July 7, 1784, resolu¬ 
 tions were adopted saying, “that it was with great 
 astonishment that we see a number, and have 
 reason to believe that a great many more will at¬ 
 tempt settlement in this town.” The inhabitants 
 pledged themselves to invite the loyalists to de¬ 
 part, and if gentle “methods will not suffice we 
 will take measures adopted against the British 
 army to drive them out.” Copies of these resolu¬ 
 tions were sent to John Kerr and other returning 
 merchants. 100 Thirty persons, most of them mer¬ 
 chants, found difficulties when they attempted to 
 return to Petersburg in September, 1784, and pe¬ 
 titioned the governor for protection. 101 Regard¬ 
 less of the treaty of peace and the Virginia law, 
 the temper of the people was so strong against 
 loyalists, many of whom came to collect debts 
 that could not be paid, that they were insulted and 
 driven from the state. Governor Harrison issued 
 a proclamation on July 26, 1784, calling upon all 
 civil authorities to uphold the law and give pro¬ 
 tection to the returning merchants. 102 
 
 The fourth article of the Treaty of Paris pro¬ 
 vided that even those who had borne arms against 
 
 " Ibid., p. 598. 
 
 100 Ibid., P . 597. 
 
 101 Ibid., p. 613. 
 
 ,oa Virginia Gazette, July 31, 1784. 
 
142 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 the United States should be permitted to remain 
 unmolested in the state for twelve months to se¬ 
 cure their property. There was no such provision 
 in the law of Virginia; but, as loyalists were pro¬ 
 hibited from bringing suits in the courts, there 
 seems to have been little objection to complying 
 with the letter of the law. After the designated 
 time had elapsed, a meeting was held in Peters¬ 
 burg at which eighty-four citizens from the sur¬ 
 rounding counties were present. Joseph Jones 
 and William Heth made a motion that, as it ap¬ 
 peared that there were “sundry persons” residing 
 in Petersburg who had overstayed the twelve 
 months allowed, the governor and assembly should 
 take measures to enforce the law of October, 1783, 
 against them. John Banister moved that the 
 wording be changed to read “if there were” peo¬ 
 ple in the town contrary to the law, they should 
 be ordered to depart; his amendment was adopted 
 after some debate by a vote of forty-four to forty. 
 The meeting was continued the next day (Sep¬ 
 tember 16), and a committee was appointed to 
 draw up a petition to the governor and council 
 requesting that the law be enforced against those 
 persons who were illegally residing in the town. 103 
 Several letters were sent to Governor Patrick 
 Henry asking that those who had over-stayed 
 
 103 Calendar of Virginia State Papers, IV. 167, 171-72. 
 
LOYALISTS AND DEBTS 
 
 143 
 
 their time be arrested. 104 After consulting with 
 the attorney-general, 105 the Governor issued a 
 proclamation on October 14, 1786, ordering all 
 British subjects who did not come within the 
 provisions of the law of October, 1783, to depart 
 at once upon pain of being arrested by the civil 
 authorities. The assembly that met in October, 
 1786, provided that if anyone not authorized by 
 former laws entered the state, he was to be ar¬ 
 rested and tried; upon conviction, the offender was 
 to be fined a hundred pounds and given a jail 
 sentence of six months; for the second offence, 
 the penalty was five years’ imprisonment and for¬ 
 feiture of all property. No foreign merchant 
 could acquire any rights of citizenship until he 
 had married in Virginia or acquired property of 
 five hundred pounds. All persons who were pro¬ 
 hibited from migrating into the state were for¬ 
 bidden to bring suit in any court against a citizen 
 of Virginia or anyone entitled to become a citi¬ 
 zen ; if it should be shown in court that the plain¬ 
 tiff was prohibited from migrating into the state, 
 he was to be fined treble costs, and the jury was to 
 render a verdict for the defendant. 106 
 
 A second phase of the debt problem was that 
 relating to the opening of the courts to those 
 
 104 Ibid., pp. 167, 175. 
 
 105 Ibid., p. 179. 
 
 106 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, XII. 261. 
 
144 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 merchants who did not come within the class pro¬ 
 hibited from entering the state. The fourth arti¬ 
 cle of the Treaty of Paris provided that there 
 should be no impediments to the recovery of debts. 
 In May, 1783, as has been noted, George Mason 
 proposed a bill that would permit British credi¬ 
 tors to bring suits in Virginia courts, but this 
 bill was postponed by a large vote until the next 
 assembly. 107 All laws prohibiting the recovery of 
 British debts were to expire on December 1, 1783. 
 When the legislature met in November of that 
 year, it continued the “stay law” “four months 
 and from then until the next Assembly”, 108 be¬ 
 cause “the Definitive Treaty had not received its 
 finishing shape.” 109 
 
 Congress ratified the treaty of peace on Janu¬ 
 ary 14, and, in compliance with the obligation of 
 the fifth article, resolutions were sent to each 
 state recommending that they repeal the laws 
 against the loyalists and the recovery of debts. 110 
 When the Virginia assembly met in May, 1784. 
 James Madison proposed that all laws that stood 
 in the way of the treaty should be repealed. Pat¬ 
 rick Henry led the opposition to the repeal of the 
 
 107 See above, note 94. 
 
 108 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, XI. 349. 
 
 108 Joseph Jones to Thomas Jefferson, December 29, 1783, Jeffer¬ 
 son Papers, X. 
 
 110 Sparks, Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revo¬ 
 lution, X. 228. 
 
LOYALISTS AND DEBTS 
 
 145 
 
 “stay law” and was successful in defeating a 
 vote on Madison’s bill by a vote of fifty-six to 
 thirty-six. 111 Henry urged that Great Britain 
 had not fulfilled that part of the treaty concern¬ 
 ing the payment for the Negroes 112 carried away 
 and the evacuation of the western posts. A com¬ 
 mittee appointed to draw up resolutions to Con- 
 giess prepared a report asserting that although 
 the treaty-making power was with Congress, they 
 thought the “Assembly should withhold their co¬ 
 operation in the complete fulfillment until British 
 infractions of the treaty are reported upon;” as 
 soon as the infractions on the part of Great Bri¬ 
 tain be rectified “and Congress judges it indis¬ 
 pensably necessary, such acts of legislation passed 
 during the war preventing the recovery of British 
 debts should be repealed at a time and in a manner 
 suitable with exhausted conditions of this com¬ 
 monwealth.” An attempt to add an amendment 
 that Virginia would not pay the debts until Great 
 Britain paid for property destroyed was lost by a 
 vote of fifty-five to thirty-three. 113 The resolu¬ 
 tions were passed and sent to Congress, but the 
 
 U1 Journal of the House of Delegates, October 1784, p. 41; also 
 Gaillard Hunt, Writings of James Madison, II. 54. Henry, Life 
 of Patrick Henry, II. 231. 
 
 m Jefferson estimated that the British carried thirty thousand 
 Negroes from Virginia. 
 
 113 Virginia Gazette, June 29, 1784; Journal of the House of 
 Delegates, May 1784, pp. 54, 72, 74. 
 
146 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 minority of the senate drew up a second report 
 dissenting from the majority resolutions. 114 Thus 
 the assembly did nothing to comply with the 
 recommendations of Congress and the Treaty of 
 Paris except pass a law preventing any future 
 confiscation of property. 115 
 
 The same bill that was defeated in May, 1784, 
 was introduced in the October session, 1784. Pa¬ 
 trick Henry, who had led the opposition in May, 
 had been elected governor and “was out of the 
 way.” While the bill was under discussion, the 
 proceedings of a meeting of fifty-four Glasgow 
 merchants interested in North American trade 
 prior to 1776, held in Glasgow on September 24, 
 were presented to the assembly through their 
 American agents in Petersburg. 116 These mer¬ 
 chants declared their willingness to accept pay¬ 
 ment for debts due them from Virginia in annual 
 installments, if provision should be made for the 
 execution of judgments in the courts. 117 Counter 
 petitions were presented from thirty-nine local 
 merchants of Petersburg and thirty-eight local 
 merchants of Richmond, who thought no favor 
 should be shown to their British creditors. 118 A 
 
 114 Virginia Gazette, July 10, 1784. 
 
 115 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, XI. 446. 
 
 us Executive Communications, October 1784-July 1785. 
 
 117 Ibid. 
 
 118 Madison, Writings, II. 114-17. 
 
LOYALISTS AND DEBTS 
 
 147 
 
 bill providing for the payment of debts in seven 
 annual installments, without interest during the 
 war, passed the house. The senate failed to 
 agree to the bill and attempted to add a rider that 
 would repeal all laws against the collection of do¬ 
 mestic debts; the house would not agree to the 
 rider, and the senate, probably to kill the bill, at¬ 
 tempted to place all British subjects on the same 
 legal footing. The house and senate, in a joint 
 session, agreed upon a bill following closely that 
 proposed by the house. The next day had been 
 set by the assembly for adjournment. That night 
 several of the members of the house “crossed the 
 river to Manchester, with the intention, it is pre¬ 
 sumed of returning the next morning. The 
 severity of the weather rendered their passage 
 back the next morning impossible.” There was 
 no quorum in the house without them, and it 
 was decided to postpone adjournment for another 
 day. The next day a canoe was sent over for the 
 party, “but they did not choose to venture them¬ 
 selves.” The assembly agreed to wait one more 
 day; the absent members in Manchester did not 
 return; warm resolutions of censure were passed, 
 and the assembly adjourned. The bill as agreed 
 upon in the joint session did not go through the 
 final form and never became a law. Patrick 
 Henry wrote that the absent members were known 
 
148 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 to favor the bill; Madison was inclined to think 
 otherwise and said that their absence was only to 
 defeat the measure. 119 
 
 In the meantime, the failure of Virginia to re¬ 
 peal her laws against the collection of British 
 debts had given rise to numerous complaints by 
 British merchants, both in Virginia and in Eng¬ 
 land. 120 J. H. Norton and Company, British mer¬ 
 chants, wrote to James Madison and other mem¬ 
 bers of the Virginia assembly on October 1, 1785, 
 protesting that they were compelled to pay the 
 debts owed to Virginians, but were unable, on 
 account of existing laws in that state, to make col¬ 
 lections of debts due to them. They asked Madi¬ 
 son to give his aid in repealing the Virginia 
 laws. 121 William Grayson wrote to Madison, 
 November 22, 1785, that John Adams had con¬ 
 ferred with Pitt, and the latter had complained of 
 the laws in Virginia. 122 A committee of Glasgow 
 merchants waited on Adams and told him that 
 they proposed to lay the matter before Parlia¬ 
 ment, but Adams prevailed upon them not to do 
 so, as it might prevent a more peaceable settle- 
 
 U9 Henry, Life of Patrick Henry, III. 266; Madison, Writings, 
 II. 114. 
 
 120 Bemis, Jay’s Treaty, p. 103. 
 
 121 J. H. Norton to James Madison, October 1, 1875, in Letters 
 to Madison, Madison Papers, XIV. 
 
 122 William Grayson to James Madison, November 22, 1785, in 
 Letters to Madison, Madison Papers, XIV. 
 
LOYALISTS AND DEBTS 
 
 149 
 
 ment. Lord Carmarthen protested that the Brit¬ 
 ish merchants were losing much in Virginia by 
 the migration of the Virginians to Kentucky. 123 
 The latter part of the year, Grayson wrote to 
 Madison that the British ministry seemed to be 
 satisfied with the execution of the Treaty of 
 Paris in every state except Virginia. This in¬ 
 formation was laid before the House of Delegates 
 when it assembled in October, 1785, 124 and the 
 bill of the previous session was again revived. 
 Several amendments added as riders killed the 
 force of the bill; “insinuations were made against 
 Congress, the Eastern States and the negotiators 
 of the peace, particularly John Adams.” The 
 riders added by the house were so obnoxious to 
 the supporters of the bill that it was allowed to 
 die on the table. 125 The general cry was that the 
 treaty ought not to be executed by Virginia until 
 England had evacuated the posts and paid for 
 the slaves. 
 
 Adams and Jefferson, in the spring of 1786, 
 had a conference with Duncan Campbell, chair¬ 
 man of the Committee of American Merchants. 
 Campbell admitted the justness of the contention 
 that the planters were not able to make immediate 
 
 123 Ibid., November 1, 1785; May 22, 1786. 
 
 124 After October, 1784, the Virginia assembly discontinued the 
 meeting in May. 
 
 125 Madison, Writings, II. 210-12, 206. 
 
150 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 payments and agreed for the debts to be paid in five 
 annual installments. Jefiferson and Adams were 
 unwilling to pay interest during the war; Camp¬ 
 bell contended that “the renunciation of interest 
 was a bitter pill that the merchants would not 
 swallow.” Several weeks after Jefferson returned 
 to Paris, the merchants signified their willingness 
 to forego the interest due for the seven years of 
 war if the principal and other interest were 
 paid. 1 * 0 This correspondence was laid before John 
 Jay, secretary of Congress. Adams complained 
 that Great Britain would not go further in making 
 a commercial treaty until the states fulfilled their 
 part of the Treaty of Paris. On October 13, 
 1786, Jay made a report to Congress on the exe¬ 
 cution of the treaty, sustaining in part the posi¬ 
 tion of the British government. 127 Jay’s report 
 was acted upon, and resolutions were sent to the 
 states on April 13 calling upon them to repeal 
 all laws repugnant to the treaty. 128 
 
 A bill for compliance with the congressional 
 resolutions of March, 1787, was introduced into 
 the Virginia assembly in October. Patrick 
 Henry, who “did not think that the interest of 
 Virginia could be trusted” with Congress, agi- 
 
 128 Jefferson, Writings, IV. 210-12, 221-22. 
 
 “ Secret Journals of Congress, IV. 186-7. 
 
 128 Madison, Writings, II. 355, 341, 349. 
 
LOYALISTS AND DEBTS 
 
 151 
 
 tated for their defeat. 129 The bill was debated 
 in the assembly for four days and defeated by a 
 vote of seventy-five to forty-two. On December 
 12, a bill was passed 130 to repeal all laws that pro¬ 
 hibited the recovery of British debts, but a sub¬ 
 sequent bill, adopted by a vote of eighty to thirty- 
 one, 131 provided that the law was not to go into 
 effect until Congress notified Virginia that Great 
 Britain had evacuated the posts and paid for the 
 slaves. 132 
 
 “I am persuaded that a large number of the 
 citizens of the state are warmly opposed to the pay¬ 
 ment of British Debts,” John Dawson wrote to 
 Madison on April 15, 1787. 133 Alexander Mc- 
 Caul, agent for Kippen and Company, wrote to 
 Jefferson from Glasgow on August 14, 1788, 
 that out of the large number of “prominent Vir¬ 
 ginians” indebted to him, only three men had 
 signified their willingness to pay. 134 In truth, the 
 Virginia planters were bankrupt. In 1786-7 the 
 clamor for paper money was renewed. Patrick 
 
 129 James McClurg to James Madison, August 15, 1787, in Let¬ 
 ters to Madison, Madison Papers, XV. 
 
 130 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, XII. 528. 
 
 131 Journal of the House of Delegates, October 1787, pp. 51, 52, 
 79-80. 
 
 132 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, XII. 529. 
 
 “John Dawson to James Madison, April 15, 1787, in Letters 
 to Madison, Madison Papers, XV. 
 
 134 Alexander McCaul to Thomas Jefferson, August 14, 1788, 
 in Jefferson Papers, XLII. 
 
152 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 Henry converted Prince Edward County to the 
 support of paper currency; 135 in the assembly he 
 emphasized the great distress of the people and 
 charged Congress with openly violating the inter¬ 
 ests of Virginia. 136 Albemarle County petitioned 
 the assembly in 1787 for paper money that would 
 be legal tender. 137 In Greenbriar County three 
 hundred men signed an association to oppose the 
 payment of taxes and pledged themselves to stop 
 the proceedings of the next court. 138 The majority 
 of the debtors in Virginia had neither the means 
 nor the inclination to fulfill that part of the treaty 
 which provided for the payment of debts. 139 
 
 135 James McClurg to James Madison, August 5, 1787, in Let¬ 
 ters to Madison, Madison Papers, XV. 
 
 IM Archibald Stuart to James Madison, November 9, 1787, in 
 Letters to Madison, Madison Papers, XV. 
 
 137 William and Mary College Quarterly, Series Two, II. 213-16. 
 
 138 James McClurg to James Madison, August 22, 1787, in Let¬ 
 ters to Madison, Madison Papers, XV. 
 
 138 For an admirable treatment of the British debts in negoti¬ 
 ations with Great Britain see Bemis, Jay’s Treaty, especially 
 ch. v. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 THE TREATY OF PEACE AND THE CONSTITUTION 
 
 Did the treaty of 1783 supersede the laws of 
 a state? Were laws in contravention of a treaty 
 valid? “The question is one coming under the 
 Treaty—the courts must decide upon it—It can¬ 
 not be the wish of any American Whig, and I 
 am sure it cannot be yours, that the legislature of 
 any state should wrest a question of such high 
 legal importance from the judicial department,” 
 J. F. Mercer of Maryland wrote to James Madi¬ 
 son in commenting upon the laws passed in Vir¬ 
 ginia and Maryland to prevent the execution of 
 the treaty. 1 The foregoing chapter has indicated 
 the unwillingness of the legislature of Virginia 
 to execute the Treaty of Paris. The fate of the 
 treaty, however, was ultimately to be transferred 
 from the legislative to the judicial department, 
 and from the state to the federal government. 
 
 1 J. F. Mercer to Madison, December 23, 1786. Letters to 
 Madison, Madison Papers, XV. Madison accepted the position 
 of Mercer as expressed in this letter and wrote to Edmund 
 Pendleton of the Virginia court of appeals on January 21, 1791, 
 that he thought the treaty repealed all laws that were in con¬ 
 travention to it. The action to repeal by the state legislature, 
 Madison thought merely a matter of form. See Madison, Writ¬ 
 ings, VI. 22. In the case of Bayard vs. Singleton, the North Caro¬ 
 lina courts declared a law of that state unconstitutional and void 
 because it conflicted with the treaty of 1783. 1 Martin, 42. 
 
154 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 In 1783 there were five grades of courts in 
 Virginia. The county courts, a continuation of 
 colonial institutions, had jurisdiction in civil cases 
 not involving more than ten pounds; as the British 
 debts were almost always for sums in excess of 
 this amount, “few British debt cases, if any, came 
 in these courts.” 2 The Virginia constitution of 
 1776 provided that there should be a general court, 
 an admiralty court, and a court of chancery. 3 
 These courts were established by an act of the 
 assembly in 1777. The general court was a com¬ 
 mon law court; the admiralty court, as its name 
 indicates, had maritime jurisdiction, and the chan¬ 
 cery court was a court of equity. 4 The court of 
 appeals, the highest court in the state, was added 
 to the judicial system in 1778. 5 Justices for the 
 county courts were appointed by the governor in 
 council; the judges in the general, admiralty, and 
 chancery courts were appointed by the assembly 
 and held office during good behavior. 6 Judges 
 from the last three courts presided over the Su¬ 
 preme Court of Appeals. 
 
 2 James Monroe to Thomas Jefferson, May 1, 1792, Jefferson 
 Papers, LXXIII. 
 
 3 Virginia Constitution of 1776, Arts. 14, 15. 
 
 * Hening, Statutes of Virginia, IX. 389-429. 
 
 6 Ibid., p. 522. 
 
 * Constitution of 1776, Arts. 14, 15. 
 
THE TREATY OF PEACE 
 
 155 
 
 The first constitution of Virginia provided for 
 complete separation of the three departments of 
 government. 7 This separation of the three de¬ 
 partments, however, was not observed. The courts 
 were established by the legislative department; 
 the salaries of the judges were fixed by the assem¬ 
 bly, and, although the state constitution stipulated 
 that these salaries should not be changed during 
 the tenure of office, the legislature frequently fixed 
 new schedules of pay. 8 The Virginia courts, not¬ 
 withstanding the provision for independence in 
 the state constitution, could scarcely be said to be 
 independent of the legislative body. Loyalists 
 who were convicted in the courts almost uniform¬ 
 ly secured the intercession of the legislature in 
 
 7 Bill of Rights of 1776, Art. 5. 
 
 8 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, IX. 521; X. 278, 473. These 
 changes were made on account of the continual depreciation of 
 the currency. In 1788 the independence of the judiciary was 
 further intruded upon by the legislature, when an act of assembly 
 greatly increased the work of the admiralty and general courts 
 and more than doubled the work of the chancery court. There 
 was no provision for an increase in the judges’ salaries. The 
 courts protested, and a petition drawn up by the judges was sent 
 to the assembly. The judges threatened to appeal to the people 
 if the legislative department did not observe the complete sepa¬ 
 ration of powers as provided for in the constitution of the state. 
 Subsequent to this, the judges resigned their office, but they later 
 requalified under an act of December 23, 1788. The legislative 
 was the first of the three coordinate branches of the government 
 to come to its own. The judicial department was established by 
 the legislature and was partly at its mercy. See Daniel Call, 
 Report of Cases argued and adjudged in the Court of Appeals of 
 Virginia, (1833), IV. 135-51. Also 1 Virginia, 98-108. 
 
156 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 their behalf. 9 It was the “opinion of the ablest 
 counsel at the bar that these [British] debts were 
 recoverable, and that no law prohibited it, and if 
 it were otherwise the Treaty would control it— 
 and several of the state judges entertain the same 
 opinion—but the British merchants generally de¬ 
 clined to bring suits prior to” the adoption of the 
 federal Constitution; “for the motive to this con¬ 
 duct ’tis not necessary to hazard a conjecture.” 10 
 Edmund Randolph, who had been attorney-gen¬ 
 eral prior to his election as governor, thought the 
 treaty paramount law, “or at least to be one of 
 those laws which are, in my opinion, beyond 
 repeal.” 11 Had the judiciary of the state been 
 independent, as provided in the constitution, what 
 might have been the fate of the Virginia debtor 
 in Virginia courts would be a matter of conjec¬ 
 ture. The legislature, however, was supreme, and 
 its temper against the payment of British debts 
 was well known; the British creditor had small 
 chance to recover property under the Virginia law 
 in a Virginia court. 
 
 The position of the British creditor was some¬ 
 what changed by the adoption of the federal Con¬ 
 stitution. The Constitution provided that the ju- 
 
 9 Journal of the House of Delegates, November 1782, pp. 24, 33. 
 
 10 James Monroe to Thomas Jefferson, May 1, 1792, Jefferson 
 Papers, LXXIII. 
 
 11 M. D. Conway, Edmund Randolph, p. 72. 
 
THE TREATY OF PEACE 
 
 157 
 
 dicial power of the federal government should ex¬ 
 tend to all cases arising under treaties made by the 
 United States. It anticipated the transfer of 
 British suits for debts and property from state 
 to federal courts. This threat to debtors was the 
 most objectionable part of the Constitution to 
 Virginia. Edmund Randolph, a member of the 
 Virginia assembly in 1787, 12 regarded the propo¬ 
 sal to repeal all laws conflicting with the treaty 
 of 1783 as a test of the strength of the constitu¬ 
 tional party in the state. “A question is allotted 
 for tomorrow by which it will be known how the 
 party positively against the constitution stands 
 as to numbers, a motion was postponed until that 
 day for repealing the laws against the recovery 
 of British debts. Much of the repugnance to this 
 motion will be founded on the danger of every 
 defendant being hurried sooner or later to the 
 seat of the Federal Government. This is the 
 most vulnerable and odious part of the constitu¬ 
 tion. I shall therefore conclude, if the acts be 
 repealed, that the majority of the legislature may 
 be said to have overcome the most objectionable 
 points.” 13 An exaggerated report in New Hamp¬ 
 shire rumored “there were only two men in Vir¬ 
 ginia who were not in debt to be found among 
 
 12 Ibid., p. 96. 
 
 13 Ibid. 
 
158 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 the enemies of the Constitution.” 14 On the other 
 hand, the creditors to whom money was due from 
 Virginia anxiously anticipated the adoption of the 
 Constitution. 15 
 
 The ratification of the federal Constitution was 
 bitterly contested in Virginia. The proposed 
 change in government involved more than a con¬ 
 sideration of political theories for the Virginian. 
 The proposed government transferred the claims 
 over disputed debts and titles for contested lands 
 from friendly local courts to new, and in many 
 respects, foreign courts. ‘‘British debts and the 
 Indiana claims are the principal topics of private 
 discussion, and intrigue, as well as public declama¬ 
 tion”, Madison wrote to Washington from the 
 Virginia ratifying convention. 16 In the struggle 
 against ratification, Patrick Henry and George 
 Mason attempted to wrest the natural support of 
 the aristocratic tidewater section from the Con¬ 
 stitution by indicating the great distress that 
 would be brought to the planters when their Brit¬ 
 ish creditors summoned them before the federal 
 courts. “If ever a suit be instituted”, said Henry 
 in debate on June 5, “by a British creditor for a 
 
 14 C. A. Beard, Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of 
 the United States, p. 318n. 
 
 “Alexander McCaul to Thomas Jefferson, August 14, 1788- 
 Jefferson Papers, XLII. 
 
 “Madison, Writings, V. 179n. 
 
THE TREATY OF PEACE 
 
 159 
 
 sum, the defendant had better pay it than appeal 
 to the Federal Supreme Court,” where all the de¬ 
 fendants would ultimately be carried. 17 Mason 
 feared that under the new system there was grave 
 danger that British interests would work them¬ 
 selves into the council of the state, “which might 
 have pernicious consequence. The great houses 
 of British merchants would spare no pains to in¬ 
 sinuate the instruments of their views into the 
 government.” 18 Governor Randolph was aware 
 of the economic ruin the British creditors would 
 bring upon Virginia if they were permitted to 
 collect debts in the state without restraint, but 
 he thought a strong federal government could 
 better protect the interest of the debtors from 
 the creditors. 19 George Mason said that “he 
 along with 30,000 other people interested in dis¬ 
 puted lands” opposed the judiciary provision, fear¬ 
 ing that Lord Fairfax would be able to recover, 
 before a federal court, the lands which had been 
 seized by the Virginia legislature. 20 John Mar¬ 
 shall, ignorant of the role he was to play in the 
 new government, expressed it as his opinion that 
 any case Fairfax might bring would be decided 
 in a Virginia court by a Virginia law “upon the 
 
 17 Jonathan Elliot, Debates on the Federal Constitution, III. 543. 
 
 18 Ibid. 
 
 19 Ibid., p. 74. 
 
 20 Ibid., pp. 528-29. 
 
160 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 temper of our neighbors.” 21 Randolph came to 
 the assistance of the future chief justice, pleading 
 that no person in the Northern Neck be influenced 
 by the “assertions of Mr. Mason.” 22 Seventeen 
 amendments were proposed to the Constitution 
 and, after endorsing these amendments, the con¬ 
 stitutional party was able to muster a majority of 
 ten votes for ratification. The fourteenth of the 
 proposed amendments is significant. It provided 
 in part, “that the judiciary power of the United 
 States shall extend to no case where the cause 
 of action shall have originated before the ratifi¬ 
 cation of this constitution; except in disputes be¬ 
 tween states over territory; disputes between per¬ 
 sons claiming lands under the grants of dififerent 
 states, and suits for debt due the United States.” 2 ' 
 The first Congress paid little or no attention to 
 this proposed amendment; for Virginia, it came to 
 an untimely end at the hands of a government 
 controlled by the commercial class. 
 
 The ratification of the Constitution by the states 
 brought fear to many a debtor in Virginia. St. 
 George Tucker wrote to his stepsons, one of them 
 John Randolph of Roanoke: “You will have heard 
 that the constitution has been adopted by this 
 
 31 Eliott. Debates on the Federal Constitution, III. 559. 
 
 22 Ibid., pp. 574-75. 
 
 23 Ibid., pp. 559-61. 
 
THE TREATY OF PEACE 
 
 161 
 
 state. That event my dear children, affects your 
 interest more nearly than that of many others. 
 The recovery of the British debts can no longer 
 be postponed and there seems now to be moral 
 certainty that your patrimony will all go to satisfy 
 the unjust debts from your papa to the Han- 
 burys. The consequence, my dear boys, must be 
 obvious to you. Your sole dependence must be on 
 * your personal abilities and exertions.” 24 Madison 
 wrote to Jefferson soon after Virginia ratified the 
 Constitution that “he anticipated no irregular op¬ 
 position” to the new government, but “what local 
 eruptions may be occasioned by ill-timed or rig¬ 
 orous execution of the Treaty of Peace against 
 British Debts, I will not pretend to say.” 25 
 
 As soon as the new Constitution was adopted, 
 British merchants hastened to bring their suits 
 in the E T nited States district and circuit courts 
 of Virginia and in the Virginia state courts. 
 John Jay, the chief justice, in opening the first 
 federal court in New York on April 4, 1790, in 
 his charge to the grand jury, emphasized the sanc¬ 
 tity of treaties. Treaties, he said, were obliga¬ 
 tions upon nations; no state could alter these obli¬ 
 gations or contracts. The Chief Justice repeated 
 these reproaches to other delinquent states: to 
 
 24 Conway, Edmund Randolph, p. 106. 
 
 26 Madison, Writings, I. 405. 
 
162 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 the grand jury of Connecticut, on April 22, in 
 Massachusetts, on May 4, and in New Hampshire, 
 on May 20. 26 There could be no doubt as to what 
 the head of the highest court in the United States 
 thought of the attempts of the states to violate 
 treaties made by the central government. The 
 docket of the circuit court in Virginia was 
 crowded with suits brought by British creditors 
 against their American debtors—cases that came 
 under the treaty of 1783. In Order Book I of the 
 United States Circuit court of Virginia, covering 
 the period 1790 to 1795, three fourths of the cases 
 listed involved contracts between British mer¬ 
 chants and American debtors. Scarcely a British 
 house trading in Virginia in 1775 is unrepre¬ 
 sented. Two suits are listed against Thomas 
 Jefferson, executor; 27 John Bowman, executor for 
 Bowman and Spiers, British merchants, had seven 
 suits against Virginia debtors on the docket; 28 
 Buchanan and Hastie, Cunningham and Com¬ 
 pany, Dobson and Dalteria, Donaldson and Com¬ 
 pany, Robert Donald, Jones and Farrell, Kippen 
 and Company, all British merchants, filed suits for 
 debts due from Virginians. 29 Osgood Hanbury’s 
 
 26 H. P. Johnston, Correspondence and Public Papers of John 
 Jay, III. 387. 
 
 37 Book I. 71. Virginia United States Circuit Court. (Rich¬ 
 mond, Va.) 
 
 28 Ibid., passim. 
 
 29 Ibid. 
 
THE TREATL OF PEACE 
 
 163 
 
 estate entered suit to recover the debt due from 
 the Randolph heirs. 30 The Virginia assembly, 
 in its excitement over the probable outcome of 
 these suits in the federal courts, attempted to pass 
 resolutions in November, 1791, a week before the 
 circuit court in Virginia was convened, protest¬ 
 ing against the recovery of debts by British sub¬ 
 jects until Great Britain had evacuated the wes¬ 
 tern posts and paid for the Negroes carried away. 
 The resolutions failed, however, and instead a set 
 of resolutions, milder in tone, were sent to the 
 Virginia Senators, urging Congress to come to 
 the relief of the state. Congress did nothing. 
 
 The first of the British debt cases, Jones vs. 
 Walker, was called on November 23, 1791, in the 
 circuit court at Richmond. Jones represented the 
 interests of Jones and Farrell of Bristol. This 
 British company had brought suit against Dr. 
 Thomas Walker, of Albemarle County, for £2151 
 which was alleged to be due them. Walker had 
 paid the debt into the Virginia loan office on May 
 25, 1779, in accordance with the provisions of the 
 Virginia law of 1777, and contended that the debt 
 was discharged. The British house of Jones and 
 Farrell had considerable interest at stake in the 
 trial, for approximately £25,000 due to them had 
 
 30 Ibid., 94. 
 
164 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 been paid into the Virginia loan office. 31 The 
 company, therefore, engaged four able lawyers to anc 
 argue their case in the circuit court. The debtors tioi 
 made common cause with the defendant and em- of 
 ployed Patrick Henry, leading orator of Vir- jot 
 ginia, James Innis, the retiring attorney-general, ten 
 John Marshall, a rising young attorney, and Alex- a 
 ander Campbell. Justices Johnson and Jllair of cat 
 the United States Supreme Court and Justice ha 
 Griffin of the Virginia district court presided, sti 
 The interest in the case was intense. Two hun- ibe 
 dred and seventy-two thousand pounds was in- on 
 volved in the decision of the court. The assembly lit 
 was in session, but the Speaker was unable to w: 
 maintain a quorum in the house while the case a 
 was being heard. The court room of the capitol p< 
 was insufficient to accommodate the crowd, and c( 
 the judges permitted the vacant seats of the bench z< 
 and the windows behind it to be occupied. The 
 proceedings were so conducted as to involve all ri 
 the legal issues arising out of this class of debts, d 
 There was no jury trial; the court was first to p 
 determine upon the proceedings of (the law. The ii 
 plaintiff argued that debts due to individuals were t 
 not subject to confiscation in time of war, and, ii 
 granted that they were, confiscation was an act 
 that could be performed only by a sovereign state, : 
 
 31 Auditor’s Day Books, 1778-1781, passim. 
 
THE TREATY OF PEACE 
 
 165 
 
 ie 
 
 oand Virginia was not sovereign until the recogni¬ 
 tion of independence by Great Britain. The laws 
 •of Virginia sequestering debts, therefore, were 
 not valid, but only an acknowledgment of the exis¬ 
 tence of the debts. Granted, however, (which the 
 plaintiff did not do) that the debts were confis¬ 
 cated and sequestered in a legal way, all such debts 
 had been restored by the treaty of 1783. The Con¬ 
 stitution of the United States declared treaties to 
 be the law of the land. The treaty was binding 
 on each party, and the contention that an infrac¬ 
 tion on the part of either relieved the other party 
 was unsound. The question of the infraction of 
 a treaty was one to be decided “by the supreme 
 power of the nation only, and one of which this 
 court could not, with any propriety, take cogni- 
 
 5 jqo 
 
 zance. 
 
 Patrick Henry entertained a crowded court 
 room for three days in his reply for the defen¬ 
 dants. He made the most of the assertion by the 
 plaintiff lawyer, Ronald, that Virginia was not an 
 independent state “before the monarch of that lit¬ 
 tle island in the Atlantic gave his puny assent to 
 it.” The debts, Henry argued, were forfeited, and 
 
 32 Ronald, Wickham, Starke, and Baker were employed by the 
 plaintiffs. Ronald was a Scotchman, who had been exceedingly 
 lukewarm in his loyalty to the American cause. He was looked 
 upon as a Tory. Wickham was apparently absent from Virginia 
 during the war. His name is among those who returned in 
 1782-83. See Calendar of Virginia State Papers, II. 204, 207, 277. 
 
166 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 they could be recovered only by treaty. They could 
 not be recovered, however, by the treaty of 1783, 
 for this treaty had been broken by Great Britain 
 when that nation refused to evacuate the western 
 posts and pay for the Negroes carried away upon 
 the evacuation of New York. Great Britain, 
 having broken the treaty, could claim no benefits 
 under it. Henry contended that the courts should 
 have cognizance of this infraction of the treaty, 
 for the Constitution had given the judiciary juris¬ 
 diction in all cases arising under treaties. Even 
 if Great Britain had not broken the treaty of 
 1783, that treaty could not revive the class of 
 debts at issue, for the treaty said bona fide 
 debts; the debtor had paid the sum at issue into 
 the loan office of Virginia under a law of Vir¬ 
 ginia and had thereby discharged the debt. It 
 could no longer be called a bona fide debt. 33 
 
 It was the general opinion “out of doors” that 
 an infraction of the treaty by Great Britain re¬ 
 lieved the Virginia debtor from obligations to pay, 
 but the argument that the payment into the Vir¬ 
 ginia loan office was a discharge of the debt was 
 not so readily accepted. The latter position was 
 
 33 Jefferson thought that, in the case of Jones vs. Walker, Henry 
 “really distinguished himself. He had exerted a degree of indus¬ 
 try—and not only seemed but made himself truly learned on the 
 subject.” Jefferson, Writings, IX. 339. For the trial, see Henry, 
 Life of Patrick Henry, II. 471-76; III. 601-48. 
 
THE TREATY OF PEACE 
 
 167 
 
 altogether too likely to involve the state in pay¬ 
 ments that would fall on all the taxpayers. 34 
 Judges Johnston and Griffin were in doubt; 35 
 Justice Blair was called home on account of the 
 death of his son, and no decision was reached by 
 the court. “The judges have decided nothing”— 
 nothing has been done only a delay “of legislative 
 matters for six days.” 38 The forces of provin¬ 
 cialism and agrarianism rallied in Virginia 
 against federalism and commercialism. 
 
 Daniel L. Hylton, of the firm of D. L. Hylton 
 and Company, Virginia merchants, debtors of 
 Farrell and Jones, Osgood Hanbury, and Donald¬ 
 son and Company, British merchants, wrote to 
 Henry in March, 1792, and engaged him to de¬ 
 fend suits entered in the Virginia circuit court. 
 “Your countrymen look up to you as the rock of 
 their salvation”, he wrote Henry. 37 The argu¬ 
 ment begun in Jones vs. Walker in November, 
 1791, was continued in Ware, Admr. of Jones, 
 vs. Hylton in the May term, 1793, of the Vir- 
 
 34 Hardin Burnley to James Madison, December 3, 1791. Let¬ 
 ters to Madison, Madison Papers, XVIII. Burnley was a return¬ 
 ing merchant and was personally interested in the decision of the 
 court. 
 
 35 James Iredell to Samuel Johnston, May 29, 1793. Hayes 
 Papers (Edenton, North Carolina). 
 
 30 Francis Corbin to James Madison, January 7, 1792, Letters 
 to Madison, Madison Papers, XVIII. 
 
 37 Henry, Life of Patrick Henry, II. 473. 
 
168 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 
 ginia circuit court. 38 Henry again spoke with elo¬ 
 quence to an attentive and interested audience. 39 
 John Jay and James Iredell from the United 
 States Supreme Court and Judge Griffin of the 
 district court of Virginia presided. Iredell ad¬ 
 mitted that he was swept from his feet by Henry’s 
 eloquence, yet “in the course of his argument he 
 has not satisfied me in the slightest degree as to 
 anything but the payments into the treasury.” 
 Neither Jay or Iredell thought the argument that 
 the infraction of the treaty by Great Britain should 
 bar recovery of the debts “seriously tenable”. 40 
 The court ruled that the debts were obligatory 
 upon the debtors, but Justice Iredell and District 
 Judge Griffin held that the payments already 
 made into the loan office under the law of Vir¬ 
 ginia were competent to bar the plaintiff from 
 recovery of that part of the debt which had been 
 paid to the state. 41 Chief Justice Jay dissented, 42 
 and the plaintiff took appeal to the United States 
 Supreme Court from that part of the decision 
 
 38 Book I, 141, 161, 381, 386. Virginia United States Circuit 
 Court. (Richmond, Va.) 
 
 39 M. C. Tyler, Patrick Henry, pp. 322-27. 
 
 40 James Iredell to Samuel Johnston, May 29, 1793. Hayes 
 Paper (Edenton, North Carolina). 
 
 u Daniel L. Hylton had paid £933 into the loan office on April 
 26, 1779, to discharge part of a debt due to Jones and Farrell. 
 Auditor’s Cash Book, 1779. 
 
 “Johnston, Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 
 III. 478, 485, 486. 
 
THE TREATY OF PEACE 
 
 169 
 
 which declared the payments into the loan office a 
 legal discharge of the debt. 
 
 Chief Justice Jay’s ability as a judge was not 
 questioned, but his decision made him very un¬ 
 popular in Virginia. Edmund Randolph, now 
 attorney-general of the United States, wrote to 
 President Washington from Virginia that it was 
 reported the Chief Justice had been insulted by a 
 drunken man who was present at the trial in the 
 circuit court. 43 The Virginia assembly sent in¬ 
 structions to their senators to move in Congress 
 that the fourth article of the treaty of 1783 (the 
 article providing for the payment of debts) be 
 suspended until the United States should have 
 assurances that the treaty was being fulfilled by 
 Great Britain. On May 6, 1794, Senator James ^ 
 Monroe asked permission to bring in such a bill. 
 Monroe’s fellow-senator, John Taylor of Caro¬ 
 line, the great exponent of agrarianism, ably sup¬ 
 ported Monroe. He indicated how the welfare of 
 his state was being sacrificed to northern commer¬ 
 cial interests. Sixteen senators voted against 
 Monroe’s motion; only Taylor and Monroe voted 
 for it. 44 
 
 That part of the decision of the Virginia cir¬ 
 cuit court which ruled that the debtors were no 
 
 43 Conway, Edmund Randolph, p. 153. 
 
 ** Annals of Congress. 3rd Congress, pp. 94, 95. See also King, 
 Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, I. 524. 
 
170 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 longer liable for the sums that had been paid into 
 the state loan office under the laws of Virginia 
 was reargued upon appeal in the United States 
 Supreme Court in February, 1796. On March 
 19, the Supreme Court handed down a decision 
 reversing the decision of the lower court. 45 The 
 Supreme Court ruled that Virginia was a sover¬ 
 eign state in 1777 and capable of sequestering 
 property, but the treaty of 1783, made by common 
 consent, provided that there should be no legal 
 impediment in collecting bona fide debts. The 
 debts paid into the loan office were bona fide, 
 and there was a legal impediment; to-wit, the 
 Virginia law. Treaties of the United States were 
 the law of the land; it was not stipulated in the 
 treaty of 1783 that the states would repeal all 
 laws preventing the recovery of debts; this was 
 only to be recommended to the states. However, 
 it was agreed that “certain things should not be 
 permitted in the American Courts of Justice— 
 these statutes should not be plead to bar recov¬ 
 ery.” The treaty, the Supreme Court held, nulli¬ 
 fied the laws of Virginia that were in contraven¬ 
 tion to it. Justice Chase gave the opinion, and 
 Justices Cushing, Patterson, and Wilson con¬ 
 curred. Justice Iredell presented the opinion he 
 had delivered in the circuit court of Virginia, in 
 
 45 Richmond and Manchester Advertiser, March 27, 1796. 
 
THE TREATY OF PEACE 
 
 171 
 
 which he upheld again the position that Virginia 
 was competent to pass such a law and that the 
 defendant was living under that law and had acted 
 in accordance with it. The debtor, he contended, 
 discharged the debts under Virginia law and could 
 no longer be held liable. 40 
 
 This decision of the Supreme Court did not 
 come as a surprise to the debtors. The Richmond 
 and Manchester Advertiser made no comment in 
 giving the opinion of the court; it was nothing 
 more than Republican Virginia expected from 
 the Federalists in control of the government. 
 Such a ruling meant that the £272,000 that had 
 been paid into the loan office to discharge debts 
 must be paid again. Naturally, the debtors looked 
 to Virginia for relief. Several petitions were 
 presented to the assembly that met in November, 
 1796. Wilson Miles Cary 47 and Joseph Previt, 48 
 each of whom had made payments into the Vir¬ 
 ginia loan office, asked that the state come to their 
 relief. November 22, a petition signed by Daniel 
 L. Hylton and Company, Joseph Jones, Carter 
 Page, and eleven other debtors to British mer¬ 
 chants, who had made payments into the Vir¬ 
 ginia loan office totalling approximately forty- 
 
 48 Ware, Admr. of Jones, vs. Hylton, 3 Dallas 175-225. 
 
 4 ‘ Journal of the House of Delegates, November 1796, p. 70. 
 
 48 Ibid., p. 48. 
 
172 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 four thousand pounds, 49 was presented to the 
 House of Delegates. The petitioners requested 
 that they be permitted to appear before the bar 
 of the house and plead their case, as “all the pay¬ 
 ments into the Treasury of Virginia have been 
 declared to be absolutely void by the Supreme 
 Court of the United States.” 50 The payments were 
 discussed in the House of Delegates, and a set 
 of resolutions was drafted in the committee of 
 the whole directing the United States senators 
 from Virginia to “use their best endeavors to 
 obtain compensation for the citizens of this state 
 who have been adjudged to be liable under the 
 Treaty of Peace to pay debts which they did not 
 owe when the Treaty was entered into”. 51 
 though the money in question had been used by 
 Virginia to carry on the war, and properly be¬ 
 longed to that class of state debts assumed by 
 the federal government, the central government 
 gave the state no aid. On November 30, 1796, 
 resolutions were introduced into the Virginia 
 House of Delegates that money paid into the loan 
 office during the war should be repaid, with in¬ 
 terest, to the payees. 52 The resolutions passed 
 ,^the house on December 5 by a vote of one hun- 
 
 48 Auditor’s Cash Books, 1778-1781, passim. 
 
 50 Legislative Petitions, No. 3611. 
 
 01 Ibid. 
 
 “ Journal of the House of Delegates, November 1796, p. 108. 
 
THE TREATY OF PEACE 
 
 173 
 
 dred and twenty-three to nine, and a committee 
 was appointed to bring in a bill. The bill, con¬ 
 taining the provisions of the resolutions of No¬ 
 vember 30 and making due allowance for depre¬ 
 ciation, became law on December 13. 53 In accor¬ 
 dance with this law, certificates were issued by 
 Virginia to the debtors who had made the pay¬ 
 ments. The auditor was paying interest on these 
 certificates in 1800. 54 
 
 Following the adoption of the Constitution, the 
 foreign creditors were successful in the Virginia 
 state courts as well as the federal courts. In local 
 courts, the debt cases were postponed as long as 
 possible, awaiting, no doubt, rulings from higher 
 courts. In April, 1791, the case of Mitchell vs. 
 Wallis, entered in 1789, was called in the court 
 at Fredericksburg. The laws of Virginia were 
 pleaded to bar recovery of a British debt which 
 came under the fourth article of the treaty of 
 1783. James Monroe, the attorney for the defen¬ 
 dant, argued the Virginia law in vain; judgment 
 was rendered for the plaintiff. 55 William B. 
 Giles wrote to Jefferson, secretary of state, that 
 prior to May, 1792, he had represented the British 
 
 53 Ibid., pp. 127, 160, 194. 
 
 54 Shepherd, Statutes at Large, II. 18. See also Auditor’s Books, 
 1797-1800, passim. 
 
 55 William Giles to Thomas Jefferson, May 1, 1792. Jefferson 
 Papers, LXXIII. 
 
174 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 company of Robert Donald and Company “in at 
 least one hundred cases in which the plaintiffs 
 had received judgments in their favor. 66 The case 
 of Page vs. Pendleton, involving the payment of 
 a British debt into the Virginia loan office, was 
 heard in chancery in May, 1793, two weeks before 
 the case of Ware, Admr. of Jones, vs. Hylton was 
 heard in the United States circuit court. Judge 
 Wythe declared that a controversy in the courts 
 of either country should be decided upon the same 
 basis as a decision would be made in a neutral 
 country. War, he ruled, did not extinguish debts, 
 for Virginia had no jurisdiction over the British 
 debtor or creditor. Debts could be extinguished 
 only by payment. “The Treaty of Peace with 
 Great Britain, if it be valid, abrogated the acts 
 of every state in the union, tending to obstruct 
 the recovery of British debts from the citizens 
 of those states,” and it is not within the jurisdic¬ 
 tion of the court to take cognizance of the invali¬ 
 dity of the treaty. The great chancellor and 
 teacher ruled that the payments into the loan office 
 of Virginia did not discharge debts due to British 
 subjects. 37 Judge Carrington, in the Virginia 
 court of appeals, did not think that the creditor 
 
 M William Giles to Thomas Jefferson, May 1, 1792. Jefferson 
 Papers, LXXIII. 
 
 67 Wythe, Chancery Reports (Edition 1853), pp. 211-18. Page 
 vs. Pendleton. Judge Wythe had paid a small sum into the loan 
 office on August 7, 1779. See Auditor’s Day Book, 1779, p. 20. 
 
THE TREATY OF PEACE 
 
 175 
 
 being “a British subject should have anything to 
 do with the question.” 58 Judge Pendleton, in the 
 same court, declared that, independently of the 
 treaty, the British creditors should be allowed 
 nothing, but ‘‘the Treaty is the law of the land 
 and must be obeyed.” 59 
 
 Despite these decisions in the state and federal 
 courts, debtors attempted by one means or another 
 to avoid or postpone the payments due to British 
 merchants, but the judiciary was not coerced. 
 The debtors first attempted to prevent the estab¬ 
 lishment of debt by exhibiting bonds; they would 
 have the court go behind the bond. The Virginia 
 court ruled in the case of Glen and Peter vs. 
 Cocke, in 1794, that bonds were sufficient evidence 
 of debts. 60 Again the debtors attempted to bar 
 recovery of debts by pleading statutes of limita¬ 
 tion. The Virginia courts refused to allow the 
 time previous to 1783 to be added to the time sub¬ 
 sequent to that date to bar recovery. 61 The only 
 concession that the debtor secured from the Vir¬ 
 ginia courts was the disallowance by the courts of 
 
 08 McCall vs. Turner, 1 Call, 133-46. Judge Carrington had 
 made the first payment into the loan office (£324), in 1778 under 
 the law sequestering debts. 
 
 ™ Ibid, Edmund Pendleton “Collector” paid £449 into the loan 
 office on November 9, 1778. Auditor’s Day Book, 1778, p. 137. 
 
 90 1 Washington 333. 
 
 61 2 Washington 279-81. 
 
176 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 interest on debts during the period of the war. 62 si 
 Subsequent to the adoption of the Constitution, 
 the interest of the the British creditor was safe 
 in both state and federal courts. 
 
 The payment of the debts could no longer he. 
 postponed. The old Virginia aristocracy of colon¬ 
 ial days was forced to pay the claims that had been 
 accumulating for generations. Usually the plant¬ 
 er saved the cost of litigation and settled with 
 his creditor out of court. It was customary for 
 the British merchants to claim no interest for 
 the period during the war, where accounts were 
 settled without recourse to the courts. 63 The set¬ 
 tlement of long standing debts brought distress 
 to the colonial aristocracy; some borrowed heavily 
 in France and remained on their old plantations 
 to struggle with poverty, but many sold what they 
 possessed, paid what debts they could, and moved 
 across the Appalachians to rebuild their fortunes.] 
 
 In the meantime, the relations between the 
 United States and Great Britain were placed on a 
 new footing by Jay’s Treaty. This treaty, which 
 was to settle outstanding difficulties between the 
 two nations, said nothing of the slaves that had 
 been carried away by the British at the end of the 
 American Revolution. It did provide for the 
 
 6 '2 Call 530. See also Hopkins vs. Bell, 3 Cranch 640-42. 
 
 63 Rowland, Life and Correspondence of George Mason, II. 352. 
 
THE TREATY OF PEACE 
 
 177 
 
 i surrender of the posts in the Northwest, but this 
 ■ was no great concession to Virginia and southern 
 agrarianism, since their interest lay farther to 
 the south. Jay’s Treaty gave to British subjects 
 the privilege of possessing property in the United 
 States, a right that had been denied by Virginia. 
 Such a provision greatly aided the British credit¬ 
 ors in the settlement of accounts against American 
 debtors. And, finally, despite the amazing success 
 of the creditors in American courts following the 
 ratification of the Constitution, the claims of 
 British subjects against American citizens were 
 removed from the judiciary and placed in the 
 hands of a joint commission for settlement. The 
 American citizen who had claims against British 
 citizens did not have recourse to this commission 
 until he had exhausted the channels of the British 
 courts. 64 This provision for the removal of a 
 question of such high legal importance from the 
 American judiciary is the more appalling, when 
 it is recalled that the American negotiator was 
 Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United 
 States. 
 
 Jay’s Treaty provided that a joint commission 
 should be appointed, two members by the United 
 States, two members by Great Britain, and a fifth 
 member selected by the appointed commissioners, 
 
 M Bemis, Jay’s Treaty, passim. 
 
178 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 to hear claims arising under the treaty of 1783. 
 The commissioners selected the fifth member by 
 lot, and the choice fell upon the British nominee, 
 giving the British a majority on the commission. 
 The British insisted that interest should be paid 
 for the period during the war upon the debts owed 
 British subjects; the Americans dissented. The 
 British likewise urged the restoration of the es¬ 
 tates of loyalists confiscated by bills of attainder; 
 again the Americans refused to agree. After con¬ 
 siderable discussion, the Americans withdrew 
 from the commission, and the negotiations were : 
 stopped. The agrarian class secured control of 
 the government in 1801. The dispute with Great 
 Britain over the debts was compromised by the 
 Convention of 1802. In this convention, the 
 United States agreed to pay six hundred thousand 
 sterling to the British government as a settle¬ 
 ment for all outstanding claims. This amount 
 was duly paid in three annual installments from 
 the treasury of the United States. 65 
 
 65 American State Papers, Foreign, II. 382-486. See also Bemis. 
 Jay’s Treaty, p. 318. 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
 In the foregoing pages several phases of the 
 Revolution in Virginia have been followed in de¬ 
 tail and , as a result of the investigation, a recapit¬ 
 ulation may be made. In the first place, it should 
 be emphasized that the American Revolution in 
 Virginia did not have the support of the mer¬ 
 chant factors trading in the colony. The mer¬ 
 chants in Virginia were loyalists. Virginia was 
 an agrarian colony. The primitive agricultural 
 methods of the seventeenth and eighteenth cen¬ 
 turies exhausted the soil, and the future of the 
 colony depended upon a continual opening of 
 virgin lands. The merchant looked to the sea, 
 back to the Old World—his prosperity was bound 
 inseparably with navigation laws; the planter 
 looked to the west, forward to the New World— 
 his fortune was buried deep in the new and fer¬ 
 tile lands on the outer fringe of civilization. The 
 British government, seeking to check the French 
 advance in the Mississippi Valley, had permitted 
 and encouraged migration across the mountains 
 prior to 1763. But, with the expulsion of the 
 French from North America and the growth of 
 the Indian problem until it became continental in 
 
180 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 scope, British policy in the West was radically 
 changed. A new government directly under the 
 control of the crown was set up in the Mississ¬ 
 ippi Valley, and the territory beyond the Appala¬ 
 chians was taken from the colonies, which claimed 
 it under charters, and was temporarily closed to 
 settlement. This new land policy barred Virgin¬ 
 ians from the undeveloped country. English-bred 
 planters became American patriots; agrarianism 
 in the South joined hands with commercialism in 
 the North to throw off the British yoke. For Vir¬ 
 ginia, the Revolution was in part a war of agra¬ 
 rian conquest; the British land system was broken 
 down; territory to the west was brought again 
 under the control of Virginia, and virgin lands 
 were opened to settlement. So unanimous was 
 the support of the Revolution by the agricultural 
 class in Virginia that scarcely a loyalist was to 
 be found among the planters. 
 
 Again, it should be noted that the agrarian 
 class, especially the planters in Virginia, was hope¬ 
 lessly in debt to British merchants and to their 
 agents in the colony. For this class, the war had 
 its advantages. Virginia, as the other colonies, 
 began the war with an empty treasury and with 
 no established credit. The raising of necessary 
 revenues was a problem that well might puzzle the 
 most astute financier; custom duties were impos- 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
 181 
 
 sible; direct taxes were certain to be unpopular 
 and might defeat the very object of the Revolu¬ 
 tion. The agrarian solution was recourse to large 
 issues of paper money, followed by the sequestra¬ 
 tion and sale of property belonging to alien ene¬ 
 mies to support the issues. The indebted planter 
 was permitted by Virginia law to discharge his 
 i debt to the enemy merchant by paying the sum 
 due into the treasury of the state in depreciated 
 paper money. The benefits of this policy to the 
 state were small, but in it were great possibilities 
 for the planters. 
 
 Agrarian and commercial interests that had 
 united in a common cause in 1776 realized that 
 their interests were not always in harmony when 
 America came to make peace with England. The 
 fruits that agricultural Virginia hoped to reap 
 from the war of conquest were only partially real¬ 
 ized. The treaty of peace obligated Great Britain 
 to surrender the coveted Mississippi Valley, but 
 already Virginia had ceded this territory to the 
 central government to preserve unity among the 
 states. Virginia was not represented at Paris 
 during the peace negotiations, nor did any active 
 member of the American delegation represent the 
 agrarian South, while the commercial interests 
 were strongly represented in Adams, Jay, and 
 Franklin. Anticipating future commercial rela- 
 
182 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 tions, the treaty of 1783 required American 
 debtors to pay debts due prior to the war and 
 placed moral obligations upon the states to re¬ 
 store loyalist property. Virginia was indignant, 
 and, so long as the execution of the treaty de¬ 
 pended upon the states, nothing was done to ful¬ 
 fill its provisions. The agrarian class, in part, 
 opposed the creation of a central government that 
 would have absolute control of international re¬ 
 lations; it fought the adoption of the Constitu-y 
 tion on the ground that the new government, con¬ 
 trolled by the commercial class, would enforce 
 those provisions in the treaty of 1783 which were 
 unpopular in the agricultural sections. 
 
 And, finally, the ratification of the Constitution 
 and the execution of the treaty of 1783, coming 
 contemporary with the new financial policies, 
 brought the agrarian and commercial classes face 
 to face. The courts of the United States forced 
 the planters to make the long deferred settlements 
 with the British merchants. Many of the bank¬ 
 rupt aristocrats moved into the promising West, 
 carrying with them a dislike and distrust of 
 Federalism. The unencumbered yeomanry came 
 rapidly to the fore in Virginia, and that state, 
 which had been the stronghold of aristocracy, be¬ 
 came the bulwark of Republicanism. 
 
 f. ? 3 
 
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Official Manuscript Sources 
 
 Auditor’s Day Books. Virginia State Library. The 
 method of keeping the daily accounts was irregular. Sev¬ 
 eral of the Day Books are marked Cash Books; some of 
 the daily entries are in discarded Ledger Books. Where 
 the pages are numbered in the Day Books the number of 
 the page on which the entry is made is cited; many pages 
 are not numbered—here the date of entry is given. The 
 amounts paid into the auditor’s office by the escheators 
 for the sale of sequestered property, and the amount 
 paid into the loan office to discharge debts due British 
 subjects are recorded in these books. They have been of 
 inestimable value. 
 
 Auditors Papers 1776-1796. Virginia State Library. 
 A mass of classified and unclassified papers, a large part 
 of them on military affairs. For the greater part they 
 have been of little value in the preparation of this mono¬ 
 graph. Two boxes of these papers, numbers 15 and 16, 
 are reports on escheated property. Only the returns from 
 Norfolk County are complete. 
 
 Colonial Papers 1755-1776. Virginia State Library. A 
 box of papers containing the reports from the military 
 authorities about Norfolk in 1775-1776. These papers 
 are informing on the early activities of the loyalist mer¬ 
 chants. The reports are published, in part, in Richmond 
 College Historical Papers, Vol. I. 
 
 Council Journals 1776-1796. Virginia State Library. 
 Petitions and cases of many loyalists were referred to 
 the Council, especially when the assembly was not in 
 session. A study of the Journal of the Council affords 
 excellent illustrations of the treatment of the loyalists 
 by the state authorities. 
 
184 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 Executive Communications. Virginia State Library. 
 Papers and documents sent from the executive office to 
 individuals, committees and other departments of the gov¬ 
 ernment. In this collection are the recommendations of 
 the executive to the assembly, reports on loyalists, 
 directions to escheators, and communications with the 
 attorney-general. 
 
 Executive Papers. Virginia State Library. Papers 
 sent to the executive office. Reports of legislative com¬ 
 mittees, statements from other departments, individual 
 claims and a few scattered petitions. 
 
 Governor’s Letter Book. Virginia State Library. Let¬ 
 ters written by the Governor in Council to the assembly, 
 to public officials and to individuals. The original drafts 
 of many of these letters are in the Executive Communi¬ 
 cations. 
 
 Papers of the Continental Congress. Library of Con¬ 
 gress. Volumes LXXI and LXXII contain the~-©fficial 
 correspondence of Virginia with the Continental Con¬ 
 gress. Volume XI includes the surviving intercepted 
 loyalist letters. The majority of these letters were de¬ 
 stroyed by the Post-Office Department years ago. 
 
 Patent Books. Virginia Land Office. Records of the 
 lands granted by the colony and state of Virginia. Deeds 
 for sequestered estates sold by Virginia are recorded in 
 these books. Titles granted by the state, chiefly for 
 lands in the west, for the period 1778-1796 fill twenty- 
 five volumes of 300 to 800 pages each. The estimate of 
 lands sold by Virginia during the Revolution and after is 
 based on an examination of these books; these records, 
 therefore, have been of primary importance in preparing 
 parts of this monograph. 
 
 Petitions to the Assembly. Virginia State Library. 
 Approximately 25,000 petitions dating from 1774 to 1850. 
 Three thousand of these petitions are dated in the period 
 of this study (1776-1796). The petitions are being in¬ 
 dexed and checked against the Journals of the Assembly 
 by Mr. Morgan Robinson and when the indexing is com- 
 
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 185 
 
 pleted they will be an accessible source of valuable infor¬ 
 mation. These petitions have been of great assistance in 
 tracing the claims of loyalists and the origin of loyalist 
 legislation. 
 
 United States Circuit Court Records. United States 
 Government, Richmond, Va. The records of the federal 
 court fully attest the importance of the British debt cases 
 in the newly established federal courts. Suits, a sum¬ 
 mary of the pleadings and the action of the Court are 
 recorded in the case books, especially Books I and II. 
 The court records filed away in separate boxes furnish 
 additional data concerning the history of individual ac¬ 
 counts; from these records one can ascertain whether the 
 sum in question was borrowed to purchase a blooded race 
 horse, to pay the expenses of a son attending school in 
 England, or to provide silver for a betrothed daughter. 
 These records are an interesting and an apparently unex¬ 
 plored source of information. I am indebted to Mr. 
 Stanard of the Virginia Historical Society for calling 
 my attention to them. 
 
 Transcripts and Facsimiles 
 
 British Transcripts. Library of Congress. JThese 
 transcripts, especially thoseTronrthe'papers in the Public 
 Record Office, Colonial Office Series, contain a wealth of 
 information on the colonial and early Revolutionary 
 period. The instructions to and the reports from the 
 royal agents have been used extensively for the period 
 1774-76. The British Government kept agents in the 
 colonies throughout the Revolution, and their reports are 
 valuable. 
 
 Transcripts of the Manuscript Books and Papers of 
 the Commission of Inquiry into the Losses and Services 
 of the American Loyalists. New York Public Library. 
 Three volumes cover the inquiry of the British commis¬ 
 sioners into the claims arising in Virginia; one volume for 
 the proceedings of the Commissioners at Halifax, and 
 two volumes for the London Commissioners. 
 
186 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 Facsimiles of Manuscripts in European Archives relat¬ 
 ing to America 1773-1783. By B. F. Stevens. 25 vol¬ 
 umes. London 1898. 
 
 Official Printed Sources 
 
 American Archives: Fourth Series, containing a Docu¬ 
 mentary History of the English Colonies in North 
 America from the King’s Message to Parliament of 
 March 7, 1774, to the Declaration of Independence of 
 the United States, by Peter Force. Washington, 1843. 
 
 Annals of the Congress of the United States, Wash¬ 
 ington, 1849. 
 
 American State Papers, Part I, Foreign Affairs, Vol¬ 
 umes I-III. Washington, 1834. 
 
 A Calendar of the Virginia State Papers and other 
 Manuscripts Deposited in the Virginia Library. 11 Vol¬ 
 umes. Edited by W. P. Palmer and others. Richmond, 
 1889-93. The calendar is incomplete and the index is 
 poor. Unfortunately the editors did not indicate in what 
 collection the original manuscript could be found. 
 
 The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the 
 adoption of the Federal Constitution, as recommended by 
 the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787 together 
 with the Journal of the Federal Convention, by Jonathan 
 Elliot. 1830. 
 
 Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolu¬ 
 tion. 10 Volumes. Jared Sparks. Boston, 1830. 
 
 Journals of the Continental Congress 1774-1789, edited 
 from the Original Records in the Library of Congress, 
 by W. C. Ford et. al. 25 Volumes, (1774-1783). Wash¬ 
 ington, 1904-1924. 
 
 Journal of the Virginia House of Delegates. This 
 Journal has been consulted frequently. With the excep¬ 
 tion of the May session, 1782, a complete set of the 
 Journals is known to exist. The Journal for 1796 has 
 never been printed but the manuscript is in the Virginia 
 State Library. 
 
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 187 
 
 Journal of the Senate of Virginia. Several of the 
 Journals, including May 1780, May 1781, October 1781, 
 May 1782, October 1782, May 1783, May 1784, October 
 
 '■ 1784 and October 1785 are not known to exist. 
 
 Proceedings of the Committees of Safety of Cumber¬ 
 land and Isle of Wight Counties, Virginia, 1775-1776. 
 Edited by H. R. Mcllwaine. (In Fifteenth Annual Re¬ 
 port of the Library Board of the Virginia State Library, 
 
 • 1917-1918). Richmond. 
 
 Records of the Federal Convention, edited by Max 
 
 • Farrand. 3 volumes. Washington, 1911. 
 
 Report of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of 
 Appeals of Virginia, by Daniel Call. 6 volumes. Rich¬ 
 mond, 1833. 
 
 Report of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court 
 of Appeals of Virginia, by Bushrod Washington. 2 vol¬ 
 umes. Richmond, 1798-99. 
 
 The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the 
 United States, edited by Francis Wharton with a Pre¬ 
 liminary index and notes Historical and Legal. 6 vol¬ 
 umes. Washington, 1889. 
 
 The Royal Commission on the Losses and Sendees of 
 the American Colonists, 1783-1785, edited by H. E. Eger- 
 ton. London, 1917. 
 
 The Statutes at Large being a Collection of all the 
 Laws of Virginia from the First Session of the Legisla¬ 
 ture in the Year 1619, by W. W. Hening. 13 volumes. 
 Richmond, 1823. 
 
 Statutes at Large of Virginia from October Session 
 1792 to December Session, 1806, inclusive, by Samuel 
 Shepherd. 3 volumes. Richmond, 1835. 
 
 Unofficial Manuscript 
 
 Jefferson Papers. Library of Congress. This great 
 body of papers contains many letters written to Jefferson 
 by his friends in Virginia describing conditions and events, 
 local and national. These letters have been of great value 
 in supplementing material found elsewhere. 
 
188 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 Thq Papers of James Madison. Library of Congress. 
 During the twenty years following the Declaration of In¬ 
 dependence Madison was greatly interested in Virginia 
 politics. When absent from the state he received letters 
 from friends in Virginia at regular intervals. In his wide 
 range of correspondence he frequently related, or had re¬ 
 lated to him, the drift in local politics, especially the oc¬ 
 currences in the Virginia assembly. The writers usually 
 knew more than is recorded in the Journals of the assem¬ 
 bly, and often they gave interesting information. Madison 
 was interested in the legal and constitutional phases of 
 sequestration. 
 
 The Letters of James Monroe. Library of Congress. 
 Monroe’s letters are not as rich in information, nor as 
 bulky in volume for the period as are those of Jefferson 
 and Madison. The letters which passed between Monroe, 
 Madison and Jefferson have been the most helpful. 
 
 Unofficial Printed Collections 
 
 The John P. Branch Historical Papers of Randolph 
 Macon College, Edited by W. E. Dodd. Volume I. 1901. 
 
 Documentary History of Dunmorc’s War 1774. Edited 
 by R. G. Thwaites and L. P. Kellogg. Madison, 1905. 
 
 The Works of Benjamin Franklin inserting the Private 
 as well as Official and Scientific Correspondence together 
 with the unmutilated and correct version of the Auto¬ 
 biography. Complied and edited by John Bigelow. 12 
 volumes. (Federal Edition) New York, 1904. 
 
 Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 1763- 
 1829, edited by Henry Phelps Johnston. 4 Volumes, n.d. 
 
 The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, collected and edited 
 by Paul L. Ford. 10 Volumes. 1892-1899. New York. 
 
 The Writings of James Madison, comprising his Public 
 Papers and Private Correspondence, including numerous 
 Letters and Documents now for the First Time Printed. 
 Edited by Gaillard Hunt. 9 Volumes. 1900-1910. 
 
 The Revolution on the Upper Ohio, 1775-1777. Edited 
 by R. G. Thwaites and L. P. Kellogg. Madison, 1908. 
 
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 189 
 
 Newspapers 
 
 The Richmond and Manchester Advertiser. Richmond, 
 Virginia. 
 
 The South Carolina Gazette. Charleston, South Caro¬ 
 lina. 
 
 The Virginia Sentinel and Gazette. Williamsburg and 
 Richmond, Va. 
 
 Pamphlets 
 
 The Case of the American Loyalists Impartially Stated 
 and Considered. London, 1783. 
 
 Considerations of the Present State of Virginia, attri¬ 
 buted to John Randolph, Attorney-General, and Consider¬ 
 ation of the Present State of Virginia Examined by 
 Robert Carter Nicholas, 1774. Reprinted and edited by 
 Earl G. Swem (Virginia State Library Bulletin, 1919.) 
 
 Observation on the Fifth Article of the Treaty with 
 America; and on the necessity of appointing a Judicial 
 Enquiry into the Merits and Losses of the American Loy¬ 
 alists. Printed by Order of their Agents. 1783. At¬ 
 tributed to Joseph Galloway. 
 
 Opinions on the Sixth Article of the Treaty with Great 
 Britain by T. MacDonald. (About 1784). 
 
 Reasons why no Deductions ought to be made from the 
 Amount of the Sum's due to the American Loyalists by 
 the Commission of American Claims. By the Agents. 
 (About 1791). 
 
 Periodicals 
 
 Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography. 47 
 Volumes. Philadelphia. 
 
 Tyler’s Quarterly Historical and Genealogical Maga¬ 
 zine. 5 volumes. Richmond. 
 
 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. 30 
 Volumes. Richmond. 
 
 William and Mary College Quarterly. 27 Volumes. 
 Richmond. 
 
 Special Monographs 
 
 Broome, E. C. Northern Neck Lands. (Fauquier 
 Historical Society Bulletin, No. I). 
 
190 
 
 LOYALISM IN VIRGINIA 
 
 Eckenrode, H. J. Separation of Church and State in 
 Virginia. A Study in the Development of the Revolution. 
 (Sixth Annual Report of the Library Board of Virginia 
 State Library.) 
 
 George, J. A. Virginia Loyalists 1775-1783. (Rich¬ 
 mond College Historical Papers, Volume I.) 
 
 Harrison, Fairfax. The Bristow Estate and Brent 
 Town. (Tyler’s Quarterly, Volume IV, No. 1.) 
 
 Jones, E. A. The Journal of Alexander Cliesney, a 
 South Carolina Loyalist in the Revolution and After. 
 (Ohio State University Bulletin, Volume XXVI, No. 4.) 
 
 Lingley, C. R. Transition in Virginia from Colony to 
 Commonwealth. (Columbia University Studies, Volume 
 XXXVI, No. 2.) 
 
 McIlwaine, H. R. The Struggle of Protestant Dis¬ 
 senters for Religious Toleration in Virginia. (John Hop¬ 
 kins University Studies, Series XII, No. 4.) 
 
 Ripley, W. Z. The Financial History of Virginia. 
 1893. 
 
 Siebert, W. H. The Loyalists of Pennsylvania. (Ohio 
 State University Bulletin, Volume XXIV, No. 23.) 
 
 Thom, W. T. The Struggle for Religious Freedom in 
 Virginia: The Baptists. (Johns Hopkins University 
 Studies, Series XVIII, Nos. 10-12.) 
 
 Thomas, B. S. The Loyalty of the Church of England 
 in Virginia. Richmond, 1907. (Pamphlet, 22 pages.) 
 
 Other Secondary Works 
 
 Alvord, C. W. Mississippi Valley in British Politics. 
 2 Volumes, 1917. 
 
 Beard, C. A. Economic Interpretation of the Consti¬ 
 tution of the United States. 1913. 
 
 Beard, C. A. Economic Origins of Jeffersonian De¬ 
 mocracy. 1915. 
 
 Bemis, S. F. Jay’s Treaty, a Study in Commerce and 
 Diplomacy. 1923. 
 
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 191 
 
 Beveridge, A. J. Life of John Marshall. 4 Volumes. 
 1916-19. 
 
 
 Conway, M. D. Omitted Chapters of History dis¬ 
 closed in the Life and Papers of Edmund Randolph. 
 
 Second Edition. 1889. 
 
 Eckenrode, H. J. The Revolution in Virginia. 1916. 
 Flippin, P. S. The Royal Government in Virginia 
 1624-1776. (Columbia University Studies, Volume 
 LXXXIV, No. 1). 1919. 
 
 Ford, P. L. The Life and Letters of Joseph Jones. 
 
 ; 1892. 
 
 Henry, W. W. Patrick Henry, Life, Correspondence 
 and Speeches. 3 volumes. 1891. 
 
 McRee, G. J. Life and Correspondence of James Ire¬ 
 dell. 2 volumes. 1857-58. 
 
 Mordecai, Samuel. Richmond in By-gone Days: 
 being Reminiscences of an old Citizen. 1856. 
 
 Rowland, K. M. George Mason, Life Correspondence 
 and Speeches 1725-1792. 2 volumes. 1892. 
 
 Sabine, Lorenzo. Loyalists of the American Revolu¬ 
 tion. 2 volumes. 1852. 
 
 Schlesinger, A. M. Colonial Merchants and the 
 American Revolution. 1917. 
 
 Tyler, M. C. Patrick Henry. 1888. 
 
 Van Tyne, C. H. The Loyalists in the American 
 Revolution. 1902. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Accomac, draft riots in, 60. 
 
 Agnew, John, loyalist, 49; 64; 
 property sold, 97n. 
 
 Albemarle, taxes in arrears, 
 121n.; petition assembly for 
 paper money, 152. 
 
 Albion, takes loyalists to Eng¬ 
 land, 48; 77. 
 
 Alexandria, sale of confiscated 
 property, 97. 
 
 Allmand, Thomas, purchases 
 confiscated property, 98. 
 
 Ambler, John, on currency, 122. 
 
 Amherst, sales of confiscated 
 property, 95. 
 
 Andrews, William, leaves Vir¬ 
 ginia, 64. 
 
 Anglican clergy, participation 
 in Revolution, 63-64. 
 
 Applewhite, Thomas, property 
 sold, 97n. 
 
 Auditor’s books, 7; 94; 183. 
 
 Augusta, taxes in arrears, 121n. 
 
 Baine, Edward, property re¬ 
 stored, 102. 
 
 Ballatine, John, property sold, 
 97n. 
 
 Banister, John, on return of 
 British merchants, 142. 
 
 Banks, Henry, land speculation, 
 122n. 
 
 Bannerman, Benjamin, property 
 sold, 97n. 
 
 Baptist, participation in Revo¬ 
 lution, 64. 
 
 Baxter, Carter, land speculation, 
 122n. 
 
 Baylor, John, petition to as¬ 
 sembly, 90. 
 
 Beal, Samuel, land speculation, 
 122n. 
 
 Bedford, prisoners in, 53; fear 
 of draft riots in, 61; taxes 
 in arrears, 121n. 
 
 Berkeley, petition to assembly 
 against British merchants, 
 83; commissioners sell Lord 
 Dunmore’s property, 85n.; in¬ 
 quest over property, 108; 
 resolutions on Treaty of 
 Paris, 133. 
 
 Blanford, sale of confiscated 
 property, 97. 
 
 Bonetta, takes loyalists to New 
 York, 55. 
 
 Booth, George, in convention 
 1775, 36. 
 
 Boston Port Bill, in Virginia, 
 31. 
 
 Boucher, Jonathan, leaves Vir¬ 
 ginia, 64. 
 
 Bowers, John, on Dunmore’s 
 War, 15n. 
 
 Bowman and Spiers, sue for 
 debts, 162. 
 
 Bowness, George and John, 
 property sold, 97n. 
 
 Brent, William, debts, 28. 
 
 Bristow, Robert, property con¬ 
 fiscated, 100. 
 
 Brooke, Robert, attorney-gen¬ 
 eral, 108. 
 
 Brown, John, property sold, 
 97n. 
 
 Bruce, John, leaves Virginia, 
 64. 
 
 Bruce, Philip, patriot, 65. 
 
 Buchanan and Hastie, sue for 
 debts, 162. 
 
 Buchanan, James, property 
 seized, 102. 
 
 Buckingham, taxes in arrears, 
 
 120. 
 
194 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Burnley, Hardin, merchant, 
 123; interest in debt cases, 
 167n. 
 
 Calderhead, William, loyalist, 
 58; 123. 
 
 Calvert, James Campbell, prop¬ 
 erty sold, 97n. 
 
 Camm, John, loyalist, 63. 
 
 Campbell, Alexander, attorney, 
 164. 
 
 Campbell, James, property con¬ 
 fiscated, 97n. 
 
 Campbell, John, and Connolly 
 lands, 100; address to Lord 
 Dunmore, 36. 
 
 Cannon, John, address to Lord 
 Dunmore, 36. 
 
 Caroline, petition to assembly 
 against confiscation, 91; reso¬ 
 lutions against loyalists, 134- 
 135 ; British merchants threat¬ 
 ened, 141. 
 
 Carrington, Paul, debts, 81; 
 judge in British debt cases, 
 175. 
 
 Carter, Landon, on Revolution 
 in Virginia, 6-7; on Dun- 
 more’s War, 15n; on Lord 
 Dunmore, 43; on local com¬ 
 mittees, 46. 
 
 Cary, Archibald, debts, 27. 
 
 Cary, Wilson Miles, petition to 
 assembly to refund sequester¬ 
 ed debts, 171. 
 
 Chisholm, William, property 
 sold, 97n. 
 
 Christian, William, land claims, 
 
 22. 
 
 Clark, George Rogers, con¬ 
 quest of Northwest, 20. 
 
 Claypole, John, leads riot, 60. 
 
 Coleman, David, and oath of 
 allegiance, 74. 
 
 Collins, Henry, property con¬ 
 fiscated, 99. 
 
 Colston, Rawleigh, purchases 
 Fairfax title, 110. 
 
 Confiscated property, process of < 
 confiscation, 87 ; 88n.; records 
 concerning, 93-94; sales, 95- 
 98; used by the state, 99; do¬ 
 nated to schools, 99; restored, 
 100; claims against, 102; con¬ 
 fiscation law suspended, 102; 
 used to redeem military cer¬ 
 tificates, 103; 108. 
 
 Connell, James, property re¬ 
 stored, 102. 
 
 Connolly, John, land grant to, 
 11; at Fort Pitt, 35; the 
 “Connolly Plot”, 37; visit to 
 General Gage, 37; commis¬ 
 sioned by Lord Dunmore, 40; 
 captured, 42; property con¬ 
 fiscated, 100. 
 
 Constitution (United States) 
 and debts, 156; opposition to < 
 in Virginia, 157; 160; before 
 Virginia convention, 158-160; 
 amendments proposed, 160. 
 
 Constitutional controversy, in 
 Revolution, 4-7. 
 
 Continental Congress, and con¬ 
 quest of Northwest, 20; op¬ 
 position to Virginia land 
 policy, 21; legislation against 
 loyalists, 66-69; recommends 
 confiscation, 88n.; and paper 
 currency, 116. 
 
 Corbin, Garvin, loyalist, 63. 
 
 Corbin, George, county lieu¬ 
 tenant, 60. 
 
 Corbin, Richard, loyalist, 49; 
 63. 
 
 Cornwallis, Lord, and Virginia 
 loyalists, 54-55. 
 
 Courts, in Virginia after Revo¬ 
 lution, 154; provisions in Vir¬ 
 ginia constitution, 155; and 
 debts, 173-176; see debts. 
 
 Cox, John, loyalist, 57. 
 
 Crammond, John, property sold, 
 97n. 
 
 Crawford, French, property se¬ 
 questered, 99. 
 
INDEX 195 
 
 Crawford, William, land claims, 
 
 11 . 
 
 Cropper, John, on depreciation 
 of currency, 115. 
 
 Cruden, Alexander, leaves Vir¬ 
 ginia, 64. 
 
 Cunningham and Company, 
 agent in Virginia throughout 
 the Revolution, 49; property 
 confiscated, 95n.; 98; prop¬ 
 erty sold, 97; building of 
 used for meeting of assembly, 
 99; sue for debts, 162. 
 
 Currency, issue of paper in 
 Seven Years War, 23; de¬ 
 mand for paper in 1765, 24; 
 gold shipped to Europe, 25; 
 issue of paper in Revolution, 
 113; 87n.; depreciation of 
 paper, 82; 114; pgpep-ce^ses 
 to circulate^ 115; papsr 
 funded, 118; effect of con¬ 
 traction,'119-122; demand for 
 paper 1786, 151; see Conti¬ 
 nental Congress. 
 
 Custom duties, amount col¬ 
 lected in Virginia, 23. 
 
 Jf V «:^3SSg! 
 
 Dar/ihouth, Lord, on western 
 landfi, 10; 12; 16; on Dun- 
 more\ War 15n. 
 
 Davidson\James, property con/ 
 fiscated, 97n. 
 
 Debts, British, due from plant¬ 
 ers, 26-28; >23j 128»f; se¬ 
 questered, 80; payments 
 under sequestration law, 81- 
 84; attempts to collect after 
 Revolution, 123-127; 136-138; 
 141; 143-151; and Treaty of 
 Paris, 129-133; and federal 
 Constitution, 157-161; Vir¬ 
 ginia petitions Congress 
 against collection, 163 ; 169; 
 cases in federal courts, 162- 
 171; cases in Virginia courts, 
 173-176; and Jay’s Treaty, 
 177-178; significance of col¬ 
 
 lection, 176; 182; see “stay 
 laws”; Treaty of Paris. 
 
 Dinwiddie, Governor, on lands 
 in Virginia, 8. 
 
 Dinwiddie and Company, prop¬ 
 erty confiscated, 95n. 
 
 Dissenters, number, 4. 
 
 Dobney, Colonel, suppresses loy¬ 
 alists, 57. 
 
 Dobson and Dalteria, sue for 
 debts, 162. 
 
 Donald, Robert, sues for debts, 
 162. 
 
 Donaldson and Company, sue 
 for debts, 162. 
 
 Donelson, Isaac, loyalist, 59. 
 
 Draft, riots against, 60-61. 
 
 Draper, Lyman, on Dunmore’s 
 War, 15n. 
 
 Duncan, Charles, merchant, 75. 
 
 Dunmore, Lord, on collection 
 of quitrents, 8; on bounty 
 lands, 11; on western prob¬ 
 lem, 12n.; Dunmore’s War, 
 13-15; 17; and land specula¬ 
 tion, 14; and land grants, 17; 
 and Illinois Company, 14; 16; 
 and Richard Henderson, 19; 
 as governor, 30; takes refuge 
 on British ship, 32; and 
 “Connolly Plot”, 37-42; 
 treatment of loyalists, 44; 
 49; at Charleston, 52; prop¬ 
 erty sold, 85. 
 
 Dunn, James, property confis¬ 
 cated, 97n. 
 
 Duval, William, on price of 
 lands, 121. 
 
 Dye, Fauntleroy, arrested, 53. 
 
 Eckenrode, H. J., on Revolu¬ 
 tion in Virginia, 5 ; 8; 28n. 
 
 Elizabeth City, loyalism in, 54. 
 
 Essex, petition on British debts, 
 130; resolutions on Treaty of 
 Paris, 132; loyalist mobbed in, 
 137. 
 
196 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Ewing, John, property confis¬ 
 cated, 97n. 
 
 Fairfax (county), inquest over 
 property, 108. 
 
 Fairfax estate, inquest ordered, 
 90; history, 103; sequestered, 
 104; quitrents abolished, 104; 
 title in dispute, 105-108; in¬ 
 quest, 108-109; title of set¬ 
 tlers on, 109; sold to land 
 syndicate, 110; compromise 
 of 1796, 110; in United 
 
 States courts, 111. 
 
 Farrar, Thomas, property con¬ 
 fiscated, 97n. 
 
 Farrar, William, property con¬ 
 fiscated, 97n. 
 
 Fauquier, inquest over prop¬ 
 erty, 108; 109. 
 
 Finance, as cause of Revolution 
 in Virginia, 22-25; and con¬ 
 fiscation, 78-81; during Revo¬ 
 lution, 87n.; 113-116; see 
 
 confiscation. 
 
 Fisher, John, petition to as¬ 
 sembly for oath of allegiance, 
 91. 
 
 Flibeck, Jonathan, property con¬ 
 fiscated, 97n. 
 
 Fluvanna, sale of confiscated 
 property, 95. 
 
 Fort Detroit, British garrison, 
 43. 
 
 Fort Pitt, loyalism at, 33; 35; 
 52. 
 
 Frazer, Simon, loyalist, 53. 
 
 Frederick, petition to assembly 
 against British merchants, 83; 
 inquest over property in, 108; 
 109; petition on British debts, 
 130. 
 
 Galt, Gabriel, loyalist, 57. 
 
 Gatewood, William, indicted 
 for attack on loyalist, 137. 
 
 Gibson, George, address to Lord 
 Dunmore, 36. 
 
 Giles, William B., attorney, 173. 
 
 Gilmore, Robert, property con¬ 
 fiscated, 97n. 
 
 Girty, Simon, address to Lord 
 Dunmore, 36. 
 
 Gist, Samuel, property confis¬ 
 cated, 101. 
 
 Glen and Peter vs. Cocke, bond 
 sufficient evidence of debt, 
 175. 
 
 Gloucester, sale of confiscated 
 property, 95; taxes in ar¬ 
 rears, 121n. 
 
 Godfrey, Matthew, escheator in 
 Norfolk, 95. 
 
 Godwin, Christopher, petition 
 to assembly for restoration of 
 property, 100. 
 
 Goodall, Richard, property re¬ 
 stored, 101. 
 
 Goodrich, John, arrested, 46; 
 property confiscated, 97n; 
 claims against, 102. 
 
 Gordon, Alexander, resigns 
 parish, 64. 
 
 Gosport, Lord Dunmore at, 32; 
 property destroyed, 45. 
 
 Grayson, William, and com¬ 
 plaints of British merchants 
 against Virginia, 148-149. 
 
 Great Bridge, battle at, 41. 
 
 Greenbriar, courts threatened, 
 152. 
 
 Greenwood, John, property con¬ 
 fiscated, 97n. 
 
 Grymes, Phillip, loyalist, 53. 
 
 Halifax, resolutions on British 
 debts, 129; 130; instructions 
 to delegates on Treaty of 
 Paris, 132. 
 
 Hamilton, John, property con¬ 
 fiscated, 100. 
 
 Hampden and Sidney College, 
 receives confiscated property, 
 100 . 
 
 Hampshire, draft riots in, 60. 
 
INDEX 197 
 
 Hampton, petition to assembly 
 for sale of British property, 
 86 . 
 
 Hanbury, Osgood, debts due 
 from Virginia, 27; property 
 at Hampton, 86; sues for 
 debts, 162. 
 
 Hanover, petition against re¬ 
 turning loyalists, 131. 
 
 Hardy, John, property confis¬ 
 cated, 97n. 
 
 Hardy, Thomas, escheator in 
 Isle of Wight, 95. 
 
 Harmer, John, property se¬ 
 questered, 101. 
 
 Harrison, Benjamin, debts, 27; 
 on return of British mer¬ 
 chants, 125-126; 138. 
 
 Harrison, Burr, debts, 27. 
 
 Harrison, William, debts, 28. 
 
 Henderson, Richard, and Pat- 
 trick Henry, 10; outlawed by 
 Lord Dunmore, 19; plans 
 checked by Virginia, 20. 
 
 Henrico, property sold, 98; pe¬ 
 tition against returning loy¬ 
 alists, 131. 
 
 Henry, citizens take oath of 
 allegiance, 73; taxes in ar¬ 
 rears, 121n. 
 
 Henry, Patrick, on price of 
 western land, 9; and Vir¬ 
 ginia claims to western lands, 
 9; land speculation, 13; 21; 
 and conquest of Northwest, 
 20; debts, 27; on return of 
 British, 139; 143; on British 
 debts, 145-147; no faith in 
 Congress, 150; advocates 
 paper money, 152; on federal 
 Constitution, 158; attorney 
 in Ware vs. Hylton, 167; at¬ 
 torney in Jones vs. Walker, 
 164-166. 
 
 Heth, William, on return of 
 loyalists, 134; 142. 
 
 Hodges, James, property con¬ 
 fiscated, 97n. 
 
 Hodges, Joshua, property con¬ 
 fiscated, 97n. 
 
 Hogg, Peter, on public credit, 
 115. 
 
 Hogg, Richard, loyalist, 57. 
 
 Holland, John, loyalist, 59. 
 
 Hunter, Banks and Company, 
 land speculation, 122n. 
 
 Hunter and Blair, property con¬ 
 fiscated, 95n. 
 
 Hurt, Mary, claims against 
 John Bowness, 102. 
 
 Hylton, Daniel, sued for debt, 
 167; petition to assembly to 
 refund sequestered debts, 171. 
 
 Hyndman, John, property con¬ 
 fiscated, 95n. 
 
 Innes, Hugh, land speculation, 
 13; 22. 
 
 Innes, James, attorney, 164. 
 
 Iredell, James, judge in debt 
 cases, 168; 170. 
 
 Isle of Wight, sale of confis¬ 
 cated property, 95; 98. 
 
 Jackson, Basil, arrested, 58. 
 
 James City, loyalism in, 54. 
 
 Jamieson, Neil, house burned 
 by General Lee, 47; before 
 assembly, 47; in New York, 
 48; property confiscated, 97n. 
 
 Jay, John, report on execution 
 of Treaty of Paris, 150; and 
 treaty obligations, 161; judge 
 in debt cases, 168-170; Jay’s 
 Treaty and debts, 176. 
 
 Jefferson, Peter, land specula¬ 
 tion, 13. 
 
 Jefferson, Thomas, on British 
 land policy, 18; drafts Vir¬ 
 ginia land law, 21; estimate 
 of debts due from Virginia, 
 26; 123; debts, 27; 84; and in¬ 
 structions to peace commis¬ 
 sioners on British debts, 
 127n.; sued for debt, 162; 
 drafts confiscation act, 87; 
 expects difficulties over con- 
 
198 
 
 INDEX 
 
 fiscation, 92; minister to 
 France , 128; estimate of 
 Negroes carried away by 
 British, 145n.; consults with 
 British merchants, 149; on 
 Jones vs. Walker, 166n. 
 
 Johnson, William, property con¬ 
 fiscated, 97n. 
 
 Johnston, Andrew, merchant, 
 136. 
 
 Jones and Farrell, debts due 
 from Virginia, 27; debts se¬ 
 questered, 163; sue for debts, 
 162; 163; 167. 
 
 Jones, Joseph, debts, 28; esti¬ 
 mate of British debts, 128n.; 
 and return of loyalists, 142; 
 petition to assembly to refund 
 sequestered debts, 171. 
 
 Jones vs. Walker, no decision 
 on British debts, 163-167. 
 
 Jordome, Sarah, petition to 
 assembly to exempt estate 
 from confiscation, 91. 
 
 Kempsville, British success at, 
 39. 
 
 Kerr, John, property confis¬ 
 cated, 101; threatened, 141. 
 
 King, Walter, property confis¬ 
 cated, 101. 
 
 Kippin and Company, debts due 
 from Virginia, 27; unable to 
 collect debts, 151; sue for 
 debts, 162. 
 
 Knight, Benjamin, property 
 confiscated, 97n. 
 
 Lancaster, draft riots in, 61; 
 sale of confiscated property, 
 95. 
 
 Land, records, 7; 93 ; 184; de¬ 
 mand for more, 7-8; price, 
 8-9; grants 1772-1774, 9; 
 
 bounties, 11; restrictive col¬ 
 onial policy, 11; 16; as cause 
 of Dunmore’s War, 13-15; 
 new provisions for granting 
 
 in 1774, 18; as cause of 
 Revolution, 19; seized by 
 Virginia in Revolution, 19- 
 20; terms granted by Vir¬ 
 ginia, 20-21; Virginia grants 
 1779-1782, 22; revenue from, 
 87n.; military grants, 122n.; 
 significance, 112; 179-180; 
 
 see confiscated property. 
 
 Laws, suspended by colonial 
 governors, 4. 
 
 Lee, Arthur, and western lands, 
 9. 
 
 Lee, Henry, land speculation, 
 21; purchases confiscated 
 property, 97; purchases Fair¬ 
 fax title, 110. 
 
 Lee, Richard Evers, claims 
 against Sprowle estate, 102. 
 
 Lee, Richard Henry, reports 
 loyalist, 53; in Congress, 66; 
 and British debts, 139n. 
 
 Lewis, Andrew, on Dunmore’s 
 War, 15n.; land speculation, 
 22 . " 
 
 Lidderdale, Archibald, debts due 
 from Virginia, 27. 
 
 Literary Fund, receives confis¬ 
 cated property, 100. 
 
 Loudoun, inhabitants protest 
 against confiscation, 91. 
 
 Louisa Company, offer to make 
 Patrick Henry a member, 10. 
 
 Louisa, property sold for taxes, 
 
 121 . 
 
 Loyalists, excluded from elec¬ 
 tion 1775, 32; in Norfolk, 33- 
 35; at Fort Pitt, 35-37; 43; 
 at Kempsville, 39; treatment 
 by Lord Dunmore, 44-45; 
 suppressed, 46-48; leave Vir¬ 
 ginia, 48; in military service, 
 48-49; on frontier, 50-51; in 
 Bedford, 53; in Middlesex, 
 53; at Yorktown, 54-55; 
 treatment after war, 57-59; 
 number in Virginia, 62; 
 claims filed with British 
 
INDEX 
 
 199 
 
 commission, 62-63; in Ang¬ 
 lican ministry, 63; among of¬ 
 ficials, 63; legislation against 
 by Congress, 66-69; property 
 sequestered, 70-71; oath of 
 allegiance tended, 73-74; 
 property confiscated, 87; pe¬ 
 titions to assembly, 90-91; 
 property sold, 93-99; property 
 used by public, 99-100; prop¬ 
 erty restored, 100-102; re¬ 
 turn after Revolution, 123; 
 and Treaty of Paris, 130; agi¬ 
 tation against 1783-1784, 134; 
 driven from Virginia, 140; 
 some permitted to return, 
 140; see merchants. 
 
 Loyall, Paul, purchases confis¬ 
 cated property, 97. 
 
 Lunenburg, sale of confiscated 
 property, 98; taxes in arrears, 
 121n. 
 
 Lynch, Captain, suppresses loy¬ 
 alists, 52. 
 
 Lyne, John, land speculation, 
 122n. 
 
 Lynn, Andrew, property confis¬ 
 cated, 95n. 
 
 Lynn, John, property confis¬ 
 cated, 95n. 
 
 Lyons, John, loyalist, 54; 64. 
 
 Mackie, Andrew, purchases 
 confiscated property, 98. 
 
 Madison, James, on execution 
 of Treaty of Paris, 144-145; 
 on debts, 148; on treaties as 
 supreme law, 153n.; on rati¬ 
 fication of Constitution, 158; 
 161. 
 
 Madison, Thomas, land specu¬ 
 lation, 21. 
 
 Manchester, sale of confiscated 
 property, 97; members of 
 assembly visit, 147. 
 
 Marshall, James, purchases 
 Fairfax title, 110. 
 
 Marshall, John, purchases Fair¬ 
 fax title, 110; on federal 
 Constitution, 159; attorney, 
 164. 
 
 Mason, George, and western 
 lands, 9; and loyalists, 72; 
 and British merchants, 75; 
 and British debts, 130; 139n.; 
 144; on federal Constitution, 
 158-159. 
 
 Maxwell, James, claims against 
 Sprowle estate, 102. 
 
 McAllester, Hector, merchant, 
 123. 
 
 McCall, Archibald, petition to 
 assembly, 90. 
 
 McDowell, James, property con¬ 
 fiscated, 99. 
 
 McHarg, Ebenezer, petition to 
 assembly, 91. 
 
 McKee, Alexander, address to 
 Lord Dunmore, 36; and 
 “Connolly Plot”, 43; loyal¬ 
 ist, 52; property confiscated, 
 99. 
 
 McKenzie, Robert, property 
 confiscated, 99. 
 
 McKnight, Thomas, property 
 confiscated, 97n. 
 
 McLean, John, merchant, 123. 
 
 Mecklenburg, petition to as¬ 
 sembly against British Mer¬ 
 chants, 78; 79; sale of con¬ 
 fiscated property, 95; 98; 
 
 property seized for taxes, 120. 
 
 Mercer, Hugh, land specula¬ 
 tion, 22. 
 
 Merchants, British, and London 
 exchange, 25; debts due from 
 planters, 26-28; 123; 128n.; 
 in Norfolk, 33; interest in 
 Revolution, 33; loyalists, 62- 
 63; 74; legislation against, 74- 
 77; driven from Virginia, 76- 
 78; and paper currency, 79; 
 return after Revolution, 123- 
 127; in Petersburg, 136; agi¬ 
 tation against, 134-140; per- 
 
200 
 
 INDEX 
 
 mitted to return, 140; treat¬ 
 ment of those returning, 140- 
 141; citizenship of restricted, 
 143; in Virginia courts, 144; 
 petition assembly for payment 
 of debts, 146; complain of 
 ill treatment, 148-150; in 
 federal courts, 161-171; in 
 state courts, 173-176; and 
 Jay’s Treaty, 177-178; see 
 debts; confiscated property. 
 
 Methodist, participation in 
 Revolution, 65. 
 
 Middlesex, loyalism in, 53. 
 
 Military certificates, specula¬ 
 tion in, 122. 
 
 Miller, James, property confis¬ 
 cated, 97n. 
 
 Miller, Simon, and oath of al¬ 
 legiance, 74. 
 
 Mills, John, property seized, 
 
 102. 
 
 Milner, Thomas, merchant, 123. 
 
 Mississippi Land Company, and 
 Virginia claims, 9. 
 
 Mitchell vs. Waller, Virginia 
 law set aside, 173. 
 
 Monroe, James, United States 
 Senator, 169; attorney, 173. 
 
 Morgan, Willoughby, property 
 confiscated, 97n. 
 
 Muhlenburg, Peter, major gen¬ 
 eral, 63. 
 
 Nansemond. King’s standard 
 raised, 39; loyalism in, 54; 
 loyalists convicted, 59; sale of 
 confiscated property, 98. 
 
 Navy, Virginia navy in Revo¬ 
 lution, 69n. 
 
 Nelson, Thomas, in assembly, 
 92. 
 
 Nester, Richard, purchases con¬ 
 fiscated property, 98. 
 
 Nevill, John, on loyalism at 
 Fort Pitt, 43. 
 
 Newton, Thomas, on loyalists, 
 56. 
 
 Nicholas, Robert Carter, colon¬ 
 ial treasurer, 25; on Boston 
 Port Bill, 31; on Lord Dun- 
 more, 41; 44. 
 
 Ninzies, Ninan, property confis¬ 
 cated, 99. 
 
 Norfolk, loyalism in, 33-35; 38; 
 54; 56; 57; destroyed, 42; 
 trial of loyalists, 59; citizens 
 take oath of allegiance, 70; 
 sale of confiscated property, 
 95-97. 
 
 Northampton, riots in, 61. 
 
 Northumberland, taxes in ar¬ 
 rears, 121n.; resolutions on 
 Treaty of Paris, 134. 
 
 Norton, J. H., complaints 
 against Virginia debtors, 148. 
 
 Orange, William, property con¬ 
 fiscated, 97n. 
 
 Oswald and Company, property 
 confiscated, 95n. 
 
 Page, Carter, petition to as¬ 
 sembly to refund sequestered 
 debts, 171. 
 
 Page vs. Pendleton, opinion of 
 Judge Wythe, 174. 
 
 Paradise, Lucy and John, peti¬ 
 tion to assembly against con¬ 
 fiscation, 90. 
 
 Parker, Josiah, on Methodist 
 in Revolution, 65. 
 
 Parker, Richard, reports loyal¬ 
 ist, 52-53. 
 
 Pendleton, Edmund, debts, 27; 
 on Lord Dunmore, 44; judge 
 in debt cases, 175. 
 
 Perdue, George, merchant, 34. 
 
 Petersburg, loyalism in, 50; 
 sale of confiscated property, 
 97; British merchants return 
 to, 136; British merchants 
 threatened, 141; 142; local 
 merchants petition assembly 
 on debts, 146. 
 
 Peyton, Craven, petition to as¬ 
 sembly on Fairfax estate, 91. 
 
INDEX 
 
 201 
 
 Planters, political theories 
 among, 5-6; desire for land, 
 7; fear Virginia will lose 
 land claims, 10; 19; debts due 
 to merchants, 26-28; purchase 
 heavily in England, 24; see 
 merchants; debts; land. 
 
 Population, rapid growth in 
 Virginia, 8. 
 
 Portsmouth, loyalists threat¬ 
 ened at, 141. 
 
 Powell, Levin, land specula¬ 
 tion, 21; treatment of loyal¬ 
 ists, 44. 
 
 Powhatan, property seized for 
 taxes, 120; taxes in arrears, 
 121n. 
 
 Preston, William, on Dun- 
 more’s War, 15n. 
 
 Previt, Joseph, petition to as¬ 
 sembly to refund sequestered 
 debts, 171. 
 
 Prices, land, 8; 18; 21; 121; 
 commodities, 115; 126. 
 
 Prince Edward, demand for 
 paper money in, 152. 
 
 Princess Anne, King’s standard 
 raised, 39; loyalism in, 40; 
 54; 56; loyalism suppressed, 
 57; trial of loyalists, 59; 
 property seized for taxes, 120. 
 
 Prince William, confiscated 
 property sold, 98. 
 
 Proclamation of 1763, and 
 bounty lands, 11; restrictive 
 policy, 17. 
 
 Purdie, Alexander, patriot, 63. 
 
 Quitrents, Dunmore on collec¬ 
 tion of, 8; rates doubled in 
 Virginia, 18; abolished, 21; 
 amount collected, 23; seques¬ 
 tered on Fairfax estate, 104; 
 abolished on Fairfax estate, 
 104. 
 
 Ramsey, Elizabeth, petition to 
 assembly against confiscation, 
 91. 
 
 Randolph, Edmund, patriot, 63 ; 
 treaties paramount law, 156; 
 member of assembly, 157; 
 on British debts, 159; attor¬ 
 ney general, 169. 
 
 Randolph, John, loyalist, 63. 
 
 Randolph, John, debts, 161. 
 
 Randolph, Ryland, debts, 28. 
 
 Rankin, William, property con¬ 
 fiscated, 97n. 
 
 Reid, Thomas, merchant, 77. 
 
 Richmond, merchants in, 75; 
 confiscated property at used 
 by state, 99; little specie in, 
 122; local merchants petition 
 assembly, 146; circuit court 
 at, 163. 
 
 Riddle, James, merchant, 123. 
 
 Ritchie, Archibald, before as¬ 
 sembly, 47; loyalist, 49; 53. 
 
 Roane, Spencer, in assembly, 
 137. 
 
 Robinson, John, defaulter, 24. 
 
 Rockingham, taxes in arrears, 
 121n. 
 
 Ross, Alexander, address to 
 Lord Dunmore, 36; loyalist, 
 52; land speculation, 122n. 
 
 Ross, David, petition to assem¬ 
 bly for oath of allegiance, 91. 
 
 Rowland, Zachariah, loyalist, 
 57. 
 
 Saunders, John, loyalist, 49. 
 
 Seldon, Miles, patriot, 63. 
 
 Sequestration, of estates, 70; 
 of debts, 80-81; law repealed, 
 83; payments refunded, 171- 
 173; of estates, 84-86; of 
 Fairfax estate, 104-106. 
 
 Shedden, Robert, merchant, 34; 
 arrested, 46; property confis¬ 
 cated, 97n. 
 
 Shenandoah, inquest over prop¬ 
 erty, 108. 
 
 Simons, Joseph, and Connolly 
 lands, 100. 
 
202 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Smith, Meriwether, on return 
 of loyalists, 135. 
 
 Smith, Thomas, patriot, 63. 
 
 Smithfield, sale of confiscated 
 property, 95n.; 97. 
 
 Spiers, Andrew, property con¬ 
 fiscated, 95n.; 100. _ 
 
 Spotsylvania, taxes in arrears, 
 121n. 
 
 Sprowle, Andrew, loyalist, 44; 
 property confiscated, 97n.; 98. 
 
 “Stay laws,” passed 1781, 124; 
 passed November 1783, 144; 
 passed May 1784, 145. 
 
 Stephenson, Andrew, property 
 confiscated, 97n. 
 
 Stewart, Thomas, property con¬ 
 fiscated, 97n. 
 
 Stuart, Roger, property confis¬ 
 cated, 97n. 
 
 Suffolk, sale of confiscated 
 property, 97. 
 
 Taxes, colonial, 23; on loyal¬ 
 ists, 73; collected 1778, 82; 
 87n.; payable in commodities, 
 119; collections postponed, 
 119; delinquent, 120-121. 
 
 Taylor, John, in assembly, 138; 
 United States Senator, 169. 
 
 Thompson, Talbot, property 
 confiscated, 97n. 
 
 Thurston, Charles, member of 
 assembly, 64. 
 
 Timoly, Joshua, and oath of 
 allegiance, 74. 
 
 Transylvania University, re¬ 
 ceives confiscated property, 
 
 99. 
 
 Treaty of Paris, news received 
 in Virginia, 127; terms, 127- 
 128; attitude of Virginia 
 debtors towards, 128; com¬ 
 ments on in Virginia press, 
 129; petitions on in Virginia 
 assembly, 130; and loyalists, 
 133-135; 142; before Virginia 
 assembly, 144; not executed 
 
 in Virginia, 148-150; see 
 debts; loyalists. 
 
 Tucker, St. George, on ratifica¬ 
 tion of Constitution, 160. 
 
 Tyler, John, on Treaty of Paris, 
 128; 132; on return of loyal¬ 
 ists, 139. 
 
 Upham, Colonel, report on 
 Virginia loyalists, 54. 
 
 Upshur, Arthur, loyalist, 34. 
 
 Walker, Thomas, sued for 
 debts, 163. 
 
 Waller, Benjamin, debts, 28. 
 
 Walpole Company, and Vir¬ 
 ginia claim to western lands, 
 10 . 
 
 Ward, Edward, address to 
 Lord Dunmore, 36. 
 
 Ware, Admr. of Jones, vs. Hyl¬ 
 ton, Virginia sequestration 
 law set aside, 167-171. 
 
 Warwick, loyalism in, 54. 
 
 Washington, George, land 
 speculation, 11; 22. 
 
 Webb, George, debts, 27. 
 
 Wentworth, Paul, on Revolu¬ 
 tion in Virginia, 4. 
 
 West Augusta, inhabitants pe¬ 
 tition Congress for govern¬ 
 ment, 35n. 
 
 Wilkie, John, property seized, 
 85. 
 
 Williams, John, property con¬ 
 fiscated, 95n. 
 
 Williamsburg, prisoners at, 56; 
 public buildings ordered sold, 
 113. 
 
 Williamson, Joseph, mobbed, 
 137. 
 
 Winchester, prisoners at, 51; 
 resolutions on Treaty of 
 Paris, 133. 
 
 Wingate, John, loyalist, 64. 
 
 Wishart, William, suppresses 
 loyalists, 57. 
 
INDEX 
 
 203 
 
 Wood, James, Indian agent, 
 35n. 
 
 Wormley, John, returns to Vir¬ 
 ginia, 136. 
 
 Wormley, Ralph, loyalist, 49; 
 53; 63. 
 
 Wray, Collins, property confis¬ 
 cated, 97n. 
 
 Wythe, George, in Congress, 
 66; judge in debt cases, 174. 
 
 York, loyalism in, 54. 
 Yorktown, Lord Dunmore takes 
 refuge at, 32; loyalism in, 57; 
 55. 
 
 Younghusband, John, merchant, 
 123. 
 

 
 
 
 ( 
 
 / 
 
 
 s' 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 /> 
 
 
 
 r 
 
 \ ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 V 
 
 
r * 
 
 • * 
 
 s - -V* - t * 
 
 r 
 
 
 
.5 H296L copyl 88553 
 
 4 
 
 f 
 
 
 » 
 
 ;