We his Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the late representatives of the good people of this country, having been deprived by the sudden interposition of the executive part of this government from giving our countrymen the advice we wished to convey to them in a legislative capacity, find ourselves under the hard necessity of adopting this, the only method we have left, of pointing out to our countrymen such measures as in our opinion are best fitted to secure our dearest rights and liberty from destruction, by the heavy hand of power now lifted against North America: With much grief we find that our dutiful applications to Great Britain for security of our just, antient, and constitutional rights, have been not only disregarded, but that a determined system is formed and pressed for reducing the inhabitants of British America to slavery, by subjecting them to the payment of taxes, imposed without the consent of the people or their representatives; and that in pursuit of this system, we find an act of the British parliament, lately passed, for stopping the harbour and commerce of the town of Boston, in our sister colony of Massachusetts Bay, until the people there submit to the payment of such unconstitutional taxes, and which act most violently and arbitrarily deprives them of their property, in wharfs erected by private persons, at their own great and proper expence, which act is, in our opinion, a most dangerous attempt to destroy the constitutional liberty and rights of all North America. It is further our opinion, that as TEA, on its importation into America, is charged with a duty, imposed by parliament for the purpose of raising a revenue, without the consent of the people, it ought not to be used by any person who wishes well to the constitutional rights and liberty of British America. And whereas the India company have ungenerously attempted the ruin of America, by sending many ships loaded with tea into the colonies, thereby intending to fix a precedent in favour of arbitrary taxation, we deem it highly proper and do accordingly recommend it strongly to our countrymen, not to purchase or use any kind of East India commodity whatsoever, except saltpetre and spices, until the grievances of America are redressed. We are further clearly of opinion, that an attack, made on one of our sister colonies, to compel submission to arbitrary taxes, is an attack made on all British America, and threatens ruin to the rights of all, unless the united wisdom of the whole be applied. And for this purpose it is recommended to the committee of correspondence, that they communicate, with their several corresponding committees, on the expediency of appointing deputies from the several colonies of British America, to meet in general congress, at such place annually as shall be thought most convenient; there to deliberate on those general measures which the united interests of America may from time to time require. A tender regard for the interest of our fellow subjects, the merchants, and manufacturers of Great Britain, prevents us from going further at this time; most earnestly hoping, that the unconstitutional principle of taxing the colonies without their consent will not be persisted in, thereby to compel us against our will, to avoid all commercial intercourse with Britain. Wishing them and our people free and happy, we are their affectionate friends, the late representatives of Virginia. The 27th day of May, 1774. Peyton Randolph, Ro. C. Nicholas, Richard Bland, Edmund Pendleton, Richard Henry Lee, Archibald Cary, Benjamin Harrison, George Washington, William Harwood, Robert Wormeley Carter, Robert Munford, Thomas Jefferson, John West, Mann Page, junior, John Syme, Peter Le Grand, Joseph Hutchings, Francis Peyton, Richard Adams, B. Dandridge, Henry Pendleton, Patrick Henry, junior, Richard Mitchell, James Holt, Charles Carter, James Scott, Burwell Bassett, Henry Lee, John Burton, Thomas Whiting, Peter Poythress, John Winn, James Wood, William Cabell, David Mason, Joseph Cabell, John Bowyer, Charles Linch, William Aylett, Isaac Zane, Francis Slaughter, William Langhorne, Henry Taylor, James Montague, William Fleming, Rodham Kenner, William Acril, Charles Carter, of Stafford, John Woodson, Nathaniel Terry, Richard Lee, Henry Field, Matthew Marable, Thomas Pettus, Robert Rutherford, Samuel M’Dowell, John Bowdoin, James Edmondson, Southy Simpson, John Walker, Hugh Innes, Henry Bell, Nicholas Faulcon, junior, James Taylor, junior, Lewis Burwell, of Gloucester, W. Roane, Joseph Nevil, Richard Hardy, Edwin Gray, H. King, Samuel Du Val, John Hite, junior, John Banister, Worlich Westwood, John Donelson, Thomas Newton, junior, P. Carrington, James Speed, James Henry, Champion Travis, Isaac Coles, Edmund Berkeley, Charles May, Thomas Johnson, Benjamin Watkins, Francis Lightfoot Lee, John Talbot, Thomas Nelson, junior, Lewis Burwell.
We the subscribers, clergymen and other inhabitants of the colony and dominion of Virginia, having maturely considered the contents of the above association, do most cordially approve and accede thereto. William Harrison, William Hubard, Benjamin Blagrove, William Bland, H. J. Burges, Samuel Smith M’Croskey, Joseph Davenport, Thomas Price, David Griffith, William Leigh, Robert Andrews, Samuel Klug, Ichabod Camp, William Clayton, Richard Cary, Thomas Adams, Hinde Russell, William Holt, Arthur Dickenson, Thomas Stuart, James Innes.
Broadside (DLC: Broadside Collection). Another copy (NN) was enclosed in the letter of 28 May from the Virginia Committee of Safety to the Connecticut committee, and bears an endorsement identical with that on the Fast-Day Resolution of 24 May, above. Evans 13747; 407; Sabin 100007. As TJ stated in his Autobiography, after Dunmore had “dissolved us as usual,” the burgesses “retired to the Apollo …, agreed to an association, and instructed the committee of correspondence to propose to the corresponding committees of the other colonies to appoint deputies to meet in Congress at such place, annually, as should be convenient to direct, from time to time, the measures required by the general interest: and we declared that an attack on one colony should be considered as an attack on the whole” ( i, 11). Peyton Randolph, who was both speaker of the House of Burgesses and chairman of the committee of correspondence, acted as “moderator” of the meeting; the eighty-nine members who signed the declaration issued by the meeting constituted all but fourteen of the membership known to have attended the recent session of the House. It is not known who prepared the text of the declaration; it was probably, though not certainly, printed by Clementina Rind. Though it was among the earlier calls for a general congress, the Virginia proposal was not the very first; see E. I. Miller, “The Virginia Committee of Correspondence of 1773–1775,” , 1st ser., xxii (1913–1914), 109, and note. On the following day (28 May) the committee of correspondence met, TJ being present, and ordered letters to be sent to all the colonies transmitting the Resolves of the meeting of the 27th; for the form of the letters of transmittal, see , 1773–1776, p. 138. Note: The annotations to this document, and any other modern editorial content, are copyright © Princeton University Press. All rights reserved. Back to top In 2019, Virginia celebrated the 400th anniversary of the first representative legislative assembly in North America. While the idea of representation has continued to be redefined over the course of America’s experiment in democracy, it is important to understand the origins of democratic assembly in the United States, and its birth in the Virginia House of Burgesses. Establishment and Background A burgess is simply a member of a governing body. Today we may use the word representative or delegate. In colonial America, Maryland and Virginia had governing bodies known as the House of Burgesses. The first meeting of the Virginia General Assembly in 1619 established the House of Burgesses in Virginia. Meeting in the wooden church at Jamestown, the General Assembly followed orders derived from the Virginia Company’s “Great Charter” of 1618. The new charter was a necessary next step in the government and regulation of the Virginia colony.  The colony’s first charter allowed for a seven-man council to “govern” the colony, which proved largely ineffective in the early years of settlement from 1607-1609. The next charter, issued in May 1609, allotted for a governor with a body of advisors. This also proved ineffective given that its issue coincided with the deadly “starving time” of the winter of 1609/10. However, this charter gave the governor powers to enact martial law. In 1610, Sir Thomas West, Lord de la Warr, built upon previous regulations set forth by Sir Thomas Gates and constructed the “Laws Divine, Morall and Martiall,” to course-correct the struggling colony. At their core, the laws were designed to enforce discipline and conduct, but ignored the central tenants of English common law under which English colonists understood themselves to be beholden (such as trial by jury). In 1618, the Virginia Company appointed a new governor for the Virginia colony, Sir George Yeardley. Virginia Company members including Sir Edwin Sandys drafted “Instructions to George Yeardley.” This set of instructions became known as “The Great Charter,” as it abolished the current martial law and allowed for the authority of a royally-appointed governor and council who, in turn, was authorized to appoint a General Assembly. Yeardley complied with the instructions for “two Burgesses from each Plantation freely to be elected by the inhabitants thereof.” The General Assembly, then, would “establish one equal and uniform government over all Virginia” for the purpose of passing “just laws for the happy guiding and governing of the people there inhabiting.” At that time the colony consisted of eleven jurisdictions from which 2 burgesses were each elected. After the initial elections, the House of Burgesses met in the wooden church at Jamestown on July 30, 1619. John Pory served as speaker of the assembly. It is important to note that the directions to Yeardley stipulated that the elected burgesses must meet in assembly with the governor and his six-men advisory council, as well as the treasurer and secretary of the colony. This first meeting ran for 6 days, during which upwards of 30 men endured such conditions inside the church that two men were caused to become ill, and one burgess died on the third day “by reason of extreme heat.” Nonetheless, the proceedings were dubbed a success. The next year, members of the Virginia Company wrote “having pursued the Acts of the general assembly…found theme in their greatest part to be very well and judicially carried and performed.” Evolution and Challenges The House of Burgess and joint assembly of the colonial governor and his council faced challenges throughout the years. When King James I revoked the charter of the Virginia Company in 1625, Virginia became a royal colony. The assembly waited for instructions from the king but they were slow to come. Charles I officially recognized the powers of the assembly in his appointment of Sir Francis Wyatt as colonial governor in 1639. An important change came about in 1643 when Governor Sir William Berkeley allowed the House of Burgesses to meet separately, without the assembled governor or council. This created a two-system (bicameral) legislature for the first time in Virginia’s history. The House of Burgesses grew in importance during the English Civil Wars (1642-1648) when Berkeley and the Assembly were forced to surrender to the new English government after the disposal of Charles I. Under this new authority, the Burgesses were authorized to select a governor and council. In 1660, the Burgesses restored Berkeley as governor. Some of the progress the House of Burgesses were able to make in this period were repealed by Charles II in the wake of Bacon’s Rebellion. Further, James II removed the Burgesses’ right to select governors and council members. The House of Burgesses moved from Jamestown to Williamsburg when the seat of government transferred there in 1699. Eighteenth-Century and Toward Revolution With the governor now being a crown appointee, members of the House of Burgesses lost political power. Further, suspicion grew that as royal governors appointed burgesses to important posts, this would unfairly influence the activities of the House. The House attempted to pass legislation to enact a sort of checks and balances, whereby a Burgess appointed to an additional post by a royal governor was required to resign as burgess. Throughout the 18th century, the House continued to meet, and began to see itself as a Parliamentary equivalent in Virginia. Toward the middle of the 18th century, the House of Burgesses regained some authority as many took up the cry of colonists who felt that their interests were not represented in Parliament in London. Many future founding fathers, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry began their political careers as burgesses. Before he achieved “give me liberty or give me death,” fame, Patrick Henry presented his Stamp Act Resolves to the House of Burgesses on May 29, 1765. In his resolves, Henry argued that the only authority authorized to levy taxes on Virginia colonists was the General Assembly itself, lest “British as well as American freedom” be destroyed. In 1774, the House of Burgesses ran afoul of the royal-appointed governor John Murray, earl of Dunmore. On May 24 the House passed a resolution designating a Day of Feasting and Prayer in support of the city of Boston. In the resolution, the burgesses noted it was “highly necessary that the said first Day of June be set apart by the Members of this House as a Day of Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer, devoutly to implore the divine Interposition for averting the heavy Calamity, which threatens Destruction to our civil Rights[sic], and the Evils of civil War; to give us one Heart and one Mind firmly to oppose, by all just and proper Means, every Injury to American Rights…” So incised was Dunmore that he dissolved the Assembly immediately. The burgesses continued to meet extra-legally in secret locations around Williamsburg, including the Raleigh Tavern, to discuss their next course of action. From these meetings came the Virginia Conventions, wherein many of the elected members were former burgesses. The first four conventions largely dealt with how to plan for the defense of the colony in the event of war, including establishing the Committee of Safety. The fifth Virginia Convention in 1776, however, formally declared the relationship between Virginia and King and Parliament “totally dissolved,” and instructed the Virginia delegates to the Second Continental Congress to vote in favor of a resolution on independence. This convention also made allowances for the establishment of the Virginia Declaration of Rights and a state constitution. The new Virginia state constitution, ratified in 1776, nullified Virginia’s previous colonial-era government, including the House of Burgesses. It create a bicameral state legislature, allowing for citizens to elect members to a Senate and a House of Delegates. Legacies It is important to note the limitations of representation as reflected in the past. From its beginnings in 1619, this first legislative body consisted only of free, white male land owners. In many ways, their legislation reflected the needs and priorities of individuals just like them. Virginia’s House of Burgesses is remembered as the first representative legislative body in English North America, though the importance of representation in government continues to evolve. Further Reading: |
Why did the House of Burgesses stop meeting
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 frojeostern Inc.
