Case IH Tractor 445M2 & 445T,M2

Engine (PX70, PX85 Irrigation Power

Units) Service Manual_6-17660
To download the complete and correct content, please visit:

https://manualpost.com/download/case-ih-tractor-445m2-445tm2-engine-px70-px8
5-irrigation-power-units-service-manual_6-17660

Case IH Tractor 445M2 & 445T,M2 Engine (PX70, PX85 Irrigation Power Units)
Service Manual_6-17660Size : 106 MBFormat : PDFLanguage : EnglishNumber of
Pages : 180 pagesBrand: Case IHType of machine: TractorType of document:
Service ManualModel: 445M2 & 445T,M2 Engine (PX70, PX85 Irrigation Power
Units)Part No: 6-17660
Download all on: manualpost.com.
 [Unrelated content]
Another random document on
Internet:
Assembly for fear it might question their proceedings. It is true that six
times they set the date for a meeting of the Assembly, but six times they
postponed it. At last, when people began to question whether these
frequent postponements did not put an end to the Assembly, the Council
settled all doubts by dissolving them by proclamation.
This was a dangerous thing to do, for it was in the midst of the War of
the Spanish Succession, and an Assembly was needed to provide funds
for the defense of the colony. But the Council gambled that no French
fleet would appear in the Chesapeake Bay. The normal expenses of the
government—their own salaries and those of the President, Auditor,
Attorney General, and other officials—they paid out of the export duty
on tobacco and the quit rent fund. In September, 1708, Jenings wrote
that privateers had come in between the capes and had chased a
merchant vessel up the York River, that the Indians were threatening the
frontier, that the Governor's house was unfinished, and that the quit rent
fund was "much drained," but that despite all, the Council would not call
an Assembly.[21]
In December, 1709, Lord George Hamilton, Earl of Orkney, was
appointed Governor General of Virginia. Orkney had been trained as a
soldier, and had distinguished himself at Namur, Blenheim, Malplaquet,
and elsewhere. It is probable that it was intended from the first that the
office should be a sinecure, and though Orkney held it for years he
never set foot on Virginia soil. But Virginia had to pay his salary, for his
£1,000 a year was taken out of the export duty on tobacco. To carry on
the administration in the colony Colonel Alexander Spotswood was made
Lieutenant Governor.
It would seem that in the years from the recall of Nicholson to the
arrival of Spotswood, the danger to liberty in Virginia came less from the
Throne than from the Council. A free people could not be quiet under
the rule of a body of twelve men, not chosen by the voters but
appointed by the sovereign.
The average planter, not only the owner of only a few acres, but the
man of means had reason to be alarmed. Was it consistent with the
principles of English liberty, they must have asked, for a clique of
wealthy men, many of them united in one family, to have such power
over their lives and their property? If the people were to rule, final
authority must be vested in the House of Burgesses, not the Council.

FOOTNOTES:
[1] CO5-1315, Bassett to Perry & Co., Aug. 30, 1706.
[2] CO5-1314, Doc. 63iv.
[3] Hugh Jones, The present state of Virginia, ed. R. L. Morton, 93.
[4] P. A. Bruce, Social life of Virginia, 133
[5] T. J. Wertenbaker, The planters of colonial Virginia, 155-160.
[6] CO5-1318, Spotswood to Lords of Trade, March 20, 1718.
[7] CO5-1340, Doc. 15.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid., Doc. 19.
[10] CO5-1316, p. 450.
[11] Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1702-1712: 131.
[12] Ibid., 147.
[13] CO5-1362, March 26, 1707.
[14] CO5-1315, Quary to Lordships, Sept. 1, 1706.
[15] CO5-1317.
[16] CO5-1315, Aug. 30, 1706.
[17] Executive journals of the Council 3: 119, 120.
[18] CO5-1362, p. 121.
[19] CO5-1314, Doc. 15.
[20] CO5-1362, pp. 336-340.
[21] CO5-1362, pp. 318, 325.
 CHAPTER X

SPOTSWOOD

A lexander Spotswood arrived in Virginia June 20, 1710, aboard the

warship Deptford, and spent the night at Green Spring, with his
future enemy, Philip Ludwell. Two days later he met with the Council
around the oval table in the beautiful Council Chamber in the new
Capitol, and laid his commission before them.
The new Lieutenant Governor was descended from a family of
Scottish Anglicans. His great-grandfather had seconded Archbishop
Laud's attempt to introduce the Prayer Book in Scotland; his grandfather
had been put to death by the Presbyterians. Perhaps it was this tragedy
which induced his father to desert his native land and take service in the
English army. It was while he was with his regiment in Tangier that
Alexander Spotswood was born.
The son chose to follow in the father's footsteps, and in 1693 we find
him serving in the Earl of Bath's regiment in Flanders. He fought
gallantly, was wounded at Blenheim, and was captured at Oudenarde. It
is possible that he served under the Earl of Orkney, also, and that was
the reason he named him as his deputy in Virginia. "I must ever own
gratefully that to your Lordship's good will I owe my station here," he
wrote Orkney in 1718.
Spotswood was one of the ablest Governors sent to America to
represent the British Crown. He did much to open the West to Virginia,
encouraged settlement in the Piedmont, and erected forts in the passes
of the Blue Ridge. He wiped out a nest of pirates under the notorious
Blackbeard and strung several of them up at Williamsburg. A man of
artistic interests, he was responsible for the beautiful Palace gardens,
with their wealth of boxwood, walks, walls, lake, ornate gates, flower
beds; and designed charming Bruton Parish Church.
 In 1716 he led a party of gentlemen, accompanied by rangers,
servants, and Indians, on an exploring expedition to the West. As they
rode through the wilderness of the Piedmont, they shot deer and bears,
camped in the open, roasted venison on wooden forks. On reaching the
Blue Ridge they toiled to the summit, and there, looking out over the
Valley of Virginia, drank the health of King George I and the royal family.
After descending into the Valley and crossing the Shenandoah River,
they turned their horses' heads homeward. Back in Williamsburg, the
Governor presented each of his companions with a golden horseshoe,
inscribed with sic juvat transcendere montes.
Although Spotswood was accused of being haughty and implacable,
he lacked the fiery temper of Nicholson or the revengeful fury of Sir
William Berkeley. In his conflicts with the Council his astute mind and his
knowledge of English and Virginia constitutional law made it easy for
him to refute their arguments. Though he defended the powers of the
Crown, he was honestly concerned for the welfare of the colony. But he
hated democracy, and he had no patience with what he termed the
follies of the ignorant multitude. Despite his assaults on the Virginia
aristocracy, his ambition was to become one of them, and he used his
office to build up one of the greatest estates in the colony.
The instructions given Spotswood by the Lords of Trade were on the
whole wise and liberal. The people of Virginia were to have the full
benefit of the habeas corpus; fees and salaries must be moderate; no
one must be deprived of life, member, or property without due process
of law; martial law was forbidden; the people were to be supplied with
arms. Yet several clauses were loaded with trouble for the Lieutenant
Governor—one for appointing courts to try criminals; another for
preventing frauds in the accounts of governmental receipts and
payments; another for collecting arrears of quit rents; one to prevent
the holding of large tracts of unoccupied land.
When this last instruction was read to the Council, they must have
shifted uneasily in their seats, for most of them held land which they did
not cultivate. Fourteen years earlier Edward Randolph had reported this
to the Lords of Trade. The reason the colony was so thinly settled, he
thought, was that poor men would not go there "because members of
the Council and others who made an interest in the government, have
from time to time procured grants of very large tracts of land." Thus
newcomers and indentured workers on becoming free were forced to be
tenants or go to the utmost bounds of the colony. The remedy, he
suggested, was to force payment of arrears of quit rents and prohibit for
the future grants of more than 500 acres.[1]
Both Nott and Hunter had been instructed to cancel patents for land
of any who neglected to cultivate even a small part of their holdings. So
now Spotswood, in the face of bitter opposition, restricted all grants to
400 acres unless the patentee showed that he was able to meet this
requirement. In 1710 he tried to satisfy the Lords of Trade by pushing
through a law stating what should be considered satisfactory seating,
and in 1713 another making the regulations still more specific.[2]
The chief effect of these acts was to arouse the resentment of the
Council. They assented to them in their capacity as the Upper House of
the Assembly because they dared not flaunt openly the commands of
the British government. But they found means to make them
inoperative. The rumor was spread throughout the colony that the
attorney general in England had ruled that no lands patented prior to
the passage of these acts was liable to forfeiture. To ease men's fears,
several large landholders purposely refused to pay quit rents. Even John
Grymes, the deputy auditor into whose hands the quit rents were paid,
himself remained in arrears "to show no danger in that law."[3]
Spotswood admitted that the law was a failure when he wrote in 1718:
"No man in Virginia has yet had land granted away for non-payment of
quit rents."
When Spotswood came to Virginia there were many complaints of
hard times. The war in Europe had proved disastrous to the tobacco
trade, the flow of hogsheads to the continent of Europe had been
reduced to a trickle, tobacco piled up in the British warehouses, the
merchants left a part of each crop on the planters' hands, and the price
dropped lower and lower. Many of the poorer farmers were in rags, and
some began to raise sheep and to spin and weave. The salaried class,
especially the clergy, were in dire straits also, since they were paid in
tobacco, often of the lowest grade.
 The fertile brain of Spotswood now thought out a scheme intended to
raise the price of tobacco, give the colony a convenient and stable
currency, make the collecting of quit rents easier, and prevent frauds in
shipping out tobacco. So he got one of his friends in the Assembly to
introduce a bill to require inspection of all tobacco at government
warehouses, and the issuing of tobacco notes which were to be legal
tender. This plan had much to recommend it, and a similar one was put
into successful operation later during the administration of Governor
Gooch.
Despite violent opposition in certain quarters, the tobacco bill passed
both Houses of Assembly and was signed by the Governor. So now there
were sounds of hammering and sawing as warehouses arose on the
great rivers. Soon the tobacco vessels were tying up at the adjacent
wharves, and the planters were rolling their hogsheads for the
inspection. After the agent had examined the leaf, he either rejected it
as "trash" and unfit for exportation, or stamped on the hogshead the
weight and variety of the tobacco, and gave the owner his certificate.
At first everything seemed to be going smoothly. The quit rents were
collected in tobacco notes, the price of the leaf rose in the English
market. The clergy wrote Spotswood thanking him for the increased
value of their salaries. "Their livings, which by the badness of the pay
were sunk to little or nothing, begin now to be much more valuable by
your wise and just contrivance to keep up the credit of the public
payments."[4]
None the less, the law was unpopular. The debtor objected to paying
in appreciated currency. It was a heavy expense for the planter to roll
his hogsheads over the bad roads to the warehouses and then pay for
inspection and storage. He was resentful if his tobacco was judged to be
unfit for export. At the courthouses local politicians began to denounce
the act to willing listeners. "He is the patriot who will not yield to
whatever the government proposes," complained Spotswood. "Him they
call a poor man's friend who always carries still-yards to weigh to the
needy planter's advantage, and who never judges his tobacco to be
trash."[5]
 Spotswood said that the tobacco act was looked upon to be the most
extraordinary one that ever passed a Virginia Assembly. When he first
outlined his plans for it his friends assured him it would be impossible to
persuade the Assembly to pass it. Yet it was adopted unanimously by
the Council, and passed in the House "with some address and great
struggle."
What the Governor meant by "address" is revealed by an examination
of the list of fat jobs that he handed out to individual Burgesses. Of the
fifty-one members, seventeen were justices of the peace. Fearing
perhaps that this did not assure the passage of his bill, he was lavish in
promising tobacco agents' places, and no less than twenty-five
Burgesses cast their votes with this job in sight. Only nineteen members
failed to get one or the other of these posts, and some got both.[6] "I
have, in a great measure, I think, cleared the way for a Governor
towards carrying any reasonable point in the House of Burgesses,"
Spotswood boasted, "for he will have in his disposal about forty
agencies, which one with another are likely to yield nigh 250 pounds per
annum each."[7]
But Spotswood would not have been so pleased with himself if he had
realized the resentment which this open bribery of the people's
representatives caused throughout the colony. The Assembly "gave him
all things asked, and he them agent's places to pick our pockets," said
one disgruntled planter. But what the officeholder had to expect if he
opposed the measures urged by the Governor is shown by his treatment
of Nicholas Meriwether. When Meriwether not only spoke against the
tobacco bill in the Assembly, but by "many seditious speeches"
denounced it to the people of New Kent County, Spotswood promptly
removed him from his place as justice of the peace. This, he thought,
would discourage others from following his example.
Having corrupted the Burgesses and made most of them his
henchmen, Spotswood would have no doubt continued them indefinitely
by successive adjournments, had they not been automatically dissolved
by the death of Queen Anne. "By a good providence we were delivered
from them, else they would have continued as long as he," wrote
Joshua Gee.[8] Just how passively the people would have submitted to
another long Assembly must remain a matter of speculation, but their
resentment against both Spotswood and his puppets is shown by their
selections for the House of Burgesses in 1715. Of the twenty-five
members who had accepted agents' jobs, only one, William Armistead,
of Elizabeth City, was returned. And the voters of New Kent showed
their anger at Spotswood's treatment of Meriwether by returning him to
the House. Altogether only sixteen Burgesses of the old House had seats
in the new, and of these eleven had been neither agents nor justices.
Spotswood was deeply resentful. The new Burgesses, he thought,
were a set of ignorant demagogues, determined to oppose anything he
suggested. It was all the fault of the law which permitted any man to
vote who owned any real estate, even half an acre. Just before an
election reports were spread that the country was on the verge of ruin,
and no one was qualified to save it but "some of their own mobbish
politicians." It was no wonder that some of the Burgesses could not
write grammatical English, since the ignorant people insisted on electing
men of their own stamp.[9]
The new Assembly was as hostile to the Governor as their
predecessors had been subservient. Everything he proposed they
objected to, in some cases for no other reason than to thwart him. They
were egged on by Gawin Corbin, who had been ousted from his job as
naval officer; George Marable, whom Spotswood had removed from the
James City County court; and Edwin Conway, of Lancaster County. But
the whole atmosphere of the House was one of hostility.
No sooner had the House been organized than grievances from
various counties poured in, most of them complaining against the
tobacco law. The people of Surry prayed that the law be repealed, the
people of Henrico wanted it repealed, the people of Essex wanted it
repealed, the people of Warwick complained of the hardships of the law.
It seemed that no more than two counties in all Virginia were satisfied.
[10]
Spotswood claimed that these grievances did not represent the
views of a majority of the people. Many of them were drawn up by
members of the House, some were signed at election fields, horse races,
and drunken meetings. "Nor shall a seditious paper, signed by five
obscure fellows who must have a scribe to write all their names, ever
pass with me for a county grievance."[11]
When Richard Littlepage and Thomas Butts, two of the justices of
New Kent, refused to certify the grievances of that county, they were
arrested under the Speaker's warrant. Though the House voted them
guilty of high misdemeanor and contempt, they refused to appear,
claiming that the Burgesses had no legal authority over them.
Thereupon the House appealed to the Governor to arrest them. "The
freedom and privileges of this House are in danger of being utterly
subverted," they said, "when justices ... assume a jurisdiction and by
their judgment debar the people and their rightful representatives of the
rightful ways ... for redressing their grievances ... we believe that such
matters do concern the Burgesses in Assembly."[12] But Spotswood
rebuffed them. They were exceeding their authority, he told them, when
they persecuted justices and tried to punish them for their proceedings
on the bench.
In his anger at not being able to control the Burgesses, Spotswood
tried to make the House less democratic by restricting the right to vote.
But not daring to reveal his intention, he approached the question in a
roundabout way. In September, 1715, he sent out a printed letter to all
of the county courts, questioning whether the justices should levy a tax
to pay the Burgesses' salaries when no law existed empowering them to
do so.[13] To the Lords of Trade he explained that if the justices declined
to pay the levy, "the Burgesses must have become suitors for an act
wherein might properly have been described the qualifications of the
electors and elected."[14] In other words, he was prepared to veto any
bill to legalize the collecting of salaries that did not disfranchise the
small landholder and restrict the right to sit in the House to the well-to-
do. So he kept mum on the fact that the salaries could be assessed by
the sheriffs on a writ, as was the practice in England.
But in this matter he was balked by the members of the Council.
Carter, Blair, Ludwell, and the others no doubt guessed what Spotswood
was aiming at, and they were unwilling to have him undermine the very
foundations of liberty in Virginia. So in the General Court they passed
"an unpreceded sentence" to levy the Burgesses' salary on the private
estates of the justices if they refused "to levy it on their counties."[15]
The House asserted in no uncertain terms its right to judge of the
election and qualifications of its members. When they heard that William
Cole and Cole Digges, of Warwick County, had promised the voters that
if elected they would serve without salary, they refused to seat them. A
new election was held in which, presumably, no such promise was
made, and Cole and Digges were again elected, and this time permitted
to take their seats.[16] Spotswood taunted the House for not grasping at
this opportunity to reduce the heavy burden of the poll tax, and the
Council thought there was neither law nor practice to justify their action.
[17]
Yet the Burgesses were right, not only in regarding Cole and Digges'
offer as bribery, but in claiming that it was contrary to a law passed in
October, 1705.[18]
The House now made a major assault upon the powers of the
Governor. The time had come, they thought, to put an end to the
bribing of its members with lucrative jobs, which had been done with
such pernicious consequences by Berkeley, Nicholson, and others. They
passed an act making it unlawful for any Burgess to be also a naval
officer, tobacco agent, clerk of a county court, or hold any other office of
profit in the government. They next tried to put an end to long
Assemblies by prohibiting their continuance for more than three years. A
third measure "for ascertaining secretaries', sheriffs', clerks' and
constables' fees" was designed to make the bait of office less attractive.
These bills aroused Spotswood's ire, for he saw immediately that they
were designed to strike the vital power of patronage from his hands and
the hands of his successors. So he vetoed all three.
The Governor's main purpose in calling the Assembly of 1715 was to
have them vote assistance to South Carolina in that colony's bloody
struggle with a powerful confederation of Indians. "We must appear to
have neither policy nor bowels of compassion, if this government can
remain unconcerned while savage pagans are overwhelming one of our
adjacent provinces, and inhumanly butchering and torturing our
brethren," he told the Burgesses in his opening address.[19] To them
South Carolina seemed a long way off. They had troubles enough at
home without sending men and money there, but, since the Governor
was so set on it, they would yield if he would consent to something they
wanted.
They passed a bill to raise £450 for the purchase of supplies for South
Carolina, but tacked on a rider for the repeal of the hated tobacco act.
This, of course, Spotswood vetoed. To let it pass, he thought, would be
an act of high injustice, since upon the faith of the tobacco law at least
£7,000 had been spent in erecting warehouses and wharves, and in the
purchase of scales.[20] Neither he nor the Burgesses realized that the
law was under attack in England. The merchants were dissatisfied with
it, and Solicitor General William Thompson held that it was an act in
restraint of trade. In July, 1717, the act was vetoed by King George I.[21]
Spotswood closed the session with an ill-natured and bitter
denunciation of the Burgesses. "The true interest of your country is not
what you have troubled your heads about," he said. "All your
proceedings have been calculated to answer the notions of the ignorant
populace, and if you can excuse yourselves to them, you matter not how
you stand before God, your Prince, and all judicious men or before any
others to whom you think you owe not your elections.... In fine, I
cannot but attribute those miscarriages to the people's mistaken choice
of a set of representatives whom Heaven has not generally endowed
with the ordinary qualifications requisite to legislators, for I observe that
the grand ruling party in your House has not furnished chairmen for two
of your standing committees who can spell English or write common
sense. And to keep such an Assembly on foot would be discrediting a
country that has many able and worthy gentlemen in it. And therefore I
dissolve you."[22]
Having insulted the Burgesses and the people who had elected them,
Spotswood next incurred the enmity of a majority of the Council. The
trouble started when he laid before them the instruction requiring him to
see that fair books of accounts be kept of the Crown revenues.[23] Since
only the gross sums had been reported and itemized accounts kept only
on "loose papers," he demanded that the Auditor and the Receiver
General adopt more businesslike methods. To this Receiver General
William Byrd and Auditor Ludwell replied that they kept their accounts as
their predecessors had kept them and in accordance with instructions
from the Auditor General for all the colonies.
Soon after this Byrd left for England, taking with him, if we may
believe Spotswood, "all the books of the revenue." The Governor then
demanded of Ludwell whether or not he intended to comply with the
instruction to keep account books. Ludwell replied that he could not
change the old method without orders from the Auditor General. Since
this was nothing less than setting up the authority of this officer against
that of the King, the Governor thought the excuse a very poor one. So,
in January, 1716, he ousted both Ludwell and Byrd from office.[24]
No doubt there had been confusion in the accounts, and no doubt
Spotswood's insistence on having account books would have done much
to bring them into order. It is possible, also, that there had been much
remissness in paying taxes and some fraud. The Governor wrote the
Lords of Trade: "Notwithstanding all the contrivances of the family to
justify the late officers of the revenue, here is now demonstration, not
only of darkness and confusion in the manner of collecting the quit
rents, but likewise of frauds and errors in accounting for the King's
revenue."[25]
Realizing that he had brought down on himself the hostility of the
Councillors, Spotswood now tried to undermine their power by setting
up courts of oyer and terminer to which he appointed persons other
than themselves. The General Court, on which all members of the
Council and none else sat, had long been the court of last appeal in the
colony. The Councillors prized their seats in this court not less than their
seats in the Upper House of Assembly or around the Council table.
Spotswood claimed that their power over the lives and property of the
people made all regard them with awe, and "kept the country in
subjection to their party."[26] "They know that they have now lodged
wholly in their hands that power that Absalom wanted for effectually
securing the people in his interest, when he longed to be the judge of
every man's cause."[27]
It was to be expected, then, that they should insist that none but
themselves should sit on the new court of oyer and terminer. In May,
1717, eight of them met in secret and drew up a letter to the Lords of
Trade defending their position. The charter of 1676 expressly stated that
the Governor and Council had authority to try "all treasons, murders,
felonies." The laws of Virginia made the Governor and Council the
supreme court. They could not believe that a Governor could "break
through laws and charters and alter all the ancient usage and tradition
of the government."[28]
Spotswood also appealed to the Lords of Trade. And he was overjoyed
when this body wrote him that they could not see what reason the
Council had to insist upon being the sole judges of the new court since
his commission empowered him to "appoint judges."[29] They were
backed by Attorney General Edward Northy in his opinion of December
24, 1717. Northy advised, however, that Governors be instructed not to
hold courts of oyer and terminer except in cases of "extraordinary
emergency."[30]
The test came in December, 1718, when the court of oyer and
terminer was about to begin its session. Several Councillors had taken
their seats when Spotswood announced that he was joining with them
Mr. Cole Digges and Mr. Peter Beverley. Since neither was a member of
the Council, Ludwell and four others got up and left. The five then drew
up a remonstrance, which Ludwell presented to Spotswood in court,
with a "long harangue." Noticing that people were gathering, he turned
around, and raising his voice, addressed them. "The Governor's power
of naming other judges than the Councillors in life and death cases is of
dangerous consequence to the lives and liberties of free subjects," he
said. "For that reason I refuse to sit in the court of oyer and terminer
with those gentlemen."[31]
In London, Byrd pleaded the cause of the Council before the Lords of
Trade. It would be fatal, he argued, to permit a Governor to try any
person by what judges he thought proper. "Whoever has had the
fortune to live in the plantations knows that Governors are not in the
least exempt from human frailties, such as passionate love of money,
resentment against such as presume to oppose their designs,
particularly to their creatures and favorites."[32] To this Spotswood
retorted: "What else could tempt the ruling party in the Council so
strenuously to insist on a right, never claimed before, of being judges of
oyer and terminer, but the desire of gaining to one family an entire
power over the lives, as they now have over the estates, of the people
of Virginia?"[33]
To the Earl of Orkney, Spotswood wrote bitterly. If he lost his battle
with the Council, future Governors would think it folly to oppose them.
"I take the power, interest, and reputation of the King's Governor in this
dominion to be now reduced to a desperate gasp, and if the present
efforts of the country cannot add new vigor to the same, then the
haughtiness of a Carter, the hypocrisy of a Blair, the inveteracy of a
Ludwell, the brutishness of a Smith, the malice of a Byrd, the
conceitedness of a Grymes, and the scurrility of a Corbin, with about a
score of base disloyalists and ungrateful Creolians for their adherents,
must for the future rule the province."[34]
Since the Virginia treasury was now overflowing as a result of peace
in Europe and the shipping out of vast quantities of tobacco, Spotswood
managed to get along without an Assembly for three years. He would
probably have continued to do so indefinitely, had he not wanted an act
to reimburse the Indian Company which had been dissolved by order of
the King. The trade with the Indians had recently become a mere trickle,
because South Carolina had confiscated the goods of some Virginia
traders, and lawless savages had robbed others. So an act was passed
in 1714 under which a monopoly of the trade with the southern tribes
was lodged in the Virginia Indian Company.
In return the company was required to contribute £100 towards
building a public magazine at Williamsburg, to garrison and keep in
repair a fort at Christanna on the frontier, and erect a schoolhouse there
for Indian children. Some of the leading men in the colony became
stockholders, among them William Cocke, Mann Page, William Cole,
Nathaniel Harrison, and Cole Digges. They had spent large sums "in
purchasing servants, taking up land and making settlements on the
frontier, clearing roads, and building warehouses," when word came that
the act under which they operated had been vetoed by the King.[35]
Since they were now left holding the bag, they asked that the Assembly
reimburse them.
 The election which followed was one of the bitterest in Virginia
history. Spotswood made full use of the patronage. "Commissions flew
about to every fellow that could make two or three votes," wrote Joshua
Gee. "He gave the power to his friends to make a discreet use of
[them]. And indeed never fouler play was by men, than at most of our
elections."[36] Political pamphlets were distributed at every courthouse.
One of them began: "Having seen a rascally paper which contained
advice to freeholders in favor of a court party and tools of arbitrary
power to enslave and ruin a free born people ... to prevent which I
thought it my duty to open your eyes.... You are to know, brother
electors, that this Assembly is called for no other reason but to pay to
the Indian Company their charges on Fort Christanna, if they can get a
set of men fit for that purpose to gull into that unjust payment."[37]
The outcome of the election was another defeat for the Governor. No
less than thirty-four members of the hostile House of Burgesses of 1715
were returned. Of the new members Gawin Corbin, John Grymes,
Archibald Blair, and others were bitter enemies of Spotswood. During the
session the Governor kept his temper, since he had been ordered to do
so by the Lords of Trade, but the Burgesses, remembering his former
insults, did everything they could to annoy him. Though his opening
address was conciliatory, it was greeted with "violent censures." One
wrathful member "shot his bolt" and cried out: "It is all stuff and
calculated only for the latitude of Whitehall." When Spotswood laid
before the House several letters from New York in regard to renewing a
treaty with the Indians, "they made it their jest, and setting up a great
laugh ... cried out in their vulgar language, 'A bite!'"[38]
Needless to say, Spotswood got practically nothing out of this
Assembly. They refused to repay the Indian Company for what they had
laid out for the defense of the colony. They refused to pay for a
proposed trip to New York by Spotswood to renew the treaty with the
Iroquois. To his request for payment of his expenses in making fatiguing
journeys in the service of the country, they replied, "we hope they will
give you the satisfaction of reflecting that you have deserved the salary
allowed by his Majesty."[39]
 But the Burgesses were not yet done with him. Late in the session,
when it seemed that nothing more of importance was to come before
them, and some had gone home and others were at the race track, the
"party managers" brought in an address to the King with a long string of
accusations against him. Spotswood intimates that Blair and Ludwell
were responsible for this maneuver in order to have the House second
the complaints of the Council. Blair made his influence felt through his
brother, Archibald Blair, and Ludwell through his son-in-law, John
Grymes. "As during the last two sessions the one has scarce let a day
pass without dropping in the Assembly some scurrilous reflection upon
me," Spotswood wrote, "so the other can't keep his temper when he
perceives any matter agreeable to me is likely to be carried."[40]
The accusations, which were embodied in instructions to William Byrd
II as agent for the House, were carried by a vote of twenty-two to
fourteen. But when they were considered one by one most of them
were struck out. In their final form the accusations boiled down to little
more than that the Governor had misconstrued the laws, that he had
tried to keep the justices from levying the salaries of the Burgesses, and
that he had by provoking speeches and messages abused the House.[41]
Spotswood, in two long papers, had no difficulty in answering the
charges, but they remained as convincing evidence that there existed
widespread dissatisfaction with his administration.
To counteract this impression he now followed the precedent set by
Nicholson of seeking flattering addresses. "To support his cause tools
were picked to make up grand juries to deliver fulsome addresses to the
Governor and abuse the Council and Assembly," Joshua Gee tells us.
"The same tools made addresses from the courts and even engaged
every barefooted fellow to sign addresses from the counties."[42] The
address from Middlesex spoke of Spotswood's wise and moderate
government; that of the "justices, clergy, and principal inhabitants" of
New Kent declared that his character had been traduced; that of King
and Queen County that the charges against him were false. All in all, the
addresses came from twenty-one of the twenty-five counties.[43]
This deluge of praise must have had its influence with the Lords of
Trade and the Earl of Orkney. But more convincing was the logic of
Spotswood's letters in which he answered the charges against him. He
had brought down on his head the hostility of the Councillors and
Burgesses through his efforts to carry out their Lordships' orders and
uphold the prerogative of the King, he said. To remove him for doing his
duty would render the situation hopeless for future Governors.
So, despite the arguments and pleading of William Byrd, both Orkney
and the Lords of Trade gave Spotswood their support. Orkney thought
that no essential complaint had been brought against him, and praised
him for putting the government of Virginia upon a much improved
footing.[44] The Board of Trade wrote Spotswood, in June, 1719: "You
may depend upon all the countenance and support which we can give
you which we think you have deserved."[45] It was rumored in Virginia,
also, that the Board was considering removing from the Council some of
the Governor's bitterest enemies.
Yet at the moment of triumph, Spotswood, instead of lauding it over
the Councillors and forcing them to submit, seemed anxious to
compromise all differences. The key to his moderation is found in his
opening address to the Burgesses in November, 1720: "To consider the
stake I have among you and the free choice I've made to fix it under
this government, you have not surely any grounds to suspect me of
injurious designs against the welfare of this colony."[46] Then he
indulged in a metaphor to show that the interests of Virginia and Great
Britain did not conflict. "I look upon Virginia as a rib taken from Britain's
side, and believe that while they both proceed as living under the
marriage contract, this Eve must thrive as long as her Adam flourishes."
In other words, Spotswood did not want to continue his differences
with the planter aristocracy because he planned to become one of them.
In 1716 he had acquired 3,229 acres on the Rappahannock, known as
the Germanna Tract, and peopled it with German tenants. Three years
later he granted 3,065 acres, the so-called Wilderness Tract, to a certain
Richard Hickman, who transferred it to him. He next acquired the Fork
Tract, the Barrows Tract, the Mine Tract of 15,000 acres, the Lower
Massaponax Tract, and the Upper Massaponax Tract. In 1729, when the
new county of Spotsylvania was created, the Governor owned 25,000
acres within its borders.[47] On his Mine Tract he had invested so heavily
in an iron foundry that Byrd called him the Tubal Cain of Virginia.
So, when Nathaniel Harrison approached him with proposals for a
reconciliation, Spotswood was quite willing to do his part. But there
were long negotiations before peace was concluded. On May 16, 1718,
when the Governor made new overtures, they were greeted by stiffness
and reserve. Yet the Councillors at his invitation, went from the Capitol
to the Palace, and there gathered around a bowl of arrack, drinking until
midnight. On the other hand, the hostile eight shunned Spotswood's
celebration of the King's birthday, "got together all the turbulent and
disaffected Burgesses, had an entertainment of their own in the
Burgesses House, and invited all the mob to a bonfire, where they were
plentifully supplied with liquors."[48]
In the end the Councillors came to terms. Smith and Berkeley were
dead, while Carter, Blair, Ludwell, Lewis, Byrd, and Harrison had seen
the handwriting on the wall. At a meeting in the Council Chamber of the
Capitol, in April 1720, with Spotswood at the head of the table, it was
agreed that all past controversies be forgotten, and that in the future
there should be no other contention than who should most promote the
King's service and the public benefit of the colony.[49]
For some months there was comparative quiet in Virginia. But in 1721
Spotswood became uneasy when James Blair decided to visit England.
"He is continually assuring me of all the service he can do me at home,"
the Governor wrote to the Bishop of London, "but ... I shall be
contented with his not offering to do me any disservice."[50] These fears
were well-grounded, for there is reason to think that the Commissary
was instrumental in having him removed from office, just how is not
known. It is significant that when it was rumored that a new Governor
was coming over, "it was understood that Parson Blair was likely to act
as prime minister." Significant, also, is it that Hugh Drysdale, who
succeeded Spotswood early in 1722, came to Virginia on the same
vessel as Blair, and remained on the most intimate terms with him
throughout his short administration.[51]
 Spotswood's last act as Lieutenant Governor reflects no credit upon
his character, and did disservice both to the Crown and colony. Upon
hearing that he was to be removed, he made out patents for huge tracts
of land in Spotsylvania County to certain persons who immediately
conveyed them to him.[52] He later adopted a system of tenantry,
leasing land in small parcels for two generations, a system which was
copied in the huge Virginia manors developed in western Virginia late in
the century. Although tenantry hastened settlement, it was inconsistent
with the democratic spirit of the frontier, and was largely abolished by
the Revolution.
Nathaniel Blakiston said of Spotswood: "That gentleman has real
capacity and talents to manage in a high sphere, but he adheres too
much to his own sentiments, and thinks himself ill-treated if everybody
does not think as he does."[53] This weakness accounts in part for his
inability to get along with either the Council or the Burgesses. Many of
the policies which he advocated were wise, but his attempts to force
them through were unwise. When the Council opposed him he tried to
break their power; when the Burgesses thwarted him, he tried to bribe
them into submission.
Spotswood's administration was marked by several years of great
prosperity, by the expansion of the frontier, by the attempts to develop
manufactures, by the regulation of the tobacco trade; but more
important was the demonstration that the people would no longer
permit their representatives in the Assembly to be made submissive to
the Governor by the use of the patronage. The punishment which they
meted out to the faithless in the Assembly of 1714 marked a notable
advance along the road to liberty, and was a warning to future
Governors not to attempt to rule by corruption.
 FOOTNOTES:
[1] CO5-1315, Doc. 26.
[2] W. W. Hening, Statutes at large 3: 525.

[3] CO5-1318.
[4] CO5-1406, Dec. 7, 1714.
[5] Spotswood letters 2: p. 50.
[6] Virginia Magazine 2: 2-15.
[7] Spotswood letters 2: 49.
[8] CO5-1319.
[9] CO5-1318.
[10] Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1712-1726: 132, 133.
[11] Ibid., 167.
[12] Ibid., 147, 148.
[13] CO5-1318.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Journals of the House of Burgesses, xxxiii.
[17] Ibid., 153, 165, 168.
[18] W. W. Hening, Statutes at large 3: 243.
[19] Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1712-1726: 122.
[20] Ibid., 169.
[21] CO5-1313.
[22] Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1712-1726: 170.
[23] CO5-1416.
[24] Executive journals of the Council 3: 437.
[25] CO5-1318, Spotswood to the Lords of Trade, March 20, 1718.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid., Spotswood to Orkney, July 1, 1718.
[28] Ludwell, Smith, Lewis, Bassett, Harrison, Berkeley, Carter, and Blair.