The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1891-11-22

currency OF the colony. In Il the expenses Of
| government were estimated. and in It both
/ public and private dues were payable
| Now let us see how the Established Church
was affected by the tobacco currency. As
early As 1890 tho salary Of rector OF tho
| Church OF England In Virginia was fixed by
statute at 10000 pounds OF tobacco. to be
| levied By the vestry on the parish. This was
in addition to tho rector's lawful perduisites
| consisting OF tho use OF n glebe and the
| monopoly OF marriage and burial fees. In
| 174S the law was reenacted. and this new act
| WI approved by the King. At this time. and
| for some years afterward. the value OF the in
| spected tobacco WAS rated at los. Sd. per 100
pounds. This represented so per cent ad-
vance upon the value Of tobacco In 1885, when
| the salaries OF the clergy had been fixed. In
| October. 1856. the House OF Burgesses finding
that a prolonged drought had cut short the
crop OF tobacco, so that It would be impossible
for the people to pay their tobacco debts
| in kind. passed an act, to continue In force
for ten months, making itlawful for debtors to
nay their tobacco dues and taxes In money at
the rate OF sixteen shillings and eightpence
for every hundred pounds oftobaoco Tobacco
having risen in value in consequence Of the
deficient crop. some Of tho clergy were UNI
willing to forego tho advantage OF collecting
their salaries in kind. and addressed COM
munication to their Diocesan. the Bishop OF
London. praying that he would exert his influ-
ence to have the act annulled by the King. It
is interesting to note that among the petit
TONERS was the Rev. Patrick Henry. uncle OF
the future revolutionist. On the meet
ing OF tho House OF Burgessos. in 1853.
It was again apparent that the tobacco
crop would fall short, and according
~ an act similar to that Of 1T55 was passed. to
continue in force for one year. It Is to be OBJ
served that neither OF these acts had tho usual
clause suspending its operation until the
royal sanction was obtained. On this ground
the representative whom the Virginia clergy
sent to England petitoncd for the veto OF the
act and obtained an order Of Council to that
effect Thcreupon he returned to Virginia
and brought suit in tho General Court to
test the validity Of tho law. determined. II de-
feated. to appeal to the King in Council. By
the time. however. that the Kings repre-
sentative had returned to Virginia bearing
the order in Council vetoing the act COM
planned Of. that measure had expired
by limitation. Stripped. therefore. OF moral
questions. the controversy was obviously re-
duced to the determination OF the force OF an
act Of the colonial Legislature between the
date OF its passage and the Kings disapproval
OF It Without waiting for the decision OF the
General Court. several clergymen brought sep
arate actions in the county courts with varied
results. What especially concerns us Is the
suit brought by tho Rev. James Maury against
the collectors OF his parish in the County
Court OF Hanover. presided over by Col.
John Henry. The defendants pleaded
the act Of 1853. with which they had
strictly complied. having paid the rector in
lieu Of his tobacco dues the amount Of money
fixed BY the statute. To this plea the plaintiff
Hopo, an ho fhaf tho NJ xpa ~
valid. and the demurrer was sustained by the
Court In view Of tbs decision there was moth
ing to be done In tho Maury case but to let a
jury ascertain the damages which would
manifestly be measured by the difference be-
tween the money actually paid to the rector
and the value Of the tobacco to which he *as
entitled. It was at this juncture. when
the cause Of the defendants was con-
sidered lost that Patrick Henry was re-
tanned on their behalf. In the memora-
BILE trial Of this cause Patrick Henry
entered on q discussion Of the mutual rela-
lions and reciprocal duties. first Of the King to
his subjects in Virginia, and secondly OF tho
clergy toward their parishioners. He repudi-
ated as intolerabe the constitutional theory
that the act OF a distant colony must be invalid
during the interval between it's passage and
the Kings dsapproval OF it There was q
murmur OF Treason" when he declared that
q King who would insist on such q principle.
far from remaining the father OF his people.
would degenerate into tyrant and would for
felt all right to the obedience Of his subjects.
When he proceeded to denounce the rectors
for refusing to share the hardships OF the COM
munity. he aroused SO intense feeling In the
audience against them that the members Of the
clergy present hurried from the Court House
In dismay. There is no doubt that on this oc-
casion Patrick Henry burst upon Virginia as
an orator Of the highest order. In the Ian
guage OF those who heard his speech. 1t made |
their blood to run cold and their hair to rise on
end. In vain did tho lawyer for the plaintiff try
to break tho force OF Patrick Henry utterance.
Tho latter had told the jury that while under
the ruling OF the Court they must find for the !
plaintiff. they might assess tho damages at as |
little as they chose. Five minutes aftor the |
jury had gone out they returned with a |
verdict OF one penny for tho plaintiff.
The feelings OF tho excited people. which be- |
fore had been with difficulty restrained. now |
overleapcd all bounds. and. wild with enthusi |
asm. they seized their champion and bore him |
on their shoulders in triumph around the court |
yard. He had not only shown himself CAPABLE |
OF eloquence which could master at once the |
emotions and judgment Of an audience but he |
had come forward as the dauntless champion |
OF tho mass OF the community against a tyr |
amy in Church and State. which all Virginians |
deteste6. but which none had ventured to |
openly assail. Naturally the clergy were |
greatly irritated. and more than limited that |
Patrick Henry should be prosecuted for trea- |
son. and. 1t Is said furnished the Grown |
officers OF the colony with list OF names |
and witnesses. No prosecution. however. was |
attempted. for the appellate tribunal on which |
the clergy had relied. the General Court at |
williamsburg. upheld the principle laid down |
by Henry. and decided that the act complained |
OF by the parsons had been valid until It was |
disallowed by the King. An appeal was taken |
to the Privy Council in England. but the deci- |
sion Of the colonial General Ccurc was affirmed |
on the preteYt that the case which |
had been made the subject Of appeal |
had been improperly brought and with |
out going into the merits. The effect OF this |
decision was to put an end to the litigation OF |
the parsons WHO found that instead of gain |
tha,r