“Francis Fauquier is the most famous ancestor that I do not
descend from.” As my mother’s maiden
name is Fauquier, it was easy for generations to assume that we descended from
the famous Francis Fauquier, for whom a county is named in northern
Francis Fauquier,
Lieutenant-Governor of
1758-1768
A Study in Colonial Problems
By Nellie Norkus
A.B.,
M.A.,
Submitted to the
Of
Requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
1954
Found in the Library
of
An extract
Foreward
The name of Francis Fauquier, lieutenant-governor of
The oversight, no doubt, partly results from the fact that
Fauquier’s administration came in the interim between two highly dramatic events,
the beginning of the French and Indian War and the beginning of the
Revolutionary War. Nevertheless, the
period from 1758 to 1768 is not devoid of interest and importance. The French and Indian War had to be carried
through to a successful conclusion. With
the end of the war the problems of increased pressure for western land,
continued troubles with the Indians, and the need for a sounder financial
policy and new sources of taxation had to be faced by both colonies and mother
country. Friction developed between
mother country and colony at the same time that dissension increased between
tidewater and piedmont and, as a result of tobacco legislation, between the
clergy and the burgesses supported by the governor. That Francis Fauquier was able to rule in
harmony with council and burgesses during this period of transition is a
tribute to him. Furthermore, though
inexperienced in colonial affairs, this son of a Huguenot immigrant to
Why then, has the serious historical scholar overlooked so capable a governor serving for almost ten years the colony which shone with the brightest luster in the British imperial diadem? It is unlikely that such neglect has been an accident of chance; it is more probable that it is the result of failure to discover the personal papers of the governor. The writer must plead guilty in that respect. Though Dr. A. P. James, Professor of History at the University of Pittsburgh, was one of the first to realize the desirability of making such a study and suggested it fifteen years ago, the writer must confess (to her later regret) that failure to locate useful sources of manuscript material, aside from transcripts of the official records, led her to abandon the study. Nevertheless, the faith of Dr. James in the validity of such a study, even though it should reveal only the political activities of the man and the period, revived an interest that had lain dormant and has resulted, during the past year, in the completion of this study. The writer hopes that this study will arouse sufficient interest in Francis Fauquier to stimulate a further search for the pot of gold at the end of every historian’s rainbow – long-lost or forgotten manuscripts.
In making this study, the writer consulted numerous libraries throughout the eastern part of the United States. To the many kind, patient, and helpful librarians, of whom the writer retains pleasant memories, she extends her heartfelt appreciation.
Since the writer’s interest in history was acquired from and nurtured by the faculty of the History Department at the University of Pittsburgh, her thanks are now expressed for the many inspirational hours in their classrooms. Especially appreciated is the interest and encouragement from Dr. R. J. Ferguson.
1. Heritage
- Huguenot Background
August 24, 1572! Two o’clock in the morning! The church bells of St. German l’Auxerrois began to ring out in Paris! Catherine de’ Medici knew what it meant; her son, the king, knew what it meant. Gaspard de Coligny was dead – brutally murdered – and now terror stalked the streets of the city and the blood of thousands of Huguenots drenched the cobblestones. The massacre that began on this day – St. Bartholomew’s day -- spread during the next forty days throughout all parts of France. Yet, how could the Huguenots have foreseen it? Had not just a few days before occurred what seemed an augury of better days ahead for them – the marriage of their leader, Henry of Navarre, to the sister of the King? Henry was not one of the victims; he was to choose mass instead. In 1589 he became Henry IV of France and in 1593, in order to hold his throne, he became a Catholic.
Though Henry had deserted the Huguenots for Catholicism, his reign, nevertheless, brought the Huguenots a large measure of peace and protection through the Edict of Nantes proclaimed in May 1598.
Yet, their position, actually dependent on the will of a monarch, was a precarious one. The Roman Catholic church was immovable in its opposition to heresy and after the death of Henry IV in 1610 the monarchs were true Catholics. In addition, religious unity was deemed necessary for political unity, and the Huguenots who controlled part of the French army, many of the fortified cities and towns of France, and included some of the most powerful aristocratic families of France, seemed a menace to the religious and political stability of France. Louis XIII thought so and when an unauthorized assembly of Huguenots defied the king in 1621, war ensued. Huguenot positions on both sides of the Loire fell to the king. After the siege and fall of St. Jean d’Angely, the king advanced without opposition through Pons, Castillon, Sainte Fay, Bergerac, Tournon, Monflanquin, Tonneins and other towns until he reached Clairac, southeast of Bordeaux and east of the Garonne River. This Gascon town, well fortified and garrisoned, achieved some fame at this time by defending itself against the royal army, but its resistance was less stubborn than at first threatened. It did, however, hold up the king’s advance from July 20 until August 5, after which the siege and fall of Montaubon followed. With the departure of the king from the south, Clairac and most of the towns, returned to the Huguenot fold. It, therefore, remained for Richelieu to destroy at La Rochelle the military and political power of the Huguenots, although he permitted them to retain their religious privileges. It was Louis XIV, the so-called enlightened monarch, who on October 22, 1685, stained the memory of his reign with the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. The Huguenots had not forgotten the St. Bartholomew day massacre. Though the revocation forbade them to leave the country, in one way or another, thousands made their way to Germany, Switzerland, Holland, England and even America. Of every twenty Huguenots that left France, seventeen made their way to England and Ireland; some of them to go on later to America. Though the number cannot be certain, 50,000 or more Huguenots found refuge in England. This emigration of Huguenots, including mainly people of the professional and skilled artisan class, was to prove an irreparable loss to France and an undeniable asset industrially and intellectually to the countries wherein they found asylum.
Amount the names of those who came to England is that of Fauquier. The Fauquier family dwelt in the town of Clairac, made famous earlier in the century. Five Fauquiers now left their home town and settled in London, where a large Huguenot colony established itself. These five brothers and sister, whose parents were John and Katherine Fauquier, included John Francis, a physician, Francis, William, Mary and Bridget. Mary outlived the others, her death occurring in 1759. Neither she nor her sister, who died in 1756, married. Francis Fauquier, born in 1676, died about 1720, and his brother William, born in 1679, died in 1746. Of this family of five only one of them, John Francis Fauquier, left any descendants. John Francis and Francis Fauquier received letters of denization on March 25, 1688. By an act of Parliament of April 2, 1698, John Francis was naturalized. He was employed in the mint, for his signature was added as a witness to that of Thomas Neale, master of the mint. He was evidently a deputy of Neale’s for when Neale died in 1699 Fauquier handled his affairs and transmitted his accounts to the government. Neale’s successor in the post was Isaac Newton. In 1702 on the accession of Queen Anne, Newton’s appointment had to be renewed. Fauquier became his surety in the amount of
£ 1,000, thus indicating that he was a man of position and material means. From 1719 to 1726 he was a director of the Bank of England. At some date between 1694 and 1702 John Francis married Elizabeth Chamberlayne, the eldest daughter of Francis Chamberlayne, a wealthy grocer of London who had property in London, Southam, and Ladbrooke in Warwick County, Totteridge in the county of Hertford, Worcester, and York. The marriage, no doubt added to the wealth and influence of Fauquier. The family lived in Rich’s Court, Lime Street, London and here were born the three sons and two daughters of the couple.
The church attended by the Fauquiers was St. Andrew Undershaft. There the children were baptized and the baptismal dates are known though not the birth dates except in the case of the oldest child Mary, born on May 24, 1702. In the churchyard were buried the child Samuel who, baptized on July 23, 1704, died almost a year later on July 2, 1705, and John Francis Fauquier who died September 22, 1726 and his wife who died probably in 1748 at the age of 79.
The will of John Francis, dated December 21, 1725, shows him to have been a wealthy and generous man, especially solicitous of his fellow Huguenots. The French church on Threadneedle Street received £ 400, £ 100 of which was to be used for the schools set up in Spitalfields and another £ 100 to be used for annual grants to two of their members. A French Charity House on Hogg Lane near Soho, where broth was given to poor French refugees, received £ 50. Nor did he forget the French of his home neighborhood in France for whom he left £ 100 to be distributed among twenty of them. St. Thomas’s Hospital in Southwark received £ 100 as did the Bishopsgate workhouse, which was to use its sum for the education of the children of the place. To a brother Peter Fauquier, a merchant at Bordeaux, £ 50 was given to put himself and his family in mourning and £ 25 was given for the same purpose to the daughter of his deceased sister Sarah Bourgnes.
As for his own children, his daughter, Mary, received £ 2500 in stock of the Bank of England, a similar amount of South Sea Company stock, and £ 6,000 in South Sea annuities. Elizabeth received a similar bequest. Francis Fauquier became a wealthy young man to the extent of £ 20,000 of stock in the South Sea Company and £ 5,000 of stock in the Bank of England. His brother, William, acquired £ 15,000. The rest of the property went to his widow who, born in 1669, outlived her husband by about twenty-two years.
The two daughters of John Francis and Elizabeth did not marry until two years after the death of the father and then they married brothers. Elizabeth, baptized on May 18, 1706, and therefore four years younger than Mary, married at Chapel Royal, Whitehall, on April 6, 1728, William Wollaston, the second son of the Reverend William Wollaston of Shenton, Leicester County. William Wollaston from Finborough in the county of Suffolk and also of St. James’ Square, was a member of Parliament for Ipswich. Later in the year, Mary, now twenty-six, took unto herself as husband on November 19, 1728, in the same chapel where her sister had married some months earlier, Farncis Wollaston, third son of the Reverend Wollaston. Francis, of Charterhouse Square, was eight years older than his bride. Both died about the same time, Mary on December 9, 1773 and her husband on December 27, 1774. Elizabeth had died ten years earlier on July 12, 1764.
The two sons of John Francis and Elizabeth Fauquier were Francis, baptized on July 11, 1703 and William Fauquier, baptized on July 20, 1708. William, dying at the age of 81, was to outlive his brother by almost twenty-one years. His wife, Grace, the widow of Samuel Byam of Antigua and daughter of Edward Warner of Eltham and Antigua, a colonel in the army, died at the age of 34 on May 26, 1754 and was buried at Eltham. She left two daughters, Jane Georgiana and Mary, and a son Thomas who became controller of the army accounts and usher to the queen. On December 4, 1774 Mary married her cousin, William Fauquier, son of Francis Fauquier.
B. Early Life of Francis Fauquier
The facts about the life and career of Francis Fauquier are tantalizingly meager; extremely little is known about him before he came to America and, except politically, not much more is known about him after he came to Virginia. He was born in the house on Lime Street, probably sometime during the first half of the year 1703. His writings and interests indicate he was well-educated but where is not known. He knew Latin, as is indicated by an economic treatise he wrote and in common with his brother and father was interested in finance and in science. His uncle William, who died in 1746, was a Fellow of the Royal Society, as was his brother-in-law Francis and his brother William, who received the honor as early as January 29, 1746. Francis, however, did not receive that honor until February 15, 1753. A portrait shows him in regimental uniform; but his service in the army must have been brief, for he never claimed any knowledge of military affairs. What did he look like? The portrait shows a rather handsome young man with oval-shaped face, dark eyes, arched eyebrows, a long straight nose, and hair coming to a widow’s peak above a high forehead. The lips, full and firm, turn upwards at the corners; the chin is strong. It is a pleasant face, kind and refined.
About 1730 her married Catherine, the daughter of Sir Charles Dalston of Dalston in Cumberland County and Heath Hall, near Wakefield, in York County. No doubt the marriage brought him social contacts that an aspiring young many could use to good advantage. From this union were born two sons, Francis and William. The two boys both entered Queens College, Cambridge in 1750. Both Francis and William married cousins; William, his cousin Mary Fauquier, as has already been mentioned, on December 4, 1771. Francis, the older of the two, did not marry until 1787. His wife, Thermutes Chamberlayne, of Hoddeson, in Hertford County, died on or before 1805, without leaving any children. The one son, William, of William Fauquier, born on June 1, 1776, died without issue on November 2, 1850. Thus ends the direct line of Francis Fauquier, lieutenant-governor of Virginia from 1758 to 1768.
In 1751 the future lieutenant-governor became a director of the Sea Company, but it was no longer a flourishing company and after 1750 no longer a commercial company. Perhaps it was his connection with this company, which had once attempted to prosper by taking over the English national debt in return for certain privileges, that aroused Francis Fauquier’s interest in the English national debt which was accumulating at an alarming rate. With his friends Fauquier often discussed the subject. He read economic treatises and was particularly impressed with the one written by Sir Mathew Decker. As it had not received the attention it merited, Fauquier decided to restate those ideas and, modified by his own, present them for England’s consideration. War was again imminent with France. A solution was needed for the financial problem. He published, in 1756, a pamphlet entitled “An Essay on Ways and Means for Raising Money for the Support of the Present War without Increasing Debts,” which sold for the price of one shilling, and met with a reception probably most unexpected by its author, for it went through three editions, the third in 1757. Not sure of its reception the first edition did not have Fauquier’s name, merely his initials, but it was dedicated to Lord Anson, who had made a voyage around the world from 1740 to 1744. Anson had seen that service along the Carolina coast, and it may have been from him that Fauquier obtained an interest in America. It is reputed that Anson obtained Fauquier’s appointment to America after Fauquier had lost his fortune to him in a single night’s game of cards. There is nothing to substantiate this, however, and it is more likely the appointment was due to the influence of Lord Halifax, to whom Fauquier frequently expressed his sense of obligation. But, no doubt, Lord Anson and Fauquier were close friends as they seem to have resembled each other in character; the description of Anson as good-natured, polite, well-bred, generous, humane, of great probity and passionately fond of music could just as well be applied to Fauquier. Whether Fauquier was likewise “far from being a woman-hater” and fond of the bottle is not revealed by the meager records. In 1755, when Fauquier probably wrote his pamphlet toward the end of the year, Lord Anson was first lord of the admiralty.
(skipping sections between page 8 and page 621 and
continuing)
F. Appraisal of Character and Conduct
Fauquier was attentive to the religious needs of his colony. The fact that so many parishes were without ministers distressed him and he constantly sought to fill the vacancies. Yet if there is an Achilles’ heel in his character it lies in his relationship with the leaders of the clergy. Here he is seen at his worst if we can accept their testimony. He could not forget an insult to the dignity of his position, and it was only with time that he could forgive. His frequent displays of temper, though only human under the circumstances, were certainly undignified. His opposition to the raising of a fund for the care of the widows and children of parsons was unworthy of the man, although since he extended a dinner invitation to the clergymen at their annual meeting for this purpose, one wonders whether he actually did oppose this laudable action of theirs. Even so his exclusion of Camm, Warrington, and/or Robinson from the invitation was unworthy of so gracious a man. But even in his relations with Camm and Robinson one cannot condemn him too severely; he sought to mend the breach torn by the tobacco act but found them less forgiving and yielding than he had been. Certainly the letters of Camm and Robinson with their many accusations against the governor indicate a far more vindictive spirit in the two parsons than existed in the governor. Neither saint nor sinner was he, but one of those rare individuals who knows how to win friends and influence people, a little vain, a little petulant, a little stubborn, fond of the good things of life, neither all head nor all heart but one well-balanced by the other.
Those who possessed the friendship of the governor were fortunate. Loyalty to his friends was strong as is evident in his defense of Dawson, his explanation of the Robinson deficit, and in his support of Randolph, Wythe, Cocke in the positions he sought for them. He was cooperative with the British officials at home and with those in the colonies. Within the limitations of his power, Fauquier was responsive to the needs of Washington, Byrd, Forbes, Amherst, Gage, Johnson, and the governors of the other colonies. The only critical voice is that of Stuart, and yet Fauquier was not unwilling to cooperate with him on the subjects referred to him, though he could not act with the haste desired by that gentleman. He not only sought to aid by deferred to their judgment on matters within their province, as is indicated by his willingness to let Governor Bull of South Carolina handle the Cherokee peace negotiations.
At a time when many sought governorships in America in order to acquire wealth, legally or illegally, Francis Fauquier was one of the few who was scrupulously honest in the use of his office. He did not acquire large areas of western land nor did he yield to pressure to make large western grants. Though governors such as Denny of Pennsylvania acquired a fortune bestowing their blessing on illegal trade, Fauquier valued his integrity more. He was scrupulously honest with Amherst and scrupulously honest in the handling of military funds. He did not hesitate to reprimand Byrd for his extravagance nor to refuse acceptance of over-large expense accounts of the Virginia officers. Although not without a touch of guile at times, he was not a person to delve into devious intrigues, but prided himself on the candor of his relationship with his fellow men. Appreciation of his efforts, the praise that went with it, and the esteem of others was the bread that nourished his soul. Criticism, especially when it was unmerited, wounded him deeply.
Francis Fauquier assumed his place in American history at what was a most unpropitious time to be governor of an American colony, and especially of Virginia. The decade in which he made his imprint on Virginia politics and culture was a period of war and threatened war, economic distress, political and religious ferment, and transition. It called for astuteness in a governor rather than aggressiveness, diplomacy rather than daring, compromise rather than stubbornness, and tact rather than bluntness. It was not a period in which a governor could browbeat a legislature into passing the measures he desired. The rewards were much greater if the governor could establish credit of good will and popularity on which to draw in times of emergency. By ingratiating himself with coucilors and burgesses, Fauquier avoided many of the pitfalls which entrapped other governors of Virginia before and after and other governors of America at that time. In a day when the study of psychology was unknown, he was a psychologist par excellence. To achieve his ends he worked with and through the leaders of the assembly and individual members whose support he sought to obtain by convincing them of the merits of his case before he presented the measure to the legislature in general. He did not glory in conflict; it distressed him after 1765 to lose the harmony he had established with the legislature. He basked in the approbation of his fellow men, and therefore on controversial matters acted prudently and avoided riding roughshod over the opposition. He leaned heavily on council, and though he did not always follow its dictates neither did he often seek to obtain his own desires if council disagreed.
Fauquier’s close union with concilors and burgesses was not just a matter of expediency; he had what was rather rate among British officials in America in those days – a belief in democracy. This he had expressed in his Ways and Means when he stated that in general the people approved right measures rather than wrong and when he advocated a tax system based on the ability to pay. In approving the two-penny act, contrary to his instructions, he did so because the act was necessary to relieve the distress of the people and because it was desired by council, burgesses, and the populace in general. His support of paper money, contrary to the beliefs he had previously held and the wishes of the home government, was based on the fact that the people wanted such money as well as on the practical reality that they needed it to provide the military aid requested by the Crown. Furthermore, in advocating taxes to support the credit of this money, Fauquier constantly urged the burgesses to consider carefully the welfare of the people.
Fauquier was not unaware of and was not antagonistic to the increasing influence of the western countries. He sought to populate the colony, to make lands available for newcomers, and to safeguard the frontier by establishing peace along the border. In the struggle between the old landowners who sought to keep within their grasp the monopoly on slaves and the new landowners further westward who sought to obtain slaves at a lower price, Fauquier’s sympathy was with the latter. He wanted to open the doors of the colony to all people and all religions and therefore did not favor the compulsory support of the Anglican church by dissenters. Democracy and religious toleration are closely related. No one better exemplifies this than the greatest of American democrats, Thomas Jefferson. Were his ideas inherited from or, at least, stimulated by association with that ablest of Virginia colonial governors, Francis Fauquier, who looked upon the Indian as a capricious creature but nevertheless a human being entitled to justice, his Negro slaves as equals in the eyes of God who could voice judgment upon him, the poor as persons who should not be weighted down by taxes, and the insane as sick individuals who by medical care could be restored to their rightful place in society? Democracy commonly involved humanitarianism. There is a close tie here between Fauquier and Jefferson and between Fauquier and his friend Robert Carter who was later to free his slaves. It cannot be mere coincidence that these three men had similar views on the subject of slavery, and it is reasonable to assume that Fauquier had he been a wealthy man would also have emancipated his slaves.
Fauquier never lost sight of the welfare of the colony, but a colonial governor of Virginia served a dual role. His interests could never be excessively colonial, for he represented the Crown and was bound by royal instructions. It required skill to maintain the delicate balance between royal prerogative and the will of the people expressed in their assembly. When there was a conflict between Crown and colony, the colony was expected to yield. Fauquier was a governor in a time of transition, however, when the colony no longer was always willing to yield her interests to those of Britain. Before the decade was over the two ancient enemies, France and Spain, no longer threatened the colonies and the Indians, lacking their support, no longer seemed a serious block to western expansion. Having made sacrifices to win the land across the mountains, the colonists sought economic opportunities westward and were not amenable to attempts to restrain them. Why did Fauquier not call upon Gage to remove these lawless people from this territory forbidden to them by the Proclamation of 1763? He agreed that it could only be done by force, approved of the military action taken by Gage, and insisted that council and assembly strongly discountenance this flouting of the law. He was great evils from the lawlessness of the people, and yet even after Gage requested a law punishing the settlers after their removal from the territory, the Virginia Assembly did not pass such a law. Fauquier had to face reality, and what had occurred was the transfer of political influence westward. The power of the great planters of the tidewater had been undermined by the British government, which sought to protect the British merchants, and by the years of economic distress which had added heavily to their debts at the same time that the western counties were increasing in numbers and vigorously asserting their right to a respectable role in the decisions of the assembly. The Stamp Act resolutions were not only a challenge of Parliament’s authority but also a broad slap at tidewater supremacy. Caught in between was the governor who in the ensuing months acted calmly and diplomatically and thus prevented the dissatisfaction within the colony from becoming an explosive eruption. It was Fauquier’s policy when the people were on the verge of violence to be cautious and patient, and above all to avoid any action that would irritate them. This is seen not only in the Stamp Act disturbance but in the frontier disturbances as well. The governor, therefore, avoided calling out the militia to subdue frontier violence and did not call the assembly into session after 1765 as long as there was danger of adding fuel to the flames already burning. It was fortunate that in such times of stress Fauquier, rather than the stubborn Dinwiddie or the hot-headed Dunmore, was governor. Yet both Dinwiddie and Dunmore, when they became governors, had more experience in colonial affairs than Fauquier. Dinwiddie had been a member of the Virginia council and Dunmore had been governor of New York before he came to Virginia. But neither had Fauquier’s finesse in handling people, the ability to yield with grace and dignity when compromise was best, and an integrity of conduct such as few governors have possessed. The family motto, “Neither knave nor fool” though applicable to the governor, by its very negative character does not sufficiently do him justice. For though he leaned heavily on council, acted in harmony with the burgesses, and desired the approbation of his superiors, he was no mere rubber stamp. He was not averse to stretching the law a little when it served a good purpose and to violating his instructions when it served the welfare of the colony. But he was not rash. When he by-passed his instructions, there were good reasons for it and he had strong support behind him. It required a sixth sense to know just how far he could stretch his instructions, and this the governor possessed.
Above all, Francis Fauquier was a man of far-reaching vision. Certainly if Britain had adopted his plan of financing the war, she would not have embarked on a tax policy that lost part of her American Empire. Had the dissenters, mostly in the western counties, been released from the obligation to maintain the Anglican church they would have been less antagonistic toward the government that upheld that church; had the parsons been paid a percentage of the tobacco, there would have been less cause for friction between the clergy and their parishioners; had the land not been in the possession of large land companies which he opposed, settlement of the west would have proceeded faster and the Proclamation line would have been further west than it was. That the state should assume the care of unfortunates was a dream he held almost a hundred years before it was generally accepted. In one respect only was his vision faulty. In his eighteenth century idea that production depended on incessant labor, he could not envision a day of mass production and mass entertainment whereby people could work part of the week and society nevertheless profit thereby. Truly, midst the galaxy of governors that have shone in Virginia history, none had radiated a brighter light than Francis Fauquier. Therefore, let it be said of him
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones.