North Carolina historical review

              The North Carolina
Historical Review
Volume VIII July, 1931 Number 3
OVERLAND TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION
IN NORTH CAROLINA, 1763-1789
By Charles Christopher Crittenden
In the latter part of the eighteenth century North Carolina's
facilities for transportation and travel by land, although considerably
improved since the proprietary period,^ were still very inadequate.
What with wretched roads, undesirable accommodations, and many
other hardships to be faced, the wayfarer could expect no easy jour-ney.
Usually, though not always, conditions were those described
by the Englishman, Smyth, who, writing of a trip taken shortly
before 1775 from Petersburg, Virginia, to Halifax, North Caro-lina,
commented that: "This was a most unpleasant journey; bad
accommodation, bad roads, bad company and attendance, and, in
short, everything disagreeable in the extreme."^
Roads were of the worst.^ In the east they were full of deep ruts
through sand and mud, since too little attention was paid to sur-facing
and drainage. It was said that "the only making they bestow
upon the roads in the flat part of the country is cutting out the
trees to the necessary breadth, in as even a line as they can, and
where the ground is wet, they make a small ditch on either side."*
In the piedmont, roads were made diflicult by great boulders and
steep hills, as well as by that notorious red clay which in rainy
weather becomes at the same time both sticky and slippery. Governor
Josiah ^Martin described the region to the west of Hillsborough as
* A valuable discussion of conditions of travel in the Albemarle during the proprietary period is
F. W. Clonts's "Travel and Transportation in Colonial North Carolina," Xorth Carolina Ilistiyrical
Review, III. 16-3r..
« J. V. D. Smyth. A Tour in the United States of America, I, 83. (Hereafter cited as Smyth.)
* In dry weather certain stretches of road were not difficult to travel. Elkanah Watson, Men and
Times of the Herolution, p. 256 and pas-fim; HurIi Kinlay, Journal, pp. 81. 85, 86, 87.
* "Drecription of North Carolina by Alexander Schaw," K. W. and C. M. Andrews (editors). Journal
of a Lady of Quality, p. 280.
[ 239 1
240 The North Carolina Historical Review
^^the most broken difficult and rough Country I have ever seen."^
Both east and west, the less traveled routes were frequently im-passable.
Eleven planters of Chowan County declared in a petition
that the only outlet to their lands was ''but a blind path . .
Surrounded with purcosan [pocosin] & . . . Low Grounds So
that it weares [wearies] our Oxen and breaks our Carts."^ Even the
most important highways frequently were little better. In 1778
the post road running north and south through the eastern part of
North Carolina had "become so bad, through the neglect of the Over-seers
of it, as greatly to delay the Post Riders and Travellers in
general. Trees have fallen, across it, and are not removed ; the Roots
are not cut up; a number of Causeways are Swampy and full of
Holes, and many of the Bridges are almost impassable."^
Lining the roads, especially in the east, were innumerable dead
trees which might at any time fall with crushing force. "Travelling
through this State in General is attended with great Danger, arising
from the Trees near the Road being Boxed for the Purpose of Pro-ducing
Turpentine, and the present injudicious mode of firing the
woods, whereby many of the trees are burned in such a manner that
but very little Wind will be sufficient to blow them down."^ It was
true, wrote a French traveler in 1765, that the inhabitants were re-quired
by an act of assembly to cut such dead trees f but they were
"not very punctual in the Execution thereof."^^ This danger from
falling trees was very real, not only in North Carolina, but in other
regions of America as well. In October, 1753, a group of Moravians,
having journeyed only a few miles on their way from Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania, to Wachovia, the Moravian settlement in North Caro-lina,
had a narrow escape when "a large tree fell across the team,
fortunately coming down between the pairs, and hurting neither the
horses nor the teamster who rode one of them."^^
Many travelers were impressed by the loneliness and desolation
of the roads of the east. "Nothing can be more dreary, melancholy
and uncomfortable," commented Smyth, "than the almost perpetual
solitary dreary pines, sandy barrens, and dismal swamps, that are
» Colonial Records of North Carolina, IX, 329. (Hereafter cited as C. R.)
• North Carolina Historical Commission, Chowan County Papers, undated county court petitions,
A toS.
' Stale Records of North Carolina, XIII, 396. (Hereafter cited as S. R )
• Loc. cit. See abo C. R., V, 354; S. R., XXIV, 134.
• The law required merely that fallen trees be cleared from the roads. Ibid., XXIII, 226.
>" "Journal of a French I'ravelcr," American Historical Review, XXVI, 734.
"A. L. Fries (editor). Records of the Moravians in North Carolina, 1, 76.
Overland Travel in North Carolina, 1763-1789 241
met with throughout the whole of that part of the country/'^' Janet
Schaw, a Scottish woinaii who visited Korth Carolina about the time
of the outbreak of the Revolution, has left a vivid description of
her terror when for the first time she found herself in the woods at
night. ^^ Washington, who on his southern tour of 1791 twice tra-versed
Xorth Carolina, wrote: ^'The whole Road from Newbern to
Wilmington (except in a few places of small extent) passes through
the most barren country I ever beheld.'^^*
If roads were bad, it was not for want of legislation. But, although
during the eighteenth century numerous road laws were enacted, the
essential provisions were little altered. The act of 1764, which was
typical, gave to the county courts the power ^'to appoint and settle
Ferries ; and to order the laying out Public Roads, where necessary
;
and to appoint where Bridges shall be made.'' These courts were
required annually to appoint overseers, who were to summon, with
certain exceptions, all male taxables to build and repair roads and
to clear rivers and creeks. Overseers were to place signposts wherever
highways forked or crossed one another, and were to set up mileposts.
All public roads were to be laid out by juries, each consisting of
twelve men, and were to be cleared of trees, stumps, and brush to
the w^dth of twenty feet, while the limbs of trees on the sides of the
road were to be cut away so as not to obstruct carriages and horsemen.
Bridges and causeways over small streams and swamps were to be
made of pieces of wood at least fourteen feet long, laid across the
road, well secured, and covered with earth; while bridges over deep
streams were to be at least twelve feet wide, made of sawed plank at
least two inches thick, with strong posts, rails, and beams, all well
fastened together. The keeper of a ferry was to furnish suitable
boats, and no person might operate a ferry within ten miles of one
already established, on the same body of water.^^
Through the numerous and treacherous swamps of the east it was
l)articularly difficult and costly to build a passable highway. ^'The
roads through swamp land are made by first laying logs in the direc-tion
of the road and covering them cross ways with small pine trees,
layd regularly together over sod, with which the logs are previously
"Smyth. II, 100.
" Journal of a Lady of Quality, pp. 146-147.
'« J. C. Fitzpjitrirk (oditor), Diaries of Genrge Washington, 1748-1799, IV. 166.
••.S. R., XXIII. 607-611.
242 The ]^okth Cakolina Historical Review
covered."^^ An act of 1764 ordered that a toll road across Eagle's
Island, in the Cape Fear River opposite Wilmington, be ''sixteen
feet wide and one foot above high water mark at spring tides, the
ditches to be cleared from end to end, and the inside of the ditches
not to be less than six feet distant from the outside of the cause-way."^^
Another act, passed in 1783, stipulated that a similar road
near Washington be "at least sixteen feet wide, logged and covered
Vvith upland earth where the same may be necessary."^^
Even had the laws for the construction and maintenance of roads
been carefully enforced, the highway system would not have been
adequate. It was absurd to suppose that even in ordinary places a
suitable road could be made merely by cutting down trees and under-brush
and clearing off the land. Likewise a corduroy road across
a swamp could hardly have been satisfactory, although it was better
than nothing. But even such inadequate legal provisions as these
were not well enforced. Especially in the east the problem was too
difficult to be solved with the scant resources at hand. Both toll
roads and public highways, where they crossed swampy land, were
often hardly traversable. The preamble of an act of 1783 stated
that, the right having been given a number of years before to a
certain individual to build a causeway through a part of the Dismal
Swamp, ''it appears from the petition of a great number of the in-habitants
in the invirons thereof, that the said bridge and causeway
now is, and always hath been . . . in a ruinous condition, and
is liable to become intirely useless to the public."^^ Nicholas Chris-tian,
an Anglican minister, wrote in 1774 from Brunswick that the
roads were "exceeding bad especially to Waccamaw^^ there being up-wards
of twelve swamps to cross some of which are so deep that
horses are frequently up to the Saddle in crossing them."^^
Although a detailed discussion of the routes followed by the princi-pal
highways is beyond the scope of this study, a few remarks on the
subject may well be included. Collet's map, 1770, and Mouzon's,
1775, indicate that by the time of the Revolution there was a great
network of roads in both coastal plain and piedmont. Probably the
'* "Description of North Carolina by Alexander Schaw," p. 280.
" S. R., XXIII, 487-488. In 1774 this causeway was almost impassable. Finlay, pp. 66, 74.
>«.S. R., XXIV, 531.
'• Ibid., p. 532.
»" Waccamaw was nearly forty miles west of the town of Brunswick.
«' C. R., IX, 1022.
Overland Travel in North Carolina, 1763-1789 243
first north-south route opened all the way through North Carolina
was that which led through the towns of Edenton, Bath, New Bern,
Wilmington, and Brunswick. But so many broad bodies of water did
it cross that, when other parallel roads were built farther to the west,
it tended to fall into disuse. Of these latter highways one led through
Halifax and Tarborough, one or more through Cross Creek (later
Fayetteville), at least one through Hillsborough, and one through
Salem, Salisbury, and Charlotte.
East-west roads were delayed by the fact that the principal rivers
flowed in general from northwest to southeast, thus tending to make
contact difficult between the coastal plain and the back country.
When, about the middle of the century, immigTants began pouring
into the latter region, they discovered that it was easier to get in
touch with Virginia or South Carolina than with eastern North
Carolina. True, ever since the proprietary period there had been in
existence the Great Trading Path, which led from the Albemarle to
the lands of the Catawba and Cherokee Indians, and along which by
the time of the Revolution the towns of Hillsborough, Salisbury, and
Charlotte were growing up. But this route was long and rough.
In the third quarter of the century it was clearly recognized that
some action ought to be taken to bring to the East some of the trade
of the rapidly developing West. Into the back country the valley of
the Cape Fear River seemed to offer the least difficult channel of
communication. Thus, to provide more direct routes than the winding
county roads which were already in existence, a series of acts was
passed, ordering the building of highways to this river from such
frontier counties as Mecklenburg, Rowan, and Guilford.^" This ac-tion
changed the situation to some extent, but nevertheless did not
bring the back country and the coastal plain into close contact with
each other.
More troublesome to the traveler than the bad roads themselves
were the many rivers and sounds which he must cross. In the pied-mont
the streams are noted for the rapidity with which they rise, a
heavy summer shower being sufficient within a few hours to occasion
a freshet, and a series of hard rains causing them to flow far out
of their banks. At such times the yellow, muddy water rushes by
with terrifying speed, carrying along by its force logs, stumps, and
«» S. «., XXIII, 753-754. 870-871, 908-909, 918-919; XXV, 330.
244 The N^okth Carolina Historical Review
even bridges and houses. Hugh Meredith, a Pennsylvanian who had
settled in ^N'orth Carolina, stated that about 1730 the Cape Fear
^^rose, as some affirmed, 40 Foot perpendicular, but there were none
that saw it who did not allow it to be upwards of 30."^^ In the
Albemarle in the early fall of 1752 "streams were higher than men
have ever known them to be before. It is said that the Roanoke rose
25 ft. Houses and fences, even on the highest banks, have been swept
away; many cattle have been drowned; and no one was able to
travel."^* A few years later the Tar and ]^euse rivers and their
tributaries were so swollen that "bridges were torn up, milldams
broke, or the water from its natural depth at this remarkable season
entirely unfordable."^^
Under such conditions there was often nothing for the traveler
to do but wait for the floods to recede, although he might be able to
cross one of the smaller streams on a log or tree. In 1780 General
Smallwood discovered that "the Yadkin was so swelled and rapid
by the late Rains that it was unpracticable to cross.''^^ In 1771 Gov-ernor
Tryon, leading his army westward after having defeated the
Regulators at Alamance, found that "Pole Cat Creek, two miles
short of Deep River . . . was too much swelled to pass over
it." Three days later he "felled a large tree across the Creek and
marched the Troops over in Indian file. From the obstructions in this
Creek they were five hours in getting all over."^' Some years later
Elkanah Watson, a native of Massachusetts who was traveling in
North Carolina, in order to cross the Buffalo River, was forced to
crawl "along a slippery log, whilst a negro swam over the horses.
"^^
Even when a stream could be forded, great inconvenience if not
actual danger was frequently involved. The Salem diary for Decem-ber
18, 1779, records that: "At the Shallow Ford a wagon has been
taken from the river, and in it were two or three chests containing
good clothing and other things. Bedding had already been taken from
the River, and it looks as though a family had been drowned." The
following day, however, the entry was made that "a wagon stuck
fast in the Little Yadkin and the family left it; during the night
" Hugh Meredith, An Account of the Cape Fear Country, 17S1, p. 25.
** Records of Moravians, I, 43.
"G. J. McRee, Life and Correspondence of James Iredell, I, 444.
«• S. R., XIV, 703. See also Records of Moravians, III, 1339.
«' S. R., XIX, 848.
«• Watson, p. 253.
Overland Travel in North Cakolina, 1763-1780 245
the two persons who remained in it discovered that the rising water
was lifting it and got out in time and went to [Richmond] Court-house,
so no one was drowned."^* A few years after the Revolution
Jesse Lee, a Methodist minister, came near being carried away by
the current while fording the same river.
^°
In the east the rivers and sounds, while they did not have the
swift current of the streams of the piedmont, were nevertheless
difficult to cross. An act of 1745 annexed Mattamuskeet to Hyde
County because the inhabitants of the former locality ''for these
many Years past, have been obliged to attend Currituck County
Court, being from their Habitations upwards of One hundred Miles,
through a bleak and dangerous Sound, which is always attended with
great Fatigue, and often Times their Lives [are] exposed to great
Danger and frequently by contrary Winds, [they are] disappointed
of their Passages and detained from their Families.'^^^ Although
by 1750 ferries had been established and bridges built at many of
the necessary points in the east, it was not until the latter half of
the century that such improvements were made to any great extent
in the piedmont.
Many travelers have left accounts in which they tell of crossing
ferries. William Attmore, a Philadelphia merchant who in 1787
went on business to North Carolina, one afternoon about dark arrived
at the Neuse River opposite New Bern, "where giving one or two
halloes that made the Woods echo, the Ferryman on the other side
heard and answer'd me—Then came over in the Ferry Scow and
took me across.""^^ Smyth crossed the Roanoke at Halifax "in a flat
ferry boat."^^ James Auld, who in 1765 emigTated from Maryland
to North Carolina, was transported across the same river, "paying
a bit & 6d."^* Washington records in his diary the fact that the
Roanoke at Halifax was "crossed in flat Boats which take in a Car-riage
and four horses at once."^^ Even ferries, however, were not
always dependable. Governor Dobbs, returning in 1754 from a visit
to Virginia, "lost one day at Edenton by a ferry above eight miles
»• Reords of Moravians, IH. 1320.
|»M. Thrift. Memoir of the Reverend Jesse Lee, p. 69. See also .S. /?.. XXIV, 287; "Diary of
VVaiRhtstill Avery," North Carolina Universiti/ Magazine, IV, 252; Francis Aabury, Journal, I. 187-188
and passim.
•• S. R., XXIII, 252.
••"Journal of a Tour to North Carolina by William Attmore, 1787," James Sprunt Historical
Publications, XVII. 21.
••Smyth. I. 83.
•« "Journal of James Auld," Southern History Association, Publications, VIII, 280.
** Diaries of George Washington, IV', 162.
246 The North Carolina Historical Review
36
over, by a contrary wind so fresh that a ferry boat could not pass.''
Smyth was forced to delay two nights and a day before being able to
cross this same ferry.^^
A ferrjTQan was strictly regulated by law. He must secure a
license, from either county court or legislature, but usually from
the former. He must give bond for the faithful performance of his
duty. He must "provide a good and substantial boat, fit for the trans-portation
of men and horses," and "give constant attendance at the
said ferry." The rates were fixed for each ferry, varying with the
length of passage, the difiiculty of crossing, and other similar
factors.^^
Keeping a ferry must have been in many cases a lucrative busi-ness.
The county records, especially in the east, where most of the
ferries were, contain numerous petitions for this right. Sometimes
the privilege of keeping a ferry was let out by the original grantee. ^^
Such ferries as those over Albemarle Sound at Edenton and over the
Neuse River at 'New Bern must have paid well. To certain county
courts, such as those of Anson, Hertford, and Tyrrell, where it was
expensive for the inhabitants to cross ferries, power was given to
contract with ferrymen for free transportation on days of court,
general muster, and other similar functions,*^ or even at all times
whatsoever.^^
Bridges over small rivers and creeks were under the supervision
of the overseers of roads, and were free. But bridges over larger
streams were usually built and operated for toll by private indi-viduals,
this privilege, as that of keeping ferries, being gTanted
either by the county courts or by the assembly. A drawbridge,
probably the only one in British America before the Revolution,^^
was constructed over the Northeast Cape Fear and was operated
for toll. The act of 1T66 which authorized the building of this bridge
ordered that it have one arch thirty feet wide, so far above high-water
mark that rafts and perriaugers could pass under, and so
constructed that it could be drawn up for the navigation of vessels
»• C. R., V, 144g.
»' Smyth, II, 91-92. See also Finlay, p. 82.
»• See, for example, S. R., XXV, 356. Usually rates were fixed by the county courts, although some-times
this was done by act of legielature.
»» North Carolina Magazine; or. Universal Intelligencer, July 27-Aug. 3, 1764.
<»S. /?., XXIV, 769.
" Ibid., p. 940.
«' Journal of a Lady of Quality, p. 202 n.
Overland Travel in North Carolina, 1763-1789 247
of larger burden/^ The rates which were charged on toll bridges
varied according to the difficulty and expense of building and main-tenance,
but were usually approximately these: for every traveler
on foot, four pence ; for every man and horse, six pence ; for every
four-wheel carriage drawn by two horses or oxen, two shillings ; for
every head of cattle, three halfpence; and for every twenty hogs
or sheep, eighteen pence.** Although the period for which tolls might
be collected varied, it was usually twenty-five years. Probably the
tolls at bridges were for the most part fairly collected, but sometimes
there was fraud. One case became so notorious that the legislature
was forced to take action. *°
Sometimes the traveler turned off the road and made his way
through the woods. This he might do intentionally. Since as late
as the middle of the century roads were still few in the piedmont,
he might find that the only method of reaching his destination, at
least without following a very circuituous route, was to go through
the woods. It must have given a thrill of adventure to leave the
last sign of human life and turn into the pathless forest, as the
Moravian bishop, Spangenberg, and his party, in what is now Iredell
County, were forced to do in the fall of 1752.*®
Usually, however, when the traveler left the highway, he did so
not of his own accord, but because he could not find his way. Many
of the roads were hardly more than winding paths ; probably none
was adequately marked. Both east and west, as late as the Revo-lution,
the way was indicated by blazes on the trees ;*^ but such marks
after a few years became difficult to see. The provision of the law
which ordered the overseers of roads to set up signposts*® could hardly
have been well enforced, since many travelers have left accounts of
losing their w^ay.
Some of these accounts are quite entertaining. Smyth, for ex-ample,
vividly tells how, about 1771, he set out on an old trail
which led to the northwest from Hillsborough, became lost at twilight
in a swamp, and only by the best of fortune succeeded in making
his cries heard and thus in finding a place to spend the night. *^
«• .S. /?., XXV, 606.
** Ibid., p. 507. Tlioso rates wore fixdl for the drawbridge mentioned above.
*> Ibid., XXIII. 367-368; XXIV, 174-175.
** Recurdu of Mornrians, I, 30.
«' Smyth, I. 178-179; Wataon, p. 59.
" See, for in.stanoe, S. R., XXIII, 610-611.
"Smyth, I, 234 ff.
248 The ^N^orth Caeolina Historical Review
Elkanah Watson states that, coming from South Carolina in the
spring of 1778, he and his companions were overtaken at the ferry-house
near Wilmington by a certain Hussey, one of their party,
who had been detained at Georgeto^vn. ^'He came in early in the
morning, covered with mud, and jaded out with fatigue, giving us a
most piteous account of his trials the night previous. Eager to over-take
us, he had pressed forward through the pine wilderness in the
region of Lockwood's Folly, and when night overtook him, he fell
into a by-path, became bewildered, among swamps, and at length
totally lost. His horse failed, exhausted by hard travelling without
food. Fortunately for Hussey, he carried flint and steel, and thus
lighted a fire. He spent the night in fighting wolves, attracted by
the light from the wilds, with pitch-pine flaming brands. At day-light
he ascended a tall sapling, as he termed it, 'to look out for land,'
and saw Wilmington and the ferry-house not far off."^^
Particularly difiicult was it for the wayfarer to find comfortable
lodgings. Men who drove or accompanied wagons usually spent their
nights in the woods '\ipon dry leaves on the ground, with their
feet towards a large fire, which they make by the road side, wherever
night happens to overtake them, and are covered only with a blanket.
Provisions and provender, both for the men and horses, are
carried along with them, in the waggon, sufficient for the whole
journey."^^ Although sometimes tents^^ and other articles of con-venience
were carried, camping in the woods at best might be any-thing
but pleasant. Frederic William Marshall and a group of Mora-vians,
going from Charlestown to Wachovia in February, 1768, suf-fered
intensely. ''It turned very cold," Marshall later wrote, "and
as we camped out each night several had their hands frostbitten. My
left hand swelled, rose, and finally had to be lanced."^^ Another group
of Moravians, journeying from Bethlehem to Wachovia in the fall
of 1755, underwent many hardships, not the least of which were those
of the night of October 28, when the wind blew down their tent and
the rain wet them through and through."*
Wayfarers of the better class did not often spend a night out of
doors, or even at an ordinary. "Travellers with any pretensions
'" Watson, p. 57.
•' Smyth. I, 172-173.
" Records nf Moravians, II, 517.
" Ihid., p. 603.
**Ibid., p. 823.
Overland Travel in North Carolina, 1763-1789 249
to respectability," said Elkanah Watson, "seldom stop at the wretched
taverns, but custom sanctions their freely calling at any planter's
residence, who seeks to consider himself the party obliged by this
freedom."^'' Almost never did the planter turn anyone away, but
rather took pleasure in offering the best of everything he possessed.
Smyth, making a journey in the Albemarle about 1770, was enter-tained
at a house where he "found a large table loaded with fat
roasted turkies, geese, and ducks, boiled fowls, large hams, hung-beef,
barbicued pig, &c. enough for five-and-twenty men." His host
declared that "it was but seldom he was favoured with the company
of any strangers ; but when he was so fortunate, it always afforded
him great pleasure to entertain them."'^^
Unfortunately the accommodations in private homes were usually
nothing like so pleasant as this, since many a poor planter had little
to offer. Waightstill Avery, a young lawyer, recounts that upon a
certain journey in February, 1769, he was forced to spend a night
without even shutting his eyes, since in the one-room house where he
put up there were several drunk men "who all blunder'd bawl'd,
spew'd and cursed, broke one another's heads and their o^vn shins,
with stools, and bruised their Hips and Ribs with Sticks of the Couch
Pens, pulled hair, lugg'd[,] hallo'd, swore, fought and kept up the
Roar-Rororum till morning."^^ Smyth was unable to sleep when, on a
journey about 1770 from Petersburg to Halifax, he sought shelter a
few miles north of the North Carolina line "in a shell of a house,
wherein an overseer lived, and five or six negroes besides," and where
he was disturbed not only by the snores of the slaves, but also by
fleas and mosquitoes.*^®
Little better were many of the ordinaries. Not only were they too
few for the convenience of travelers'® but those which did exist were
often of the most miserable type. Smyth wrote that "accommodations
are almost everywhere, especially on and near the seacoast, intoler-ably
bad."*^° Washington thought the inns outside the towns "ex-
•» Watson, p. 252.
••Smyth, I, 105-106. A certain planter in Guilford County, in order to reJieve his house from the
constant stream of visitors, finally had recourse to the buildinjr of a lavorn. Recirrds of Morarian8,
II. 796.
" "Diary of Waightstill Avery," p. 249.
••Smyth, I. 74-76.
•• C. H., V'l, 1060. An account of the fees received by Governor Tryon for a period of about
twenty-seven months includes a statement of the amount received for tavern and marrinRc licen.ses.
But the wording is surh that it does not indicate even the approximate numbe.- of taverns in North
Carolina. C. (). 5: 310—copy in archives of North Carolina Historical Commispion.
•'Smyth, II, 100.
^^
250 The [N^orth Cakolii^a Historical Review
treinely indifferent the houses being small and badly provided either
for man or horse. "^^ As late as 1801 it was said that the typical
JSTorth Carolina ordinary consisted merely of a one-room house, log
or frame, furnished only with a bed, a table, some benches, and a
chest. When the traveler ate a meal—which, whether it was breakfast,
dinner, or supper, always consisted of bacon and eggs—a dog gazed
wistfully into his face, cats clawed at his elbows, and the children
of the proprietor screamed for their share. If he spent the night he
was not allowed to sleep in the only bed, but lay on the floor in
front of the fire, or, if the weather were warm, out of doors on the
ground.^^
I^ot all the inns were uncomfortable, however. In the towns were
houses of entertainment which, with their great open fires and their
abundance of food and drink, were welcome to the cold and hungry
wayfarer. James Iredell wrote of ^'a most elegant tavern'^ in Hills-borough.^^
The inn kept by the Moravians at Salem was probably
far above the average. In the newspapers of the period appeared
advertisements of hostelries, such as the Cool Spring Tavern at
Fayetteville,®* which must have furnished pleasant accommodation.
Wilmington could boast not only of a number of inns, but even of a
coffeehouse.®^ Even in the rural districts, far from any town, were
a few taverns where some degree of comfort could be had. William
Attmore was favorably impressed by a "petty Ordinary'^ between
Greenville and Tarborough.®^
The type of establishment kept by an innkeeper of the better class
was described in an advertisement of 1772, which offered for sale
two lots adjoining the courthouse in the town of Halifax. On one of
these lots was a two-story frame house forty-four feet long and
tv/enty feet wide, having a large barroom at one end, a cellar be-neath,
a broad veranda running the lengih of the house, and three
large lodging rooms upstairs. On the other lot was a second two-story
frame house, presumably to be occupied by the innkeeper's
family, which was thirty-two feet long and sixteen feet wide, with
three rooms below and two above, and with a veranda on the front
•1 Diaries of George Washington, IV, 195.
" Item in "A Foreign Journal," European Magazine, Jan., 1801, reprinted in "Historical Notes,"
North Carolina Historical Review, H, 89.
•» McRee, I, 379.
" Fayetteville Gazette, Sept. 14, 1789. See also State Gazette of North Carolina (Edenton), Dec. 25,
1738.
•' North Carolina Magazine; or, Universal Intelligencer, Sept. 14-21, 1764.
•• "Journal of William Attmore," pp. 32-33.
Overland Travel in North Carolina, 17G3-1789 251
side. Moreover, besides a billiard-liouse twenty-eight feet long and
eighteen feet wide, with two good lodging rooms above and with a
good billiard table, there were a kitchen sixteen feet square, a smoke-house,
a stable, horse-lots, and a large garden.®^
Inns were strictly regulated by law. The act of 1767^® "for regu-lating
Ordinaries, and Restraint of Tippling Houses" is typical of
a number which were enacted during the course of the eighteenth
century. According to its provisions, anyone keeping an ordinary
must give bond and receive a license from the county court f^ must
make proper provision for travelers and their horses ; must not permit
unlawful gaming or unnecessary tippling on the Sabbath ; must sell
liquors only in sealed measures ; must not entertain servants or slaves
without the consent of their masters, or sailors without the consent of
their captains ; must post in the common entertaining room a list of
prices fixed by the county court, and charge only according to that
list f^ and must place a sign of the inn in a conspicuous place. Any-one
keeping a toll bridge or ferry where the toll amounted to a small
minimum must furnish entertainment for travelers.'^ Apparently
such laws were carefully enforced, the county courts exercising strict
supervision over inns.'^ When the Revolution came on and prices
soared, the fixing of rates w^orked in many cases a real hardship on
the innkeepers. ^^
The taverns, while furnishing entertainment for traveleis, per-formed
a more important function as gathering places for the in-habitants
of the immediate neighborhood. Many of them contained
billiard tables and other devices for amusement with which men
passed their time while they smoked and drank. Large quantities
of liquor were consumed—and much was charged on the books and
never paid for. The records of various counties include numerous
innkeepers' accounts which had not been settled and for whieli suit
was brouijrht.^*
•' Item in Virginia Gazette, Julj' 9, 1772, reprinted in "Historical Notes," North Carolina Historical
Review, IV. 108-109.
•• In the Colminl Records of North Caroh'na the date is incorrectly given aa 1766.
•» For bonds Riven by innkeonois, see North Carolina Historical Commission, Chowan County
Papers. March, 1772-()ct., 1777; "Historical Notes," North Caroliun Ili^lnricnl Rerietc, II, 87.
" Lists of prices charged in inns may be found in .Archibald Henderson, "Elizabeth Maxwell Steel:
Patriot." North Carolina Booklet, XII, 74; "Historical Notes." North Carolina Historical Rniew, II, 88.
",S. «., XXIII, 725-728.
"See, for examples. North Carolina Historical Commi.ssion, Chowan County Papers, March,
1772-Oct., 1777; ibid., Nov.. 1777-March, 1778; ibid., undated county court petitions, A to S.
" See, for in.stances, Recmdi* of Moravian--*, II. 884; petition of ten innholders of F^denton, North Caro-lina
Historical Commi.ssion. Chowan County Paper.-*, undated county c«)urt petitions, T to V.
"See, for example, account owed by Thonuis Peu.slcv to .Vrthur .\llen, innkeopei, North Carolina
Historical Commission, Chowan County Papers, Feb., i764-March, 1767.
252 The !N^orth Carolina Historical Review
For travel by land ttie horse was almost indispensable. Rare
indeed was the man of any pretensions in either to^vn or country
who did not possess at least one such animal. Inventories of estates
contain numerous items such as ^'6 head horses/''^ or ^'1 mare &
colt/'^^ or "4 grown horses, 1 grown mare, 1 year old colt."'^ Much
more rarely, and then nearly always in the east, oxen are found
listed.'® Although too slow to be of use on a long journey, the ox was
more dependable than the horse for drawing a heavy vehicle over
boggy or difficult roads.
The horse might be ridden, he might carry a pack,^^ or he might
be hitched to a variety of vehicles. Planters when traveling nearly
always went on horseback, inventories of their estates very frequently
containing such items as '^1 old saddle,"®^ or '^1 mare saddle &
bridle,"^^ or ''1 mans saddle & 3 bridles."®^ Likewise lawyers, preach-ers,
government officials, and, in fact, almost everyone who traveled
a great deal, habitually went on horseback. There were disadvantages,
indeed : it was tiresome and uncomfortable, especially for a woman f^
there was no protection from the weather ; and very little food, cloth-ing,
and other baggage could be carried in a mere pair of saddle
bags.®* But all these handicaps were more than compensated for by
the fact that a horse and rider could pass through swamps, rivers, and
other hazardous places which a vehicle could not have traversed at all,
while in a case of extreme need, a journey by land could be made more
rapidly on horseback than in any other way.
According to eighteenth-century notions, a man on horseback could
travel very speedily indeed. About the beginning of the year 1779
Whitmill Hill, a delegate to the Continental Congress, rode all the
way from Philadelphia to his home in Martin County, ]N^orth Caro-lina,
in only seven and one-half days, "a ride scarcely performed
before in so short a time."®^ Ordinarily, however, a rider went
" North Carolina Historical Commission, Northampton Inventories, 1781-1792, p. 146.
'•Inventory of estate of Tims. Hatchett, North Carolina Historical Commission, Caswell Inven-tories,
1772-1831.
" North Carolina Historical Commission, Inventories and Accounts of Sales, 1777-1783, p. 117.
'• North Carolina Historical Commission, Northampton Inventories, 1781-1792, p. 138.
" The pack horse was serviceable for the peddler or trader, especially on the frontier. Records of
Mornvian-i, I, 162.
•" Inventory of estate of Mary Overton, North Carolina Historical Commission, Pasquotank In-ventories,
1749-1774.
•' North Carolina Historical Commission, Craven Inventories, 1781-1789, p. 5.
•• North Carolina Historical Commission, Orange Inventories, 1758-1785, p. 77.
•• To make a trip even tolerably comfortable for a woman required a great deal of trouble and
expense. .S'. R., XV, 20.
•• Mention of saddlebags is fairly common in inventories. See, for instance. North Carolina His-torical
Commission, Inventories and Accounts of Sales, 1777-1783, p. 117.
"S. R., XIV, 1.
Overland Travel in North Carolina, 1763-1789 253
nothing like so rapidly. After Smyth, going from Wachovia to
Hillsborough, had ridden as many as fifty miles in one day, he came
to the conclusion that such a day's journey "in this rough country,
and bad roads, is indeed excessively fatiguing both for the horse and
his rider."*** Under favorable conditions thirty-five miles was con-sidered
an adequate distance for one day,®^ while such hindrances as
unfavorable weather conditions, lack of accommodations, or the physi-cal
disability of horse or rider, might make travel on horseback much
slower, or even temporarily impossible.
For transporting heavy commodities by land the wagon and the
cart were almost absolutely necessary. In that great migration from
the north to North Carolina which occurred in the third quarter
of the eighteenth century,®^ it was the usual practice for immigrants
to bring such vehicles piled high with clothing, furniture, and all
manner of household belongings. William Few, who later became a
noted banker in New York City, tells in his autobiography how
w^hen he was a boy his father, a man of more than average wealth
in Maryland, after having sold all his non-movable property, placed
the remainder "in a wagon drawn by four horses and in a cart drawn
by two horses. In the autumn of 1758 he set out for North Carolina
with all his family and property."®^ On such a journey the women
and girls and babies usually went in the wagon, while the men and
boys either walked or rode horseback. Sometimes it was necessary
for every able-bodied person to add his strength to that of the horses.
A group of Moravians, going from Pennsylvania to Wachovia in the
fall of 1753, were forced at times to "push the wagon, or hold it back
by ropes that we fastened to the rear." Particularly dangerous they
found the approach to the James River : "The road to it ran down so
very steep a hill that we fastened a small tree to the back of our
wagon, locked the wheels, and the Brethren held back by the tree
with all their might, but even then the wagon went down so fast that
most of the Brethren lost their footing."''^
For the merchant and trader in those interior regions where water
transportation was impossible, the wagon was very useful, if not in-deed
a necessity. In carrying on their extensive trade the Moravians
••Smyth. I. 22.5-226.
•' See various items in McRer; "Journal of James Auld"; and "Diury of WaiRhtstill Avery."
••This movement is treated in Hixtoru of North Carolina, 1 (by H. I). \V. Connor), 162-179.
»• "Autobiography of Willium Few," Maoazine of American Hi.^tory, \'II, 343.
•• Records of Moraviann, I, 77.
/
254 The I^orth Carolunta Historical Review
sent their wagons to Bethlehem, Brunswick, Charlestown, and other
distant towns. Likewise for the planter the wagon and cart were of
value.^^ During the various wars of the period wagons were used
almost exclusively for transporting by land the supplies of the armies.
The average load of a wagon employed by the rebel army during
the Revolution was 2,000 pounds, and of a cart, 1,000 pounds.^^ A
wagon was drawn by either two or four horses, while a cart required
only one or two.®^ A few wagons were covered, as was that which
carried the Moravian, Frederic William Marshall, and his wife from
Wachovia to Charlestown early in 1775,^* and as were many which
were employed by the rebels during the Revolution.®^ Considering
the usefulness of wagons, it is surprising that not more of them were
in use. Only very rarely are they listed in inventories of estates,
while Bishop Spangenberg, traveling in 1752 in the northern part
of the province, for 140 miles did not see a single wagon, nor even a
sign of one.®^
Other types of vehicles were much less common than carts and
wagons, and usually belonged only to the wealthier class of people.
To possess some kind of carriage was considered a mark of distinction.
For example, William McCormick, before 1775 a merchant of Pas-quotank
County and during the Revolution a loyalist, prided himself
because he ^'travelled with two horses and a chair and servant."®^
Several varieties of conveyance were in use. The Moravian Records
tell of a certain Reverend MacDowell who, too weak to ride, left
Wachovia for Brunswick in a two-horse litter led by a JSTegro.®^ Elk-anah
Watson in 1777 came from the North to !N^orth Carolina in a
sulky,®® a light, two-wheeled carriage with a seat for only one person.
Then there were the gig/^^ which was similar to the sulky; the
chair,^"^ a light, open, two- or four-wheeled carriage, drawn by one
or two horses ; the chaise,^^^ which was similar to the chair ; the post-chaise,^^^
a four-wheeled chaise used for long journeys; the chariot,
•' For inventories in which wagons and carts are listed, see North Carolina Historical Commission,
Craven Inventories, 1781-1789, p. 10; J. B. Grimes, North Carolina Wills and Inventories, p. 507.
•» S. R., XI, 573.
•• In the east carts were frequently drawn by oxen.
** Records of Moravians, II, 915.
»'.S. R., XI. 573. 582; XIII, 25.
«• Records of Moravians, I, 39.
»' Audit Office 12: bundle 121—copy in archives of North Carolina Historical Commission.
•» Records of Moravians, I, 275.
»» Watson, p. 29.
"O" Grimes, p. 482.
t»' C. R., VII. 500.
>»« North Carolina Gazette (Wilmington), Feb. 12, 1766.
"•Grimes, p. 541.
Overland Travel in North Carolina, 1763-1789 255
which differed from the post-chaise iii having a coach-box; the phae-ton,
a light, open, four-wheeled carriage; and the coach,^^* a large,
close, four-wheeled vehicle, which gave protection from the weather
but which was difficult to draw over poor roads. Toward the end of
the century the stagecoach was just coming into use, there being in
1789 one plying between Washington and Edenton,^^* and another
between Edenton and Suft'olk.^^^
In most of these vehicles the average rate of speed was little if
any slower than on horseback. James Murray, a Scot who had settled
on the Cape Fear, wrote in 1741 to Henry McCulloh, a London
merchant who was contemplating a journey in some kind of vehicle
from CharlestowTL to Wilmington, that the trip could be made in
'^three easy days riding,''^^" an average of some fifty miles a day.
Washington, on his southern tour of 1791, usually drove his chariot
more than thirty, and sometimes more than forty, miles in one day.^^®
Probably the coach, being heavier and more cumbersome, did not go
as rapidly as this, while the wagon was slower still. Four wagons
which went from Wachovia to Brunswick in the fall of 1766 required
no less than tw^elve days to reach their destination, a distance of ap-proximately
225 miles.^^^ Wagons going from Wachovia to and from
Charlestown required from three and one-half weeks to one month, an
average of about eighteen miles a day, and to and from Cross Creek,
at least thirteen or fourteen days, or about nineteen miles a day.^^°
Travel on foot was slowest of all."^ A certain Moravian in 1775
walked from Bethlehem to Wachovia, a distance of about 400 miles,
in thirty days.^*^ Another group of Moravians in the fall of 1753
required forty-one days to make the same journey, although perhaps
over different roads.^^^ Long peregrinations on foot were not common,
however. Small planters and the members of their households, it is
true, frequently walked a few miles on some local errand ; pioneers
in the piedmont and mountain regions were sometimes forced to walk,
since it was difficult to ride a horse through the trackless forest;
'»• Ibid., p. 507.
'»' State Gazette of North Carolina (Edenton), Jan. 8, 1789.
"•/bid., June 18, 1789.
«<" N. M. Tiffany (editor), Letters of James Murray, Loyalist, p. 63.
•"•• Diaries of George Waxhinutori, IV, 163 ff.
'»» Records of Moravians, I, 356.
• "> Accounts of thesp and other journpyp arc to ho found in ihid., passim. In many ca5o.«i time must
be allowed for unloading, reloadint^, and various delays before the return trip could be made.
'" DrivinR an ox was perhaps even slower, but the ox was almost never used for long journeys.
>'« Records of Morariana, II, 884.
»'»/6id., I, 75-79.
256 The North Carolina Historical Eeview
and during the various wars of the period troops for the most part
moved about on foot. But a long journey of the kind was undertaken
only when absolutely necessary, and then only with the expectation
of hardship and fatigue.
In time of peace there was not a great deal of travel over the roads.
The small planter might go to the nearest inn or crossroads store;
he might visit a neighbor ; he might drive his family to church ; he
might haul his tobacco or drive his hogs to market; and he might
occasionally have to go to court. But he made few journeys of any
great distance. Likewise, servants and Negro slaves seldom went on
long journeys. There were, however, less numerous classes of people
who did travel often and extensively. The wealthier group of plant-ers
of the east quite frequently went on long trips ; lawyers, judges,
assemblymen, and various government officials found it necessary to
go from place to place; itinerant preachers made prolonged tours
in their efforts to save souls; merchants, traders, and peddlers were
forced to spend much of their time traveling ; postriders and expresses
sometimes rode along the highways; and, during the quarter of a
century before the Revolution, the roads from the north saw streams
of immigrants moving into piedmont North Carolina.
While the Revolution was going on the desire to travel seized upon
large numbers of people, causing them to move hither and thither.
Some were soldiers ; some went on business ; some were refugees
;
some went for political purposes ; many, filled with a spirit of rest-lessness,
wandered about with no definite object in view. Much of
this is recorded in the Records of the Moravians. During the year
1778, for example, ^^of passing there was soon no end. Some came
from Pennsylvania or Maryland to this neighborhood, and having
met with misfortune on the way they arrived in great poverty ; others
went from this neighborhood to Kentucky."^^* For the most part the
troops who marched here and there were, during the first years of
the war, organized and under control. But after Cornwallis had
passed through in 1780-81, irregular bands, patriot and tory, went
the length and breadth of the land, burning and pillaging. Many
people were rendered homeless and wandered along the roads, seeking
shelter and protection. Even after the surrender at Yorktown this
imfortunate situation continued to exist, several years being necessary
»«76td., Ill, 1211.
Overland Travel in North Carolina, 1763-1789 257
for the restoration of complete order. Only gradually did the popula-tion
come to lead a safer and more normal existence.
Facilities for travel and transportation in North Carolina were
similar to those in Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia, each of
these regions having poor roads and, except Virginia, miserable
accommodations for travelers. The middle and New England settle-ments,
although their roads were little if any better than those in the
south, had progressed further in the matter of providing accommo-dations.
In the north, indeed, such abundant hospitality was not
offered; but innkeeping, having become more of a regular business,
was up to a higher standard. Of coaches, chaises, and other vehicles
there were far more in Massachusetts or Pennsylvania or New York
than in North Carolina.^^^ Furthermore, although by 1750 stages
were running regularly along a number of routes in the North, not a
single stage line was established in North Carolina until after the
end of the Revolution, more than three decades later.
But, although still inadequate, transportation facilities in North
Carolina had been greatly improved since the proprietary period.
Roads, while poor, at least did exist—which had hardly been the
case in 1700. If inns were few and ordinarily of the crudest kind,
nevertheless it was usually possible for the traveler to find some
kind of food and shelter. Traveling on horseback or in a horse-drawn
vehicle may not have been very comfortable, but at least
was better than having to walk. No longer, except on the western
frontier, need the wayfarer have fear of lurking Indians, while
highwaymen were almost if not quite non-existent—which most as-suredly
was not true in contemporary England. ^Much remained to
be accomplished; but a great deal had already been done.
IIS Virginia and South Carolina also were more advanced than North Carolina in this respect.
PROCEDURE IN THE NORTH CAROLINA
COLONIAL ASSEMBLY, 1731^1770
By Floeence Cook
A study of procedure in the ^orth Carolina colonial assembly must
be chiefly concerned with the royal period, beginning with the first
assembly called by Governor Burrington on April 13, 1731. Under
the Lords Proprietors the right of the people to have assemblies had
been guaranteed by the Charter of 1663 and by the Fundamental
Constitutions issued in 1669. These assemblies were allowed to meet
every two years.^ There is definite mention of such assemblies as
early as 1665, in 1713, 1715, 1722, 1725 and 1726,' but the records
of their proceedings are so fragmentary as to make any account of
their parliamentary organization quite impossible.
Even with the royal assemblies many of the interesting details of
the life of those bodies are lacking. We know almost nothing about
the meeting places until Tryon built his famous palace at New Bern
in 1766,^ where he provided a room for the assembly in one of the
wings. Still less is known about the appearance of the members as
they sat in the legislative body. Their clothes and their manners
may only be guessed at. Apparently no list of rules of conduct and
decorum exists for the royal assembly.*
We must, therefore, turn immediately to the records of the actual
sessions of the house and attempt to trace out the growing importance
of that part of the colonial government represented there. Although
the colonial assembly was considered abstractly as the representative
body of the province and the group which maintained the "rights
of the people," the assembly of the eighteenth century was always
aware of its dependence on the crown for its very existence. !N^ot only
did the governor summons the assembly by proclamation, but his
right to do so was apparently never questioned in North Carolina.
The power to issue writs of election for assemblymen, under the great
• Colonial Records of North Carolina, III, 142-143; V,84ff.; (hereafter cited as C. R.); Bassett, J. S.,
Constitutional Beginnings of North Carolina, 53.
« C. R., II, 13, 206-216, 235, 462, 463, 575, 608.
*Ibid., VII, 442; Haywood, M. D. L., Governor Tryon, pp. 63ff.; C. R., IV, 424, 844; VII, 984.
* Ibid., XII, 657 for rules of decorum adopted April 14, 1778. I^resumably these rules are a continua-tion
of the practices common during the colonial assemblies. Ibid., IX, 699.
[ 258 ]
Procedure in North Carolina Assembly, 1731-1770 250
seal of the province, also lay within the governor's authority/ The
assembly thus constituted was composed of members who represented
the several counties and boroughs of the province. Their right to sit
was evidenced by certificates which the clerk of the crown sent to the
assembly testifying to the return of the election writs from the
counties.®
The first step in organizing a new house was the taking of oaths
by the members, administered in the early days by a member of the
house or, as the formality of the procedure developed, by two mem-bers
of the council. This, however, could not be done until a sufficient
number of members had assembled to make a quorum, which was
usually a majority of the elected representatives.^ Although the
lower house could not sit officially as a body until the oaths had been
taken, those who were assembled did have the privilege of adjourning
from day to day until enough members appeared to make a quorum.®
Apparently this process often took some time, for in April, 1744,
Governor Johnston informed the assembly that ''For my own part.
Gentlemen, I am quite wearied out with attending so tedious awhile
before you make a House. . . ."^ This same governor in 1746
allowed his ''illegal" assembly, instead of merely adjourning from
day to day until fourteen members and the speaker arrived, to act
as a house when only eight members were present,^^ and to swear
in seven new members and so proceed to business. The question
of the quorum was a knotty one. Although the quorum of the royal
assembly in North Carolina was to be fifteen as indicated in the
governor's instructions, the house maintained as its right the determi-nation
of the number necessary to make a quorum, insisting that one
half of the house, as provided for in the charter granted by Charles
II in 1665, was the proper basis for business. Notwithstanding the
fact that this controversy was especially acute in 1760 under Dobbs,
it was never definitely settled, and before the Revolution, in 1773,
» For examples of writs sec C. R , IV. 4; VII, 135; VIII. 40; IX. 967. For the election laws of the
colony, State Hecorda of North Carolina (hereafter cited as S. R.), XXIII, 12-13, 209, 251, 525.
• C. R., IV, 493, 857, 1274; VI, 364; VII, 342; IX, 447, 733.
' Ibid., VI, 470; V, 88-89; VI, 539-540.
*Ibid., IV, 75; VI. 528.
* Ibid., IV, 771. Also j6id.. III. 612.
'» This so-called "illegal" assembly was called by Johnston to meet at Wilmington. November,
1746. It was an attempt on his part, not only to make Wilmington the social center of the piovince,
but to break down the old unequal system of representation by which the northern countii^ were able
to control the assembly. As a result, for eight years the northern counties sent no representatives to
the assembly. Under Dobbs, the old inequalities were restored. C. R., IV, xix, 857, 1170.
260 The IS'oeth Carolina Historical Review
Dartmouth, representing the Board of Trade, wrote to Governor
Martin, that the assembly's demand that a majority be a quorum was
absurd.^^
The oaths were administered, ordinarily, in the assembly room by
two members of the council, who were sent there by the governor
on being informed by a member of the lower house that a quorum
had met. The oaths were only taken at the beginning of a new
assembly unless a member was returned for a later session who
had not served at the first/^ Such a representative could not sit
until he had been duly sworn in. The oaths administered for the
qualification of public officers were those required by the English
government for all colonial officers. ^^ The first royal assembly's pro-cedure
in this matter is interesting for it shows a deviation not only
from the later practice in !N^orth Carolina, but also from that common
in Virginia^* and from that of the English House of Commons it-self.
In this assembly, the members of the house waited on the gov-ernor
and were directed by him to choose their speaker after which
John Ashe of the council came to administer the oaths.^^ Later, all
sessions reverted to the normal procedure. Another illustration of
interest shows that the process of organizing the house in the early
years was as yet incomplete. In the session of July, 1733, Ayliffe
Williams, clerk of the assembly, on a dedimus from the governor,
was authorized to qualify the members of the house.^^ This was quite
unusual and seems to be the only case of deviation from the ordinary
procedure of the qualification of the representatives by members
of the council. Presumably these oaths were taken and the test
subscribed before the table of the house. 'No doubt a certain amount
of ceremony was connected with this process, but of what sort we do
not know.
The oaths thus disposed of and the house duly constituted, two
members were sent to the governor to "acquaint him that the House
is met" and to ask him when he desired their attendance. To this
the governor replied, by a verbal message, usually delivered by the
clerk of the council, either demanding the immediate presence of the
>' C. R., Ill, 86, 87ff; IV, 1155, 1157; V, 1107ff; VI, 470. See also ibid., V, 88, 89; IX, 665. Cooke, C. S.,
The Governor, Council, and Assembly in Royal North Carolina.
"C. R., IX. 447; IV, 771.
'"S. R., XXIII, 15; C. R., III. 66fT, 290; IX, 137.
'< Pargellis, S. M., "The Proceedings of the Virginia House of Burgesses," William and Mary
Quarterly. April, 1927, pp. 75-76.
'•C. R., III. 285-286.
««/6id.. Ill, 562, 597, 602, 612.
Pkocedure in North Carolina Assembly, 1731-1770 2G1
house in the council chamber or setting some future date when he
would see them. The members met the governor as ordered and were
directed by him to return to their own house and choose their
speaker. ^^
This the house proceeded to do, usually with unanimity. The
speaker chosen by the assembly of 1731 was Edward Moseley, a man
w^ho had won prominence as an opponent of Burringlon when the
latter had been governor under the proprietors and thus was far from
being a non-partizan.^® There was almost never a conflict over the
choice of a speaker. In 1754, however, Samuel Swann was opposed
for the office by John Campbell. An equality of votes caused Swann
to withdraw in favor of Campbell in order to expedite the business
of the house. He was, however, chosen the following year upon the
death of Campbell and held office until 1762. Ashe sees in this
contested speakership an epitome of the struggle between the northern
and southern counties which had so upset the political organization
of North Carolina since 1746.^^ Swann w^as also distinctly partizan."^
Whether or not a moderator acted until the speaker was chosen,
directing the sending of members to announce to the governor the
stage of proceedings in the house and presiding over the election
of the speaker, is not known.
The speaker, so elected, took the chair and assumed at once his
duties as the presiding officer. The ceremony of placing the speaker
in office was perhaps an informal proceeding for not until after 1760
are we able to trace any definite feeling of dignity in the house as
expressed by an emphasized use of the outward signs of parliamentary
power. ^^ The speaker now had to be approved by the governor. To
this end two members were sent, appointed by the newly chosen
speaker, to inform the executive of the assembly's choice and to ask
that ho receive the house for tho presentation of the speaker.
Again the governor replied, sending back the answer with the two
members. Usually he had the lower house attend immediately, but
"Ibid., III. 288; IV, 75. 493; VIII. 304; IX, 136. We have no records giving any indication of the
distances between the asaembly room and council room, except in Tryon's palnce. The fact that
these goins^ and comings, however, occupied but part of one day shows that the n\e<'tinK places of
the two houses must have been close together. Ibid., Ill, 260, 263; IV, 75. 409. 493, 722; V, 714.
" C. R., III. 288; Ashe. S. A., lliMory of North Carolina, I. 228.
'• C. R., V, 232. Swann had been speaker from 1743 to 1755 and was the great opponent of both
Governor Johnston and Governor Dobbs. Ashe, ( p. ri^., I, 287, 293, 302.
M See C. R., V. 945-954; VI, 40-41. 245. Harlow, R. V., Leuixlative Methods before !8S5, pp. 53-55.
«' In the English Commons as soon as the speaker was in the chair the house was considered fully
constituted and accordingly the nmce was put on the top of the table instead of resting on a shelf
underneath as it did until that moment. See Redlich, J., The Procedure in the House of Cowimon.*.
11,56. C. ft.. Ill, 257, 563; IV. 75.
262 The North Carolina Historical Keview
sometimes he appointed the next day as the time for this reception.
There is no record of the refusal of a governor in JSTorth Carolina
to approve the speaker chosen by the house, although in theory it was
in his power to do so. iVfter the governor had signified his approba-tion
of the speaker, he was requested by that officer to protect the
assembly in its ^'ancient rights and privileges." In 1766, the speaker
merely asked for a confirmation of the usual privileges of the house,
especially those of the freedom of speech and of debate, as well as the
right to exercise power over its own members. ^^ In reply the governor
always expressed a willingness to protect the assembly in the use of its
inherent rights and privileges.
After these formal parleys, the lower house returned to transact
its business connected with the appointment of the sergeant-at-arms,
the clerk, and the doorkeepers. This activity occupied the time until
the assembly received another message from the governor, ordinarily
on the same day, demanding the attendance of the house upon him
in the council chamber to hear his message.^^
The speech itself was a more or less formal outline of the business
for the session, varying in tone with the political situation in the
colony and the character of the governor. A copy of this speech was
always obtained by the speaker and given to the clerk at the table to
be read again when the house returned, ^'to prevent mistakes."
Then on motion, it was scheduled for consideration on that day or
on the next.^* This motion was so entered in the journal of the
assembly. Very soon thereafter a select committee was appointed to
prepare a reply. Within a few days this return address was laid
before the house for approbation, and was then ordered to be en-grossed.^^
With the address so prepared and approved, a new series of mes-sages
were drafted, in order to acquaint the governor with the
assembly's reply and to learn his pleasure about receiving it.^*^ These
speeches and addresses on the part of the governor and the lower
house were made not only at the beginning of each new assembly,
" C. R., VII, 344; VI, 363; IX, 450. It is curious that before 1760 the journals of the assembly con-tain
no mention of this procedure. No doubt such forms were maintained earlier for they were cus-tomary
in the other colonies and in England. There was never any expression on the part of the speaker-elect
in North Carolina of his sense of unworthiness or a plea that he alone and not the assembly be
held responsible for any errors. This, then, was a slight divergence from the English practice.
"/6id., IV, 401, 1275; V, 233: VII, 62; IX. 136.
** Ibid., Ill, 288; IX, 144. The journals contain no information regarding the discussions which
must have taken place on these messages and replies.
» C. R., Ill, 290; IV, 118, 496; V, 237, 524; VII, 62, 347; IX, 141.
**Ibid., Ill, 291, 295, 580; IV, 722, 728; VI, 829; IX, 144.
Peocedure in North Carolina Assembly, 1731-1770 203
but also at the opening of each session. With this last exchange of
speeches the assembly might be considered as formally organized
by the sanction of the governor and council.
The house then proceeded to the business before it, choosing their
minor officers if not yet done, appointing the standing committees,
and considering the bills. The choice of the speaker has already been
described. This officer was very powerful within the assembly. Not
only did he supervise the business of the house and see that it pro-ceeded
with all good form and dignity, but he was empowered to
issue warrants to the sergeant-at-arms to bring persons before the
house for information or for punishment. He signed all the addresses
to the upper house and expressed the views of the assembly on any
given point to the outer world.
To the clerk of the lower house fell the secretarial work of keeping
the journal, receiving the bills delivered at the table, and the like.
His appointment was for some years a moot question. The first clerk
of the house in the royal period was Ayliffe Williams, chosen in 1731
by the house. Burrington, the governor, however, maintained that
he had appointed Williams under a commission which the house
ignored, but contented himself with insisting on his right of appoint-ing
the clerk at the assembly meeting.^" This attitude on the part of
the governor resulted in the appointment of a committee of the house
to formulate the position of the assembly. On July 7, 1733, this
group reported that the committee had ". . . Examined the
Books of the Assembly and do find that it has been the constant prac-tice
of the House to name and appoint all their Officers Such as Clerk,
Sargeant, Messenger, and Doorkeeper." Nor did they find that the
proprietors or their governors ever attempted to name or appoint
these officers.^^ This committee suggested an address to tlie king
asking permission to continue in the exercise of the '^ancient liberty
and privileges of this Assembly.'' If such a request were not granted,
''rather than . . . retard the business of this session, until His
Majesty's pleasure be known," the clerk appointed by the governor,
was to be recognized.^® In 1735, the house accepted the clerk ap-pointed
by the governor's commission without protest.^^ By 1760,
" Ibid., III. 288. 289, 290, 482-483.
«'C. R., III. 576.
**Ibid., III. 578.
••/bid., IV, 115, 116.
264 The Xokth Carolina Historical Keview
however, the assembly seems to have regained the right to choose and
appoint its clerk. ^^ Obviously the appointment of the clerk of the
assembly involved an interesting struggle between the prerogative,
as expressed by the governor, and the assembly, but the records do
not shed much light upon the matter.
The duties of the clerk made him, next to the speaker, the most
important officer in the house. Upon him rested the care of the
journal. This duty w^as very important for therein were set down
all the activities of the lower house. The clerk was forbidden, unless
otherwise ordered by the house, to deliver the original journal to any
one but the speaker. ^^ This order enabled the assembly to keep its
activities secret from the governor, if they wished to thwart him.
He was, however, allowed to give a copy of the journal each day to
the public printer, who was daily to print the minutes and deliver
copies to each member of the house. ^^ The clerk on occasion expunged
entries from the journal, and was responsible for the entire safe
keeping of all previous journals and all other papers belonging to the
assembly.^* In case the clerk was unable to attend the house by reason
of illness, the speaker appointed some member to take the minutes
and the speaker himself kept the papers ^^to form the Journal by"
which were delivered to the clerk when he was able to receive them.^^
An assistant clerk was named also. His main duty appears to have
been to care for the public accounts. The first record of such an ap-pointment
occurs in 1756, when Henry Dillon^^ was named. Wliether
this year actually marks the first appointment of the assistant clerk,
we do not know.
The appointment of the sergeant-at-arms was contested between
the governor and the house just as the clerkship had been, but after
the first year of organization under royal control, the house appointed
him without question. Through him the house exercised its police
powers, directing the sergeant-at-arms, upon warrant from the speaker,
to take into custody persons whom the house wished to question or
to censure. ^^ The messenger was also appointed by the house. His
duties were concerned with the business of the lower house as a
»' Tbid., VII, 344. See also ibid., Ill, 98; V, 212, 307, for salary and fees of the clerk.
"Ibid., VI. 484.
••C. R., VI, 1258; VII, 64.
**Ibid., IX, 196; VII, 936; VIII, 440.
»'Ibid., Ill, 587. 604. 609.
**Ibid., V. 733; VI. 372.
•' Ibid., IV, 123. Ibid., Ill, 577; IV, 741; VI, 164; VII, 422; VIII, 397.
Procedure in North Carolina Assembly, 1731-1770 205
separate body and not with the formalities of taking bills or messages
from the lower house to the council. The doorkeeper's duties were
no doubt perfunctory. Appointed by the house even as early as 1731,
the manner of his choice was not specially questioned. Often we find
two doorkeepers serving. The position was not highly valued, for
there are several instances of the choice of a new doorkeeper in place
of the former incumbent who had not appeared at some session.^**
The appointment of a mace bearer was a distinct indication that
the house realized its dignity. Before 1756 this officer of the house
is not mentioned and it is doubtful if he existed. In that year one
Daniel Dupree was recommended by the house to the governor ^'to
be commissionated Mace Bearer," with the following message, "This
House taking into Consideration the necessity of a Mace Bearer beg
leave to recommend to your Excellency Daniel Dupree for that
office. "^^ The introduction of the mace bearer brought with it a
train of new interests in the formalities and ceremonies of the house.
After 1762 the house resolved that as often as needful, the officers
of the house, namely the speaker, clerk, doorkeepers, and mace
bearer, be provided with the necessary robes suitable to their stations.
These robes were ordered from London."*^ With such brief notices
we have the only indication of the outward appearance of the royal
assembly in North Carolina. This increase in ceremonial costume
was based, no doubt, on a definite understanding of the dignities of
the English House of Commons and a wish to follow the precedents
set by that body. We may also, perhaps, attribute this exceptional
interest in solemn order to the personal influence of Governor Tryon
who assumed office in 1765 and consistently laid much stress on
formalities and ceremony in the province.
About the middle of the century, North Carolina adopted the
English practice of having a religious service at the opening of the
daily session. Under the first years of the royal administration the
question of a chaplain was unsettled. In that period there was no
regularly officiating minister, but once a week one of the missionaries
of the province, such as John Garzia or any available preacher, was
•• C. R., III. 288; IV, 780. Ibid., VIII. 109.
•• Ibid., V, 714. Dupree retained this office until be was discharged because he was aged and infirm.
Tbid., VI. 1156, 1167.
'"Ibid., VI, 960; VII. 656. 969; IX. 218. 4.53. The treasurers had rharse of ordering these gowns
except in 1768 when the <iuty wa.s given to the speaker. He was also oriiered to procure a silver nmce
for the use of the as.MeiiihIy, as well jis one for the council, to he "about two MH>t long imd gilded,
weighing about a hundred ounces" and not to exceed £115 sterling. Ibid., VII. 969.
266 The Noeth Carolina Historical Review
asked to perform divine service before the assembly. For this sermon
he was sometimes paid the sum of £10, or again, merely thanked. By
1756, it had become customary to print the sermon.*^ In May, 1756,
however, the house resolved ^'that the Reverend James Reed be
appointed Chaplain to this House."^^ In 1760 Reed was again named
chaplain and his duties specified, especially that of meeting the house
daily at nine o'clock in the morning to perform divine service.*^ He
apparently preached a sermon at the beginning of each session of the
assembly, in addition to the daily service. But on the type of service,
whether prayer or some more elaborate form, the time it was held, and
the obligations of the members to attend, the records are silent.
Though the assembly was willing to copy certain formalities of
conduct, the members were quite ready on the other hand to deviate
from English practices on fundamental questions. Thus in 1757,
Dobbs complained to the Board of Trade of the ^'Republican As-sembly"
which refused to submit to his instructions and insisted on
appointing all persons connected with raising money for public use.**
With the officers of the house thus chosen, the assembly turned to
the appointment of the committees. Special committees, such as those
for drawing up the reply to the governor's message, were appointed
from time to time as the business of the house required. At the
beginning of each assembly, however, a committee on privileges and
elections was appointed. A committee on propositions and grievances
was also named with each new session, as well as a committee of
public accounts. The work of these committees will be taken up later
in their relation to the business of the house.
Though the assembly was now ready to take up the duties of legis-lation,
its members were forced to consider certain internal aspects of
procedure which concerned their own conduct as a house. A member
could not stay from his duties without formal permission, unless
he wished to risk the censure of the house. Ordinarily a member
moved for leave "to absent himself from the service of the House,"
whereupon it was "ordered that he have leave accordingly." Some-times
the member specified illness as a reason for his absence. In
other cases, absence was allowed under a specified time limit.*^ The
«' C. R., in, 263. 584; IV, 118, 132, 498; V, 550, 696.
««/6td., V, 845.
" Ibid., VI. 366, 955.
«< Ibid., V. 943. This letter was relative to the contest over the appointment of public treasurers,
in which the assemblv won out. See ibid.. Ill, 483-484. Also Harlow, op. cit., pp. 53-56.
«' C. R., IV, 564; VI, 381; VII, 399; IX, 144
Procedure in North Carolina xYssembly, 1731-1770 267
question of enforcing attendance, however, was a serious problem,
and continued so throughout the period. This was due in part to the
difficulties of travel in the colony. There seems never to have been
any great enthusiasm for attending the North Carolina assembly,
but neither was there ever any marked unwillingness to attend.*^
The only way open to the lower house to force the members to be
present was to place them in custody at their own expense. To do
this, the speaker issued warrants to the sergeant-at-arms to bring the
members to the assembly. The offending members were also fined ten
shillings a day for each day's absence.^^ Although this means of
enforcing attendance upon the individual members was common, it
w^as quite impossible to make any large number of them attend in a
body if for any reason they did not wish to do so. Dobbs, in his
contests with the assembly, found this to be true. He complained in
1764 that the assembly men were in town but refused to be sworn.*®
Delay in attendance on the assembly was common. There is but
one case, however, of an actual refusal to sit by a man duly elected
to serve. This occurred in 1768, when John Crawford wrote a letter
to the assembly stating that he had been elected without desire to be
so chosen, and was in addition infirm, and so wished to relinquish his
claim as a representative of Anson County. The house accepted his
resignation on these grounds.*® This case is interesting not only as a
definite refusal to sit in the assembly, but it is also significant as
bringing upon the house the censure of Lord Hillsborough of the
Board of Trade because contrary to English practice, "as the Usages
and Precedents of the House of Commons are the Rules adopted by
the Assembly of North Carolina, the House appears to have been
mistaken in accepting the Resignation of Mr. Crawford.''*®
The expulsion of offending members was the peculiar right of the
assembly and was never questioned, as it was quite in accordance with
English custom. The records contain but two cases of such action,
one in 1760 and one in 1770. The former case was attributed bv
Dobbs not to any offended dignity, but to a desire of the Junto, the
select group which controlled the assembly, to show its power. This
••Before the erection of Tryon's Palace at New Bern in 1768 creatinR a permanent capitol, the
assembly sat in almost any of the larger towns of the colony, especially Edenton, New Bern, and
WilminRton.
" Ihid., IV, 724. 856, 1279; V, 896.
•• Ibid.. VI. 1035.
••C. ft., VIII. 655.
•" Ibid., VII, 788. The procedure on the death of a member took shape early and continued to serve
without variations. Sec ibid., IV, 149, 1174; VI. 135.
268 The North Carolina Historical Review
imi gi'oup, whatever the reason, managed to have a member expelled who
H' had been put out of a former assembly, for having sworn falsely in
a committee.^^ The other case was clearly a political move, engend-ered
by the conflicts of the time. One Herman Husband, charged with
.Jij sedition and libel, upon the recommendation of a committee of the
whole house, which considered his conduct both as a member of
the house and of the community in general, was ordered expelled,
as ^^unworthy of a seat in this assembly."^^ Accordingly he was
required to appear at the bar of the house, where the speaker pro-nounced
the sentence. Both of these were extraordinary instances
and it seems safe to state that expulsion as a means of punishment
for an offence involving the dignity of the house alone was almost
never used.
While a discussion of the power of adjournment rightly involves
a consideration of the part of the governor in the procedure of the
house, it is well to note here that the assembly was permitted by
the governor's instructions to adjourn itself from day to day and
over the week-end. ^^ The house always adjourned after the morning
session until three or four o'clock in the afternoon, when it resumed
business. Occasionally the members met in the afternoon only to ad-journ
until the next day. Sometimes, if business were particularly
arduous or necessitated an immediate consultation with the council,
the house would adjourn for an hour or a half an hour to take up
business at the end of that time.
The privileges of the house are worthy of a separate study and
must be considered here only in their relation to procedure. The
assembly of North Carolina, however, was very tenacious of its
privileges, as the members considered any encroachment on these
peculiar rights as an attack upon the dignity of the house. The
governor's instructions expressly state that no protection was to be
pm allowed the assemblymen other than security to their persons during
the session. This restriction was in striking contrast to the pro-tection
allowed the members of the English House of Commons
at this time, where parliamentary protection was extended to mem-bers'
servants and effects.*^*
»> Ibid., VI. 246.
»»76?:d., VIH, 268-269, 331. 471, 494.
'• Ibid., Ill, 93-94; IV. 408. 843; VII. 984.
»* Raper, C. L., North Carolina, 86. See Redlich, op. cit., Ill, 46, n.
Proceduke in North Carolina Assembly, 1731-1770 209
The strict enforcement of secrecy was enjoined as part of the
exercise of privilege. Not only were the sessions of the house secret
from the governor, but the printing of the debates without authoriza-tion
by the assembly was a serious offense against the dignity of the
house. As early as 1726, under the proprietors, this right was
emphasized by resolutions passed, declaring that any member or
officer of the house who disclosed the proceedings or purport of any
debate was to be expelled.^'^ In 1760 this resolve was repeated when
the house went into a committee of the whole house to consider
Governor Dobbs' message, thus making it a secret session.^^
It was an inherent right of the house to punish breaches of privilege
committed either by outsiders or by members. This the assembly
did with great solemnity and form. Any disrespect shown to the
house as a whole or to individual members was severely condemned.
Refusal to take an oath constituted contempt of the house.°' In 1731,
the house declared that the council had expressed terms reflecting
on the members of the house and on the public treasurer, which
reflections were "unprecedented and a violation and breach of the
privileges of the House."^® In May of the same year, one Peter
Young, who had uttered "divers scandalous speeches" concerning
the members of the assembly, was ordered before the house and
charged with misconduct. He acknowledged his error and "hoped
the House would forgive him." It was then ordered that "he do in
a submissive manner ask pardon on his knees at the Bar of this
House and that he stand committed to close Prison durinc: the Pleas-ure
of this House."°^ Thus with the first royal assembly there de-veloped
an elaborate method of dealing with such offenses, inherited,
doubtless, from the proprietary period. At that time the house
contented itself with punishing such misbehavior by a rebuke from
the speaker. In 1761, however, the indignity of being forced to ask
the pardon of the house on his knees was inflicted on John Ferges,
who had threatened one of the members of the house with "a genteel
flogging. "®° In 1768, the house resolved that John Simpson, who
had prevented the meeting of the inferior court of Pitt County, had
•» C. «., VI, 961. Ibid., II, 610; IV, 369.
»Ibid., VI. 409.
•T. R., II, 618.
»»Mid.. III. 268.
'> Ihid., III. 317-318. For other infringements upon privilcgca see ibid., IV, 1336, 1337; V, 1050; VII,
385. 627; VIII. 139. 400. 461. 467; IX. 470.
*oJbid., VI. 697.
270 The Xokth Carolina Historical Review
been guilty of conduct so ''injurious to the Public and detestable to
this House" as to require that he appear at the bar and receive for
his conduct '^a severe censure and reprimand from Mr. Speaker."^^
This severe punishment for a breach of privilege was inflicted on all
outsiders who aroused its wrath. For members probably censure
and reprimand were enough, or expulsion in flagrant cases, but it
is doubtful if asking pardon on his knees was ever required of a
member.
That there were definite rules of decorum by which the assembly
governed itself during the daily sessions we must believe, but what
they were, or in what form they were issued, we do not know.^^ We
have but one indication of the manner of conducting business, which
adds to our impression that in the early period the methods of
parliamentary practice were often somewhat crude and unpolished.
In 1733 Burrington complained to his assembly that, as he was in-formed,
a report from a committee had been accepted in the house
when but few members were present and with ''so great a noise in
the House" that while the paper was being read "it was impossible
for the Members, not in the Secret to understand or comprehend
the same."®^ It must, of course, be realized that this event came
early in the history of the royal assembly of l!^orth Carolina. Such
a proceeding would doubtless never have occurred under Tryon's
more formal administration.
Detailed information is lacking which might disclose in detail the
life in the assembly. The actual work of legislation, however, is
better recorded. The hearing of petitions and grievances engaged the
attention of the assembly from time to time, and the passing of bills
was a constant source of activity. Petitions which came up before
the house were of all varieties. Chief among these were petitions
asking for exemption from taxation. These were usually granted
without much discussion.^* As a rule, petitions were ordered to lie
on the table for future reference or for consideration at another
session. ^'^ Individuals interested in the petitions could present them
only til rough a member of the assembly, for there is no evidence of
«> Ibid., VIII. 9.')3.
•' For rulos of docorum in use in the state legislature in 1778, probably based on earlier procedure,
see S. li., XII. 637.
•«C. R., III. 614.
•« Ibid., IV. 497.
•• Ibid., VI. 384. See also ibid., V, 694.
Pkocedure IX North Carolina Assembly, 1731-1770 271
any person or any group coming before the house for this purpose.
A member presenting a petition calling for an act of the assembly
often was given leave to prepare and bring in a bill pursuant to
the petition.®^ Some grievances seemingly were brought before the
house without being embodied in a petition. This was done by a mem-ber
of the house who called attention to the point in question.**^
Acts of legislation for the entire province were passed in a much
more definite manner, beginning in the first royal assemblies with
forms which were already worked out from parliamentary experience
in the proprietary assemblies, and continuing throughout the period
with a surprising similarity of form. Bills were introduced in various
ways. Ordinarily they were presented by a member of the house
upon a motion for permission to do so.^® Although the governor had
the right to suggest legislation he rarely exercised this power.^^
There is but one instance of the speaker introducing a bill, so it seems
that he rarely deviated from his position as moderator.^*^ Bills were
also introduced by committees, which had been especially appointed
to prepare them. A bill so introduced went through a very regiilar
process. The member or chairman of a committee who prepared the
bill brought it in, read it in his place, delivered it in at the table,
where it was read the second time by the clerk and then voted
upon by the house. This done, the bill was sent to the council by
two members of the assembly. There it received, in most cases, the
assent of that body and was returned, so endorsed. The bill was
read a second time in the lower house, again sent to the upper house
for assent, approved, and returned, whereupon this process was re-peated
for the third time.'^ On the third reading if approved in the
council it was returned with the order to be engrossed.^^
This procedure, sketched here in its simplest form, is of great in-terest.
Such close scrutiny at each stage of the passage of a bill on
the part of the council was not only unusual in the colonies, but was
contrary to all ordinary parliamentary practice. Although in most
•• Ibid., IX, 147. Such bills were private bills and subject to fees. Ibid., VI, 857, 925.
•'C. R., III. 5<J6: VIII. 44.3.
•• /6k/.. IV, .'i64. 12S6; V. 539; VI. 400. See also ibid., V, 528; IX. 452. Presumably all motions were
seconded, but tho rocord-s cive no indiotxtion of such procedure. A member could also move for leave
to withdraw ii bill, which wa.s crantcd by an order of the house. Ibid., IV. 529.
•» Ibid., \y , f)rt7. See ibid., VI, 140, for the passage of an emergency mcasuie urged by the governor.
^olbid., IV, 563.
" The rccord.s do not state when thr?e bills were prepared. \n they were always presented shortly
after pcrnii.tfioii hail been granted, it is likely that the bill had betui prepared outride sometinic pre-viou.
slv and tl)(> pernii>'.sion to draft a bill was merely a formality.
" See ibid., IV, 505 fT; V. 2S1 ff; VII, 357 ff; IX. 763'.
272 The J^orth Cakolixa Historical Keview
colonial assemblies and in the English House of Commons a bill
passed through all three readings before it went to the upper house
for approval or rejection or perhaps amendment. North Carolina,
from the first royal assembly all through the period until the Revolu-tion,
followed this peculiar method." Any search for an explanation
of the origin of this practice or of the reasons for its continuance
is fruitless. This is all the more strange when we consider ISTorth
Carolina's obvious attempts to follow the English parliamentary prac-tice.
We are almost led to believe that this peculiar process of read-ing
bills was a native development, so firmly rooted that no one
thought of questioning its existence. Apparently the royal governors
never complained of this unusual form, nor did anyone, as far as can
be ascertained, comment upon the procedure. Although inexplicable
in view of the tendency to copy England, the interposition of the
council at each reading remained one of the great points of difference
from the practice in other colonies and so deserves special emphasis.
In spite of the fact that a surprisingly large number of bills were
thus passed and became laws, some elaboration did take place in the
process of passing a bill. A bill was not always immediately con-sidered
by the house, but at times was ordered on motion to ^'lie on
the Table" until some future date more convenient for a discussion."^*
The time set for its further deliberation was embodied in the orders
of the day for the date set." That there were debates on the proposed
bills at the different readings we may be certain. However, no
description of them exists in the minutes of the assembly. Only
occasionally were such discussions referred to.^^ Although considera-tion
of bills by a committee of the whole house was a common way
of deliberation, as presented in the journal, many proposed measures
were passed, it appears, without this stage of discussion. Doubtless
debates were often carried on from the floor of the house in formal
session. "^^ The sense of the assembly on the proposal was determined
by votes, but whether by voice or by show of hands we do not know.
'• Note the procedure in Virginia, Pargellis, op. ciL, 148-149.
'>* On Oct. 2, 1751 the old form of moving that the "bill lie" was changed to read in the journal that
the "Bill lie on the Table". C. li., IV, 1283.
" The U8e of the orders of the day is vague. They may have been constantly in use, and read at
the opening of each daily session, but the records mention them only a few times.
'• Ibid., VI, 907. See also ibid., VI, 920-921.
" See C. R., IV, 401, for a motion that the house order that no person be admitted in the house
while anything was being debated, excepting only a member. See also the resolution made at the same
time (1739) that no person be admitted to the house while a debate was going on without first obtain-ing
permi.ssion of the speaker. These two actions constitute almost the only knowledge we have of
anything relating to rules of debate.
Procedure in North Carolina Assembly, 1731-1770 273
Very late iii the history of the royal assembly there is some indicatioii
that divisions were taken.'® Even as early as 1740 we find a rule of
the house relating to divisions, although there are no examples of
its application. On August 19 of that year, a Mr. Montgomery moved
that any member "who shall in any wise detain . . . any mem-ber
in the House or take any out contrary to his or their Inclination
when the House calls for a Division on any Question may be Com-mitted.
Ilesolved that any Member who shall take any such offer shall
be censured.""''
Bills except money bills could be amended or rejected at any of
the three readings, either in the upper or in the lower house.®*' This
shows that the council could amend any bill other than financial in
any manner that pleased them. Usually the upper house proposed
an amendment before the second or third reading, if an amendment
was needed. The assembly then considered the message, either agree-ing
with the change or refusing concurrence. If the proposed change
was satisfactory to the lower house, the members indicated such agree-ment
by sending two members to the upper house to see the change
made in the bill. These two members reported duly to their house
that the alterations had been properly made.®^ As bills could be
amended, so they could be rejected by either house. The rejection
of a bill at any reading of course killed the measure for that session.
In the assembly the rejection, although possible on the first reading,
was usually reserved for the second.®^ The same freedom of rejection
prevailed at any stage in the council.®^
The assembly and the council did not always carry on their rela-tions
in a friendly manner.®^ In 1744 a conflict arose over a question
of privilege. In March the council sent a message protesting against
an alteration the assembly had made in the form of address, substi-tuting
the phrase: "Gentlemen of His Majesty's Council" in place
of the former "Honorable Council" or "May it please your Hon-ours."
In this divergence the upper house saw an affront to its
dignity. By way of reply, the assembly called attention to the un-
'• Ibid., VIII. 422. See also ibid., VIII, 454.
^*Ibid., IV, 569.
*oIbid., V. .532-538, 540-541, 558.
*\Ibid., VI, 861; V, 285; VII, 406. In 1739 a curious sidelight appeaml. showing the manner of eon-cluctinff
legiKlation. The lower house sent a messase asking that the rounnl add a tonipornry clause
to the act for facilitating navigation, "It being forgot by this House before we sent up the Hill."
Ibid., IV. 375.
••C. R., VI, 921.
>*Ibid., VII, 565, 595.
** See ibid., VII. 55-56.
274 The North Carolina Historical Review
warranted action of the council in calling the lower house the House
of Burgesses in place of the General Assembly as it was styled in the
governor's instructions. The upper house still maintained that the
change was an affront and refused to do business with the lower
nflifi house until satisfaction had been given for this indignity. Accord-ingly
on March 8, the lower house resolved that no affront was meant
by the change and that the council had no right to consider it so.
The assembly then proceeded to state that the council's attitude was
an insult to the lower house and set on foot by persons desirous of
destroying the existing harmony.®^
The two houses not only sent messages to each other regarding
alterations or amendments in bills, but each took upon itself the
function of criticising the actions of the other body. Another ex-ample
of this occurred on April 27, 1731, in the first royal assembly.
The council presented to ^^Mr. Speaker and Gentlemen of the House
of Burgesses" the opinion that '%e find greater inclinations in you
to Cavil and raise Difficulties than to do anything to tend to his
Majesty's Honour and the good of the Province."*^ It appears, how-ever,
that later the assembly did not hesitate to defend itself against
such implications, for in a similar situation in 1768, the lower house
observed to the council that "as messages between the bodies of the
legislature are calculated in the last resort to settle any difference of
opinion Politeness and delicacy of expression ought punctually to be
observed between them with which we wish your Message had been
altogether consistent."^^
The upper house by the governor's instructions had concurrent
rights with the assembly in initiating legislation. This right, how-ever,
was seldom used, as the council in North Carolina, for the most
part, confined itself to approval or disapproval of the assembly's
work.®® In spite of the fact that technically the upper house claimed
to have equal rights in introducing or amending legislation with the
lower, the assembly never admitted, in practice, this particular claim
of the council, especially in the case of money bills. In 1755, in an
altercation over a bill to grant an aid to the king, the assembly
" Ibid., IV, 715-732. In this connection, note that the speaker of the assembly always signed formal
messaRCS to the council and that ordinarily the president of the council signed communications to the
lower house. Ibid., II, 827.
"C. R., Ill, 266.
"Ibid., VII. 658-659.
•• Ibid., V, 188. In the session of the upper house of May 3. 1765-May 18, 1765, no legislation was
initiated. In the session of Dec. 5, 1767-Jan. 1, 1768 no bills originated in the council. Ibid., VII, 41-61,
549-565.
Procedure in North Carolina Assembly, 1731-1770 275
declared that the changes proposed by the upper house were ''contrary
to the Custom and Usage of Parliament and that the same tends to
Infringe the Pight and Liberties of the Assembly, who have always
enjoyed uninterrupted the Privilege of Framing and Modelling all
Bills by Virtue of which ^loney has been Levied on the Subject of an
Aid for his Majesty.''***"* This assertion is significant in showing that
the provincial assembly recognized its likeness to the English House
of Commons. In 1762 the question arose again, whereupon the as-sembly
resolved that "by the Antient undoubted and Constitutional
right and Privilege of this House all Bills by which any Tax is laid
ought to take their rise in this House." They then iimnediately re-jected
the bill because it was initiated in the council. ^^ The inefiicacy
of the governor's instructions and also those of the Board of Trade
were most apparent in this case.^^
Joint conferences were another method employed to arrive at some
conclusion between the two branches of the legislature. In the case
of a contested measure, an interesting arrangement was sometimes
resorted to. Upon agreement the assembly went in a full body to the
upper house to confer on articles in dispute. ^lanagers were ap-pointed
by each house to debate the same. The articles were thus
discussed in conference and then the house returned, whereupon one
of the members made a motion and the question was put whether the
bill as amended should pass.®^
The two houses also employed joint committees for the purpose of
reaching a decision. ^^ In 1764 and in 1766 the two houses appointed
joint committees to settle the decorum to be observed between them.®^
Another common use of the joint committee was to inspect the burn-ing
of old proclamation money, upon a new issue of such currency.®'
By these various means of procedure a suggested measure passed
through the two houses, after which remained only the formalities
of engrossing and obtaining the governor's assent in order to trans-form
the bill into a law. Which house had the riiiht to order the
engrossing it is not certain. After the third reading in the upper
house, the bill, if approved, came back to the assembly with tlie
**Ibid., V, 287.
*'>Ibid., VI. iK)9.
•' For those instructions sec New York Colonial Documents, IV, 1172-1173.
"C. ff, IV. 401, .570.
*>Ihid., VI, 278: IV. 407.
** Ibid., VI, 126.5: VII, 296, 346.
*'Ibid., VIII, 393.
276 The Xoeth Carolina Historical Review
endorsement, "ordered to be engrossed. "^^ Eaper thinks that the up-per
house alone had the right to order bills engrossed.^^ The records
give the procedure on this point too vaguely to make a definite state-ment
that the lower house did not have concurrent rights in this
matter. At any event, the bills were returned to the lower house with
instructions to be registered by that house. Presumably the clerk
of the assembly supervised this work.
The governor might give his assent to bills in two different ways.
He could send a message to the assembly requiring immediate at-tendance
of the members upon him in the council chamber with the
bills which had been engrossed and there give his assent.®^ The other
method was initiated by the assembly itself. Occasionally two mem-bers
were sent to ask the governor when he would receive the house
vv^ith the engrossed bills. The governor then sent a message requiring
the attendance of the house with the bills. ^^ The house waited upon
him in a formal body led by the speaker who presented the bills. The
governor then gave his assent or rejected such bills as he considered
improper. The house returned and the speaker duly reported the
governor's action.^^^ In I^orth Carolina only occasionally did the
governor reject bills.^^^
With this last step a bill became a law of the colony. Beyond this
point a study of procedure does not take us. It is well to note, how-ever,
that after bills were agreed to, the governor within three months
had to send them to England for approval or disallowance by the
crown. The assembly had no further control over a bill after it
formally presented the engrossed copy for the governor's assent.
Up to this point we have not considered in detail the system of
committees which prevailed in the J^orth Carolina assembly. Their
organization and work constituted an integTal part of the procedure
^If and they were closely associated with all phases of the assembly's
work. The functions of the committee on the address to the governor
have been discussed. This was a select committee appointed for a
very specific and immediate purpose. Early in the organization of a
new house, several standing committees were also appointed to care
for certain types of business. Of these standing committees, the
**Ibid., IV, 457; V, 269, 281.
•' Raper, op. cit., p. 76. See also C. R., V, 269, 291, 304.
•' C. R., IV. 406; V, 309; VI, 694.
••/6td., VII. 977-978.
ioolbid.. IV, 515; V. 490; VII, 978.
«»' Ibid., VII, 623-624.
Peoceduke in North Carolina Assembly, 1731-1770 277
committee on privileges and elections was named only at the begin-ning
of a new assembly. The rest of the standing committees, namely
on propositions and grievances, and on public claims and accounts
were newly appointed at each session.
The committee on privileges and elections^^^ appointed on the first
or second day of the new assembly dealt with contested elections,
investigated the writs returned by the sheriffs, and recommended
that the assembly take action on the right of elected members to sit.
This committee, as a standing body, was larger than the other
committees. The most interesting cases dealt with by this body
concerned claims to sit in the assembly.^^^ In 17G0 it was resolved
that this committee should have power to call for persons, papers,
and records for their information.^^*
The duties of the sessional committee of propositions and griev-ances
are but vaguely indicated in the journal. In general they
were concerned with the consideration of those petitions for redress
of injuries or unfair settlements which the house saw fit to put before
it. Sometimes the governor's message was discussed in this com-mittee.
Apparently this large gTOup was not an especially active or
efficient body. We glean some information as to its actual working
in 1746 from a statement of the chairman of the committee who
reported the choice of a clerk to serve the group.^*^^
The period after 1760 is significant because of the many indica-tions
of an increase in the self-consciousness of the assembly. In
accord with this a new standing committee was appointed. This was
the committee of correspondence appointed to act with the provincial
agent of the colony, resident in London. This committee was in no
way an independent body and could act only upon directions from the
assembly.^®^ It must not be confused with the revolutionary com-mittees
of correspondence. In 1768 this committee consisted of five
members of the house, including the speaker, who were to correspond
with the agent and lay his communications before the assembly ^'that
they may be informed of every circumstance necessary for the benefit
of tliis province."^'107
••' The first royal assembly of 1731 acted as a house on controverted elections and did not appoint
a committee for that purpose. C. R., Ill, 288. As the procedure developed more stability, the com-mittee
on elections became a rcRular feature. See ibid., IV, 814; VI, 1165.
'•»/6.d., VI. 366. 374. 406. 1154; IX. 457.
»*Ibid., VI. 364.
•••/bid.. IV. 824.
"••C. R., VI. 415. 500. 947; VII, 132; VIII. 51. 56-57.
'" Ibid.. VII, 973.
278 The J^oeth Carolina Historical Review
These committees, intimately connected as they were with the pro-cedure
of the house, did not present any new or unusual feature. The
committee of public accounts and committee for public claims, ap-pointed
partly by the assembly and partly by the council to work as
a standing committee, was, however, a unique development in ISTorth
Carolina. Separate committees on accounts appointed by each house
to act jointly as special committees were common enough in the
colonies, but a joint permanent committee seems to have been a
point of procedure peculiar to this province. One of the first duties
of the house at the beginning of a new session was H;o appoint
these two committees each of which was then enlarged by the ap-pointments
of the council. It was their duty to state and settle
public claims and accounts.^*^^ These claims were then read in the
house, agreed to, and sent to the council for concurrence.^^^ The
manner in which the appointment of this committee worked out
is interesting. At first glance the mere fact of a joint standing
committee indicated a close harmony between the two houses. In
actual fact, the number of members appointed by the council was
so much smaller than the number representing the lower house that
the committee was completely controlled by the latter body. In
1769 there was but one member from the council and eleven from
the assembly.^^^
Fortunately the records give more detail regarding the procedure
within these two joint committees. Although the journal does not
always record the meeting place of this committee, we know that in
1769 it met at a Mr. Frazier's house where Richard Caswell was
chosen chairman. The clerk was then appointed and ordered to an-nounce
that it proposed to meet at John Sitgreaves' house the
next evening at six o'clock, and every evening thereafter during
that session of the assembly.^^^ In view of the fact that we know
almost nothing of the internal organization of any of the special
committees of the house, this evidence as to the working hours of the
committee on accounts is most interesting. Between the council and
the lower house there arose a conflict over the appointment of the
clerk of the permanent joint committees. The lower house had as-
•»• Ibid., Ill, 275. 282, 318-320; IV, 738; IX, 141. See Harlow, op. cit., p. 18.
"'Ibid., VII. 973.
"" C. R., VIII, 141. Ordinarily the discrepancy in i-epresentation was not as great as this, there
boinj? usually two or three from the council to five or nine from the assembly. See ibid., V, 250. 523,
628. 529. 531, 965; VI, 368, 375: IX, 146; Harlow, op. cit.. p. 56.
>" C. R., VI, 388; VIII, 141.
Proceduke in Xorth Carolina Assembly, 1731-1770 270
sumed the right to name that officer, until the council in 1736 pro-tested
and forced the assembly to admit the right of the upper house
to participate in the appointment of the clerk of the committee of
public claims/^^ Immediately after the lower house had assented to
this equal status, the council willingly agreed to the nominee of the
assembly.
!N^ot only did the procedure of the assembly include the appoint-ment
of such standing bodies"^ but it admitted also special commit-tees
to facilitate the conduct of business. These could be appointed at
any time to consider any kind of business before the assembly."* By
far the greatest use made of special committees, however, was to
prepare bills."® The members of these committees were appointed
by motion from the floor of the house, in a more or less haphazard
fashion."^ The chairmen of the committees were not, apparently,
named by the speaker, but chosen by the committees themselves, as
the clerks were.^" It is probable that most committee work was
done after the daily sessions. The arrangements were crude and in-efficient
in most cases.^^® We have evidence that some basic rules
of procedure were in use in the committee meetings. Even as early
as 1735 the house ordered that in the future no message should be
received in the house from any of the committees unless upon the
order of such a committee and delivered in writing by a member of
the group."'^ On the w^hole the committees of the Xorth Carolina
assembly were not fundamentally necessary in conducting business.
This conclusion is borne out by noticing the comparatively few times,
considering all the bills proposed, that these bills were committed for
discussion. The ease with which the house as a whole proceeded to
inquire into matters which properly fell under the care of a distinct
committee is further proof that much work was accomplished with-out
the use of committees.
Thus the most common method which the assemblv used to in-vestigate
any matters concerning legislation before it was as a com-mittee
of the whole house. The members could discuss bills and
"1 See ibid., IV, 232, 234.
"• Harlow, op. cit., p. 260, lists the standinft committees in North Carolina in 1770 as. Accounts,
Claims, Propositions and Grievances, and PriviloRes and Elections.
"« C. R., VIH. 118, 125, 326, 448.
>'• For examples see ibid., IV, 723; V, 256; VI. 399; VII. 370. 380; IX. 476.
"• C. R.. IX. 212. Also see Harlow, op. cit., p. 108.
•" Harlow, op cit , p. 109.
"• C. R., V. 975. Harlow, op. cit., pp. 112, 113.
"•C. R., IV. 125.
280 The IsToeth Carolijs-a Histoeical Eeview
amend them, consider the governor's message, decide controverted
election cases, and care for grievances whenever these matters were
not turned over to committees. Ways and means of raising money
for granting an aid to the king were usually considered in a com-mittee
of the whole house/^*^ In taking action on possible cases of
impeachment the committee of the whole house was used to decide
on the wisdom of preferring such charges/^^
The method of changing from a formal sitting to a committee of
the whole house was simple, although recorded in a formal manner.
On a motion, the house voted to resolve itself into a committee of the
whole house. This done, the committee chose a chairman who occu-pied
the speaker's chair. ^^After some time spent therein" as the
journal reads, during which discussions and debates in an informal
manner were carried on, the speaker resumed his chair. Thereupon
the chairman reported to him the results of the deliberations of the
committee. These findings the house then voted on in regular pro-cedure.
In 1760, the house in a controversy with Governor Dobbs
made use of this form of procedure to thwart him. Dobbs sent a
message to the house to demand its immediate attendance so that he
could pass on the bills, and so terminate the session. The house, when
informed of the arrival of his messenger, resolved itself into a com-mittee
of the whole house, and accordingly told the messenger that as
the house was in committee, he could not be admitted. The doors were
ordered locked and the members were pledged to secrecy on the pro-ceedings
upon penalty of expulsion.^^^ When the house finished the
business, after five hours, they received the governor's message.
The governor of the colony held a very important place in the
external aspects of legislative procedure. With the governor, as noted,
rested the sole power of calling the colonial assembly.^^^ This fact
alone must ever have reminded a too self-important assembly that
limits existed to its independence. With this check upon its sum-mons
and with the governor's right to prorogue and dissolve, a right
which was never questioned, the lower house was confined to a certain
range of activity. In its executive capacity the council supported
the governor, advising him, for instance, about calling and dissolving
'«» For illustrations see ibid., Ill, 288, 291; IV, 499. 500; V, 250, 725; VI. 155, 195, 379. 896; VIII, 121,
330. 331. Even under the proprietors this method of discussion was normal. Ibid., II, 610, 611.
"»' For illustrations see C. R., IV, 503, 510.
^"Ibid., VI, 247-248.
>«»/6id., IV, 461.
Procedure in North Carolina Assembly, 1731-1770 281
the assembly. Not only did the governor exercise influence over the
assembly by these means, but also by his messages which were de-livered
at the beginning of each session and upon all special occa-sions
when needful. ^"^ The governor in common with the council did
not hesitate to criticise the actions of the lower house when a conflict
arose. In complaining of one of the messages sent by the assembly
to him, Burrington, in 1731, declared that it was ''no breech of
Priviledge to say that the language of your last Message was very
Coarse and Rough and certainly wanted the Respect due to a Person
in my station which you will in time be Convinced of and obliged
to alter your Method."^^^ In periods of antagonism between the
governor and assembly, the latter sometimes demanded that the
executive lay copies of his instructions before the house. In 1731
the assembly added to this demand the specification that 'Svhat he
shall think proper to say about the instructions be put into writing."^^®
Due to the fact that many of North Carolina's governors were un-fortunate
enough to come into open conflict with the legislative body,
the records are unusually well filled with such peremptory demands
on both sides.
The governor occasionally communicated with the assembly by a
verbal message,^'"^^ but usually communications between him and the
assembly were carried on by short written messages. He was asked
to issue writs of election through the clerk of the crown to fill
vacancies ; he concurred Avith all money warrants issued by the as-sembly
and council ; and he assented to or vetoed all bills.^^^ The gov-ernor
could suggest legislation but seldom did so.^"^ The assembly it-self
exercised without question the right to adjourn from day to day.
The governor, however, had power, with the advice of his council,
to prorogue the assembly. The prorogation could be effected either
by calling the house before him to hear it pronounced, or by procla-mation.^^^
If done in the former manner, the speaker with the house
returned and there repeated the announcement of the prorogation.^^^
Whether or not the house could ask for a prorogation is not clear.
'•< Through the governor the assembly was able to addiess the king on colonial affairs. Sec C. R.,
V, 714.
'»» Ibid., Ill, 270. See also ibid., Ill, 613; IV, 241.
"•/6Vd.. Ill, 263.
i*nbid., VI, 161.
'"/6jrf., Ill, 263, 481; V, 309.
'"Ibid., IV, 1065.
"° Sec C. R., II, 576, 617, 622, for a oontroversv inulor the proprietors about illoRnl prorogations of
the assembly. For prorogations sec ibid.. Ill, 540, 622; IV, 534, 1179; VI. 520.
»•' Ibid., IV, 534, 752.
282 The Xokth Caeolina Historical Review
Prorogations terminated a session of the assembly. Adjournments
could be made during the session for a few days only.^^^ Dissolution,
which ended the life of the assembly then sitting, was accomplished
in the same manner as a prorogation/^^ Dissolution by proclamation,
however, was used in the majority of cases. With this mention of
dissolution, the story of the organization of the assembly as a legis-lative
body ends.
A survey of the development of procedure in !North Carolina brings
out several definite facts. First among these is the steady and constant
growth in the dignity and formality of the assembly. This was
influenced, doubtless, by the increase in wealth and refinement which
the colony enjoyed, especially after 1760. A study of the gradual
changes in parliamentary habits indicates that the house was quite
aware of its position of importance. For this reason the assembly
looked to England for models of conduct, which might express such a
growing conception of power, and found there the usages of the
English House of Commons singularly well adapted to its new needs.
As this change went on, we are, however, confronted with the para-doxical
situation that the colony maintained its own peculiarities in
the work of legislation, with no attempt to conform to English
methods on this point. Accordingly the bills continued to be read in
a way entirely out of keeping with the practice of parliament.
The relations between the two houses in IsTorth Carolina were ex-ceptionally
close, neither maintaining the somewhat formal aloofness
common to two bodies of a legislature. Part of this may have been due
to the political situation in the colony which allowed a small group
of leaders to control the activities of the council as well as those of
the assembly. This does not, however, sufficiently account for these
peculiarities in procedure, and we must, therefore, believe that the
legislative organization was not the result of temporary and uncertain
circumstance but a distinct and fixed wav of doinff business diiferent
from that prevailing in England and in most of the royal colonies.
There is no doubt but that within the colony itself the assembly,
considered locally, took steps to define its growing self-importance.
'•» Ibid., VI, 248. In 1731 Rurrincton prorogued the house saj'ing: "I fear it will be of little purpose
to keep you any longer together," because the transaction of business was so hindered by the "divi-sions,
the Heats, and the Indecencies of your debates." Ibid., Ill, 233.
>»> Ibid., Ill, 415; IV, 352, 616, 719; VII, 135; VIII, 37. See ibid., VI, 331, for the governor's reasons
laid before the council for wishing to dissolve the assembly. Ibid., VIII, 38, gives the form of a procla-mation
of dissolution.
Procedure ix Korth Carolina x\ssembly, 1731-1770 2S3
The change after 1760 to a more direct reliance on English methods
in all points is impressive. The records themselves are better written,
with more detail and with greater care. The introduction of the
mace bearer and the chaplain are minor items in themselves, but
point to a steady growth in the dignity and consciousness of the
house. A greater elaboration also took place in the use of committees
in discussions. From these changes we receive an impression, but
only an impression, that a corresponding improvement appeared in
the manners, dress, and conduct of the assemblymen themselves.
The erection of Tryon's palace, providing a fine building and a
permanent capitol as a center for the assembly's activities, must have
been an impetus to such improvement.
We find, too, in the years after the first royal assembly met, more
thought given to the place of the assembly as a body representing the
colony in opposition to the governor and the council, who maintained
the prerogative of the crown. Although this contrast was often unim-portant,
and must not be overstressed, its existence should be recog-nized.
Frequent claims were based on the old charter of 1665, al-though,
legally, the purchase of the colony by the crown nullified the
special privileges conceded in it. In spite of the control of the mother
country through the colonial relationship, it is clear that the members
of the [N^orth Carolina assembly definitely considered themselves as
possessing rights apart from those graciously granted by the king.
This tendency to independent action, so frowned upon in England by
such bodies as the Board of Trade, was a growth parallelling the
gains made by the English parliament of the same period. The
colonial assembly was not content to accept an organization of its
business directed by the crown, but appealed, upon occasion, to the
privileges of parliament as over and above the governor's instructions
issued by the king.
MOSES WADDEL AND THE WILLINGTON
ACADEMY
By Ralph M. Lyon
In an article printed in the Atlantic Monthly, November, 1929,
Count Hermann Keyserling expressed the belief that the South is
the only section of America where a real culture can be produced.
Only in this region have complete individuals lived. Here and only
here can a uniqueness, an individuality which leads to a development
of complete souls, flourish.^ Writing in a similar vein John Crowe
Ransom, the Nashville poet, says, ''The South is unique on this
continent for having founded and defended a culture which was ac-cording
to the European principles of culture; and the European
principles had better look to the South if they are to be perpetuated
in this country/'^ The same point of view characterizes a symposium
entitled Fll Take My Stand, by Twelve Southerners, which has lately
been published by Harpers.^ In the field of education these thinkers
criticize our public schools, and desire a return to the ante-bellum
system of formal training. Indeed, a great glorification of the acad-emy,
which was the most characteristic school of the pre-war South,
is presented. With the lapse of the educational system of the Colonial
Period . . .
the South found a means of transmitting to its own people the essen-tials
of a good classical education, by the growth of an institution that
never, to the same degree, affected the North. This institution was the
academy. It was by its means and operation that the older Southern
life and culture became what it was, and remained until the catastrophe
of 1861-5. . . . The academies solved the problem of [the] gap
between the acquisition of mere knowledge and the "acquisition of power
for independent work" by putting their pupils into direct contact, not
with undisputed masses of information and up-to-date apparatus, but
with such teachers as could be found. Their object was to teach nothing
that the teacher himself had not mastered, and could not convey to his
pupils. Their training was therefore classical and humanistic, rather
than scientific and technical—as most of the available teachers were
products of the older European and American schools.*
> "The South—America's Hope." pp. 605-608.
> "The South Defends Its Heritage," Harper's Maaazine, June, 1929, p. 109.
•Twelve Southerners, I'll Take My Stand, New York, 1930.
*Ibid., pp. 98-99, 103.
[ 284 ]
Moses Waddel and Willington Academy 285
Apropos of these observations it should be profitable to inquire
briefly into the history of this most characteristic Southern institu-tion
and review the work of probably the most famous of the ante-bellum
academies. In America the academy was a ^'product of the
frontier period of national development and the laissez faire theory
of government." Frequently it was motivated by "denominational
interest and sectarian pride." At the opening of the nineteenth cen-tury
this institution had become the most common type of secondary
school in the country. In the South the academies were of two types,
the modest local institution which was sometimes called the ''old
field school/' and the more pretentious, more permanent school with
a wider patronage. While fees were commonly charged, the academies
were democratic in character, and usually the idea of individual
development was dominant. Generally speaking the schools served
the educational needs of the entire community. In the South these
institutions became most popular, and by 1850 Virginia had 317,
:N'ortli Carolina 272, Georgia 219, and South Carolina 202.'
Judged by the eminence of its graduates, Willington Academy,
in Abbeville District, South Carolina, is perhaps the most celebrated
of these ante-bellum schools of the South. The master of this ''sylvan
retreat" was Moses Waddel, a native of North Carolina.
William Waddel and Sara Morrow Waddel emiorated from Countv
Down, Ireland, and landed in Charleston in January, 1767. At-tracted
to North Carolina by tales of the fertility of the Yadkin River
region, they settled in Rowan, now Iredell County. Here on July
29, 1770, Moses, a son of this union, was born. He was a sickly
child and kept close to the fireside. Early in life he gave promise
of academic success, so he was sent to various schools in the neigh-borhood.
At the age of six he went to a Mr. McKown, and later
received instruction from Dr. James Hall, a Princeton gi-aduate,
who kept Clio's Nursery. Following the capture of Charleston in the
spring of 1780, the British penetrated into the Piedmont region of
the Carolinas, and this school was temporarily closed. Closes received
no further formal training until 1782. By the summer of 1784 he
had completed the study of the Latin and Greek languages, arithme-tic,
Euclid's elements, geography, moral philosophy, and criticism
under Messrs. Newton and Yongue, assistants to Hall.
• Summarized from Knight, K. W., The Academy Movement in the South, Chapel Hill. 1920.
286 The !N^orth Caeolina Histoeical Review
The next two years youn^ Waddel taught Latin and English
scholars in the neighborhood of his home, and then went on an un-explained
'^expedition'^ to Georgia. There he taught a little, but ^^in
consequence of Indian troubles on this frontier, he relinquished this
school . . . and returned to North Carolina to visit his friends.'^
In 1788 his parents moved to Greene County, Georgia, and here
Moses opened another school. During these years the young teacher
was beset by the temptations of youth. Dancing, card playing, and
cider drinking appear to have been the leisure time activities of the
normal young man of this frontier community, and the record says
Waddel was troubled by his desire to participate. But the spirit
finally overcame the flesh, and in the enthusiasm of his moral victory,
Moses decided to enter the ministry. He planned to complete his
education at Hampden-Sidney College. Spending exactly eight
months and twenty-six days at the Virginia school, he was graduated
with the class of 1791.® Among the eight seniors with Moses Waddel
six have left distinguished records. President William Henry Har-rison
and Secretary of the Treasury George M. Bibb were members
of this class.^
After he received his license, Waddel preached on the islands
around Charleston and at Dorchester, South Carolina. In April
1794 he settled in Georgia. Near Appling in Columbia County he
opened a school with the intention of teaching and preaching at the
same time. Later he moved his school to the town of Appling. Here
William H. Crawford, ''the gTeatest of the citizens of Georgia,"®
received all of his formal education. In the sketch of Crawford in
the Dictionary of American Biography, U. B. Phillips says the
schooling under Waddel ''modified the outlook of the youth, which
doubtless would otherwise have been that of the plantation squires
roughened by contact with a crude frontier."® During the second
year the gifted Georgian was usher, assisting in Greek, Latin, French,
and philosophy. J. E. D. Shipp, Crawford's biographer, calls this
academy "the nursery of Georgia's most distinguished sons, in poli-tics,
literature, and religion."^^
• Summarized from Waddel, J. N., Memorials of Academic Life, Richmond, 1891, pp. 25-42.
» Letter to the w.iter from the Registrar, Hampdon-Sidney College, M