If its any help, the medieval English Parliament's early history was
similar - elected members met WITH Lords early on . . . but (if memory
serves) its not till about the 13th century that a House of Commons gets
organized separately with its own Speaker and clerk etc...
 Some of the other colonies (Mass and Maryland for example) began with
unicameral assemblies that became bicameral later -- by the revolution,
Pennsylvania seemed the odd duck for having a unicameral legislature....

Back when I was digging into this stuff, Frank Craven suggested that I
read Virginia primary sources and English parliamentary history - which I
did including three volumes on the history of the English Speakers of
House of Commons etc etc etc  ... way out of fashion at the time and
probably still....
Jon

> thanks
>
> [log in to unmask] wrote:
>> Exactly,
>>  The elected members were BURGESSES, but they were not yet meeting and
>> organized as a separate HOUSE.
>> Jon
>>
>>
>>>Ok, then why does the statute in 1629-39 refer to the "names of the
>>>Burgesses"? I am not trying to create an argument here.  As we say out
>>>here in Oklahoma, "I have no dogs in this fight" -- I just want to
>>>figure it out, so I get it right.  If I am understanding you correctly,
>>>the members of the legislature called themselves "Burgesses" in the 1629
>>>statute and inthe 1642 statute I quoted below, but they were not yet
>>>part of something that was officially called "The House of Burgesses."
>>>Is that right?
>>>
>>>Paul
>>>
>>>[log in to unmask] wrote:
>>>
>>>>Paul-
>>>>In a nutshell, from 1619-1642 Virginia's unicameral entity was called
>>>>either the General or Grand Assembly - from 1643 to 1776 the General
>>>>Assembly (now bicameral) comprised the Council and the House of
>>>>Burgesses.
>>>>
>>>>Jon Kukla
>>>>
>>>>One will not find the name "House of Burgesses" in any primary source
>>>>prior to the 1640s - just as one will not find "The United States of
>>>>America" prior to the revolution. Back in 1873 I read VCRP microfilm
>>>> etc
>>>>8
>>>>hours a day for a month . . .
>>>>   The salient thing about your first quote, Paul, is that it is from
>>>> W.
>>>>W. Hening's HEADNOTE - written earily in the 19th century - not from
>>>>the contemporary 17th-century sources he was publishing.  Hening and
>>>>McIlwaine and lots of others were reading back into the 17th-c a
>>>>structure that only began in 1643. In the Jefferson MSS at Library of
>>>>Congress, one can see portions of the original manuscript text that
>>>>Hening circled with a note to the typesetter that said "Omit" - in at
>>>>least one case the omitted material supported my interpretation of the
>>>>structure of the assembly . . . but I digress.
>>>>
>>>>   Warren Billings's new book (as well as my dissertation and my
>>>>_Speakers
>>>>and Clerks of the Virginia House of Burgesses, 1643-1776)) document all
>>>>this in detail, but in a nutshell:
>>>>
>>>>1619-1642  Unicameral General or Grand Assembly (literally meeting in
>>>>one
>>>>room)
>>>>  First General Assembly of 1619 was an expanded meeting of governor
>>>> and
>>>>Council with the addition of elected "burgesses" from various of the
>>>>settlements :
>>>>  the self-styled "Speaker" John Pory was in fact secretary of the
>>>>colony
>>>>and a member of the Council, not an elected burgess.
>>>>  the word "burgess" was English parliamentary term for representative
>>>>from a borough (as opposed to a shire or county) hence it goes along
>>>>with the early Virginia entities of James City, Charles City, Elizabeth
>>>>City ....  (I dealt with the myth of the county formation in 1634 in an
>>>>article in Virginia Genealogist back in the 1980s ... formal counties
>>>>date to the early 1640s, too.)
>>>>  During these decades, the unicameral body was sometimes called the
>>>>Grand
>>>>Assembly, burgesses sat together with governor and council, having been
>>>>elected by various geographical settlements and sometimes by parishes.
>>>>  When using Hening and especially McIlwaine one must be careful not to
>>>>let _their_ misunderstandings obstruct one's perception of the primary
>>>>sources . . . .  (I addressed this in my introductions to the 2d
>>>>editions of the (as McIlwaine called them) the Legislative Journals of
>>>>the Council and the Minutes of the Council and General Court (both
>>>>reprint editions published about 1979 I think).
>>>>  One also needs to escape the misunderstanding in Robert Beverly's
>>>>History where he claimed that a House of Burgesses started meeting
>>>>separately in 1680 - I dealt with that in VMHB back in 70s.  Beverley
>>>>lifted and misunderstood passages from an earlier report by Hartwell,
>>>>Chilton and Blair.
>>>>
>>>>1643-1776 Bicameral General Assembly comprised of Council and House of
>>>>Burgesses properly so called.
>>>>  1643 is first meeting of a bicameral General Assembly with the
>>>> elected
>>>>members organized separately as a "lower" house properly called the
>>>>House of Burgesses - and first real "Speaker" a burgess (unlike Pory)
>>>>
>>>>============
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Warren:  I am confused.  What was the body called from 1619 to 1643?
>>>>>After 1643 is the colonial legislature a unicameral and then called
>>>>> the
>>>>>House of Burgesses?  Hening, vol. 1, p. 230  mentions in a headnote an
>>>>>act "signed by the Governor, memebrs of hte Council and House of
>>>>>Burgesses, and dates at James City, the first day of April 1642."
>>>>> That
>>>>>would be a year before 1643."  That act (also on page 230) says it was
>>>>>passed by the "We the Governor, Council and Burgesses of the Grand
>>>>>Assembly in Virginia...." But, 1 Hening 147 (March 24 1629-30) lists
>>>>>"the names of the Burgesses..."
>>>>>
>>>>>So, there were Burgesses in in 1629-30, but were they not yet "the
>>>>> House
>>>>>of Burgesses"?
>>>>>
>>>>>Paul Finkelman
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Paul Finkelman
>>>>>Chapman Distinguished Professor
>>>>>University of Tulsa College of Law
>>>>>3120 East 4th Place
>>>>>Tulsa, Oklahoma  74104-2499
>>>>>
>>>>>918-631-3706 (office)
>>>>>918-631-2194 (fax)
>>>>>
>>>>>[log in to unmask]
>>>>>
>>>>>Brent Tarter wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Va-Hist subscriber Warren Billings asked me to post this to the list,
>>>>>>as
>>>>>>he has had some computer difficulty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Subject:  Another bit of pedantry
>>>>>>Date:  Fri, 01 Apr 2005 09:32:47 -0600
>>>>>>From:  "Dr. Warren M. Billings" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>To:  [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Permit me to add another bit of pedantry to the recent postings about
>>>>>>ecclesiastical law and practices in colonial Virginia
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In those discussions, several commentators equate "House of
>>>>>> Burgesses"
>>>>>>with "General Assembly." Those were not synonymous terms. The General
>>>>>>Assembly, after 1643, consisted of the governor-general, the Council
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>State, and the House of Burgesses, all of whom had to concur before
>>>>>> any
>>>>>>bill passed into law. Constitutionally, therefore, the house could
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>enact laws ex mero motu. Also, the burgesses could not "enforce" the
>>>>>>law
>>>>>>of religion or any other for that matter. The power and obligation
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>execution of the statutes in force lay with the colony's magistracy.
>>>>>> To
>>>>>>be sure, many of those magistrates sat on the Council or in the
>>>>>> House,
>>>>>>but when they enforced the law, they did so in their capacity as
>>>>>>General
>>>>>>Court judge or justice of the peace, not as councillor of state or
>>>>>>burgess.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The General Assembly, as Jon Kukla and others have clearly
>>>>>>demonstrated,
>>>>>>began as a unicameral body. Thus, there was no House of Burgesses
>>>>>>between 1619 and 1643, the year Sir William Berkeley encouraged the
>>>>>>assembly to become bicameral.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Warren M. Billings
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Warren M. Billings
>>>>>>Distinguished Professor
>>>>>>Department of History
>>>>>>University of New Orleans
>>>>>>New Orleans, Louisiana 70148
>>>>>>
>>>>>>To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
>>>>>>instructions
>>>>>>at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>>>>>
>>>>>To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
>>>>>instructions
>>>>>at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dr. Jon Kukla, Executive Vice-President
>>>>Red Hill - The Patrick Henry National Memorial
>>>>1250 Red Hill Road
>>>>Brookneal, Virginia 24528
>>>>www.redhill.org
>>>>Phone 434-376-2044 or 800-514-7463
>>>>
>>>>Fax 434-376-2647
>>>>
>>>>- M. Lynn Davis, Office Manager
>>>>- Karen Gorham-Smith, Associate Curator
>>>>- Edith Poindexter, Curator
>>>>
>>>>To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
>>>>instructions
>>>>at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Paul Finkelman
>>>Chapman Distinguished Professor
>>>University of Tulsa College of Law
>>>3120 East 4th Place
>>>Tulsa, Oklahoma  74104-2499
>>>
>>>918-631-3706 (office)
>>>918-631-2194 (fax)
>>>
>>>[log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
>>> instructions
>>>at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr. Jon Kukla, Executive Vice-President
>> Red Hill - The Patrick Henry National Memorial
>> 1250 Red Hill Road
>> Brookneal, Virginia 24528
>> www.redhill.org
>> Phone 434-376-2044 or 800-514-7463
>>
>> Fax 434-376-2647
>>
>> - M. Lynn Davis, Office Manager
>> - Karen Gorham-Smith, Associate Curator
>> - Edith Poindexter, Curator
>>
>
>
> --
> Paul Finkelman
> Chapman Distinguished Professor
> University of Tulsa College of Law
> 3120 East 4th Place
> Tulsa, Oklahoma  74104-2499
>
> 918-631-3706 (office)
> 918-631-2194 (fax)
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>


Dr. Jon Kukla, Executive Vice-President
Red Hill - The Patrick Henry National Memorial
1250 Red Hill Road
Brookneal, Virginia 24528
www.redhill.org
Phone 434-376-2044 or 800-514-7463

Fax 434-376-2647

- M. Lynn Davis, Office Manager
- Karen Gorham-Smith, Associate Curator
- Edith Poindexter, Curator

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html