VA-HIST Archives

Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history

VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Paul Finkelman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Fri, 1 Apr 2005 10:07:50 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (72 lines)
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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2


LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US