Two Penny Act
law enacted in 1758 by the Virginia Assembly
The Two Penny Act was a law enacted in 1758 by the House of Burgesses which impacted the compensation of Anglican ministers in the British colony of Virginia. The controversy surrounding it led to the Parson's Cause trial, which is regarded as an important event in the history of the American Revolution.
The act was issued after three years of drought which produced a low-yielding tobacco crop. The one-year measure allowed Anglican ministers' salaries to be paid at a fixed rate of two pence per pound of tobacco, as tobacco was often used as currency. The market rate at the time was set at four to six pence per pound of tobacco. Once the loss of value was factored in, a clergyman was receiving about one-third of his normal, stipulated salary. The colony's councilors had approved and, with the House of Burgesses, convinced Governor Francis Fauquier to allow the act to go into effect.
In doing so, Fauquier deviated from his royally mandated instructions. He defended his royal malfeasance by arguing that, in reality, he had no choice. "As the Bill," he wrote, "was a temporary Law to ease the people from a Burthen [sic] which the Country thought too great for them to bear...
“Two Penny Act” enters the record as law enacted in 1758 by the Virginia Assembly. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Penny, enacted and Virginia can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Two Penny Act” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Penny, enacted and Virginia provides the most credible route into that argument.
The record creator and administrative purpose are central evidence, because official documentation reflects both action and institutional priorities. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 12, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7859153. The Library of Congress control number is sh85139057. 1 of 1 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 1758.
Later summaries often reconcile disputed chronology or motive more neatly than the contemporary record permits. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.
- Event chronology
- Institutional context
- Locating named record creators
Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Two Penny Act”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Two Penny Act primary sources, Two Penny Act archive and Penny research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Two Penny Act”?
- What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
- Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Two Penny Act” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.