&kjcanfcct proton ENGLISH POLITICS IN EARLY VIRGINIA HIS TORY. Crown 8vo, $2.00. THE FIRST REPUBLIC IN AMERICA. With a Portrait of Sir Edwin Sandys. 8vo, £7.50, net. THE GENESIS OF THE UNITED STATES. A Narrative of the Movement in England, 1605-1616, which resulted in the Plantation of North America by Englishmen, disclosing the Contest between England and Spain for the Possession of the Soil now occupied by the United States of America. With Notes, Maps, Plans, 100 Portraits, and Com prehensive Biographical Index. 2 vols. 8vo, £15.00, net ; half morocco, $20.00, net. THE CABELLS AND THEIR KIN. A Memorial Volume of History, Biography, and Genealogy. With 33 Portraits and other Illustrations. 8vo, $7.50, net. HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN & CO. Boston and New York. ENGLISH POLITICS IN EARLY VIRGINIA HISTORY BY ALEXANDER BROWN, D.C.L. Author of" The Genesis ofthe United States " "The Cabells and their Kin" and " The First Republic in America" BOSTON AND NEW TORK HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY (fflbe iRitierjnbc pre$i, Cambridge MDCCCCI COPYRIGHT, I90I, BY ALEXANDER BROWN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED c— c Ot jy DEDICATION This booh is most respectfully inscribed to those citizens of the Republic who wish to render historic justice to the Patriots who instituted the popular course of government in this country. ALEXANDER BROWN. Norwood P. O., Nelson County, Virginia. CONTENTS PART I An outline of the primary effort of the Patriot party in England to plant a popular course of government in America, and of the Court party to prevent it ; showing that a great historic wrong was done our patriotic found ers by James I. and his officials in the evidences pre served by and licensed by the crown, and why it was done 1 I. Introduction 3 II. Obtaining the first (1609) charter 6 III. Inaugurating the movement 13 IV. Obtaining the second (1612)- charter, etc 21 Y. Inaugurating the government 26 VI. The controversy becomes a contest 30 VII. The first appeal to Parliament 35 VIII. The continued contest 42 IX. The second appeal to Parliament 49 X. The charters annulled 62 PART II An outline of the effort of the Court party in England to obliterate the true history of the origin of this nation ; showing how a great historic wrong was done our patri otic founders by James I., his commissioned officials, and licensed historians 57 I. The crown confiscates the evidences 59 II. The effort to preserve the evidences 69 III. The history licensed by the crown 73 PART III An outline of the contest over our political and historic rights between the Court and Patriot parties, from 1625 until the Patriots determined to secure their political rights by force of arms in 1776 ; showing the ways by which the original historic wrong was supported and per petuated under the crown 87 I. Under Charles I., 1625-1641 II. Civil war, 1641-1646 . . . IU. Parliament, etc., 1646-1660 . IV. Of the control over histories V. Notes from 1660 to 1746 . . VI. Stith's History of Virginia . VII. The records of 1619-1624 . VIII. Under George III., 1760-1776 IX. Of boundary rights . . . 89 104107108 116124133140147 II. Jefferson's " Notes on Virginia " 158 III. History under the influence of past politics, 1784-1861 164 IV. Past history under the influence of present politics . 170 V. An explanation of my work in this field, 1876-1900 . 178 I. Of the movement . . . II. Of the charters .... III. Of the corporation . . . IV. Of the forms of government V. Of the managers, etc. . . VI. Of the motive, — vis vitce . VII. Conclusion 193204216 228236245249 PART I An outline of the primary effort of the Patriot party in England to plant a popular course of government in Amer ica, and of the Court party to prevent it ; showing that a great historic wrong was done our patriotic founders by James I. and his officials in the evidences preserved by and licensed by the crown, and why it was done. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY The case of our patriotic founders, because of the results which have naturally followed the complete control over evidences held by their opponents, has been misrepresented for over two hundred and fifty years, and has come to be so entirely misunderstood that it cannot be corrected suddenly. All issues naturally produce opposing evi dences, and tend to obscure facts; but of all influences, not one has had a more absolute effect under monarchies in the past, on the history of reform movements, than politics. Policies of gov ernment were even more vigorously censored than matters pertaining to religion. The abso lute authority possessed by the opponents of such movements enabled them to obliterate the truth of the history as performed from the pages of the history as published to such an extent that contemporary "histories" of such movements have frequently really reversed the true view of history ; given the honors to those to whom they were not due; censured those who deserved 4 INTRODUCTORY praise, and conveyed ideas of the whole move ment which were agreeable to those who opposed its reform features, but were unfair to the re formers promoting those features. While the laborer in the field of original re search in pursuit of the truth must find it very difficult to discover sufficient impartial and au thentic evidence on which to base the true his tory of any movement which fell under the ban of those who opposed the movement and con trolled the evidences, it is not necessary for him to labor entirely in the dark. " Authority springs from reason, not reason from authority — true reason need not be confirmed by any authority." He must be guided by the light of reason. And reason shows that unless the press is free a licensed history is obliged to conform to the pur poses of those who control the press ; that the more inspired by interdicted liberal ideas a move ment was, the greater was the necessity for the royalist censors opposing those ideas to obliterate the historic facts regarding them permanently ; that the greater the difficulty in finding facts is in itself a circumstantial evidence of the especial importance of the facts which have been con cealed ; and that the positive effort to suppress authentic records is sufficient evidence in itself against those making the effort to condemn any " history " which was published under their aus- INTRODUCTORY 5 pices, even if no counter evidence at all can be found. The controversy over the accuracy of Smith's history has been called "the John Smith con troversy," because Smith was regarded as the responsible author of the book; but the real controversy, the real case, was between the Pa triot party, which determined to plant a popular course of government in the New World, and the Court party, which opposed that purpose. The object of this book is to explain this case and the results of this controversy ; to show that the political principles involved in the contest be tween the two parties were of vast importance to us, and to give due consideration to the influence of politics on our earliest history. I will first give an outline of the political importance of the primal movement * under which a popular course of government was inaugurated in our country ; showing that an historic wrong was done our patriotic founders by James I., his commissioned officials, and licensed historians — both in the evidences of the Court party pre served by the crown and in the histories licensed under the crown. And this outline will also show why this wrong was committed. 1 I will explain more fully the leading political features of the movement in Part V. OBTAINING THE FIRST CHARTER CHAPTER H OBTAINING THB CHARTER FOR THE ORIGINAL BODY POLITIC, 1609 It is necessary to note the royal charter signed by James I. in April, 1606, and to outline the enterprise as conducted thereunder ; but it must also be noted that this enterprise was not of a popular political character — the political fea tures were under the control of the crown. In this charter James I. claimed all of America between 34° and 45° north latitude, which was then called Virginia, for the crown, and granted limited plantations under certain conditions to two companies. To tbe company for the first colony was given the privilege of making a plan tation between 34° and 41° north latitude, the bounds of which, however, were confined to the limits within one hundred miles of the seacoast, and within fifty miles each way northward and southward of the "seating place," after that place was settled upon. The companies had the privilege of sending over some of the king's sub jects to secure these areas of land ; but the king reserved to himself the right to furnish the form of government for the companies in England and plantations in America, and also to appoint the Obtaining the first charter 7 officials to execute the same, both in America and in England : the plantations and companies being really directly under the political control of the crown, while the members of the com panies paid the expenses, stimulated by the hope of finding gold mines, or a passage to the South Sea, or some present profit. Under the form of government furnished by James I. for the plantations, the members of his council in America had the right of suffrage among themselves ; but they were representatives of an absolute king. The planters had no con trol over them, and little or no part in the gov ernment, which was imperial ; being based on the king's principles of despotism, it gave the people (the body politic) no political power. In December, 1606, the first fleet for the first, or South Virginia, colony sailed under the char ter of April, 1606, at the expense of the com pany, but under the orders of the king's council for Virginia in England, with a sealed box con taining commissions for those appointed to the king's council in Virginia, and with instructions, etc., to them from James I. himself. The fleet arrived in Virginia in May (n. s.), 1607, when the box was opened, the commissions issued, and the king's form of government was inaugurated in Virginia, and so continued until it was neces sary to alter it in order to save the colony. While the king's form of government for the 8 obtaining the first charter colonies was in force in Virginia during 1607- 1610,1 important foreign and domestic, religious and political policies were developing in England, which were destined to shape the future of North America. Among these, in order to understand the case, it is very important to consider espe cially : — First. The controversies with Spain, and, at this time, with especial reference to the case of The Richard (which had been captured by Span iards while en route to North Virginia), then be fore Parliament, with Sir Edwin Sandys as " the chairman of the committee on Spanish wrongs." Second. The religious controversies, following the Hampton Court Conference. Third. The political controversies, which I propose to consider in this book. In these political controversies we will find on the one side " the men of genius and enlarged minds," who were then adopting the principles of liberty, forming themselves into a political party, variously called the Patriot, or Liberal, or Independent party, "advocates of English rights," " opponents of the secret court Spanish party," etc. At the head of this party or polit ical element was Sir Edwin Sandys, whom James I. came to regard as his " greatest enemy," as " a crafty man with ambitious designs," etc. Gar diner says: "At this time, toleration in the 1 See The First Republic in America, pp. 21-119. obtaining the first charter 9 church and reform in the state were the noble objects of Sir Francis Bacon, and next to him no man enjoyed the confidence of the Commons more than Sir Edwin Sandys." He had aided Bacon in drawing up, " with great force of rea soning and spirit of liberty," the celebrated re monstrance of the Commons to the conduct of James I. towards his first Parliament. On the other side, we find the members of the Court party, advocates of imperialism, becoming more and more active in opposing and in trying to suppress the growth of the principles of liberty, and in disseminating their ideas of the virtues of " the kingly power," contending that it descended directly from God. This party was under the leadership of James I. himself, who had already published his " True Law of Free Monarchies," his " Basilikon Doron," his " Premonition to all most mighty Monarchs," and other such like imperial dogmas, and had already sent both to North and to South Virginia what the Court party called "His Majesties most prudent and Princelye form of government." In the midst of these budding political con troversies several planters — including Gabriel Archer, who had already proposed to have a parliament in Virginia — arrived in England with the breath of " the free air " of America inspir ing them, and also with unfavorable reports of the condition of affairs in Virginia, amounting 10 obtaining the first charter really to an acknowledgment that the enterprise had failed under the king's form of government, and that without some vital incentive to proceed the enterprise must be abandoned. Many of the patriots, who were " loudly groaning " under the same sort of government in England, were already interested in the American movement, and the reports of these planters naturally appealed to them. After consultation with the planters and after considering among themselves the unpro mising outlook of their own pohtical case in England, the inspiration came to them "to lay hold on Virginia as a providence cast before them of double advantage," — of escaping the tyranny of imperial government, and of estab lishing, as a refuge, a more free government in America. They determined to try to secure from James I. a charter erecting them into a corpora tion and body politic ; conveying to that body in perpetuity a definite portion of the Spanish West Indies; granting to that body the privilege of establishing therein a government of their own making modeled on the English constitution as construed in the most favorable way to them. From the date of this determination the actual settlement of North America by the English became a reform movement of an ever-increasing pohtical importance, and a factor in the pohtical issues then beginning between the Court party (the crown) and the Patriot party (the people). OBTAINING THE FIRST CHARTER 11 Had the enterprise been successful under the king's government, it would have been folly to petition James I. for a charter to a body poli tic ; but the plantation had really failed, some of the company had already given it up, many others were anxious to give it up, and the unpro mising outlook was unquestionably instrumental in inducing James I. himself to give up his cher ished royal prerogatives and to grant the far- reaching privileges petitioned for to a body politic (planters and adventurers) in perpetuity. There was no other alternative. North Virginia had already failed under his form of government ; and if he had attempted to continue his govern ment and refused to grant the charter of 1609, it is evident that South Virginia would have been abandoned by the English and the destiny of North America would have passed into other hands and been shaped to other ends. The petition for the charter to a body politic was drafted in the winter of 1608-1609 by Sir Edwin Sandys, and the charter itself was pre pared for the king's signature by Sir Francis Bacon and Sir Henry Hobart. This charter (and the subsequent charter of 1612) was so drafted by Sandys that many of the prerogatives for merly reserved by James I. in his charter of 1606 were granted to, or would finally pass to, this body politic, together with the authority to institute other enlarged and liberalized rights in 12 OBTAINING THE FIRST CHARTER perpetuity; the corporation forming virtually a primitive state in its pohtical capacity, which was really designed to be the generator of the people whom it was proposed should become in the course of time the proprietors of the boundary granted between 34° and 40° north latitude, ex tending from ocean to ocean, and who should re ceive the benefits accruing under these charter rights as fully as they now do. It must be noted, especially, that James I. did not actually possess a foot of land in the large territory granted, and that he did not bind the crown to procure the land for the body politic. The great American wilderness in which the patriots proposed "to erect a free popular state," — the first republic in America, — whose inhabitants were to have " no govern ment putt upon them but by their own con- sente," — was thousands of miles away across the vast ocean, inhabited by wild Indians, and claimed by the crown of Spain. The body poli tic had to acquire the land from these owners and claimants by purchase, by diplomacy, or by force, and to settle it — all " at the expense of their own blood and treasure, unassisted by the crown of Great Britain." And, of course, this had to be done before the proposed political pur poses could be properly inaugurated therein. The acquiring and settlement of the lands granted could only be attained with sufficient INAUGURATING THE MOVEMENT 13 pain, peril, and expense justly to entitle the body politic to the hberal charter rights granted by the crown in perpetuity. And it was for the sake of these rights, undaunted by the terrors of the Atlantic, by the power of Spain, by the climate and savages of Virginia, — in the face of every difficulty, disaster, and political opposi tion, — that the true foundation of this nation was laid. " Give me Liberty or give me death ! " was the inspiration of our foundation as well as the battle-cry of our Revolution. CHAPTER III INAUGURATING THE REFORM MOVEMENT The first charter to our original body politic was finally signed by James I. on June 2, 1609.1 It inspired the enterprise with a new life. The managers of the business at once shouldered their responsibilities and undertook their task most earnestly. Of course they did not set forth pub licly the pohtical policies which were inspiring them ; but at one of the meetings of the well- affected promoters of the enterprise (after the petition was sent in, but before the charter was signed) Robert Johnson dehvered a discourse touching their intended project, which was 1 For the reasons given in The First Republic in America, pre face, pp. xxiii, xxiv, I shall use the present style dates. 14 INAUGURATING THE MOVEMENT printed in February, 1609, under the title of Nova Britannia, which gives an outline of their business purposes, and, with the present understanding of the case, throws some light on their political purposes also. It is important to note that Sir Thomas Smythe was constituted the first treasurer of the corpo ration ; because, having been imprisoned for the part taken by him in the rising of the Earl of Essex in the time of Elizabeth, he was then regarded as "a good patriot." This event was an incident in the rising of the popular spirit, that had become more pronounced in England when the patriotic men of genius turned their eyes upon America " as a providence cast before them " for setting on foot their reform ideas in the New World ; but those who controlled the evidences were against Essex, and therefore the truth regarding the incident may never be known. It is known, however, that many of the old friends of Essex became actively interested in the American movement. It has been well said that " when the found ers of the colonies came over, it was a time of general tyranny both in church and state through out their mother island," and church and state were so closely allied that it is somewhat hard to treat of religion and politics separately; so although I am not dealing with the religious questions, it is important to call attention to the INAUGURATING THE MOVEMENT 15 following facts, as they throw needed light on the politics or pohcy of this movement. February 27, 1609, soon after James I. had replied favor ably to the petition for the new charter, letters were written to the Plymouth people to become members of the body politic before the charter was signed, and many of them did so. On June 9th, only seven days after the charter was signed by the king, the Earl of Southampton, the Earl of Pembroke, Robert Sidney Lord Lisle, Thomas West Lord De la Warr, Sir Thomas Smythe, Sir Robert Mansfield, Sir Thomas Gates (all old friends of Sidney and Essex), and others sent a diplomatically worded invitation to " His Majesties subjects in the Free States of the United Provinces " (the Pilgrims ?) offering them in an Enghsh colony in America the place of refuge which they were seeking in the Nether lands. Stith, in his history of Virginia (p. 76), says: 'Many Puritans took the resolution of settling themselves in Virginia ; but Archbishop Bancroft, finding that they were preparing in great numbers to depart, obtained a proclama tion from the king forbidding any to go without his Majesty's express leave.' Many in England, however, had been prompt to avail themselves of the new charter rights, and had already embarked for Virginia in the first expedition. And pilgrims of all lands, of all creeds, and of all politics, have found refuge 16 INAUGURATING THE MOVEMENT under those charter rights in the " sweet land of hberty," the " land of the pilgrims' pride," from that day to this. The first fleet sent out under this charter sailed from Plymouth, England, on June 12, 1609. On the way the celebrated tempest, with 'the roaring waves which cared not for the name of king,' was encountered, and "the king's ship " was wrecked, but the American talisman — our first constitution containing the germ of our popular course of government — was on board and " not a hair perished." It is interesting to note that in Shakespeare's Tem pest, the leading spirit — Ariel — protecting the fleet is doing so to secure freedom. As the Earl of Southampton was so actively engaged in this enterprise, it may be supposed that Shake speare himself, although not a member of the corporation, was a patriot, and took an active interest in the enterprise of his old patron. Sir Thomas Gates and Sir George Somers sailed from " the still-vex'd Bermoothes " on their new-built barks, The Dehverance and The Pa tience, on "calm seas," and with "auspicious gales" arrived in Virginia and cast anchor be fore Jamestown on the first anniversary of the signing of the first charter to the original of the body politic of this nation, June 2 (n. s.), 1610. On landing, Governor Sir Thomas Gates found the colony in a most deplorable condition. Tak- INAUGURATING THE MOVEMENT 17 ing with him the official copy of the new charter and his own commission thereunder, he went into the church ; caused the bell to be rung ; gath ered the old and the new planters together; heard a zealous and sorrowful prayer by the Rev. Richard Buck, and after service caused William Strachey, the secretary, to read his commission as governor ; Captain George Percy (the president of the king's council under the king's form of government) then dehvered up to Governor Gates the old royal commissions, the official copy of the royal charter of April, 1606, and the seal of the king's council in Virginia. The imperial form of government designed for the colonies by James I. ended ; the new charter rights went into effect ; the political management of the colony passed in a measure from the crown to the " body politic," and the first step was taken on American soil in the movement inaugurated by the men of genius and enlarged minds who were then adopting the principles of liberty against monarchy, and in favor of a reform government in the New World. This was one of the most important political events in our history, and the scene in the church at Jamestown must have been most impressive. There were present about sixty old planters, in cluding Captains George Percy, John Martin, Nathaniel Powell, Daniel Tucker, Thomas Graves, and others who had been councilors or officials under the king's government. About one hun- 18 INAUGURATING THE MOVEMENT dred and thirty-five new planters, including the Rev. Mr. Buck, the minister ; Sir Thomas Gates, the governor ; Sir George Somers, admiral ; Cap tain Christopher Newport, vice-admiral, with some of his sailors ; Stephen Hopkins (afterwards one of the Pilgrim fathers), with other noncon formists ; William Strachey, Ralph Hamor, Wil liam Pierce, John Rolfe, and other leading men; Mrs. John Rolfe, with other women and several children ; probably some friendly or spying In dians ; and the guard over the proceedings was " Sir Thomas Gates his company of old soldiers trained up in the Netherlands," under the com mand of Captain George Yeardley. As the Rev. Mr. Buck had brought over, " for the benefit and use of the colony," printed copies of the first sermon preached before the body pohtic, it may be naturally inferred that he read in his services during this historic ceremony at least the prophetic text of this sermon : — " For the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will shew thee. " And I will make qf thee a great nation, and will bless thee, and make thy name great, and thou shalt be a blessing. " I will bless them also that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee, and in thee shall all the families ofthe earth be blessed."1 1 The Genesis ofthe United States, pp. 283, 287. INAUGURATING THE MOVEMENT 19 Sir Thomas Gates, who had been chosen as the first governor of Virginia under the corporation, and other members of his military company, may have served in the Netherlands under William the Silent, the great leader of the advocates of , the rights of man ; and all of the company had quite certainly served under his son, Maurice of Nassau, who, like his father, was inspired by the same liberal ideas which were henceforth to fur nish the sustaining influence of the English- American plantations. A portion of the fleet which reached Virginia in August, 1609, had returned to England in the fall, filled with nothing but letters of discourage ment relative to the condition of affairs in Vir ginia at that time. To offset these discouraging reports the managers had published in Decem ber, 1609, a broadside,1 and soon after " A True and Sincere declaration of the purpose and ends of the Plantation begun in Virginia," z in which they boldly give the king's "forme of govern ment" as one of "the rootes" of the past "de- failements," and state their intention of alter ing it. Thomas West, Lord De la Warr, who had been commissioned in February, 1610, as lord- governor and captain-general of Virginia for life under the new charter, sailed from England in April, and arrived at Point Comfort, Virginia, on 1 The Genesis ofthe United States, pp. 354-356. » Ibid. pp. 337-363. 20 INAUGURATING THE MOVEMENT June 16th following. Sir Thomas Gates, who had arrived only fourteen days before with his shipwrecked people from the Bermudas, had found the old planters reduced to such an ex hausted state under the king's form of govern ment that it appeared necessary to leave the country, at least temporarily, and on June 17, 1610, Jamestown was abandoned. But the pro vidence which had protected the American talis man through " lightning and tempest " did not forsake it in " plague, pestilence, and famine." On the next day, Captain Edward Brewster (of Lord De la Warr's military company, which had served Maurice of Nassau, and, it may be, Wil liam the Silent) met the departing colonists at Mulberry Island with orders from the lord-gov ernor, who had so providentially arrived, for Sir Thomas Gates " to bear up the helm and return to Jamestown, where all of his men relanded that night ; " but Gates himself, in a boat, proceeded downward to meet his lordship, who, making all speed up, arrived at Jamestown on Sunday, June 20, 1610. In the afternoon of that day, Lord De la Warr went ashore with Sir Ferdinando Wenman and others, landing at the south gate of the palisade fronting the river, Sir Thomas Gates causing his company in arms, under Cap tain George Yeardley, to stand in order and make a guard to receive him. As soon as the lord-governor landed he fell upon his knees be- OBTAINING THE SECOND CHARTER 21 fore them all, and on the bank of the James River made a long and silent prayer to God. Then, arising, he marched up into the town, William Strachey acting on this especial occasion as color- bearer, bowing the colors before him as he en tered the gate of Jamestown, and let them fall at his lordship's feet, who, passing on, went into the church, where he heard a sermon by Rev. Rich ard Buck, and, after service, caused his ensign, Anthony Scott, to read his commission, upon which Sir Thomas Gates delivered up to his lord ship " his owne commission, both patents [the old and new charters, 1606 and 1609], and the Counsell's seale." And the permanent settle ment of this country by the Enghsh definitely began under the reform movement of the origi nal of the body politic of this nation. CHAPTER IV OBTAINING THE SECOND CHARTER OF OUR ORI GINAL BODY POLITIC, ETC., 1610-1616 Gates and Newport sailed from Virginia on July 25, 1610, and arrived in England in Sep tember following, bringing the news of the dis covery of the Bermudas. The managers of the movement then petitioned for another charter, 22 OBTAINING THE SECOND CHARTER which would include those islands within their bounds, and which would convey to the body politic other privileges which they had found to be desirable. This petition was also drafted by Sir Edwin Sandys, and the charter was drawn up by Sir Francis Bacon and Sir Henry Hobart. The petition was granted in the autumn of 1610, but the opposition of the Court party, which was then taking definite shape, caused delay, and the charter was not signed by James I. until March 22, 1612. The importance of under standing everything pertaining to the charters of 1609 and 1612 incorporating the embryo of a body politic, which would naturally develop in the course of time into a state in its political capacity, cannot be overestimated. The obtain ing of these primal charters of our system of government was the most important political event in our history. James I. wished to increase his dominions, but he was not willing to risk his royal revenues in settling plantations in America. In 1606 he had authorized some of his subjects to settle in those parts at their own expense ; but he was a most earnest advocate of every royal prerogative, and he reserved to himself the right of governing them and their enterprises according to his own ideas. Companies of adventurers had undertaken the task with the object of reimbursing them- OBTAINING THE SECOND CHARTER 23 selves for their outlay by finding a passage to the Pacific Ocean, or by discovering gold mines, or other enterprises of present profit ; but before the beginning of 1609 their hopes had generally faded away, while the difficulties, dangers, and expenses of the undertaking had become most evident. It was not to the interest of these men to carry on this work, even with a fair prospect of success, unless they could better their condi tion or the condition of their posterity thereby. The original commercial objects had been so far from being realized that it was necessary for some vital influence to inspire the enterprise in order to enable it to succeed. Even if the advo cates of the king's form of government were wilhng to continue to prosecute the enterprise at their own expense under the government of James I., of course those among the adventurers who were then beginning to breathe the princi ples of liberty did not wish to secure the country at the expense of their own blood and treasure, if there was to be established in that country thus secured by them a form of government which they regarded as an absolute tyranny. But after considering the state of the case these men became inspired with the needed vis vitai, and resolved, if they were permitted to secure a large definite boundary and to estabhsh therein for the future good of posterity a reform gov ernment " conforming with the English constitu- 24 OBTAINING THE SECOND CHARTER tion," as construed in the most favorable way to them, that they would then undertake the task and willingly carry it on, even if they did have to do so solely at the expense of their own blood and treasure. The leading purposes of the charters petitioned for were to incorporate a body politic and enable that body to take the government of the move ment from James I. ; and the desire to estabhsh in America a reform government as a refuge from the tyranny obtaining in England became the leading incentive of the enterprise. Of course the charters were open to all parties, and members of both national pohtical parties were included in our original body politic ; but the movement was under the administration of the Patriot party from 1609 to 1624, and the en terprise was carried ' forward during that time under the management of those who held to the right ends declared.' Those not animated by the inspiring desire soon began to drop out, to fail to pay their dues, etc., and some became critics of the patriotic managers, and active op ponents of their plan for protecting in the New World " the hberty of the subject from the en croachment of the crown ; " while those under the sustaining influence continued to advance their purposes to the projected ends regardless of adverse criticism and all sorts of opposition, even when in doing so they were obliged to face OBTAINING THE SECOND CHARTER 25 king, council, and courts, at the risk of imprison ment and sudden death. The reformers from the first were evidently fully aware of the great importance of the char ter rights which they had now obtained. As stated in " The New Life of Virginia," they re garded the movement as ' a work of such conse quence as for many important reasons it must never be forsaken,' although at the same time they well knew that there were " manifold diffi culties, crosses, and disasters" to be met and overcome before " the most excellent things " which they were aiming at could be secured. The ultimate pohtical objects were properly held in a state of abeyance during the period of the first joint stock, 1609-1616, when the coun try was being secured from the Indians and Spaniards ; and the colony was being planted en tirely at the joint expense of the corporation, and being made sufficiently strong to enable it to stand the shock of opposition when it came. And the Patriots must have felt that it was com ing (as it did come) as soon as the political ob jects became apparent to the crown. I have dealt very fully with the case during this period both in " The Genesis of the United States " and in " The First Republic in America," and must refer those who may wish to have a more extended account to those books. The idea of a liberal government for America devel- 26 INAUGURATING THE GOVERNMENT oped during the most remarkable transition pe riod in English history, and although this idea was bitterly opposed by James I. and the Court party, it received the support of some of the greatest patriots, business men, statesmen, poli ticians, soldiers, sailors, and most broadminded churchmen of that period. CHAPTER V INAUGURATING THE REFORM GOVERNMENT IN AMERICA, 1616-1619 James I. had been crowned king when he was less than fourteen months old ; had been a king ever since he could remember, and regarded the right of kings to rule absolutely as being next under God. In 1616 he wrote "A Remon strance of the most gratious King James I. for the Rights of Kings, and the independence of their Crownes ; " and in the same year began to show his hand against the freedom of action of the managers by having certain royal features inserted in Captain John Martin's patent1 for lands in Virginia, thus opportunely placing the managers of the movement on their guard before the end of the first joint stock. They had been 1 See The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. vii. pp. 269-275. INAUGURATING THE GOVERNMENT 27 obliged to use diplomacy from the first, but this act served a good turn by causing them to act with additional circumspection at a most impor tant turning point in their movement. The end of the absolute joint stock period (Dec. 1616) found a portion of the country ap parently secured from the Indians and Spaniards and the colony quite well established. The citi zens of this country were then to be given under their charter their fixed property rights in the soil, and every man's portion was to be con firmed " as a state of inheritance to him and his heyers forever, with bounds and under the Com panies seale, to be holden of his Maiestie, as of his Manour of East Greenwich, in Socage Ten ure and not in Capite." Early in 1617 Captain Samuel Argall was sent as deputy governor of Virginia, with special commissioners and a spe cial surveyor, to carry out these designs. There had already been settled a laudable form of gov ernment for the courts of the body politic which were held at the capital in London. After the people were given their fixed property rights in Virginia, it became necessary for the managers to " bend their cares to the settling of a laudable form of government in the colony." With this object in view they chose Sir Edwin Sandys, who had drafted their charters, as an assistant to Sir Thomas Smith, for the especial purpose of super intending the inauguration of the original polit- 28 INAUGURATING THE GOVERNMENT ical designs in America. The intent was to establish one equal and uniform kind of govern ment over all Virginia, such as may be to the greatest benefit and comfort of the people, in which they were to have a hand in the governing of themselves; in which they were to be eased forever of all taxes, pubhc burthens, etc., as much as may be ; in which they were to have no government, taxes, etc., put upon them but by their own consents, etc., etc. The London house of Sir Edwin Sandys, where the consultations over the form of govern ment for Virginia were generally held, was near Aldersgate, — the gate through which James I. first entered London, in 1603 ; and it is interest ing to note that this gate was being rebuilt by the crown as a monument to the royal government of James I. at the same time that the plans for a reform government for our nation were be ing developed in sight of the gate by Sir Edwin Sandys, in consultation with the Earl of South ampton, John Selden, the Ferrars, John White, and others. There was a figure of James I. in high relief over the arch of the gate. On the eastern side were these lines : " Then shall enter into the gates of this city Kings and Princes ; sitting upon the throne of David, rid ing in chariots and on horses, they and their Princes, the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and this city shall remain for ever." INAUGURATING THE GOVERNMENT 29 On the western side were these hnes : " And Sam uel said unto all Israel, Behold, I have hearkened unto your voice in all that you said unto me, and have made a KING over you." On the south ern side was a bas-relief of James in his royal robes. Some of the plans of the patriots for the re form government in Virginia were probably em bodied in the instructions and commissions sent to the colony by Lord De la Warr in April, 1618 ; but he died en route. The documents sent by him have not been found, but others, possibly of a similar character, — instructions, a constitution, and the American Magna Gharta (so called, but it was not so great as the charters of 1609 and 1612, from which it derived its au thority), — were ratified by the Virginia court in London, November 28, 1618, and carried to the colony by Sir George Yeardley in January, 1619. The authority for these instruments was derived from the charters to "the body politic," and under the authority of these instruments there was inaugurated at Jamestown in August follow ing " the first example of a domestic parhament to regulate the internal concerns of this country, which was afterwards cherished throughout Amer ica as the dearest birthright of freemen." 1 1 See The Green Bag, vol. v. p. 216 ; The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. vii. pp. 270, 271, and The First Repub lic in America, pp. 313-323, 456. 30 CONTROVERSY BECOMES CONTEST CHAPTER VI THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE COURT AND THE PATRIOT PARTIES BECOMES AN OPEN CONTEST OVER THE REFORM MOVEMENT At the Virginia Court on May 8, 1619, Sir Thomas Smith retired and Sir Edwin Sandys succeeded him as treasurer, and Mr. John Ferrar succeeded Alderman Robert Johnson as deputy treasurer of the corporation. It had come to pass that the loyalty of Sir Thomas Smith and Alderman Johnson to the Patriot party was doubted, and soon after this we find them affili ating with the Court party, aiding that party in their pohtical purposes, and obscuring rather than throwing hght upon the patriotic purposes of their own administration of the corporation from 1609 to 1619. The Spanish ministers to England, Zuniga and Velasco, from 1606 to 1613 had continually opposed the settlement of the Enghsh in ter ritory claimed by Spain, even to urging the Spanish king to remove the colonists by force of arms. The celebrated Count Gondomar ar rived in England as ambassador from Spain in August, 1613, and at first pursued a similar course ; but having put his spies at work look- CONTROVERSY BECOMES CONTEST 31 ing into the Virginia business, he became con vinced, prior to December, 1616: First, that the Enghsh would never yield to such opposition and threatening ; second, that some deep politi cal scheme was animating the Virginia courts. He then altered his diplomatic plans for sup pressing the colony, and began to work on the tenderest spot in the mind of James I. He as sured the Enghsh king that there were deep politicians in the Virginia Company with farther designs than a tobacco plantation ; " that though they might have a fair pretence for their meet ings, yet he would find in the end that the Vir ginia Court in London would prove a seminary for a seditious Parliament." James I. was as sured that " the matter was too high and great for private men to manage ; that it was there fore proper for him to take it into his own hands, and to govern and order it both at home and abroad according to his own will and pleasure." This pohtic line of argument had the effect de sired. The progress of the colony under the in spiration of free ideas over difficulties which hitherto had been insurmountable had already alarmed James I., and he now determined to put an end to the popular course of the Vir ginia Corporation. With that object in view, he resolved that Sir Edwin Sandys should not be continued as treasurer or manager of that body pohtic, and requested the Easter Quarter Court 32 CONTROVERSY BECOMES CONTEST (May 27, 1620) "to make choice of Sir Thomas Smythe, Sir Thomas Roe, Mr. Alderman John son, or Mr. Maurice Abbott, and no other." When this request was presented by Mr. Rob ert Kirkham, one of the clerks of the signet, the earls of Pembroke and Southampton told the court that this was " the beginning of a move against the company's just freedom of election, granted by letters patent " — one of their char ter rights. The body pohtic was not wilhng to yield to the king's request and thus to " suffer a great breach unto their privilege of free elec tion." They determined to defer their election to the next quarter court, and appointed a com mittee to wait upon the king about the matter. On May 29 the committee (H. Wriothesly Earl of Southampton, J. Hay Viscount Doncaster, William Lord Cavendish, Edmond Lord Shef field, Sir John Danvers, Sir Nicholas Tufton, Sir Lawrence Hide, Mr. Christopher Brooke, Mr. Edward Herbert, Mr. Thomas Gibbs, Mr. Thomas Keightley, and Mr. William Cranmer) met at Southampton House, and drafted an answer to the king's request for the election of one of those selected by himself as treasurer of the corporation. When this answer was presented to James I. at his chambers, notwithstanding the fact that it was couched in the most loyal terms, notwith standing all argument, the king " remained ob stinately excepting against the person of Sir CONTROVERSY BECOMES CONTEST 33 Edwin Sandys, declaring him to be his greatest enemy, and that he could hardly think well of whomsoever was his friend — and all this in a furious passion, returning the committee no other answer but choose the Devil if you will, but not Sir Edwin Sandys." When Sir John Danvers, a few weeks later, asked the Earl of Southampton if he would ac cept the place if the company chose him trea surer at their next quarter court, he rephed, " I know the king will be angry at it, but so the expectation of this pious and glorious work may be encouraged, let the company do with me what they please." The next court on July 8, 1620, reasserted their right to free election, and elected the Earl of Southampton as treasurer, with the understanding that Sandys should continue his services ' in prosecuting still those pohtical ways which might give satisfaction to the patriotic undertakers.' So far from these open controversies with the king having had a depressing effect at this time on the resolution of the managers, Arthur Wo- denoth says that ' the public asserting of their charter rights at the Easter Quarter Court, at the meeting of the committee with James I., and at the Trinity Term (July 8) Quarter Court much raised the spirits of the Patriot party in the Vir ginia Company.' In order to prevent confusion in the mind of 34 CONTROVERSY BECOMES CONTEST students of these premises it must be explained that there were parties in the corporation with different opinions regarding business matters, tobacco contracts, the magazine, etc., but I have given an outline of the growth of these parties in " The First Republic in America," 1 and we are not now considering these questions. The political issues of, and over, the body pohtic with which we are now dealing were really between the national Court and Patriot parties, and should not be confused with the party issues in the cor poration, although these strictly company parties may have from time to time in the advancement of their purposes affiliated with one or the other of the national parties to such an extent as to make it, sometimes, very hard to draw the party hnes accurately. The Virginia Court of July 17, 1620, ap pointed several committees for perfecting the form of government which was being estab lished in the colony : The committee to select from the laws of England such as were suitable laws for the colony was composed of Sir Thomas Roe, Mr. Christopher Brooke, Mr. John Selden, Mr. Edward Herbert, and Mr. Philip Jermyn; to select from the charters, instructions, orders, etc., and the Acts of Assembly in the colony such laws as were fit to be made permanent was composed of Sir Edwin Sandys, Sir John Dan- 1 See pp. 244, 267, 268, 280, 289, 301, 305-307, and 398. FIRST APPEAL TO PARLIAMENT 35 vers, Mr. John Wroth, and Mr. Samuel Wrote ; to select from the municipal governments of the cities in England a model government for the incorporations in the colony was composed of Mr. Robert Heath, Mr. Robert Smith, Mr. Nicho las Ferrar, Mr. William Cranmer, and Mr. George Chambers. A portion of the labors of these committees will be found embodied in the docu ments taken to the colony by Sir Francis Wyatt in the summer of 1621. CHAPTER VII FIRST EFFORT TO PROTECT THE CHARTER RIGHTS BY ACT OF PARLIAMENT Parliament had always been looked to as the friend of the movement, and both the first and second parliaments of James I. had been appealed to in that behalf.1 Knowing that Gondomar had been ferreting out their pohtical objects and impressing his views on the mind of James I., the Patriot party in the body pohtic now felt the need for strengthening and protecting their pohtical charter rights. About November 20, 1620, it was resolved " for some important rea sons " to obtain a new charter, and on November 25th the Virginia Court determined to try to 1 See The First Republic in America, pp. 14-17, 20, 75, 122, 200, 215, 216. 36 FIRST APPEAL TO PARLIAMENT have further privileges and immunities inserted, and also to have the charter confirmed by act of Parliament. Sandys, Southampton, Selden, Edward Herbert, John Ferrar, and probably oth ers, were employed in drafting this new charter. The third Parliament of James I. met Feb ruary 9, 1621 ; Sir Edwin Sandys was a member for Sandwich, but he did not attend during the first week, and his brother, Sir Samuel Sandys, in explaining his absence, stated that 'he was interested in drawing a patent about the Virginia business, and asked the House of Commons to excuse him till that business was over.' On March 4, 1621, Sir Edwin presented the draft of the new patent to the Virginia Court, which approved of it, determined to have it con firmed by act of Parliament, and a letter was sent to James I. about it. " The draught of the new charter " was soon presented by Sir Edwin Sandys, Edward Herbert, Esq., and Mr. John Ferrar to Attorney-General Coventry for him to prepare the charter therefrom for the king's sig nature ; but he at once found fault with it (he may have been instructed to do so), and refused to draw up the instrument without a special war rant from James I. In April, 1621, James Hay Lord Doncaster presented a petition from the corporation to the king for this special warrant, and the matter was considered by the Privy Council in May ; but I have found no evidence FIRST APPEAL TO PARLIAMENT 37 that the warrant asked for was ever sent to the attorney-general, or that the charter was ever presented to Parliament for confirmation by act. In the spring of 1621, James Marquess of Hamilton and William Herbert Earl of Pem broke, two hberal noblemen, solemnly affirmed to the Earl of Southampton that they had heard Gondomar say to James I. " that it was time for him to look to the Virginia courts wliich were kept at the Ferrars' house, where too many of his nobility and gentry resorted to accompany the popular Lord Southampton and the danger ous Sandys." The king was evidently determined to put a stop to the proceeding before Parliament with the proposed new charter, and had probably made up his mind to put a stop to the whole Virginia business. In view of the alliance be tween Prince Charles and the Infanta, diplomati cally proposed by Gondomar, the king is said to have resolved to surrender unto Spain Virginia and the Bermudas, to annul the colonization charters, and to quit altogether the Spanish West Indies (America). The Patriots in our original body pohtic were aware of these purposes, and attributed them to " a secret Court - Spanish party" under the influence of Gondomar; but they were not willing to yield their rights. There were many Patriots in the House of Commons, and with their aid the Patriots in the Virginia 38 FIRST APPEAL TO PARLIAMENT Corporation, as we have seen, were trying to forestall James I. in these his intentions by making their charter rights as secure as they could by having them confirmed by act of Par hament, when, on June 14th, James I. prorogued the Parhament to November 30th, and on June 26th (during vacation) had Southampton, Sandys, and Selden arrested. This arrest of a member of the House of Lords and of a member of the House of Commons during recess was a breach of the privileges of Parliament and an evidence of the desperate purposes of the crown. It caused a great commotion, and James I. felt it advisable to issue a proclamation to the effect that Sandys was not restrained for his acts in Parhament, but for other personal matters. John Ferrar and Arthur Wodenoth both say that it was the busi ness of the Virginia charters which caused the arrests. They are said to have been released on July 28th, but, although released from arrest, Sandys was restrained to his house in Kent. When Par liament reassembled on November 30th the mat ter was at once taken in hand by the House. Mr. Mallory soon rose and said — in the abbreviated wording of the Commons Journal — " misseth Sir Edwin Sandys. Moveth we may know what is become of him" On December 11th the Commons appointed Sir Peter Hayman and Sir James Mallory a com- FIRST APPEAL TO PARLIAMENT 39 mittee to go into Kent and " see what state Sir Edwin Sandys is in, and if he is sick, indeed, to return his answer, whether he were committed and examined about anything done in Parlia ment, or about any Parliamentary Business." In indorsing this motion Sir George Moore, who had contributed over $3500 to the Ameri can movement, said: "Any one was unworthy to live who would betray the privileges of this House. This our principal Freedom. Never in all his Time [he had been a member since 1584] knew greater care to preserve their Liberties than this Assembly." On December 28th, the Commons, in reply to the king's letter, wrote the memorable protesta tion, in which they assert that " every member of the House hath, and of right ought to have, freedom of speech," etc., which was afterwards torn from the Commons Journal by the king and with his own hands destroyed ; but I have given an outline of these proceedings in " The First Republic in America," and it is not neces sary to repeat. The party which was trying to protect the charter rights of our primal body pohtic x by act of Parhament had now become so strong that the counter purposes of the Court party could not be carried out even by an absolute 1 Of the members of our original body politic about 300 were also at different times members of the House of Commons. 40 FIRST APPEAL TO PARLIAMENT king, without some pretense of justice. This party contained some of the most influential men in England, there was a very strong following among the people, some prestige even in the House of Lords, and an ever-increasing author ity in the House of Commons. And this Parha ment to which they wished to appeal in behalf of their charter rights was a most vigorous one — alike in the correction of abuses and in the defense of liberties. Therefore the conduct of James I. in the case was constantly diplomatic. He had found it necessary for his purposes to prorogue the session ; to arrest Sandys and others ; then to apologize. And there was some prospect of success with the Virginia business if the Patriots had been able to get their case be fore the House ; but the king dissolved it, and thus the charter act was not permitted to pass the Parhament. The period of this Parhament should be care fully considered in these premises, as it was evi dently a most important one in the history of the movement which gave birth to this nation. It was during these political proceedings of so far reaching importance to the Anglo-Saxon race that the committees of the body conducting that movement were preparing the laws for the re form government establishing in Virginia, and it was on August 3, 1621, that the Virginia Court (the " Seminary of Sedition " of James I.) signed FIRST APPEAL TO PARLIAMENT 41 and sealed duplicates of the ordinance and con stitution which had been prepared to be sent to Virginia by the recently elected governor, Sir Francis Wyatt. The intent of the managers of the body politic was, " by the divine assistance, to settle in Virginia such a form of government as may be to the greatest benefit and comfort of the people, and whereby all injustice, grievances, and oppression may be prevented and kept off as much as possible from the said colony." Besides the charter case there was another im portant case, in these premises, before this Par liament. In the summer of 1618 Captain John Bargrave brought suit against Sir Thomas Smith and others. The case went through the Vir ginia courts; then into chancery; then before this Parhament ; and (after Parliament was dis solved) before the Privy Council. During this controversy Bargrave repeatedly warned the royal courts against " the popular government " which was being instituted under the popular charters, and constantly urged them to take prompt and vigorous steps for tying Virginia to the crown of England. 42 THE CONTINUED CONTEST CHAPTER VIII THE CONTINUED CONTEST BETWEEN THE COURT AND PATRIOT PARTIES OVER OUR CHARTER RIGHTS Count Gondomar, having apparently suc ceeded in his mission, left England for Spain in May, 1622, and James I., in carrying forward his intentions against our charter rights, proceeded with discretion. He sent a very polite message to the Virginia Easter Court (June 1, 1622) " signifying that although it was not his desire to infringe their liberty of free election, yet it would be pleasing unto him if they made choice for Treasurer " from five merchants whom he mentions ; 1 which message the Virginia Court — meeting diplomacy with diplomacy — pretended to regard as "a full remonstrance of his Majesty's well-wishing unto the plantation, and of his gra cious meaning not to infringe the priviledges of the company, and the liberty of their free elec tions ; " and thereupon proceeding with their election they gave the Patriot candidate, the Earl of Southampton, 117 ballots, while the king's candidates received only 20 votes in all. The Virginia Court then requested William Lord Cav- 1 See The First Republic in America, p. 476. THE CONTINUED CONTEST 43 endish, William Lord Paget, and John Holies Lord Houghton ' to present their most humble thanks to his Majesty for his good wishes to their affairs without desire to infringe their liberty of free election,' etc. When the committee pre sented this really sarcastic message, James I., very naturally, " flung himself away in a furious passion," and Prince Charles had to act as a peace maker. The Patriots never hesitated in contending for our charter rights at any time, and at the Vir ginia courts during this period they did not hesi tate to assert that James I. was acting in the matter in the interest of Spain, under the influ ence of Gondomar. And even the Court party must have felt the need of proceeding with diplo macy, for although James I. was " an absolute king," the Patriot party was using a club which then had great force in England. But when the news of the massacre of the Virginians by the Indians reached England late in June, 1622, the Court party, attributing that incident to " mis- government " (that is, to the popular course of government), seized upon it as furnishing the de sired excuse for suppressing the movement, and the Patriots were obliged to use, if possible, greater discretion than ever, until the good re ports brought from Virginia by the ships which arrived about Christmas, 1622, put them on the aggressive again. 44 THE CONTINUED CONTEST Early in 1623 " A Declaration of the present state of Virginia comparatively with what had been done in former times " was drawn up and set forth by the order of the Earl of South ampton, then treasurer of the corporation. The officials of the " former times " were now acting with the Court party. Alderman Johnson rephed to this declaration at once, and the Virginia Cor poration was soon divided into bitter political parties. Wodenoth says that, ' owing to the con stant opposition of James I. and to the inquisition of the Privy Council, many Lords and others of all ranks of the more timorous nature now fell from the true sense and justice of the work chiefly intended,' and these men formed a party in the body pohtic itself which aided the Court party in having the charters annulled, and the government resumed, by the crown. The party in the corporation which was will ing to surrender our charter rights to the king and affiliated with the Court party was led by Robert Rich Earl of Warwick, Sir Thomas Smith, Sir Nathaniel Rich, Sir Henry Mildmay, Alderman Johnson, and others. The party not willing to surrender our charter rights to the king, hoping, with the aid of the Patriot party in Parhament, to be able to hold on to those rights, was led by Henry Wriothesley Earl of Southampton, Wilham Lord Cavendish, Sir Ed win Sandys, Sir Edward Sackville, Sir John THE CONTINUED CONTEST 45 Ogle, and many more. The case, ostensibly, between these two parties in the Virginia Corpo ration, but really between the crown of England and the original of our body politic, was up be fore James I. and his Privy Council in January, February, March, and April, 1623, documents being read and witnesses heard for both sides. By the latter part of April the case had reached an acute state. On April 22d, the Patriot party appointed Sir Edwin Sandys, Sir Edward Harwood, John Smyth of Nibley, John White (who afterwards drafted the Massachusetts charter), William Ber- block, Anthony Withers, Rev. Patrick Copeland, John Ferrar, and Nicholas Ferrar as a special committee for perfecting the various writings which they intended to submit in defense of our charter rights, etc. On April 28th, the crown appointed a special commission to consider the Virginia case, with Sir William Jones, who had been chief justice of the King's Bench in Ire land, at the head of it. This commission sat in this case for many months, and back of it was James I. and his Privy Council. John Ferrar says : " The Privy Council, find ing that the company were still resolved not to part with their patent or with the hberty which they thereby had to govern their own affairs, now took a more severe and not less un just course. They confined Lord Southampton 46 THE CONTINUED CONTEST [early in May, 1623] to his house, so that he might not come to the Virginia courts, of which he was the legal governor. But this only made the company more resolute in their own defense. They then [on May 23d] ordered Sir Edwin Sandys [Lord Cavendish, the governor of the Bermuda Islands Company, Nicholas and John Ferrar] into a similar confinement. But this step in no degree abated the resolution of the company " to defend their charter rights. At the Easter Virginia Court, May 24, 1623, " the Lords, under the influence of Gondomar, strongly pressed the company to give up their patent ; " but they would not. All of the lead ing managers of the body were now under arrest, and as this was the court at which their annual elections were usually held the crown may have felt that it "held the whip handle;" but the Patriots, in order to hold on to their old officers (now prisoners), and to avoid as much as possi ble an open rupture with the crown, determined to defer the annual election to the Trinity term. James I. was thus again foiled in another at tempt to interfere with their freedom of elec tion. The Ferrars were liberated in a few days ; but Southampton, Cavendish, and Sandys were not. On May 26th, Sir Nathaniel Rich, who was then affiliating with the Court party, had a long in terview with Captain John Bargrave in the great THE CONTINUED CONTEST 47 chamber of the Earl of Warwick's house in Lon don. Bargrave said that " by his long acquaint ance with Sandys and his wayes he was induced verilie to believe that there was not any man in the world .that carried a more malitious heart to the government of a Monarchic, than Sir Edwin Sandys did." Continuing, he said in effect that ' Sandys had told him his purpose was to erect a free popular state in Virginia, in which the in habitants should have no government put upon them but by their own consent.' This evidence of Bargrave's as to the political features of the case was very strong, because he was a friend of Sandys on business lines, and was then acting in consort with him in his suits against Sir Thomas Smith. Rich made notes of this interview, which he gave in to the king's commissioners, who were then considering the case. Sandys and Southampton being under arrest, John Ferrar says that the burthen of defending our charter rights before this commission and the Privy Council fell upon Nicholas Ferrar. And when James Marquess of Hamilton and William Herbert Earl of Pembroke visited Sandys and Southampton in their confinement, these lords informed them of these proceedings, saying : " That Nicholas Ferrar, though now left as it were alone, was too hard for all his op- posers. But, continued they, your enemies will prevail at last ; for let the Company do what 48 THE CONTINUED CONTEST they can, in open defiance of honour, and jus tice, it is absolutely determined at all events to take away your patent." The Trinity Virginia Court met on July 5, 1623 ; the treasurers were still under arrest, the company would not elect others to their places, and in order to hold on to their old offi cers and to avoid an open rupture with the crown, now deferred the election to the Michael mas term. James I. seems to have been deter mined, if the patriotic body would elect none of those selected by himself, that they should have no presiding officials at all. The crown had placed the leaders of the Patriot party under arrest, and had hampered that party in every way while the commissioners were considering their case. After the com missioners had collected such evidences as the king desired, they made their first report in July, 1623 : — to the purport ' that if his Majesty's first charter of April, 1606, and his Majesty's most prudent and princely form of government of 1606-1609, by thirteen council lors in Virginia all appointed by his Majesty, had been pursued, much better effects would have been produced than had been by the alteration thereof under the charters to a body pohtic into so popular a course,' etc. The report was for the purpose of justifying James I. " out of his great wisdom and depth to judgment to resume SECOND APPEAL TO PARLIAMENT 49 the government, and to reduce that popular form so as to make it agree with the monarchical form which was held in the rest of his Royall Mon archic." CHAPTER IX THE SECOND EFFORT TO PROTECT OUR CHAR TER RIGHTS BY ACT OF PARLIAMENT After the failure of the Spanish match, in the autumn of 1623, James I. evidently altered the private purpose, which the Patriots said he had, of surrendering Virginia to Spain, but became more determined than ever to annul our charter rights, in order to take the country from the body which had secured it at the expense of their own blood and treasure without assistance from the crown, to attach it absolutely to the crown, and to resume the government himself. On October 30th, the company was required by the crown to take a final vote on surrendering their charter rights voluntarily, and, regardless of the royal influence, a large majority of those present were opposed to doing so. Two of the old representatives of James I. in Virginia during 1607-1609 (Captains John Martin and John Smith) were present, and both of them wished the king to resume the business. Sir Edwin Sandys had been under arrest nearly 50 SECOND APPEAL TO PARLIAMENT the whole time since May, — while this case was being considered by the crown, — and James I., in order to get him entirely out of his way, had determined in December to send him as one of a special commission to Ireland ; but a Parhament having been decided on, and Sandys being elected a member from Kent, the king was foiled, as it was deemed unwise to arouse the wrath of Parlia ment by taking him away from his seat ; so he was finally released from confinement, and he sat in the fourth Parliament of James I. from Feb ruary 22, 1624, to the death of the king on April 6, 1625. On January 24, 1624, the Virginia Court re solved not to continue the prosecution of their case before the crown officials, the Privy Coun cil, and courts, but " to reserve all to the Parlia ment now at hand ; " and it was before the last Parliament of James I. that our original body pohtic made their last stand as an independent corporation in defense of our original charter rights. The Patriot party was numerously and well represented in this Parliament. After it met, on February 22, 1624, Sir Edwin Sandys and Nicholas Ferrar (M. P. for Lymington) at once strengthened their position by taking sides with Prince Charles and the Duke of Bucking ham (who had visited Spain as Tom and John Smith), the then "rising stars," in their case against Lionel Cranfield Earl of Middlesex, the SECOND APPEAL TO PARLIAMENT 51 old opponent of Sandys and Ferrar in the Vir ginia business. Then, on May 6th, Sandys, Ferrar, and "those others of the Virginia Coun cil that were also members of the Honourable House of Parhament," in the name of the Vir ginia Corporation, presented a petition " To the Honourable House of Commons assembled in Parhament." This petition, after showing the many advantages arising and likely to arise from the colony, states that disorders have arisen which the petitioners were not able to rectify " without higher assistance," and " for the dis charge of the trust reposed in them they now presented to this present Parliament this child of the kingdom [Virginia] exposed as in the wil derness to extreme danger, and as it were faint ing and laboring for hfe. And they pray the House to hear their grievances;" — which the House was wilhng to do, and a committee was appointed to hear the case. But before the matter was concluded James I. wrote (May 8th) " to our House of Commons not to trouble them selves with this petition," as he intended to settle the matter himself with the aid of his Privy Coun cil, and ' this was assented to by a general silence in the House, but not without some soft mutter- ings.' As their contest was really with the crown, and not with the Sir Thomas Smith party, as, for obvious reasons, they had pretended, and as their hopes had been dependent on the Commons, the 52 THE CHARTERS ANNULLED Patriot party in the Virginia body pohtic must have now felt that their cause was for the pre sent hopeless ; yet they were not only unwilling to surrender our charter rights voluntarily, but they were not wilhng to surrender them at all. CHAPTER X THE CHARTERS TO THE ORIGINAL OF OUR BODY POLITIC ANNULLED BY THE CROWN On November 3, 1623, the Privy Council in England appointed Captain John Harvey, John Pory, Abraham Piersey, and Samuel Matthews1 commissioners in Virginia to consider and make report on the condition of the colony. Harvey and Pory arrived at Jamestown on March 4, 1624, and after considering the case, sent their reports to England by Pory early in May following. The Patriot party in Virginia had sent Mr. John Pountis as their agent, with documents to offset these reports, about a week before, and this was probably the first special mission sent to England from the colony in defense of our charter rights. "Mr. Pountis, the messenger of the General Assembhe in Virginia," died en route at sea in June, 1624. Mr. Pory, the messenger of the royal commission, arrived safely, and gave in their reports about the middle of June. The 1 John Jefferson was also appointed, but he did not act. THE CHARTERS ANNULLED 63 royal commission in England then, regardless of the protests of the Virginia courts in England and of the General Assembly and planters in Vir ginia, made their final reports justifying the king in having the charter of our original body pohtic annulled and in resuming the government him self. James I. then had the charter overthrown, on June 26, 1624, by a quo warranto 1 in the Court of the King's Bench by Sir James Ley, who had formerly served him as a commissioner in Ire land; but the immortal principles which inspired the body had then been planted in America. The seed had germinated in our sacred soil, and the tender plant was growing strong in our free air. The Patriot party was very severe in denounc ing James I. in their courts and writings for his " despotic violation of honour and of justice " in these premises, and that the whole proceeding of the Court party was a piece of very dishonorable work there can be now no question ; but from the imperial point of view it must have seemed to be a royal duty to resort to every possible means available for destroying forever, "root and branch," every idea of the popular political course of government designed for the New World by the Patriots. In reference to the quo warranto case, John 1 Smith called it "A Corante." — Generall Historic, p. 168, Arber's edition of Smith's Works, p. 621. 54 THE CHARTERS ANNULLED Ferrar said that Attorney - General Coventry brought the plea against the company's charter, " That it was in general an unlimited vast patent. In particular, the main inconvenience was that, by the words of the charter, the company had a power given them to carry away and transport to Virginia as many of the king's loving subjects as were desirous to go thither. And consequently, by exercising this hberty, they may in the end carry away all the king's subjects into a foreign land," etc. Additional hght is thrown on this matter by Bargrave, Wodenoth, and others. If we will turn the political hght on these charters it will be seen that Attorney-General Coventry understood them correctly.1 They con veyed to a body pohtic unlimited in number, a corporation unhmited in time, a vast territory in perpetuity, and authorized that body to plant this territory, not only with "as many of the king's loving subjects as were desirous to go thither," but also with ' strangers and aliens, born in any part beyond the seas wheresoever, being in amity with the Enghsh.' And among the singular freedoms, liberties, franchises, and privi leges granted to the members of this body pohtic was the right to govern themselves — to make laws and ordinances — so always as the same be not contrary to the laws of England as construed in the most favorable manner for that body. 1 See Part V. chapters i., ii., and iii. THE CHARTERS ANNULLED 55 The crown already saw " the handwriting on the wall," and felt that, unless heroic action was promptly taken against a popular course of gov ernment in America, the colonies would become a place of refuge from royal tyranny, and would finally shake off the yoke of the mother country and erect an entirely independent nation. And the subsequent history of the colonies is an evi dence that the crown never lost sight of that fear until it lost the colonies. After the quo warranto case had been de cided according to his desire, James I. at once turned his attention to designing a plan of gov ernment of his own for the colonies in America, with the aid of Ohver St. John Viscount Grand- ison, George Lord Carew, and Arthur Lord Chichester, who had previously assisted him in forming his plan of government for Ireland; and if he had lived to put into effect his plan of government for America, the result might have been the same in this country as it has been in Ireland. Or, if Gondomar's advice continued to obtain with him, the Spanish plan of ruling South America might have been repeated in North America. Or, if he had restored his original form of government of 1606-1609, under the presidency of his original loyal repre sentative, it might have resulted in failure as it had previously done. But no one can really know what would have been the result if the ideas of 56 THE CHARTERS ANNULLED James I. and his councilors had been completely carried out ; because Providence has always pro tected the American talisman. James I. died suddenly on April 6, 1625, before his plans for destroying it had been consummated, and it came to pass that the colony virtually continued under the pohtical principles — the vis vita) — of the primitive body politic of this nation. part n An outline of the effort of the Court party in England to obliterate the true history of the origin of this nation ; show ing how a great historic wrong was done our patriotic found ers by James I., his commissioned officials, and licensed his torians. •THE CROWN CONFISCATES EVIDENCES 59 CHAPTER I THE CROWN CONFISCATES THE EVIDENCES OF THE BODY POLITIC James I. not only determined to deprive the body pohtic of the pohtical rights which he had granted under the Great Seal of England in per petuity, but he also resolved to suppress (their historic rights) the real history of their great reform movement. We have considered the means resorted to for robbing the original of our body pohtic of our charter rights. We have now to consider the means adopted for robbing our founders of the honors due them in history; for suppressing the facts, and for impressing on the public false ideas of this great liberahzing movement. The repressive laws then shackling the press would of themselves have naturally worked the loss or scattering of much that was disapproved by the crown in the lapse of years without an intentional preservation of evidence for one party and the destruction of the evidence for the other side ; but James I. was not the king to leave such matters to such chances, or to trust solely to the ordinary royal control over evidence. Probably no king was ever more 60 THE CROWN CONFISCATES EVIDENCES determined to exercise " the divine right," for merly claimed by all kings, for making the his toric statements controlled by them conform to their purposes, than James I. The real his tory of his part in the Gowrie Conspiracy of 1600 and in the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 has never been satisfactorily unraveled. But his subtle diplomacy in matters of this kind was most effectually illustrated in his determination to make the plantations in America lasting mon uments of his own kingly ideas, rather than of the popular ideas of " his greatest enemy," Sir Edwin Sandys, and in the execution of his pur pose to consign to oblivion all that pertained to the political plans of the Patriots and to their reform movement. We have a pecuharly strong illustration of the vigor of his purpose in these premises in his act on January 9, 1622, when, in order to destroy the record of a popular pohtical idea, he was guilty of the historic crime of tear ing out with his own royal hands the page from the Commons Journal on which was written the celebrated protest of the Commons (in sequence to the arrest of Sandys in June, 1621) asserting " that they had, and of right ought to have, freedom of speech," etc. To securing these ob jects — to committing this great historic wrong — James I. devoted " his great wisdom and depth of judgment," with the aid of the Court party, Privy Council, special commissioners, royal THE CROWN CONFISCATES EVIDENCES 61 courts, licensed historians, personal advisers, dis satisfied and royalist members of the Virginia Corporation, for a large portion of the very last years of his life and reign. And conse quently even the Gowrie Conspiracy and the Gunpowder Plot have been better understood by historians than has the reform movement under which this nation was founded. The crown had a legitimate or legal right to control the press, the printed evidences, and much of the manuscript evidence — such as pertained to the acts of the crown, the Privy Council, royal courts, commissions, etc., etc. It is now hard to form even an approximate estimate as to how much there was originally of the evidence legally under the control of the crown ; but there was evidently very much of it, — some of a reliable character and some of a partisan or unreliable character ; some complete documents, others mere abstracts. But it was all kept under lock and key, " tied with red-tape," and none of it was available to the historian for many gen erations, prior to which time much had been destroyed intentionally or unintentionally, and some yielding to the natural ravages of time had crumbled to decay. It is only necessary to give an outhne of the evidences in print and manuscript, originally issued by or under the control of the Virginia Corporation. Prior to the opening of the press 62 THE CROWN CONFISCATES EVIDENCES to their opponents in 1612, the managers of the business had pubhshed about twenty tracts, broadsides, and circular letters. After that their patronage of the press was not so free. The custom of reading at the annual Hilary term of the Virginia Quarter Court " a declaration of the present state of the colony " was continued dur ing 1613-1617, which declaration, or an abstract from it, was published each year, and a few lottery broadsides and circular letters were also printed ; but I cannot find that anything at all was pubhshed by the managers in 1618 or 1619, while the new order of government was being quietly inaugurated in Virginia. Under the Sandys-Southampton administration, " the trea surer was required in the beginning of the court [usually the Easter Quarter Court] at the giving up of his office to declare by word or writing the present estate of the colonie and planters in Virginia, and to deliver in to the court a Booke of his accounts for the year past, examined and approved under the auditors hands : Declaring withall the present estate of the cash." A portion of this report, including 'A Note of the shipping, men, provisions, etc., that had been sent to Vir ginia by the said Treasurer during his preced ing year in office,' was pubhshed in 1620, 1621, and 1622. Besides these a good many other things were printed in 1620 and a few in 1622 ; but the printing press was not available to the THE CROWN CONFISCATES EVIDENCES 63 managers in the years 1623 and 1624 when the great struggle over our charter rights was going on, and they published nothing that I can find in those years. There were probably over fifty imprints — tracts, broadsides, circulars, etc., li censed and not licensed, long and short — pub lished by the managers in the whole period of 1609-1624. These publications, issued in the interest of the enterprise, are not expected to give pohtical or other information which might injure it; yet they reveal to us some of the lines along which the managers worked, some of the difficulties which they had to meet, some of their objects or ideas of the present and hopes for the future, and along these hnes they must be regarded as authentic evidence of the highest value. At the same time it must be remembered that the crown had a legal control over the press which printed them. The manuscript records of the body pohtic were regularly kept, were voluminous and valua ble. The treasurers, auditors, committees, hus bands, etc., ah kept separate sets of books. The bookkeeper kept the books of the treasurer and the books of the auditors. The secretary kept the books of the corporation courts, the books of the committeemen, etc., including : First, the books containing letters, orders, etc., from the king, Privy Council, and court officials to the company officials, and ditto from the com- 64 THE CROWN CONFISCATES EVIDENCES pany officials to the crown officials ; second, the books of laws, standing orders, and matters of that character ; third, the books containing the charters from the crown, the charters and inden tures from the corporation, the pubhc letters to and from Virginia, etc. ; fourth, the books of the acts of the general courts ; fifth, the books of the acts of the committees, including invoices of goods, etc., sent to and received from Virginia ; and, sixth, the books containing the names of the adventurers and their shares of land, the names of all planters in Virginia upon the pubhc as well as upon private plantations and their shares of land. There were also register books, in which the name, age, condition, previous residence, etc., of all who went to Virginia as planters was regis tered. The husband kept his own books regard ing every voyage to and from Virginia. There were also many other writings, documents, etc., of an important character not kept in books, all of which were caref ully kept under the secretary's charge in the company's chest of evidences. And, of course, there was much evidence, of a non-official but reliable character, in the hands of many members of the corporation not kept in the chest of evidences. I believe that enough is now known of these original manuscript evi dences of the Virginia Corporation to justify es timating the volume at over seven million words. The crown, through the medium of the Star THE CROWN CONFISCATES EVIDENCES 65 Chamber, the High Commission, and the censors of the press, had a legal control over publications, and through the Privy Council and royal officials a legitimate control of much of the manuscript evidence. But James I. was also determined to confiscate this mass of the corporation's evidence over which he had no legal control, and over which I do not know that the annulling of the charter to the body politic gave him a legitimate control. The actual confiscation of this evidence began on or before May 3, 1623, for the Vir ginia Court of May 24th complained that the Lords of his Majesty's Privy Council had seques tered their court books out of the company's hands three weeks before. On May 25th, the royal com missioners ordered the Virginia and the Somers Islands companies to bring before them to the in quest house (where they held their inquisitions), next adjoining to St. Andrew's Church in Hol- born, on May 27th next, all writings of all sorts concerning the said companies. As the Privy Council had taken the precaution to place the presiding officers of both corporations under ar rest while this sequestration of their evidences was going on, this order of the commissioners was addressed to " Edward Collingwood, secretary of the Company of Virginia." 1 In the autumn of 1623 the crown appointed 1 For Captain John Smith's account of his part in these pro ceedings, see The General! Historie, pp. 162-168. 66 THE CROWN CONFISCATES EVIDENCES Captain John Harvey and John Pory to go to Virginia and to act with several planters there as commissioners in Virginia, ostensibly for the purpose of examining into the state of the plan tations, ' to make report on the misgovernment thereof, and to suggest the likehest ways to be put in practice for the better governing of the same ; ' but really, as Lionel Cranfield Earl of Middlesex expressed it — 'In order that we [the Court party] might have some true grounds to work upon.' That is, in plain Enghsh, the royal commissioners in England and in Virginia were appointed for the purpose of finding rea sons, evidences, to justify the king before the people in annulling the popular charters, and in resuming the government himself, as he had al ready made up his mind to do. " There was one law of the land, but another law of the king's commissions." They collected such evidences as answered their purpose, and made their reports — regardless of the protests of the Virginia courts in England and of the General Assembly in Virginia — in accordance with the wishes of the crown. Captain John Harvey and Mr. John Pory of the commission in Virginia were in the service of James I. Pory had been secretary in Vir ginia, but at the election of June, 1621, was de feated by Christopher Davison, and afterwards went over to the Court party. On July 30, 1624, THE CROWN CONFISCATES EVIDENCES 67 ' the crown paid him £100 in discharge of his expenses, and £50 as a reward for his services when employed in Virginia about the king's special affairs.' James I. expended much more of his revenue in his effort to have evidences to conform with his wishes, in founding history to suit his ideas, and in committing this historic wrong, than he did on the actual founding of Virginia. The commissioners continued to confiscate the company's evidences x at every opportunity, under various pretensions, until the Virginia charter was " overthrown " on June 26, 1624, by a quo warranto issued by Sir James Ley,2 Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench ; after which James I. felt more free to act in the matter without pre text or subterfuge. On July 4th he appointed a special commission to aid him in the premises, composed of sixteen men, the large majority being crown officials or members of -the Court party ; and one of their first acts was to order Mr. Nicholas Ferrar, the deputy of the Virginia Corporation, to bring to them many of the com pany's evidences. On July 25th James I. enlarged 1 See The First Republic in America, pp. 532, etc. 2 He was created Lord Treasurer on December 20, 1624 ; Lord Ley of Ley, County Devon, December 31, 1624 ; advanced to the Earldom of Marlborough in May, 1625, and soon after made Lord President of the Privy Council, all for services ren dered the crown. Sir William Jones, the head of the king's Virginia Commission of 1623-1624, was advanced to the King's Bench, October 17, 1624. 68 THE CROWN CONFISCATES EVIDENCES the powers of this commission, added thereto forty new members, mostly of the Court party, and gave them especial royal orders, 'to take into their hands and to keep AU Bookes, orders, Letters, Advices, and other writings and things in anywise concerning the colony and plantation of Virginia, in whose hands soever the same be.' And all persons were required by the crown to dehver these evidences to these commissioners, while they were required by James I. to be dili gent in securing them. It is not to be supposed that anything in manuscript or print would have been preserved under the auspices of the crown which was not favorable to the purposes of the crown, and if the royal officials collected any evidence which did not conform to the purposes of the crown, it was probably collected in order to destroy it. The evidences still preserved which were ob tained by the royal commissioners consist of ex tracts made in the interest of the royal purposes from documents which have not been found (having been probably destroyed at that time), and of complete papers in justification of those purposes. There cannot now be any reasonable doubt that James I. left no stone unturned in the effort to find and to have destroyed all evidences which were favorable to the popular course of government. And all the numerous important original manuscript evidences of the body politic EFFORT TO PRESERVE THE EVIDENCES 69 were confiscated by the crown, with the manifest purpose of suppressing the facts and making it impossible for the truth regarding this reform movement ever to be known, for not one of these original documents has been found. And " cen sored histories" were hcensed, disseminating false ideas, which, under the control of the crown, remained for generations the only available evi dences in the premises. Besides the official publications of the crown and of the managers, there were printed various other books, sermons, tracts, etc., by members of the corporation and by outsiders, containing more or less matter relative to the colony in Vir ginia. But as these publications had to conform to the purposes of the censors of the press, httle information of a political or strictly rehable his torical character is given in them. CHAPTER II THE EFFORT OF THE PATRIOTS TO PRESERVE AUTHENTIC COPIES OF THEIR EVIDENCES While the Court party had every advantage in being able to destroy evidences unfavorable to their purposes and for disseminating such as were favorable, the Patriot party was at every dis advantage. Even before the open opposition of the crown began there had been need for discre- 70 EFFORT TO PRESERVE THE EVIDENCES tion, not only on account of the pohtical condi tions, but also because it would have been a serious blow to the enterprise for many years for many of the true obstacles to have been pub licly acknowledged by the managers. Hence they had all along been obliged to bear in silence adverse criticism and charges of mismanagement as well as of " misgovernment." And although they patronized the press liberally during 1609- 1612, the freedom of the press was never theirs ; whatever they published was always liable to royal inspection — to be censored, garbled, or destroyed. And after the crown resolved to confiscate their evidences, they really had no safe or satisfactory way of preserving them. The only way was by stealth, and fortunately for the truth, which is essential to history, they made determined efforts to preserve their records in this way. Some were preserved by sending them to Virginia at once, others by keeping them privately in England, and some of these were at a later day purchased by Virginians and. brought to Virginia for safe keeping. The Virginia Court, on May 27, 1623, ap pointed a committee composed of Sir Robert Killigrew, Sir John Danvers, Edward Herbert, Richard ¦ Tomlyns, John White, Anthony With ers, John Bland, Gabriel Barber, and William Berblock to attend the royal commissioners with a portion of the evidences which they had de- EFFORT TO PRESERVE THE EVIDENCES 71 manded, and to ask the commissioners in the company's name that "they would respite the delivery of the accompts until the accomptant might take copies of them, when together with the other things they should be dehvered to them." But we now know that the copying of the records for private preservation began be fore May 27, 1623. It is now quite certain that both Sir John Danvers (so long an auditor of the company) and Mr. Nicholas Ferrar (the deputy treasurer), "foreseeing the destruction of the company's records," had copies made privately. Danvers had " The Leiger-Court Books " (the acts of the general courts, beginning with the quar ter court of May 8, 1619, and ending with the court of June 17, 1624) copied and attested, and Ferrar had "all the court books and all other writings belonging to the company" copied and attested. Both the Danvers and the Ferrar copies were delivered (by Danvers and Ferrar respectively) for safe keeping to the Earl of Southampton, the last treasurer of the company, in the summer of 1624. As soon as the royal commissioners learned of these copies they called on the earl for them; but, regardless of the royal orders, he rephed that " he would as soon part with the evidences of his land as with the said copies, being the evidence of his honor in that service." Southampton soon went to the 72 EFFORT TO PRESERVE THE EVIDENCES Netherlands, where he died, and James I. him self died not long after. Thus Providence, which preserved our pohtical rights, also preserved these evidences ; for it need not be supposed that any of these copies could have been preserved if James I. had hved longer. The Ferrar copies are still missing. Those which have been found are of vast importance, not only within them selves, but also in showing the character of the evidences which were then confiscated by the crown. The absolute control over all evidence then possessed by the crown did not produce the only serious difficulty in the way of finding the facts in after times, for the control of an absolute king over the hves of his subjects made it neces sary to their safety for them to conduct mat ters very secretly. It was not safe to keep com plete records of a movement in wliich life and hberty were at stake, and there was constant need for diplomacy. Many acts, resolves, etc., of the Patriots were without doubt never re corded at all, and evidently much of the com pany's record has to be " read between the lines." Even the books of " The Seminary of Sedition " reveal so httle of the pohtical character of the corporation that the Rev. William Stith and subsequent historians, who had the use of some of these books, regarded the Virginia body pohtic as being merely a commercial company. HISTORY LICENSED BY THE CROWN 73 There is still another difficulty, owing to the parties wliich arose in the Virginia Company itself, frequently causing the evidence of one party, when relating to the acts of the other, to be unfavorable and ex parte evidence. Thus members of the parties in the corporation either willingly or unwittingly played into the hands of the royal commissioners by furnishing evi dence the one party against the otber. CHAPTER ni THE HISTORY PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE CROWN It was very natural for such a king as James I. to determine to efface every trace of such a move ment as this was, and, unfortunately for the truth, he did not die until after the original evidences of the corporation had been confiscated, until after the censored histories had been pubhshed, and his plans against the true history of the great reform movement had been consummated. The chief means resorted to by the crown for preventing the truth from ever being found out was by suppressing the manuscript evidences ; and the chief means for perpetuating such false ideas as were agreeable to the Court party was through the censored press. Therefore, in con sidering the effect of pohtics on the history of 74 HISTORY LICENSED BY THE CROWN the original of our body pohtic as it has been published, it is of the first importance to form a correct estimate of the original history published under the auspices of the crown, which has been the foundation upon which subsequent histories have been based. In order to do this satisfacto rily, it is necessary to consider the character and position of the author ; the conditions obtaining and influencing opinions and evidences when the book was compiled and when it was pubhshed ; the view-point and character of the matter in the book ; the circumstances which fostered the book for generations ; and, finally, to note the charac ter of the fruit which has been produced thereby. I have written a great deal about this book which it is not necessary to repeat. What I am going to write shall have reference especially to the pohtical conditions wliich have not previously been sufficiently considered. I have regarded Captain John Smith as the responsible author of this " history," and as such have held him personally responsible for its con tents, character, and the historic harm which has been done by it, and I may have blamed him too much in the matter ; for, save for the support of the Court party, the book would not have been hcensed or published, and therefore James I. and the Court party are really more to blame for the publication of his " history " than he is himself. It is true that he criticised the managers, but so HISTORY LICENSED BY THE CROWN 75 did the Court party. It is true that his personal purpose was evidently to glorify himself ; but as his authority to act in Virginia and his authority to publish his stories in England were derived from the crown, both as an official in Virginia and as a historian in England he was really the servant of the crown. The references to himself being considered not personal, but in the sense of his pohtical position as the king's loyal repre sentative, — the honors for the services rendered by the official servant of an absolute king were thought to belong to the king his master, — therefore he was free to carry out his personal purpose completely so long as his story con formed with the purposes of the crown. If his services in Virginia had been greater even than he says they were, and if his accounts had been written in defense of the pohtical purposes of the Patriots, they would have been suppressed by the crown as such evidences were suppressed. If he had acted with the Patriots, protested against the king's form of government for the plantations, returned to Virginia under the body pohtic, supported the popular course of govern ment, upheld our charter rights, and given up his hf e in America while carrying forward the great cause, he would have fared in histories pubhshed under the auspices of the crown as the martyrs of our genesis did fare. History cannot be writ ten or estimated fairly without giving due con- 76 HISTORY LICENSED BY THE CROWN sideration to the influence of pohtics on the evidences. Let us consider the conditions which led up to the publication of this book : Captain John Smith was a prisoner charged with the capital offense of complicity in "the open and confessed mu tiny " of Galthorpe when he arrived in Virginia in 1607 ; but his life was protected by the com mission which he held from James I. as a member of his council in Virginia. Under the influence of the free air of America, respect for the king's authority in Virginia soon began to wane. In January, 1608, of the six members of the king's council in Virginia, Wingfield had been deposed, Gosnold had died, Kendall had been executed, and under the leadership of Captain Gabriel Archer, who wished the planters (to whom James I. had not granted the right to govern themselves) to set up a parliament of their own in Virginia, Smith was tried for disobedience of orders, and condemned to be executed ; but the coming in of Captain Christopher Newport, who held his own commission from the crown at this time, prevented the assembling of the parliament and saved the life of Smith.1 In December, 1608, when Captain Newport left Virginia with the planters and reports which were instrumental in causing the Patriots to pe tition for a charter enabling them to remove the 1 See The First Republic in America, pp. 55, 56, 67. HISTORY LICENSED BY THE CROWN 77 king's council and to reform the king's plan of government in Virginia, Captain John Smith was the president of the king's council representing James I. in Virginia. In August, 1609, when the portion of the corporation's fleet arrived with the news that the charter to a body pohtic had been granted, Smith was not only the presi dent, but the only surviving representative of the king in his council in Virginia. Unfortunately these ships did not bring the official copy of the new charter, as it was in charge of the governor, Sir Thomas Gates, who had been wrecked on the Bermudas ; and the absence of this charter, coupled with the knowledge that it had been granted, caused a confusion of authority in Vir ginia. Smith, as president of the king's coun cil, held on to the official copies of the original authorities, — the king's charter of April, 1606, his princely instructions of November, 1606, and his constitution for the plantation of March, 1607, and made the circumstances thus obtaining a pretext for refusing to admit Captains Rad- cliffe, Martin, and Archer (old members who had returned with the fleet) into that council, al though, like Smith, they had been appointed thereto in the first instance by his majesty ; whereby " discencyons " arose between the presi dent of the king's council and these captains, Captain Francis West, and others, which finally resulted in his being deposed from the presidency 78 HISTORY LICENSED BY THE CROWN and sent to England to answer for his misde meanors.1 Captain George 'Percy, who was in Virginia with Smith the whole time of his ser- vice there, said that he was an ambitious, un worthy, and vainglorious fellow ; that he aimed at setting up " A Soveraigne Rule " in Vir ginia, and was justly deposed ; but his acts in the premises were well calculated to receive the subsequent indorsation of the Court party, as they evidently did do. The ships on which he returned to England arrived in December, 1609, with very bad reports regarding the conditions in the colony when the fleet left Virginia; but it was afterwards as serted by the Court party and in the history hcensed by the crown that the colony was left in excellent condition by the loyal representative of James I., and that the bad conditions did not be gin until after the ships of 1609 (which brought the bad reports from Virginia) had left Virginia, which assertion is manifestly untrue. The royal grant of 1606 to a company had been superseded by the charter of 1609 to a body pohtic ; but the charter had not reached Virginia. The managers in England, feehng the danger of chaos obtaining in Virginia, fitted out Lord De La Warr as soon as possible and 1 The corporation had no authority to punish such misde meanors until after the granting of the XIV. and XV. articles of the charter of 1612. HISTORY LICENSED BY THE CROWN 79 sent him to the colony with the authority of an absolute governor, and he arrived just in time to save the country to the corporation. Gates re turned to England in September, 1610, carrying the first news of his shipwreck in the Bermudas, and subsequent arrival in Virginia, as well as of the safe arrival of Lord De La Warr, and the managers of the movement soon determined to petition for their second charter. Captain John Smith, the king's former repre sentative in Virginia, began to take action against the charter under which he had been removed from office in Virginia and the managers who had removed him, at his earhest opportunity. Late in 1610, at the same time that the peti tion drafted by Sir Edwin Sandys for this sec ond charter was being considered by the crown, and afterwards during the period in 1610-1612, when the managers of the business were trying to fill in the charter with subscriptions to the desired amount of £30,000, — before James I. signed it, — a treatise, which had been compiled, it was said, partly in Virginia and partly in Eng land, by some (one or more) of those who had served in the colony under the crown, and had returned to England, was being circulated in manuscript evidently under the patronage of a party opposed to the reform purposes of the Patriots. The avowed motive of this treatise was to show " to all indifferent readers, that the 80 HISTORY LICENSED BY THE CROWN country was healthy, the Indians tractable," etc., the " defect whereof hath only been in the man aging the businesse." In brief, the motive was to show that the reasons for "the past def ail ments," which the managers had assigned to justify them before the king in petitioning for the special charters incorporating a body pohtic, were not true. The circulation of this treatise probably delayed subscription; but the country had not yet been secured from the Indians or Spaniards, the colony was not yet estabhshed, James I. was not yet wilhng to risk his own revenues in the undertaking even under his own officials and plan of government, and so, regard less of this opposition, the charter was finally signed by the king on March 22, 1612. Late in 1612, when James I. was acting as his own prime minister, and when the enterprise was passing through its " darkest hour," some of those who agreed with the political motive of the said treatise felt justified in having it pubhshed at Oxford. It was dedicated by its author, Captain John Smith, to his patron, Ed ward Seymour Earl of Hertford. The man agers had been subjected to verbal and written criticism, to opposition and all sorts of hin drances from the beginning, and now in this dark hour the press was opened to their oppo nents ; thenceforth they were to have still greater need for all the wisdom which their natural HISTORY LICENSED BY THE CROWN 81 abilities and long experience had given them. Thenceforward their great reform movement had to be carried on in the face of the open and ever increasing opposition of the party in the state and in the church which controlled the press ; opposed their pohtical purposes, and finally confiscated their evidences and hcensed the history of their enterprise as it was first pub lished. While their opponents of the Court party were printing at Oxford a criticism of their manage ment and purposes, and were thus laying the narrow foundation for the false history of their great reform movement as it has been pubhshed, " God's secret purpose " to uphold the work was so strongly fixed in the minds of the undaunted managers that they were holding weekly courts at the house of Sir Thomas Smith in London, " yielding their purses, credit, and counsel! , from time to time, even beyond their proportion, to uphold the plantation," and were thus preserv ing through " the darkest hour " the broad po htical foundation upon which this great nation stands erected. But most unfortunately they had no control over the press, and the subse quent accounts of their movement, hcensed by the crown, were based on this ex parte Oxford tract. It was immediately followed up by the first edition of " Purchas his Pilgrimage " in 1613, and 82 HISTORY LICENSED BY THE CROWN the second edition of the same in 1614 ; Howes' first edition of Stow's Chronicles in 1615 ; the third edition of Purchas in 1617; the second edition of Howes in 1618, etc. Smith himself summarized the same ideas in his " Description of New England " in 1616, and in his " New England's Trials " of 1620 and 1622, and there were other imprints of less historical pretensions during 1613-1622, upholding the pohtical pur poses of the Oxford tract, and opposing those of the .managers of the movement. In the spring of 1623, when Sir Thomas Smith's party in the Virginia Company was con tending that the colony had prospered under his management, and charging that it had gone to ruin under Sandys, etc., and the Sandys party was denying both the claim and the charge, the author of the Oxford tract began compil ing a book virtually contradicting both of these parties; contending that the colony had pros pered under his management and under the king's form of government, and had gone to ruin after the alteration thereof ; asserting that the business had been mismanaged by Sir Thomas Smith prior to 1617, and under the administra tion of Sandys since that year, etc. In the fol lowing summer, Captain John Smith, the author, was before the king's commissioners, and gave such answers to seven questions as were calcu lated to please the Court party and to justify HISTORY LICENSED BY THE CROWN 83 James I. in his purpose to annul the charters that conveyed the pohtical rights which have sustained this nation since its birth. Late in 1623, Smith was distributing a prospectus of his " Generall Historie of Virginia," etc., among the nobility and gentry of England, beginning : " These observations are all I have for the ex- pences of a thousand pound and the losse of eighteene yeares of time." He then entreats them to " give me what you please towards the impression," etc. He soon found a patroness in the Duchess of Richmond and Lenox, the widow of his former patron, Edward Seymour Earl of Hertford, and also the widow of Ludovic Stuart, late lord steward of the king's household. On June 26, 1624, the charters of our body pohtic were overthrown in the king's bench ; on July 4th, a special royal commission was appointed to aid James I. in confiscating the evidences of that body ; and on July 22d, Smith's history of the enterprise of the company conducted under the crown (1606-1609), as well as of the reform pohti cal movement conducted under that body (1610- 1624), was hcensed by Master Doctor Goad, and entered for publication at Stationer's Hall in London. Rev. Thomas Goad, D. D. (1576-1638), who licensed the book, was a domestic chaplain to George Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the Privy Council, and of the High Commis- 84 HISTORY LICENSED BY THE CROWN sion, which, together with the court of the Star Chamber, had a special control over the press. As we have seen, there had been a long and bit ter contest between the Court and Patriot parties over our original political charter rights, and the obtaining of this license at this time did not depend on the personal disinterestedness of the author, nor on the fairness of the book to the patriotic managers, planters, and adventurers, who had secured this country for us at the ex pense of their own blood and treasure unassisted by the crown, nor on its value as history ; but to the contrary it depended on the loyalty of the author to the purposes of the Court party, and on the book's conforming to the purpose of James I. to obhterate the true idea of this great political movement, and to rob our patriotic foun ders of their historic rights and of the honors due them. The Court party wished to show the public that much better effects had been pro duced under his Majesty's most prudent and princely form of government than under the popular course of the Corporation,1 and both the view-point and matter in this "history" are in accord with the purposes of James I. and the Court party. When the Oxford tract was being printed, the faithful managers, planters, and adventurers were very earnestly trying to carry the move- 1 See The First Republic in America, pp. 541, 542. HISTORY LICENSED BY THE CROWN 85 ment through its darkest hour and to save the colony at their own expense. When " the Gen- erall Historie" was being compiled, the faithful Patriots had secured the country for us at the expense of their own blood and treasure unas sisted by the crown, and were trying to defend our political charter rights against the assaults of the Court party. The publication of " the tract " marks the active beginning of the move ment in favor of the king's resuming the gov ernment of the plantations, and annulling the company's charters ; and the publication of " the historie " marks the culmination of that move ment under James I. " Purchas his Pilgrimes " which had been licensed in 1621, was finally published in four large volumes not long before the death of James I. The Rev. Samuel Purchas, the author or compiler of this work, as chaplain to Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury, and head of the High Commission, had authority, as such, to examine manuscript to see that it conformed to or was loyal to the purposes of the crown, — was not seditious, — and to license books. And he was probably looked to by the Court party as the historian of the colonial movement ; x but the Virginia matter in his volumes was evidently either largely based on Smith's works, or col lected for him by Smith, and therefore to all in- 1 See The First Republic in America, pp. 635-637. 86 HISTORY LICENSED BY THE CROWN tents and purposes Captain John Smith must be regarded as the authorized author under the crown of the history of the movement which was pubhshed under the auspices of James I. Hence the so-called " John Smith controversy " covers the published history of the period, 1606- 1624, and may be more properly called the con troversy between the Patriot party, which founded the country, and the Court party, which founded the history. But James I. was really the respon sible author or founder of this controversy. part m The influence of politics on the historic record while the evidences continued under the control of the crown, — an outline of the contest over our political and historie rights between the Court and Patriot parties, from 1625 until the Patriots determined to secure their political rights by force of arms in 1776, — showing the ways by which the original historic wrong was supported and perpetuated under the crown. CHAPTER I UNDER CHARLES I., 1625-1641 Having considered the influence of contem porary pohtics on the pubhshed history, we have now to consider the pohtical influences and cir cumstances wliich fostered that history for many generations. Charles I. succeeded to the crown at his father's death, and, fortunately for our original charter rights, he was under personal obligations to both Sir Edwin Sandys and Mr. Nicholas Ferrar, Jr., who had been his most active friends, when, as Prince of Wales, his case against the Earl of Middlesex was before Parhament in 1624 ; and this circumstance may be regarded as one of the reasons why he, as king, was for many years more hberal in dealing with the political purposes of the political body of the colony than his father had been. He soon asked the old patriotic man agers of the Virginia business to give him their opinion touching the best form of government, etc., for Virginia. In their reply they very astutely laid great stress on the past enmity of 90 UNDER CHARLES I., 1625-1641 the Earl of Middlesex to their old corporation ; claimed that it was chiefly through his instru mentality that their charters had been annulled, and then asked his majesty to restore them. This discourse for presentation to the king was written very diplomatically. James I. was shielded by laying blame for many things on Sir Thomas Smith's party. The late managers, in regard to their evidences, asserted in effect 'that the [royal] commissioners had taken possession of the original court books of the late company, and if they could have gotten into their hands the copies of them which Mr. Nicholas Ferrar had caused to be tran scribed, they proposed doing the Patriot party in that corporation a wrong in their honors and reputations by reforming and correcting the said originals so as to make them conform to their [the royal] purposes; but before their severe order for the copies came to Ferrar he had delivered them to the Earl of Southampton, who sent the [royal] commissioners word that he would as soon part with the evidences of his land as with the said copies ; they being the evidences of his honor in that service.' And the late managers appealed earnestly to the committee of the Privy Council then in charge of the colonies, "that howsoever your Lordships shall please for the future to dispose of the companie, that the records qf their past actions may not be corrupted and falsified." Their records had UNDER CHARLES I, 1625-1641 91 been confiscated by the crown and their past actions had been falsified in the histories licensed under the crown ; thus they were aware of the need for protection, and were evidently anxious to protect the truth of history so far as they pos sibly could. Previous to this earnest appeal to the crown, before he went to the Netherlands in the fall of 1624, the Earl of Southampton had sent the Danvers copies for safe keeping to his seat, Titchfield in Hampshire, and had given the Ferrar copies for safe keeping to Sir Robert Kil- ligrew,1 who had been appointed to the king's commission of July 25, 1624, but had been a member of the hberal party in the Virginia Cor poration, and was in sympathy with the efforts to preserve the copies of their records. Charles I. replied to the discourse of the late managers of " the old Virginia Company " in a printed pro clamation issued on May 23, 1625 — in a friendly way ; but rejecting their appeal for a renewal of the corporation and body pohtic. He said " that our full resolution is that there maie be one uni form course of government in and through all our whole Monarchic That the government of the Collonie of Virginia shall ymmediately depend uppon our Selfe, and not be commytted to anie Company, or Corporation, to whom it maie be proper to trust Matters of Trade and Commerce, but cannot be fitt or safe to communicate the 1 See Packard's Ferrar, p. 156. 92 UNDER CHARLES I, 1625-1641 ordering of State Affaires be they of never soe meane consequence," etc. The Ferrars had cooperated most earnestly with Sandys and other Patriots in their purpose to establish a popular course of government in this country. They had based great hopes on the popular charter rights of the corporation. They had been deprived of hope by James I. ; the hope revived under Charles I. now vanished; like their friend, George Herbert the divine poet, they saw plainly that " the Court was made up of fraud, and titles, and flattery, and painted pleasures," and they determined to retire from the world of London. On June 9, 1625, Mrs. Mary Ferrar bought lands at Little Gidding, Huntingdonshire, in the names of her son Nicho las, and her nephew, Arthur Wodenoth, and the family soon after removed there ; but we shall see that they never lost interest in Virginia. When the death of Mr. John Pountis (who had been sent to prosecute their suit for our charter rights before James I. in 1624) became known in Virginia, " The Governor (Wyatt), Counsell, and Colony of Virginia assembled together," under the impression (real or pretended) that their former petition had not been presented to his majesty, determined to appeal to him again, and in June, 1625, sent their second petition for our charter rights to England by the hands of Sir George Yeardley. It was not then known in UNDER CHARLES L, 1625-1641 93 Virginia that James I. was dead, and this petition was addressed to him. Yeardley arrived in Eng land about two months after Charles I. had dis solved his first Parliament, changed the address, and presented to Charles I. the petition, which not only asked for many of our original charter rights, but also asked to have them confirmed by act of Parliament. The second Parliament met in February, but was dissolved in June, 1626, and during the session, in March, Yeardley, a Patriot, was com missioned and sent back to Virginia as governor by Charles L, but " the Liberty of General! As sembles " and other rights petitioned for were not yet restored. Soon after, May 27, 1626, Sir Francis Wyatt, who as governor had continued to maintain the original popular form of government in the col ony so far as possible since 1624, was sent from Virginia with a third petition from Virginians to the king and Privy Council for our original charter rights, etc. Finally, in the autumn of 1627, in response to repeated petitions, memo rials, letters, and messengers from Virginia, and probably influenced thereto somewhat by the pohtical contentions and conditions in England, Charles I. concluded to permit the colony to retain her General Assembly and other pohtical charter rights, to which James I. was so bitterly opposed. The royal order restoring the House 94 UNDER CHARLES I., 1625-1641 of Burgesses arrived in Virginia on March 4, 1628, and Captain Francis West, a Patriot who was then governor, immediately issued orders for the first election of burgesses under the crown, and summoned the General Assembly to meet at Jamestown on March 20, 1628. Charles I. was constantly vacillating in this matter; having yielded to the appeals of the Patriots for a General Assembly in the autumn of 1627, on April 5, 1628, he commissioned John Harvey, a royalist, who had been at the head of the royal commission sent to Virginia by James I. in 1623, as governor of the colony. But grave political influences were at work. On May 18th, less than forty-five days after Harvey's appoint ment, the celebrated " Petition of Rights " was brought up in the third Parhament by our old friend, John Selden, and, after holding out as long as he could well do, on July 6th Charles I. found it advisable to assent to this petition, but prorogued the Parhament on the same day. The very first Parhament of Charles I. in 1625 had " opened the floodgates of a long contention with the crown," which was really a protection to the hberal pohtical ideas while they were growing and gaining strength in America. And the breach between the king and the Commons was now (1628) really more complete than ever be fore. Charles I., reahzing the fact that the col onists were becoming important factors in the UNDER CHARLES I, 1625-1641 95 politics of the realm, on September 22, 1628, sent an official letter to Governor Harvey, in which he yielded other charter rights to our body pohtic, renewing to the planters in Vir ginia their lands and privileges formerly granted, etc. The corporation would doubtless have been glad to yield their past historic rights to the crown in order to aid in securing from the crown their pohtical rights, and even while the contest over the pohtical charter rights was going on in a way not entirely unfavorable to the Patriots, the royal ideas of their reform movement were being constantly impressed (without public pro test) by the royal press on the mind of the pubhc. A fourth edition of " Purchas his Pil grimage " was published in 1626 ; Smith's " Gen- erall Historie " was reissued in 1626, in 1627, and twice in 1632 ; his " True Travels," licensed in 1629, was pubhshed in 1630 ; and his " Ad vertisements for the Unexperienced Planters " was pubhshed in 1631. The views of these books were of course in accord with the views of the Court party, and opposed to the interests, acts, and political purposes of the Patriot party. The author of these books had become a subject of ridicule ' for writing so much and doing so little.' In August, 1625, Sir William Segar had a copy of a paper said to have been given to Smith by Sigismund Bathor recorded in the her- 96 UNDER CHARLES I., 1625-1641 aid's office. Segar must have been imposed upon in this matter, as he was when he granted the royal arms of Aragon to Brandon, the common hangman of London, for the paper was evidently a forgery.1 In April, 1631, Sir John Harvey wrote from Virginia to Lord Dorchester that 'the self-will government, as formerhe hath bin practised in Virginia,' was still obtaining; and that the council contended that his — the royal gov ernor's — " power extended noe further than a bare castinge voice," etc. The political ideas prevailing in Virginia were not without influence in England. In June, 1631, Charles I. appointed a large commission for advising him upon some course for establishing the advancement of the plantation of Virginia. This commission, being composed for the most part of members of the old Patriot party in the original body "pohtic, favored the renewal of the ancient charters of the corporation 2 as the best course for the ad vancement of the colony, and in the autumn of 1631 they sent in a petition to Charles I. to that effect. In reply to this petition the opposing Court party in England soon issued " Considerations- 1 See Notes and Queries, London, 7th series, vol. ix. pp. 1, 41, 102, 161, 223, and 281 ; and The Genesis ofthe United States, vol. ii. p. 1008. 2 Charles I. had granted a similar charter to Massachusetts in March, 1629. UNDER CHARLES I., 1625-1641 97 against the renewing of a Corporation for Vir ginia," in which they make use of some of their arguments of 1622-1624 : referring to the meet ings of the old Virginia Courts (the old " semi nary of sedition ") as " mutinous meetings ; " contending that the forms of government insti tuted in Ireland by James I. and in the West In dies by the kings of Spain were preferable to the popular course of our original body politic, which they asserted would " poyson that Plantation with factious spirits, and such as are refractory to Monarchical! government as all Corporations are — as is found by experience in the Corpora tion of New England." And they go on to justify the seizing of the company's papers and " Diaries " by James I. in 1624. In August, 1631, the Earls of Dorset and Danby, Sir Robert Killigrew, Sir John Dan vers, Sir Dudley Digges, Sir Francis Wyatt, Thomas Gibbes, George Sandys, Nicholas and John Ferrar, Gabriel Barber, and others of the commission, sent letters to Virginia in the inter- Qr^AXuui^ est of the proposed renewal of the charterj^nd — * ^y<-u i in furtherance of that object ithejiouMciTin Vir- opposed ; but in many respects it has done about all the harm that its sponsors wished it to do. Instead of being a fair account of the beginning of the most important pohtical reform movement of modern times, it is a mere eulogy of the " historian," a traduction of the original of the body politic of this nation, and a stigma upon the popular political principles which inspired them. It has really reversed the true view of our national origin; given the chief honors to the chief agent in perpetrating the historic wrong ; censured those who deserved praise, robbed our patriotic founders of the honors due them, and deprived our origin of its inspiring features. Instead of fostering worthy sentiments regard ing our patriotic founders and national founda tion as a true patriotic history would have done, it has caused an entire misunderstanding of the beginning of the great reform political movement, and taken from the splendid fabric of our insti tutions the part which was due to the patriotism, the valor, and the genius of the first designers of the popular course of government for this nation. I doubt if any citizen of this Republic has ever made a pilgrimage into " the free land of Kent," to the grave of Sir Edwin Sandys, who 254 CONCLUSION drafted the first idea of our constitution, and done homage there. I doubt if many have visited the old meeting places in London of the Virginian (American) courts, " the Seminary of Sedition" of the Court party, and the cradle of American freedom, wherein our first poht ical charter rights were nurtured. And in America, the anniversary of the signing and of the landing in South Virginia of the first char ter drafted by the primary designers of a hberal government for this nation has never been cele brated. The historic ceremony in the church at Jamestown, on June 2 (n. s.), 1610, has never been enshrined in song or story, or iUustrated in picture. The inauguration of our national pohtical idea on American soU has never been honored. " Not one stone has been set upon another, " so to speak, to mark the planting of the seed of a popular course of government in this country. The hcensed history preserved the portraits — real or imaginary — of Queen Elizabeth, King James, Prince Charles ; of the Kings of Paspa- hegh, Pamaunkees, and Powhata^" ; of the Prin cess Pocahontas ; of the Duchess of Richmond and Lenox (who patronized the book and wished to marry the king whose pohtical ideas the book supported) ; and of Captain John Smith (on sev eral occasions), who represented the king in Vir ginia, and wrote or compUed the book. But the CONCLUSION 255 book does not preserve the picture of a single one of our patriotic founders, who at the expense of their own blood and treasure instituted the popular course of government in this country. The methods of the crown for obliterating everything pertaining to this popular movement took such complete effect that there has not been preserved an authentic rehc of a single member of the King's Council in Virginia (1607-1609) who protested against the king's form of government for Virginia, or of a single member of the first General Assembly ever con vened in America. Not even the site of the grave of a single one of them is known. Not even a chair has been preserved from The De liverance, which brought our original constitu tional charter to our shores, or, with the excep tion of The Mayflower, from an hundred other ships sent out under the original body politic. Absolutely nothing has been done to show to the Old World that the people of this new Re pubhc appreciate the services of the patriotic managers of the business — in England and in Virginia — 0% whom the enterprise depended for so long. Nothing has been done in acknow ledgment of their divine inspiration, their self- sacrifices, their great expenditures, their deter mination in the face of the opposition of Spain, their firmness in the controversies with the king, council, commissioners, courts, and critics in 256 CONCLUSION England ; or of their dauntless courage in meet ing aU the dangers and difficulties — known or unforeseen — in England, in Europe, on the ocean, and in Virginia, with constant resolution, until, " by the mercies of God," they succeeded in their " projected ends." No memorial has ever been erected in this Repubhc — not even in the original boundary of the first Repubhc in America between 34° and 40° north latitude, extending from ocean to ocean, through the very centre of the present United States — to those who, at the expense of their own blood and treasure, first planted the seed of a more free government in this country, which germi nated in " our sacred soU," and grew strong in our " free air " from a tender plant to the great tree which stiU flourishes, — " And like a mountain cedar spreads its branches To all the plaines about it ! " Such is the evil effect of royal politics on our patriotic history ; such the fruit brought forth by the continued acceptance in the Republic of the historic wrongs done our founders in the history licensed by the crown. And there can be but httle doubt that if James I. had suc ceeded in fastening the form of government designed by him for the colonies as securely on this country, the result would have been as dis astrous to our political institutions as the accep tation of the account hcensed by his censors has CONCLUSION 257 been to the history of the institution of the po htical principles on which the nation was founded. And the evil effect of royal politics on the his tory of our founders of 1606-1624, when plant ing the seed, enables us to see the importance of having history accurately written from the cor rect pohtical point of view, and what would have been the historic fate of our forefathers of the Revolution of 1774-1783, when gathering the fruits, if they had failed to secure our charter rights, and if our history of the culmination of the grand movement had remained under the absolute control of the advocates of the old monarchical forms of government. The work of the Court party has not brought forth good fruit, and " it should be hewn down and cast into the fire." The High Commission under James I. which licensed the pubhcation of the book compiled by or in the name of Cap tain John Smith, pretending to be our earliest history, would have cast a true history of this popular movement " into the fire." It was really practicaUy obliterated for generations. The loyal point of view of our earhest history was reversed in 1776, when we declared our independence from the crown of Great Britain, and it is high time for that history to be rescued from the acts of the agents of King James I. "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves." 258 CONCLUSION The first English colony in the present United States — our pohtical mother — was not founded by a king, nor by an agent of a king, nor on the monarchical principles of government advo cated by a king, as the royal commissioners and Hcensed historians asserted : it was founded by patriotic statesmen, politicians, and planters on the hberal pohtical principles advocated by them, a fact which James I. wished to obhterate for ever. Under conditions which I have explained, the first historian — a paper tiger — deprived the Patriots of the honors due them in history, and subsequent historians have been doing the same thing ever since ; but justice and patriot ism, pohtical principles and direct evidences, reason and circumstantial evidences are now aU combined in requiring our national history to rest on its true pohtical basis. In conclusion, and to make the case clearer, let us review some of its features. It wUl have been seen that in order to understand our earhest history it is necessary to understand the pohtical conditions then obtaining and the authority ex ercised by those directly interested in upholding the different pohtical views on the colonial move ment. Historians, whUe upholding the history hcensed under the crown, have been disposed to undervalue the contemporary influence of the king who controUed the press. The high esti mation in which James I. was held by the Court CONCLUSION 259 party will be found, not only in Purchas, but also in the preface of James Montagu, bishop of Winchester, to the 1616 edition of the king's works ; in the funeral sermon, on " Great Brit ain's Solomon," preached by Lord Keeper John Williams in Westminster Abbey in 1625 ; and in many other pubhcations, as weU as in crown evi dences stUl in manuscript. In comparing James I. to Solomon, it seems evident that WUliams thought James I. the greater man. Like Purchas and other members of the Court party, he gave to the king the credit for having spread the religion, the commerce, and the colonies of Eng land in Asia, Africa, and America. And he did not consider it necessary to mention the name of a single one of the king's agents in these pre mises, or of those who had actuaUy done the work at their own expense. The meanings given to such words as ' King,' 'Parliament,' 'Prerogative,' etc., by the Court party at that time wUl be found in " The Inter preter," a book containing " the signification of words " (a law dictionary), published by Dr. John CoweU in 1607, or early in 1608. This book asserted that the English government was an absolute monarchy, and gave alarm to the mem bers of the Patriot party, ' who were opposed to the absolute monarchy then aimed at by the king and the Court party.' It was in the winter of 1608-1609 that this party petitioned for our 260 CONCLUSION charter of 1609. When Parliament next met, in February, 1610, the Commons protested against Cowell's book, and although James I. finally proclaimed against it, and had it burnt by the common hangman, this was evidently diplomacy on his part, as he really beheved in the mon archical principles of the book. When he ad dressed the judges in the Court of Star Chamber in the summer of 1616, he told them that 'on coming into England a stranger, he had resolved with Pythagoras to keep silence seven years and acquaint himself with the laws of the kingdom ; and that he had delayed another seven years waiting for the proper time ; but having served this double apprenticeship, he then considered himself a fit judge in the premises,' — and he proceeded to deliver a long discourse on his ideas of government, in which he impugned the Com mon Law of England about as much as CoweU had done, asserting that 'his own prerogative was next in place to the deity,' etc. It was about this time — certainly as early as November, 1616 — that he began to interfere with the gov ernment which the Virginia Corporation proposed to institute in this country, and he continued to do so as long as he lived. And it came to pass that the evidences disseminated under his rule have continued to be accepted as conveying a true account of the origin of this nation. There is no absolute control over histories now as was CONCLUSION 261 the case whUe the colony was under the crown, and books disseminating the ideas of the Court party cannot be burnt, nor their authors impris oned ; but there is no longer any reason why our national foundation, our founders, their acts or motives, should be presented to our people in our histories as they were pictured by the opponents of the pohtical principles on which our country was founded. Thanks to those principles our historians are now free to correct the false ideas of the inauguration of those principles in this country which have been derived from royal his torians. Thanks to those principles our press is not now obhged to publish histories of our foundation as hcensed or decreed by any party in opposition to those principles. Thanks to those principles our body politic (our people) is now free and independent; our persons and papers are no longer under the absolute control of the agents of an absolute power. And when the patriotic politicians, statesmen, and people who are now upholding those principles in this fully developed Repubhc understand the importance of the beginning of the movement for settling a popular course of government in America, they wUl erect at some proper place a suitable monu ment as a national memorial to those Patriots who rescued the first colony from ' His Majesty's most Princely government for the direction of the affairs of the plantation by thirteen councel- 262 CONCLUSION lors in Virginia, and as many in England, all nominated by His Majesty,' — which was the real "misgovernment" in the opinion of the Patriots, — and at the expense of their own blood and treasure, regardless of the opposition of his majesty and his agents, first deposited in the womb of the great North American wilderness the germ of the vital principle which has sus tained this nation since its birth — " Vox populi, vox Dei!" INDEX INDEX Additional information regarding most of tbe persons mentioned will be found in " Tbe Genesis of tbe United States " and " Tbe First Bepublic In America." Abbot, Geobge, Archbishop of Canterbury, 83, 85, 197 j Maurice, 32, 196, 222. Abdy, Anthony, 196, 222. Accomak, 120. Acts of General Assembly. See Gen eral Assembly. Act of Parliament, 36-39, 49-52, 93. See Parliament. Adams, John, 144 ; Henry, 171. Adventurers of the purse and of tbe person, 222-227. See Virginia Cor poration and Body Politic. Alabama, 207. Albany (N. Y.), 169. Albemarle Co., Va., 159, 160. Aldersgate, 28. America, North, l, 6-12, 14, 15, 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, 37, 53, 55, 60, etc. j South, 55, etc. American Antiquarian Society, 169, 170 ; colonization, 183 ; continent, 216; freedom, 254; government, 209, 220; liberty, 146, 147, 216; Magna Charta, 29 ; movement, 10, 14; soil, 17, 254; talisman, 16, 20, 56 ; wilderness, 12, 262. Anderson's "History of the Colo nial Church," 166. Anglo-Saxon, 39. Annapolis, 124. Anniversary (The), 16, 254. Aragon, 96. Arber, Edward, and his edition of Smith's works, 176, 177. Archbishops of Canterbury and York, 109. Archer, Gabriel, 9, 76, 77. Argall, Samuel, 27, 196. Ariel, 16. Arizona, 207. Arkansas, 207. Arlington, Earl of. See Bennett. Ashton, John, and his Life of Smith, 176. Assembly. See General Assem bly. Atlantic, 13, 241. Auditors, 71, 222, 223. Bacon, Sir Francis, 9, 11, 22. Bacon's Assembly, 235, 236 ; Rebel lion, 120, 137, 139. Baltimore, Lord. See Cecil and George Calvert. Baltimore's, Lord, patent, 99, 218. Bancroft, George, historian, 173; Bichard, Archbishop of Canter- bury, 15. Barber, Gabriel, 70, 97. Bargrave, John, 41, 46, 47, 54. " Basilikon Doron," 9. Bateman, Bobert, 196. Bathori, Sigismund, 95. Bedford Co., Va., 158, 160. Bell, Bobert, 196. Bennet, or Bennett, Henry, Earl of Arlington, 119 ; Bichard, 107, 108, 114, 139. Berblock, William, 45, 70. Berkeley, Sir William, 104-106, 108, 116, 118, 120. Bermoothes, 16. Bermuda or Bermudas, 20, 21, 37,77, 266 INDEX 79; Islands Company, 46, 112. See Somers Island. Beverley, Bobert, and his history of Virginia, 122, 123, 160, 202. Biography, 240-242. Birch's * Court and Times of James I," 166. Bland, Edward, and his" Discovery of New Britaine* 111, 139; Giles, 139; John, Sr., 70, 139; John, Jr, 139; CoL Bichard, 138-140, his "Inquiry," etc^ 138, and his li brary, 140, 157. Body Politic, — the original. See Virginia Corporation. Bond, Martin, 196. Boston, 170. Boundary rights, 147-150. See Char ter rights. Brewster, Edward, 2a Briggs, Henry, 222. British Museum, 166, 168. Broadsides, 19, 62. Brooke, Christopher, 32, 34. Brown, Alexander, an explanation, 175,178-190,212-215. Bryant and Gay, historians, 173. Buck, Rev.JKichard, 17, 18. 20. Buckingham, Duke of. See Yil- liers. Buckner, John, 121. Burgesses. See House of Bur gesses. Butler, Nathaniel, 127, 196. Byrd, CoL William the 1st, 135-137 ; the 2d, 135-139; the 3d, 138-140; their library, 140. Caesar, Sir Julius, master of the King's Bolls (Records), 196. Calendars. See State Papers. California, 207. Calvert, Cecil, 2d Lord Baltimore, 98, 99, 149, 150, 163; George, Secre tary of State, 1st Lord Baltimore, 196. Cambell (or Campbell), James, 196. Cambridge (Mass.), 166, 170. Camden Society of England, 169. Campbell's, Charles, History of Vir ginia (I860), 118. Canning, WiUiam, 114, 128. Canterbury, 15, 83, 85, 99, 109, 197. Carew, George Lord, 55; his letters to Boe, 169. Carie (Carey, Gary), Sir Philip, 196. Carleton, Sir Dudley, 96, 167. Carter's Mountain, 159. Cartwright, Abraham, 196. Cavalier, 107. Cavendish, William, Lord (after wards Earl of Devonshire), 32, 42, 44,46,114. Chalmers, George, 156. Chambers, George, 35, 222. Charles, Prince, 37, 43, 50, 254; King, L, 89-103, 89, 91-94, 96, 98, 99, 101-107, 113, 133, 131, 138, 139, 148, 156, 162, 211, 213, 248; his Procla mation, 91, 92; IL, 108, 114, 116- 119, 121, 122, 134, 139, 235. Charters, 242, 248; (of 1606X 6-8, IT, 21, 22, 48, 77, 78, 126, 148, 160, 161, 206, 206, 208, 209, 216, 232 ; (of 1609), 6-13, 16, 17, 21-24, 52-66, 78, 126, 127, 130-132, 143, 146, 148-150, 161- 163, 204-216, 218, 220, 230-232; (of 1612), 21-24, 52-66, 78, 126, 127, 130-132, 143, 146, 148, 161, 162, 204, 205, 207, 209-216, 220, 222, 232; (of 1620, N. &), 101. 210, 212; (Of 1621, Va.), 35-40, 211 ; (of 1629, Mass.). 45, 143, 207, 211-213; (of 16S1, Va.), 97, 98 ; (of 1640, VaX 103, 104, 107. Charter rights, Hberal, political, and property, 13, 17, 204-216, 242; ef forts to protect by Act of Parlia ment, 36-41, 49, 52 ; contest over, between the Court and Patriot parties, 27, 32, 35, 36, 38, 40, 42-56, 59, 67, 85, 89-108, 118-121, 140-150, 153, 154, 193, 195, 226, 227, 234, 342- 244; secured by our Revolution, 13, 55, 142-147, 149, 153, 154, 184, 257. See Petitions. Chichester, Arthur Lord, 55, 196. Church of England, 182, 244, 247. Cities of England, 35. Civil War of England, 104-108. Claiborne, William, 100, 107, 114. INDEX Clarendon, Earl of. See Edward Hide. Clark, George Rogers, 149. Climate of Virginia, 218. Collingwood, Edward, 65. Colonial Commission under Charles I. (Liberal), 96-99 ; Laud's, 99. Commissions. See King's Commis sions. Commons, House of, 9, 36-40, 51, 60, 94, 103-105, 117, 138, 140, 202, 248, 260. See Parliament. Commons Journal, 38, 39, 60. Commonwealth, 106-108, 111, 139, 165, 201. "Company of English merchants," 221. Congress, 156. Constitution, the Corporations, 16, 127. See, under Virginia. Constitution, the king's, 77, 126. Contest (continued) between the Court and Patriot parties over charter rights, 42-49. Controversy, the, between the Court and Patriot parties becomes an open contest over the reform movement, 30-35. Conway, Sir Edward, Secy, of State, 196. Cooke, John Esten, and his "Vir ginia," 176. Copeland, Bev. Patrick, 45. Coppinf ord, 134. Corporation. See under Massachu setts, New England, Pilgrims, and Virginia. Corporations, 97, 99. Council. See Privy Council, and under Virginia. Court party. See under Parties, National. Courts. See High Commission; King's Bench; Star Chamber; Virginia. Coventry, Thomas, Lord, Attorney- General, 36, 54, 99, 196, 211, 226. Cowell, Bev. Dr. John, 259, 260. Cranfield, Lionel, Earl of Middle sex, 50, 66, 89, 90, 195. Cranmer, William, 32, 35, 222. Cromwell, Oliver, 105, 107 ; Bichard, 107. Crown of England (Great Britain), 45, 48, 59, 106, etc., 227, 248. Crown, the, annuls the Virginia charters, 52-56; confiscates the evidences, 59-69 ; licenses the his tory, 73-86. See under Evidences, James I., Charles I., Charles II., and George III. Culpeper, Thomas, Lord, 119, 121. Dale, Sir Thomas, 114, 238. Danvers, Henry, Earl of Danby, 97 ; Sir John, 32-34, 70, 71, 91, 97, 102, 103, 111-114, 133, 139, 222; his copies of the Va. Court Records (1619-1624), 71, 72, 91, 133-140, 167. Davison, Christopher, 66. Deane, Charles, 166, 169-171, 174, 175. Declarations, 62; of 1609, 19; of 1610, 166 ; Of 1620, 223-225; of 1623, 44; Of 1624, 104; Of 1642, 104, 105; of Independence, 143, 144. Delaware (State), 207, De la Warr, Lord. See West Deliverance, the, 16, 255. Democracie of England, 107. Dennis, Bobert, 107. D'Evereux, Bobert, 2d Earl of Es sex, 14, 15. Devonshire, Earl of. See Caven dish, Devonshire [William Cavendish, 5th], Duke of, 147. Dichfield, Edward, 197. Digges, Sir Dudley, 97; Edward, 108. Discovery, the, 241. "Dispatch," The Richmond, Va., 175. District of Columbia, 207. Doncaster, Lord. See James Hay. Donne, George, 101 ; Bev. Dr. John, 101. Dorchester, Viscount See D. Carleton. Dorset, Earl of. See E. Sackville. Doyle, J. A., and his " English Colo nies in America," 175. Dunmore's War, 149. 268 INDEX Dutch man-of-war, 167. Dyke, John, 166. East Greenwich, 27. Edmonds, Sir Thomas, treasurer of the king's household, 196. Edwards, Richard, 196. Efforts to protect charter rights by Act of Parliament, 35-41, 49-62; to annul our charter rights, 52-56 ; to preserve evidences, 69-73; to obliterate the true history of our national origin, 59-69, 73-86, 129, 130,238,239,250-263. Eggleston, Edward, and his " Poca hontas," 173. Election, freedom of, 32, 33, 42, 43, 45-48. Elizabeth, queen of England, 14, 109, 198, 254. Emigrants. See Planters. Englaud, 1, 6-10, 14-16, 19, 24, 30, 34, 40-43,62-54, etc ; common law of, 260 ; crown of. See Crown. English, the, 10, 11, etc. ; colony, 15, 21,30,31,54, etc; Amerioan plan tations, 19; constitution, 10, 23, 143, etc ; government, 259 ; history, 26 ; rights, advocates of. See Pa triot Party. English politics in early Virginia history, passim. Enterprise under the government of James I., 6, 7. See Govern ment Episcopalians, 244. Essex, Earl of. See D'Evereux. Essington, William, 222. Europe, 215. Evidences, controlled by the crown, 3-5, 69-86, 108-116, 226, 229, 238, 242-257 ; of the Virginia Corpora tion, 61-64, 73, 90, 91, 122, 123, 126- 128, 133-140, 155, 157, 162, 194-204, 224. See Historic Wrong. Fairfax, Lord, 163. Fanshaw, Thomas, 195. Farrar (see Ferrar), Thomas, 159. Ferrar, Edward, Sr., 165 ; Edward, Jr., 165 ; Johu, Sr., 28, 30, 36, 38, 45- 47,53,64,97, 102, 111, 112, 114, 133, 134, 165, 194, 222 ; his memoir of bis brother Nicholas, 114, 165; John, Jr., 166; Mrs. Mary, 92; Nicholas, Jr., 28, 35, 45-47, 60, 51, 07, 71, 89-92, 97, 109-110, 112, 114, 133, 165, 194; his copies of the Records of the Virginia Corpora. tiOU (1609-1624?), 71, 72, 90, 91, 98, 133 ; William of Virginia, 100.; Ferrars, the, 92, 99 ; their house, 37 ; their influence, 106. First republic in America (territory Of), 12, 213, 256. "First Republlo in America" (book), 8, 13, 25, 29, 34, 35, 39, 42, 67, 76, 84, 86, 114, 127, 133, 170, 179, 184, 185, 187, 194, 197, 210-212, 215. First: fleet of 1606, 7, 241; charter for our original body politic, 13- 16; inauguration of the reform movement, 13-21, 254 ; fleet of the corporation (1609), 16, 19, 241; constitution, 16 ; anniversary, 16 ; steps in planting liberty iu Amer ica, 17 ; sermon, 18 ; governor, 19 ; joint stock, 25; Inauguration of the reform government, 26-29, 254; effort to protect our charter rights by Aot of Parliament, 35-41 ; char ters, published in 1747, 132 ; House of Burgesses, 146, 255, account of, published In 1857, 167; English oolony in America, 193, 221, 227, 228, 258; Plymouth patent, 210; Englishmen to teach Indians the use of arms, 224, 225 ; histories, 250; political charter rights, 254; planted the seed, etc., 256 ; mis. sion to England for charter rights, 52; etc. Fiske, John, 173. Foroe, Peter, his reprints, 166. Fortune, the, 210. Foundation, our national. See under English Politics. Founders, our. See the Patriot party. France, 125, 149, 150, 158, 204, 244. Free air of America, 76, 246, 266. " Freedom of election," 82, 33, 42, INDEX 269 43, 45-48; American, 264; "freely elected," 231, 235. Freeman, Raphe, 196. Free-trader, 219. French and Indian War, 149. Fruit produced by the acts of the Patriot party, 260, 251; by the acts of the Court party, 252-267. Fuller, Rev. Thomas, and his " Wor thies," 117, 174. Gainsborough. See Noel. Galthorpe, Stephen, 76. Gardiner's " History of England," 8, 109. Gates, Sir Thomas, 15-21, 77, 79, 114, 160, 161, 238. Gay, historian, 173. General Assembly in Virginia, 29, 34, 52, 63, 66, 93, 94, 101, 102, 104-108, 126, 146, 157, 167, 232, 233, 235, 255. "Genesis of the United States" (The), 18, 19, 25, 96, 170, 180-184, 215, 223. George III., 140-147, 155. Georgia, 207. Gibbs, Thomas, 32, 97, 196. Goad, Rev. Thomas, 83. Goethe, 178. Gofton, Sir F., 196. Gondomar, Spanish ambassador, 30, 31, 85, 87, 42, 43, 46, 55, 219. Gorges, Sir F., 196, 210. Gosnold, Capt B., 76. Government of the plantation under James I. (1607-1610), 6, 7, 10, 17,19, 20, 23, 48, 55, 75-78, 84, 193, 206, 228- 230, 232, 236, 237, 241, 248, 255, 266 ; proposed by the king in 1624, 65, 256. Government of Ireland, 55, 97; of the kings of Spain in the West Indies, 55, 97. Government, the reform, of the col ony under the corporation, the popular course, 5, 17, 21, 25-29, 34, 35, 40, 41, 43, 48, 65, 221, 229-233, 236, 237, 248, 254-268; the Ameri can idea, 17, 208, 209, 215, 216, 220. Government, the forms of, at issue, 228-236. Gowrie Conspiracy, 60, 61, 197. Grandison. See Oliver St. John. Graves, Thomas, 17. Great Britain, 12, 106, 122, 149, 244, 257. " Great Britain's Solomon," 259. Great Charter. See Magna Charta. Great Mogul, 169. Green Bag (magazine), 29. Greenwich, East, 27. Grigsby's Virginia Convention of 1776, 138. Grindon, Edward, 224. Gunpowder Plot, 60, 61. Hackwell or Hakewell, William, 196, 220. Hakluyt Society, England, 166. Hale, Rev. E. E., 169. Hamilton, James, Marquess of, 37, 47. Hamor, Ralph, 18 ; his " Discourse," 169. Hampshire, England, 91, 134. Hampton Court Conference, 8. Handford (or Handsf ord), Sir Hum phrey, 196, 222. Harvey, Sir John, 52, 66, 94-97, 100- 102,104,115,127. Harwood, Sir Edward, 45 ; Thomas, 100. Hawes, Michael, 196. Hay, James, Lord Doncaster, 32, 36, Hayman, Sir Peter, 38. Heath, Sir Bobert, the king's Solic itor-General, 35, 149, 196. Hening, Wm. Waller, and his Vir- ginia Statutes, 104, 118, 154, 156. Henry, Hon. W. W„ 172-175, 187. Herbert, Edward, 32, 34, 36, 70 George, the poet, 92, 109, 112 Philip, Earl of Pembroke, 105 William, Earl of Pembroke, 15, 32, 87, 47. Hertford. See Seymour. Hickes, Sir Baptist, 196. Hickman, Bichard, 138, 156, 157. Hide or Hyde, Lawrence, 32; Ed ward, Earl of Clarendon, 137. High Commission, 65, 83-85, 109, 110, 197, 199, 202, 267. 270 INDEX Historians licensed by the crown. See Rev. S. Purchas and Captain J. Smith. Historic wrong done our patriotic founders by James I., his com missioned officers, and licensed historians: By the suppression of evidences favorable to the pop ular movement of 1609-1624, and unfavorable to the king's admin istration of 1606-1609, and the pre servation and dissemination of evidences favorable to the admin istration of James I. (1606-1609) and unfavorable to the reform movement of the Patriots, 5, 69- 69, 73-86, 90, 91, 96-97, 108, 109, 113, 115-117, 119, 121-132, 141, 142, 163, 194-205, 217 ; how the wrong was perpetuated under the crown, 89-150, and under the Repub lic, 153, 154, 164, 165, 170-178, 185- 189, 212, 213. The efforts to cor rect the wrong under the crown, 69-73, 90, 91, 96, 98, 108, 111-115, 126- 128, 132-140, 142, 164, 166, 167 ; and under the Republic, 153-158, 165- 169, 178-190, 212-215, 257-262. A summary of the political fea tures of the historic wrong, 190- 256. " Historical Magazine," The, 171. History, control over by the crown, 108-116; importance of the polit ical point of view in, 249-262; licensed by the crown, 73-86, 95, 228, 237, 260. See Smith's " Generall Historie." " History of our Earliest History," 187. Hobart, Sir Henry, 11, 22. Holborn, 66, 134. Holland, 216. Holies, John, Lord Houghton, 43. Hopkins, Stephen, 18. Hopton, Ralph, 117. Horsmanden, Mary, 137 ; Warham, 138. Horwood. See Harwood. Hothersall, Thomas, 161. Houghton, Lord. See Holies. House of Burgesses in Virginia, 29, 93, 94, 100, 108, 117-119, 121, 138, 140, 146, 167, 231, 235, 236. See General Assembly. House of Commons. See Commons. House of Lords. See Lords. Howard, Francis, Lord, 121. Howes, Edmond, his publications, 82. Huguenots, 244. Huntingdonshire, 92. Illinois, 207. Inaugurating the reform movement, 13-21 ; the reform government, 26- 29. Incorporations. See Corporations. Independent. See Patriot party. Indian Territory, 207. Indiana, 207. Indians, 12, 25, 27, 43, 80 120,149, 218, 224, 225, 240. Infanta of Spain, 37. Influence of contemporary politics on history as enacted, 1-66 ; as published, 59-86; of subsequent politics in upholding the historic wrong, under the crown, 89-147, and under the Republic, 153-180. " Interpreter" (The), 259, 260. Introductory, 3-5. Ireland, 45, 50, 63, 56, 97, 195, 244. James I., 1, 6-13, 15, 17, 22-24, 26, 28, 29, 31-33, 35-40, 42-46, 48-61, 53,65- 67, 59, 60, 65-68, 72-80, 83-86, 89, 90, 92-94, 97, 99, 104, 109, 113, 116, 117, 119, 120, 122, 123, 126-129, 131, 132, 136, 145-149, 153, 155, 160-163, 165- 168, 170, 176, 177, 182, 183, 186, 187- 189, 193-195, 197-200, 202-204, 206, 210, 212-214, 216, 217, 219, 221, 223, 229-233, 236, 237, 241, 246, 248, 249, 252-254, 256-262; his " Basilikon Doron," 9 ; " True Law of Free Monarchies," 9 ; " Premonition to all most mighty Monarchs," 9; " Remonstrance for the Rights of Kings," 26; his form of govern ment for the Colonies and Com panies. See under Government; INDEX 271 King's Commissions, Councils, etc. James II., 122. James River, 21, 159. Jamestown, 16-21,29, 52, 94, 166, 208, 254. Jefferson, John, 62; Thomas, 110, 137, 139-141, 144, 146, 150, 227 ; a laborer in the field of original research, 153-158 ; his library, 140 ; his " Notes on Virginia," 158-164. Jermyn, Philip, 34, 196. Johnson, Edward, 196 ; Robert, 13, 30, 32, 44, 114, 127, 196. Joint, or common stock, 26-27, 218, 219, 222. Jones, Sir William, 45, 67, 195. Kansas, 207. Keightley, Thomas, 32, 222. Keith, Sir William, his History of Virginia, 123, 160, 202. Kendall, George, 76. Kent, 38, 39, 50. Kentucky, 207. Killigrew, Sir Robert, 70, 91, 97, 98, 133, 196. King, of the Pamaunkees, 254; of Paspahegh, 254; of the Powhat- ans, 254 ; of England. See James I. King's Bench, Court of, 53, 83, 98, 124, 195, 212. King's Commissioners in England, 45-49, 53, 67, 82, 195 ; in Virginia, 52, 65-67, 94, 104, 115, 116, 127, 196. King's Council in Virginia (1607- 1610), 7, 17, 75-78, 193, 206, 229, 230, 237, 241, 255. Kirkham, Bobert, 32. Lands granted, 12, 13, 22. Lane, Ralph, 245. Laud, William, Archbishop of Can terbury, 99, 109 ; his chaplain, 109. Law (Common), of England, 260. Leate, or Leake, Nicholas, 196. Lee [E. H], 144. Lefroy, General Sir J. H, 173. Leiger Court Books, 71. Lewis, Andrew, 149. Ley, Sir James, 53, 67, 195. Liberal ideas of government See Reform Government. Liberal political charter rights. See Charter rights.. Liberal party. See Patriot party. " Liberties," 39 ; Liberty, 13, 17, 115, 146, 147, 216, 246, 248 ; " Liberty of the Subject," 220. Library of Congress, 140, 157, 158. Lilburne, John, 110; Bobert, 110; William, 110. Little Gidding, 92, 99, 133. Lisle, Lord. See Sidney. Lodge, Hon. H. O, 173. London (the capital), 27-29, 92, 96, 110, 122, 127, 134, 147, 162, 166-168, 173, 233, 254. See Virginia Cor- poration, commonly called The Virginia Company of London, the Virginia Courts in London, etc. Lords, House of, 38, 40, 140, 146. See Parliament. Lotteries, 223. Ludwell, Thomas, 119. Lymington, 50. "Magazine of American History" (N. Y.), 133. Magna Charta, 29, 162. Mallory, Sir James, 38. Managers of the business, 13, 26, 46, 62, 84, 89, 90, 217, 236-244, 246, 249- 251, 255, 256 ; then- Discourse, 89- 91. See Virginia Corporation and Virginia Courts. Managers of the government for the crown, 217, 237. Manchester. See Montagu, Mansfield, Sir Robert, 15. Marbois, Mons. De, 158. Marlier, or Martian, Nicholas, 100. Martin, Capt. John, 17, 26, 49, 77. Maryland, 98, 99, 124, 141, 149, 163, 207, 218. Massachusetts, 166, 170, 174, 211- 213; charter, 45, 96, 207, 211-213, 233 ; corporation, 212-214 ; Histori cal Society, 165. See Virginia (North). Massacre by the Indians, 43. 272 INDEX Matthews, Samuel, 62, loo, 101, 108, 114. Maurice of Nassau, 19, 20. May, Sir H., 196. Mayflower, the, 205 ; compact, 209. McLeod, Captain, 168. Meeting places of the Virginia courts, 254. See House of the Ferrars, Sir E. Sandys, Sir Thos. Smith, and the Earl of Southamp ton. See London. Menefie, George, 100. Mexico, 150. Middlesex. See Cranfield. Mildmay, Sir Henry, 44, 196 ; John, 196. Milton, John, 111,117; his "Areo- pagitica," 111. Mississippi Biver, 149, 160 ; State, 207. Missouri, 207. Mogul, the Great, 169. Mole, George, 196. " Monarchic," 47, 49; Old World, 208. " Monarchies, True Law of Free," 9. "Monarchs, Premonition to all most mighty," 9. Monarchy, absolute, 269. See under Government Monopolies, 219, 220; monopolist, 219. Montagu, Sir Charles, 196; Ed ward, Earl of Manchester, 105; Henry Viscount Mandeville, etc., 196; James, bisbop, 259. Monticello, 139, 158, 160, 161. Moore, Sir 'George, 39. Morer, Richard, 197. Morryson, Francis, 119. Movement, the motive of the re form, 245-249; the correct politi cal and historical point of view of, 180-189, 249-262. See Reform movement Mulberryes, 218. Mulberry Island, 20. Neill, Bev. E. D., his "Virginia Company," 172. Netherlands, 15, 19, 72, 91, 125, 168, 204. Nevada, 207. New England, 82, 95, 101, 183, 210, 212, 213. See Charter, 1620 ; Vir ginia (North). New Jersey, 207. " New Life of Virginia," 25, 165. New Mexico, 207. New World, 5, 17, 24, 53, 208, 216, 248. New York, 169; documents, 167; Historical Society, 167 ; magazine, 171. Newport, Captain C, 18, 21, 76; his ".Discoveries," 169. Neyle, Bichard, Archbishop of York, 99. Noel, Edward, Earl of Gainsbor ough, 135 ; Lady Elizabeth, 134 ; Wriothesley, Earl of Gainsbor ough, 135. Nonconformists, 244. " North American Eeview," 171. North Carolina, 149, 207. Northern Neck of Va., 117, 119, 163. North Virginia. See Virginia (40° to 45° n. 1.), North. Northumberland [Hugh Smithson Percy], Duke of, 147. " Notes and Queries," London, 96. Notes on the way, 1660 to 1746, 116- 124. Nottingham, 105. " Nova Britannia," 14, 166. Obtaining the first charter for the original body politic, 6-13; the second charter, 21-26. Ogle, Sir John, 44, 45. Ohio, 207. Oklahoma, 207. Old World, 216, 216, 244, 255; mon archies, 208. Orange, Prince of, 167. Origin of this nation. See Princi ples of liberty; Vis vitsB, etc. Original of the body politic of this nation. See Virginia Corpora tion and Body Politic. Oxford Tract, 79-82, 84, 85. INDEX 273 Pacific Ocean, 23. See South Sea. Packard, Rev. Peter, his Life of N. Ferrar, 165, 194. Paget, William, Lord, 43, 196. Palfrey, historian, 175. Pallavacine, Edward, 196. Palmer, William, 196. Pamaunkees, King of, 264. Paris, France, 158. Parks, William, 124. Parliament, 141, 144, 259, 260 ; First, James I., 8, 9, 35, 220; Second, James I., 35 ; Third, James I., 35- 41; Fourth, James I., 49-52, 89, 134; First, Charles I., 93, 94 ; Sec ond, Charles I., 93; Third, Charles I., 94, 109 ; Fourth, Charles I., 103 ; Fifth, Charles I., or Long, 103-105, 107, 108, UO, 118, 137, 202; of Charles II., 117, 118. See Com mons and Lords. Parliament in Virginia, 9, 76. Parliamentary business, 38, 39. Pai'ties in the Virginia Corpora tion, 34, 44, 45, 51, 73. See Sir Edwin Sandys and Sir Thomas Smith. Parties, National political: Court party which controlled the evi dences and laid the foundation upon which the history has been written, 1, 6, 9, 10, 22, 24, 26, 30, 34, 37, 39, 43-46, 53, 57, 60, 66, 67, 69, 73-75, 78-82, 84-87, 95-97, 100, 101, 104-106, 108, 110, 113, 115, 117, 122, 128-132, 136, 146-147, 163, 154, 163, 166, 174, 177, 178, 181-184, 188, 189, 191, 193-195, 197, 200, 201, 204, 210, 212, 217, 219, 221, 227, 228, 234, 237, 238, 240, 242, 243, 245, 247-261 ; Patriot party, which managed the business and laid the foundation upon which this great nation has been erected, l, 5, 8, 10, 24, 25, 30, 33-35, 37-40, 42-46, 48-53, 60, 69, 72, 75, 76, 79, 81, 84-87, 90-98, 103, 108, 110, 111, 113-115, 120, 122, 128-132, 136, 139, 145, 146, 153, 166, 174, 182, 184, 188-191, 194, 195, 197, 200-204, 210, 211, 226, 227, 234, 236, 242-245, 248-251, 253, 255, 268-262; evi dences for, confiscated, 59-69 ; pre served, 69-73. Parties in Virginia, 52, 100, 102, 105, 120, 141, 143, 144, 146, 153, 160, 163, 243,244. Faspahegh, King of, 254. Past politics, influence of, 164-169. See under Political and Politics. Patience, the, 16. Patriot party. See under Parties, National. Peirce. See Pierce. Pembroke, Earl of. See Herbert Pennant's account of London, 135. Pennsylvania, 149, 207. Percy, George, 17, 78, 241. Perry, William, 100. Petitions for charter rights, 36, 61 ; (1624), 62, 92 ; (1625), 92, 93 ; (1626), 93; (1630-1632), 97, 98, 148, 149; (1633), 98, 99 ; (1640), 103, 104,107, 108; (1674), 119-121; (1764), 140; (1624-1774), 234; against, 104, 105. " Petition of Rights," 94. Philadelphia, 143, 156, 157 Pierce, William, 18, 100. Pierce's patent, 209. Fiersey, Abraham, 52. Pilgrims, 15, 18, 209-212. See Vir ginia (North). Planters, 7, 9, 12, 13, 17, 20, etc., 53, 225-227,240, 241,244, 246,247,258. See under Virginia Corporation and Body Politic. Plymouth, England, 15, 16, 101. Plymouth Patent, N. E., 210. Pocahontas incident, 170-177, 249, 254. Point Comfort, 19. Pohtical charter rights. See Char ter rights; features of the his toric case, 191-262 ; importance of the reform movement, 6-7, 10-13, 17, 22, etc. ; Objects, 25, 27, 28, 31, 35, 47, etc. ; point of view, 240, 249- 262 ; policies, 8-15, 33, etc. ; char acter of the historic wrong. See Historic Wrong; influences, see Influence. Politics in early Virginia history as represented in the acts and evi- 274 INDEX dences of the Court and Patriot parties. See Charters; Charter Eights ; Evidences ; Historic Wrong; Parties, National; Past Politics ; Present Politics, etc. Poole (see Powell), Robert, 224. Poplar Forest, 158-160. Popular charters. See Charters of 1609, 1612. Popular course of government. See under Government. Popular parties. See Patriot party. Portland [Cavendish- Bentinck], Duke of, 147. Pory, John, 52, 66, 167, 196. Pott, Dr. John, 100. " Potter's American Monthly," 172. Pountis, John, 62, 92, 127. Powell, Nathaniel, 17. Powhatans, King of, 241, 249, 254. " Premonition to all most mighty Monarchs," 9. Prerogatives of the king, 259. Presbyterians, 244. Present politics, influence of, 170- 178, 212-215. See under Political, and Politics. Presidents and Council in Virginia, 230. See King's Council in Vir ginia. Press, the, controlled by the crown, 3-5, 59-61, 70, 73, 81-86, 95, 109-111, 115, 116, 121, 122, 125, 142, 153 ; un der the Commonwealth, 111-114; in Virginia, 115, 116, 121, 122, 124, 125, 141, 142, 153. Prhiciples of liberty (immortal), 10- 13, 17,19,23,24, 31, 53, 66, etc., 201, 228, 229, 233-237, 242-244, 257, 261, 262. See Government (the re form) ; Vis vitae, etc Printers. See Press. Privy Chamber, 102. Privy Council of the King, 36, 41, 44, 45, 47, 50-52, 60, 61, 63, 65, 83, 90, 93, 100, 112, 142, 168, 182, 195. Proclamation of May, 1625, 91, 92. Protectionist, 219. Protestation of the Commons, 39. Providence, 20, 66, 72, 108, 167, 202, 234, 246-249. Public record oflice, 167, 168. Purchas, Rev. Samuel, and his pub lications, 81, 82, 85, 95, 125, 197, 198, 205, 252, 259. Puritans, 15. See Massachusetts. Pym, John, 105. Pythagoras, 260. Quo Warranto, 53-55, 67, 98, 99, 120, 226. Radclifie, John, 77, 241, 242, Raleigh, Sir W., 245. Bandolph, Sir John, 136, 138, 156, 167, 229; John of Roanoke, 157; Pey ton, 156 ; library, 167. Randolph's copies of the Virginia Court Becords, 157. Eayner, Marmaduke, 167. Becords, 71, 72, 90, 91, 98, 108-116, 133-140,238. Reform charters, 204-216. See un der Charters. Reform government. See under Government. Reform movement, 5-7, 10-22, 30-35, 73, 193-204, 226, 237 ; motive of the, 245-249. Remonstrance of the most gracious King James I., 26; of the Com mons, 9; of his Majesty's well wishing, 42. Republic, the, 154, 156, 164, 165, 178, 180, 184,185, 187, 197, 202, 228, 242, 253, 255, 256. Eevolution, 13, 142-147, 149, 153, 156, 165, 202, 227, 236. Revolutionary disputes, 141, 143; history, 159 ; leaders, 141, 143, 146. Eich, Sir Nathaniel, 44, 46, 47, 196; Robert, Earl of Warwick, 44, 47, his house, 47. Richard, tbe, 8. Richmond, Va., 157, 166; "Dis- patch," 175. Bider, Edward, 145. Rights, boundary, charter, histori cal, political, of the Patriots who founded this country, passim. Rind, William, 141. Robertson, W., 171. INDEX 275 Rockfish River, 159. Roe, Sir Thomas, 32, 34; Letters to, 169. Rogers, Jane, no. Rolfe, Mrs. John, 18 ; John, 18, 174 ; his " Relation," 166. Roundhead, 107, 244. Royal Commissions, 82. See King's Commissions. Royal MSS., 166. Royalist party. See Court party. Russell, Lady Rachel, Lord Wil liam, 135. " Rymer's Foadera," 123. Sackville, Sir Edward, 44, 97; 98. Saint Andrew's Church, 65. St John, Oliver, Viscount Grandi- son, 55. Sandwich, 36. Sandys, Sir Edwin, 8, 9, 11, 22, 27, 28,30-34,36-40, 44-47, 49-51, 60, 79, 82, 89, 92, 102, 113, 114, 120, 128, 129, 133, 145, 183, 200, 209, 211, 219, 222, 238, 263 ; his house, 28 ; his party, 82, 222 ; George, 97, 102, 103, 105, 133; Sir Samuel, 36. Sandys-Ferrar influence, 106. Sandys - Southampton administra tion (1619-1624), 62. Scotch army, 107, 134. Scotland, 244. Scott, Anthony, 21 ; General W, 150. Scottsville, Va, 159. "Seating Place," 6. Second effort to protect our charter rights by Act of Parliament, 49-52. Seelye, Lillie Eggleston, 173. Segar, Sir William, the King's king of arms, 95, 96. Selden, John, 28, 34, 36, 38, 94, 109, 138. " Seminary of Sedition," 40, 72, 127, 231,254. "Seminary for a seditious Parlia ment," 31, 143. See Virginia courts in London. Sermons, 18, 21. Seymour, Edward, Earl of Hert ford, 80, 83, 225. ShadweU Street London, 110. Shakespeare, William, and his "Tempest," 16. Sheffield, Edmond, Lord, 32. Sidney, Sir Philip, 15; Bobert lord Lisle, 15. Sigismund Bathor, 95. Smith, Catherine, 138 ; John of Nib- ley, 46, 238 ; Bobert of London, 35 ; Bobert of Virginia, 119; Sir Thomas, Treasurer of the Virginia Corporation (1609-1619), 14, 16, 27, 30, 32, 41, 44, 47, 51, 81, 82, 90, 114, 128-130,138, 196, 219,224,237, 238; his house in London, 81 ; his party, 82, 90, 128, 183, 222. Smith, John, a historian licensed under the crown, and a represent- ative of James L in Virginia, 6, 49, 53, 65, 66, 74-86, 95, 117, 125, 129, 164, 165, 170-178, 181, 187, 197, 223- 225, 228, 229, 237-239, 241, 249, 252, 264 ; his " Generall Historie," 5, 53, 65, 74-76,83-86, 95, 122-125, 129-132, 160, 164, 171-179, 181, 187, 199-203, 205, 217, 225, 237, 245, 250-267; his Oxford Tract, 79-82, 84, 85; his "True Eolation," 171; his pub lished works, 82, 95, 164, 176, 179, 226 ; his biographies, 164. " Snowden," 159. Somers Islands Company, 65. See Bermuda. Somers, Sir George, 16, 18. Southampton. See Wriothesley. Southampton House, 32, 134, 135. South Carolina, 149, 207. Southern Literary Messenger, 166. South Sea, 7,246. See Pacific Ocean. South Virginia. See Virginia (35° to 40° n. I) "Soveraigne Bute," 241. Spain, 8, 12, 13, 30, 37, 42, 43, 49, 60, 97, 125, 145, 150, 204, 239, 247, 255. Spaniards, 8, 25, 27, 80, 240, 246. Spanish king, 30, 97, 145 ; match, 37, 49; ministers, 30; party, 8, 37; plan of government for Colonies, 55,97, 145; wrongs, 8; West In dies, 10, 30, 37. Stagg or Stegge, Thomas, 107, 137. Stamford, 134. 276 INDEX Star Chamber, 64, 65, 84, 101, 109, 110, 197, 202, 260. State Papers, Calendars of, 168. Stationer's Hall, 83. Stevens, Henry, 173. Stiles, Thomas, 196. Stith, Bev. WiUiam, 72, 125-133, 135, 156, 157, 160, 229, 230 ; his " History of Virginia," 15, 124-132, 135-137, 142, 160, 229, 230, 239. Stock. See Joint stock. Stow, John, 82. Strachey, William, 17, 18, 21; his "Historie of Travaile," etc, 166. Strafford. See Wentworth. Strype, 221. Stuart, Ludovic, 83; Duchess of Bichmond and Lenox, 83, 264. Stuart kings. See James I. and II.; Charles I. and II. Styles. See Stiles. Suckling, Sir John, Comptroller of the king's household, 196. Suffrage in Virginia, 234-236. See Election. Sustaining influence. See Vis vita?. Sutcliff, Bev. Dr. M, 196. Tarleton's command, 168, 159. Taylor, CoL H. P, 139 ; Gen. Z, 150. Taxes, 28, 47, 108, 120, 140, 232, 233, 235. Tempest, the, 16, 241. Tennessee, 207. Texas, 150, 207. Text, 18. Titchfield, library, 91, 133-135. " Tobacco plantation," 31. Tomlyns, Richard, 70, Tories, 227, 243. See Court party. " True Law of Free Monarchies," 9. Trust Companies, 219, 220. Tucker, Daniel, 17. Tufton, Sir Nicholas, 32. Tyler, President John, 150; Prof. Moses Coit, and his " History of American Literature," 172, 173, 176. United Provinces. See Nether lands. United States, 150, 166, 188, 193, 215, 256, 258. University College, London, 173. Utah, 207. Utie, John, loo, 101. Velasco, Don Alonso de, 30. Villiers, George, Duke of Bucking ham, 50. Virginia (34° to 45° n. L), 6. Virginia, North (40° to 45° or 48° n. 1.), 8, 9, 11, 160, 206, 207, 209-212, 214, 215, 222, 247, 248. See Massa chusetts ; New England ; Pii- grims. Virginia, South (34° to 40° n. 1.), 7- 12, 15-17, 19, 21, 26-29, 37, 40, 41, 43, 47-49, 61, 54, 62, 64, 66, 69, 70, 76, 78, 79, 89, 91, 92, 99, 101, 108, 140, 150, 183, 206, 207, 210-212, 214, . 215, 220, 222, 229, 235, 247, 248, 254, . 255. Virginia Company (1606-1609), 6, 22, 73, 76-78, 205, 206, 208, 209, 216-218, 227, 236, 237. Virginia Corporation and body poli tic (1609-1624), 10-13, 16-19, 22, 24, 30-34, 37-39, 44, 45, 48-54, 56, 61, 64, 65, 67, 72, 82, 84, 91, 92, 95, 97, 106, 112, 118, 123-132, 134, 136, 145-147, 155, 157, 161-163, 174, 175, 182, 193- 195, 197, 202, 206, 207, 210, 212, 213, 216-228, 230, 231, 233, 234, 237, 238, 241, 247, 260. See under Evi dences. Virginia courts in London, 27, 29- 36, 40-43, 46, 48, 50, 53, 62, 64, 65, 66, 70, 71, 97, 127, 133-140, 142, 143, 162, 209, 217, 219, 222, 224, 231-233, 238, 254. See " Seminary of Sedi- dion." Virginia business, 31, 36-38, 40, 89. " Virginia and Maryland," 111. "Virginia Company papers, 1621- 1625," 157. "Virginia Papers, 1606-1683," 158. Virginia, the State of, 207 ; conven tion of 1776, 138 ; Constitution of 1776, 149; "Magazine of History and Biography," 26, 29, 187; His- INDEX 277 torical Society, 157, 171, 173 ; " Re- porter," 171. Virginians, 43,70, 93, 98. See Planters. Vis vitae (principles of liberty, lib eral ideas of government, etc.), 10-13, 17, 19, 23, 24, 31, 53, 56, 169, 228, 229, 233-237, 242-250, 257, 258, 261, 262. " Vox populi vox Dei," 262. Warner, Charles Dudley, his " Study of Smith's Life," etc, 173. Warwick, Earl of. See Rich. Washington, George, 100, 149. Wenman, Sir F, 20. Wentworth, Thomas, Earl of Straf ford, 104. West, Francis, 77, 94, 114; John, 100, 101, 114; Thomas, Lord De la Warr, 15, 19-21, 29, 78, 79, 114, 238, his letter, 166, his " Relation," 168. West Indies, 10, 97. See Spanish West Indies. Westminster Abbey, 259. Weston, Sir R, Chancellor of the King's Exchequer, 196. West Virginia, 207. White, Rev. Francis, 196 ; John, 28, 45, 70, 211. William the Silent, 19, 20. WiUiam and Mary, 122. Williamsburg, Va, 124. Williams, Lordkeeper John, 259. Wilmore, George, 196. Wingfleld, Capt. E. M, 76 ; his " Dis course of Virginia," 166, 169, 170. Winston, Dr. Thomas, 222. Wiseman, Richard, 222. Withers, Anthony, 70. Wodenoth, Arthur, and his " Short Collections," 33, 38, 44, 64, 92, 111- 114,136,165; WiU, 112. Wolstenholme, Sir John, 196. Wriothesley, Henry, 3d Earl of Southampton, and last Treasurer of the Virginia Corporation, 15, 16, 28, 32, 33, 36-38, 42, 44-47, 62, 71, 90, 91, 114, 129, 133, 136, 147 ; Thomas, 4th Earl of Southampton, 102, 133, 134, 136, 139. See Southampton House, and Titchfield. Wrong. See Historic wrong. Wrote, Samuel, 35, 196. Wroth, John, 35, 222 ; Sir Thomas, 196. Wyatt, Sir Francis, 35, 41, 92, 93, 97, 102, 104, 127, 161. Wythe, George, 144. Yeardley, Sir George, 18, 20, 29, 92, 93, 114, 126, 127, 162, 225. Zane, Isaac, 139, 140. Zuniga, Don Pedro de, 30. (3t6e HWberi&'ue $re# EUctrotyfed and printed by H. O. Houghton &• Co. Cambridge, Mass., U.S. A. YALE UNIVERSITY a39002 0Qtt0809fr2b