Siihrnrq

llniurrsttii nf ^Jittaburgl)

'par.

luuk

V. I

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2009 with funding from

University of Pittsburgh Library System

http://www.archive.org/details/recordsofvirgini01virg

m

's ^^d^

\

■ ■-■^i

; '^s"4$l i4 ^'^ r-

U f '"■

^

h

U

Li- ;;

\

A

t i

■'rl>

-—*—**• -r-^

%'

K(:i38[jnRM fcni^nO ^.i. > . arnuIoV )o nobejiii^iaO J

I. Certification of Volume I of the Original Manuscript

THE RECORDS OF

THE VIRGINIA COMPANY OF

LONDON

THE COURT BOOK

VOLUME I

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

(Tljf Iprnr&B of ®I|p Utrgtma Olompattg of Slnnbon

THE COURT BOOK, FROM THE MANUSCRIPT IN THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

EDITED WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND BIBLIOGRAPHY, BY

SUSAN MYRA KINGSBURY, A. M., Ph. D.

INSTRUCTOR IN HISTORY AND ECONOMICS SIMMONS COLLEGE

PREFACE BY

HERBERT LEVI OSGOOD, A. M., Ph. D.

PROFESSOR OF AMERICAN HISTORY IN COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

VOLUME I

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

1906

L. C. canl, 6-35006

In my report for 190-1 I gave the reasons in favor of the printing by the Library of this and of similar unpublished manuscript records in its possession. It would save excessive wear and tear upon the originals; it would enable the texts to be studied by investigators who can not come to Washington; and it would encourage that thorough, detailed, and continuing study of them which their value and interest and a proper understanding of American history require. These reasons apply with peculiar force to the Records of the Virginia Company, unique in themselves and unique of their kind, and an additional one, in their case influential; that publication would make them available to persons who would not master the difficult chirography of the original.

Their history is fully told in the Introduction by Miss Kingsbur}', and their importance as a document emphasized in the Preface by Professor Osgood. Previous efforts to secure their publication in extenso had not been successful. The present one originated in a proposal by Professor Osgood in behalf of the Public Archives Commission of the American Historical Association to edit them as a contribution to one of the Annual Reports of the Association; and although the work as issued is an independent publication of the Library, it has had the benefit of his expert counsel. It was at his instance also that Miss Kingsbury, then a graduate student in his department at Columbia, began the undertaking which she has so well accomplished, and which has consisted (1) in a complete transcript of the text itself; (2) in a close stud}' not merely of this but of the numerous collateral and subsidiary documents both here and abroad; (3) in the preparation of the Introduction, Notes, Bibliography, and Index; and (i) in aid upon the proof. The proof has also, however, been read word for word with the original text, and revised by the Chief of the Division of Manuscripts, with the excellent assistance of Miss Minnie V. Stinson of that Division.

Herbert Putxaxi

Librarian of Ccnigress

WORTHINGTON ChAUNCEY FoRD

Chief, Division of Man uscrij)ts

3

lG95e4

l^xi^tntt

The records, and especially the Court Book, of the Virginia Company of London have long been regarded as among the most precious manuscript treasures which have found a lodgment within the United States. Not only is their inherent value as an historical source very great, as has been explained by the editor in her introduction, but a sentimental value also attaches to them. This has a twofold origin. It arises, in the first place, from the fact that they belong at once to the romantic period of our own beginnings and to the heroic period of England's great struggle against absolutism. The men who figure in the pages of this record were at the same time playing their parts, on the one side or the other, in the controversies which were then beginning with James I, and which were to broaden and deepen under his son till England was plunged into the agonies of the great civil war. They were contemporaries, and in not a few cases associates, of Coke and Eliot and Hampden, of Bacon and Wentworth and Buckingham. The names of Sandys and the Ferrars stand high on the roll of patriots by which the first generation of the Stuart period is distinguished. These same men also, together with a long list of the merchants and nobles of the time, were deeply interested in discovery and colonization. As successors of Gilbert and Raleigh they were planting a new England beyond the Atlantic. About this enterprise still clung some of the spirit and memories of the Elizabethan seamen and their earl}' struggles with Spain. In the days when Smythe and Sandys were active the prosaic age of English colonization had not yet begun. The glamour of romance, of the hei'oic, attaches to the founding of Virginia and Plymouth, and makes them fit subjects for the poet. B}' the time when the other colonies were founded the glow and inspiration had giown faint or wholly disappeared. In the Records of the Virginia Company some reflection may be seen of this early zeal, of the plans and ideals to which it gave rise. Even their pages, cast in a style which is quite unusual in records of this nature, make one realize that he is in the company of noble and earnest spirits, men who were conscious that they were engaged in a great enterprise. The Court Book itself, now that it is printed in full, will be found to be a worthy monument of English speech, as it was used at the close of the Elizabethan epoch and by contemporaries of Shakespeare and Bacon.

The fate which probably befell the original of this record, and the unusual steps which it became necessary to take in order to secure and preserve a copy, were nat- ural consequences of the struggles of the time, and add still further to the interest of

5

6 RECORDS OF THE VIRGINIA COMPANY

the text as we now possess it. Miss Kingsbury, by her use of the Ferrar papers, has been able to establish by the clearest proof the connection of Nicholas Ferrar with the transcription, and in many other ways she has added definiteness to the accounts usualh' given of the origin and preservation of the record as we now possess it. The transfer of the copj' of the Court Book to Virginia and its transmission from hand to hand till, through the medium of Thomas Jefferson's library, it finally passed into the possession of Congress fittingly concludes the remarkable history of the preservation of this manuscript.

The high estimate which has been placed on its value is evidenced not only by the use that has been made of it by historians, but b}' the long-continued efforts which have been made to secure its publication. In 1858 Mr. J. Wingate Thornton, in an article in the "Historical Magazine," explained the nature of the Court Book, told how it had been preserved, and insisted upon the importance of its being published. "As these volumes are of national rather than of local interest," said he, "reaching back to the very foundation of the English companies for colonizing America; as they have escaped thechancesandmishapsof two centuries, on either side of the Atlantic, . . . and as Providence has now placed them in the keeping of our National Congress, is it not our national duty to have them appropriately edited and published i " The following year Mr. Thornton published a pamphlet in Boston, in which he outlined the histor}' of the manuscript and again raised the question of its publication. But soon the Civil War came on, and plans of that kind, especially so far as they related to southern history, had to be postponed.

But in 1868, three years after the close of the war, Mr. Edward D. Neill pre- sented a memorial to Congress, in which he dwelt on the neglect b_v historians of these most valuable manuscripts. He stated that, while preparing his book entitled "Terra Mariae," he had familiarized himself with the chirography of the records. He now offered to undertake their editing without compensation, if he might be fur- nished with two copyists for a limited time and be allowed a small sum for stationery and contingent expenses. But this offer met with no response, and Mr. Neill was forced to content himself with the publication of extracts from the manuscript in his "History of the Virginia Company of London" (Albany, 1869).

in March, 1877, Mr. Robert A. Brock, of the Virginia Historical Society, pub- lished in the " Richmond Daily Dispatch" a " Plea for the Publication of the Records of the Virginia Company." In 1S81 Senator John W. Johnston, of Virginia, intro- duced into Congress a bill which was intended to provide for the publication of the records. This passed the Senate, but failed in the House.

During three successive sessions between the 3'ears 1885 and 1888 Dr. J. Franklin Jameson applied to the Library Committee of Congress for permission to edit and publish the records without expense to the Government. His plan was to obtain a sufficient number of subscribers to justify the issue of the volumes by a private firm and to meet the cost of the sale. Another suggestion which he also made was the appointment of a commission which should concern itself with the publishing of

PREFACE 7

historical material in the possession of Congress. While occupied with this matter Dr. Jameson explained the history and value of the records to the Rhode Island Historical Society, and his address was reviewed in the " Magazine of American ffistory" (vol. 21, January-June, 1889, p. 82).

But meantime some progress had been made with the actual printing of the Court Book. Mr. Conway Robinson had made copious extracts from it, especially of the documentary material which is contained in the second volume. His extracts the Virginia Historical Society published in 1889, under the editorship of Mr. R. A. Brock. Until the present time this edition, in two volumes, has served the purpose of most students. But the requirements of historical study in this country have now reached a point where more complete and critical editions of the sources are needed than have been common in the past. If this need was to be met, it became at once apparent that no body of records was better adapted for a beginning than those which related to the Virginia Company of London. In date and subject matter they stand at the very threshold of American history. In character they form a distinct and unique group of material. By the issue of a definitive edition of these records the demand which scholars have so long made for their publication would be met and satisfied. It was under the influence of considerations like these that the present work was midertaken.

In the preparation of this body of records for the press critical accuracy and helpfulness have been sought in all possible ways. The spelling of the original has been carefully preserved throughout, for in editing a source of this character and importance any attempt to modernize the text would be properly regarded as unjusti- fiable. Not only has the spelling been preserved, but also the signs and abbrevia- tions which abound, the use of which the men of the period had inherited from still earlier times. So far as such a thing is possible in print, the text is exactly repro- duced in these volumes, while an added element of reality is supplied by the photo- graphs of specimen pages of the original manuscript.

Brief notes have been added where it was necessary to explain or call attention to obscurities, omissions, or other irregularities in the text, the purpose being to enable the reader to gain information of this kind from the printed page with the same certainty as if he were using the manuscript. In the notes, cross references have also been given to the documents of the company and to its publications, when they have been found to reproduce, or to illustrate and make more definite, the state- ments which are contained in the Court Book. In citations of this kind the number of each document is given as it appears in the List of Records in the Introduction. In this way the unity of the records of the company as a whole receives illustration, and the investigator will be aided in any efi'ort which he may make to learn all which they have to reveal in reference to any subject. Finally, the index completes the invaluable service which Miss Kingsbury has rendered in the editorship of the work.

Herbert L. Osgood Columbia University

Ol0nt^nt0

Page NOTE >- 3

PREFACE 5

INTRODUCTION 11

I. Character op the Virginia Company:

Comparison with earlier movemeuts for discovery . 11

Comparison with earlier movements for trade 11

Importance of the Virginia Records 14

II. The Records of the Company under Sir Thomas Smythe:

Organization of the company under the charter of 1606 17

Change in character from 1606 to 1609 21

Classes of records, character and value 23

I. Fundamental documents emanating from the Crown. II. The court books. III. Documents issued by the company. IV. Letters from the planters and the outline of Argall's register in the colony. \'. Publications of the company. VI. Private papers of adventurers. VII. Supplementary contemporary cor- respondence

III. The Collections of Documents, 1616-1624:

General character of the records . 39

The Jefferson Library in the Library of Congress 41

The copy of the court book — acquirement by Mr. Jefferson. Manuscript records of the company. Volume III. The "courte booke" of the colony — contents and description

Transcripts of the Virginia Records 48

Randolph copy in the collection of the Virginia Historical Society. Jefferaon tran- scripts. Transcripts of documents in England recently acquired by tlie Library of Congress

Documents in Richmond ?

Manuscripts in the New York Public Library

Collections of Americana ............

John Carter Brown Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Library, Private

Transcripts in the New York Public Library 58

Collections in England — Ferrar Papers, Magdalene College, Cambridge ... 59

History, description, and contents

Collections in England — Public Record Office 61

Manchester papers, history and character. State papers, colonial and domestic. Records of courts: Admiralty, chancery, quo warranto, the King's bench. Origin and character

Collections in England — The Privy Council Ofiice 66

Collections in England — British Museum 67

9

10 RECORDS OF THE VIRGINIA COMPANY

IV. The Records of the Company under the Sandys-Soi'Thampton Administration: Page

Organization of the company — Membership, meetingi?, officers 71

Metliods of procedure — General usage and elections. Rewards 74

Record books provided for by the company 75

The extant records — The court book 78

History of the contemporary copy. Description of the contemporary copy in the Library of Congress. System of keeping the court book. Contents of the court book

The extant supplementary records 87

Documents giving an outline of the activity of the company. Documents revealing the movements for trade and industry. Documents which concern the relation with the colony. Records of the colony. Documents which concern the develop- ment of fa;tions and the recall of the charter. Documents which record the relations between the company and the Crown Conclusion — Value of the Virginia Records ......... 103

Understanding of the organization and activity of the company. Value in a study of problems of state and of proprietary colonies.

V. The Fate of the Original Records of the Company:

Events leading up to the confiscation of the records by the Privy Council . . . 107

The conflsc^ition of the records, May 22, 1623 108

In charge of the clerk of the Privy Council, May 22-November 7, 1623. In charge of commissioners.

Theories as to the fate of the records Ill

Retention by the Privy Council for the successive commissions of 1625, 1631, and 1634. Dissipation among the members of the successive commissions. Private collections which have been searched in vain for these records Destruction of the records 115

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL LIST OF THE RECORDS OF THE COMPANY .... 119

TABLE OF EXPLANATIONS 207

THE COURT BOOK, VOLUME I 215

April 28, 1619, to May 8, 1622.

KUuHtrattnna

I. Certification of Volume I op the Original MS

II. Writinc; of Thomas Collett (?) .

Being page 54 of Volume I of the original MtS.

Front. 280

III. Writini; of the Fir-st Copylst (not identified) with John Ferrar's Notes A record of the Summer Islands' Courts, from the Ferrar Papers.

344

IV. Writing of the Third Copyist (not identified) Being page 214 of Volume I of the original MS.

464

L ©In? (Uliarartrr of tl|f Olompang

The individual eflfort which had revealed itself at the close of the medieval period in other phases of the economic development and in the military history of the past quarter century was especially prominent in the movement in 1606 for a society of adventurers to trade in Virginia. The conmiercial advance had been due chiefly to private enterprise, and the naval expeditions into the West Indies against the Spanish had been fitted out and prosecuted by such adventurous spirits as Sir Francis Drake, while the zeal for exploration and for gold, which inspired John and Sebastian Cabot to search for a passage to Cathay and the East Indies in l-i97, led Sir Humphrey Gilbert and Sir Walter Raleigh a century later to seek out the resources of the lands from Florida to Newfoundland. It is the same spirit of adventure which inspired the narratives of John Smith and Henry Spelman as they told of their relations with the Indians of America. But it is in the progress of both the commercial and the political life of England that the Virginia Company is important. For the plantation founded and nourished by a private concern as an enterprise purely for gain was the social cause from which developed the colony as a form of government. Its political organization is seen in its relations to the Crown, of which there were two distinct phases. During the first three years it was distinctly a creature of the King, the affairs of which were conducted by the King through a council created by himself and responsible to himself, while to the investors were left the privileges of raising the funds, furnishing the supplies, and sending out the expeditions. It was a modification of this form of management to which the government reverted after the dissolution of the Company in 16-24. and again at the end of the century when royal colonies were substituted for proprietary and corporate forms throughout America. In the second phase the undertakers became distinctly proprietary, retaining the commercial responsibilities, but assum- ing governmental functions in place of the King.

A comparison between the royal grants for discovery in the sixteenth century and those of the Virginia Company shows that there was an increase in the direct territorial relations between King and subject, a limitation up.Mi monopoly

12 IXTROnUCTION

of trade, and a tendency on the part of the Crown to retain directly or indirectly the powers of government. Thus, in the letters patent to Richard ^Varde, Thomas Ashehurst, and associates in 1501," to Sir Humphrey Gilbert in 1578, and to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584,* the Crown conferred proprietorship of land with the right to grant it out in fee simple at will. But in 1606 the land was held by the undertakers, and again in 1609 by the adventurers and planters in free and common socage, as of the manor of Greenwich of the county of Kent. Under the first Vir- ginia charter it wa^- granted by the King to those approved by the council; under the second, by the members of the company to anyone who should have adventured a certain sum of money or his person. The tief, distinctly so called in the early charters, for which homage was to be rendered, with no service, however, save that of one-fifth of the gold and silver gained, had disappeared; and the only direct feudal relation with the King which remained arose from the requirement of a per cent of the precious metals. The monopoly of trade by which Warde, Gilbert, and Raleigh were allowed to seize and detain any one who trafficked within two hundred leagues of a set- tlement was altered in 1606 so that the planters had only the right of collecting a tax from such interlopers. The rights of government which had been surrendered absolutely to the grantees in the sixteenth century charters were reserved to the King by the letters patent of 1606 to be exercised through the council. In 1609 these powers were conferred on the companj' as an open body, it must be remem- bered, and thus differed from the earlier grants and from the later proprietary grants to Lord Baltimore or to William Penn.

Although the charter emphasizes the government of the i)lantation, the Virginia Company was purely a ('ommercial enterprise conducted by a private concern, even before the charter of 1609, as is shown by the history of its early years. It was backed by the patronage of the King, but onh' for the purpose of advancing the trade of the Kingdom in foreign parts and saving the Crown from expense and responsi- bility, as had been the policy in regard to the other trading companies. Nevertheless, it was a step toward colonial expansion, for, as has well been said, " the explorer is potentially a colonizer," and the army of laborers on the plantation became in time an army of free tenants in a colony.'' While in the spirit of its commercial life the company was closely allied to the efforts for exploration and search for gold, morally supported ))y Elizabeth in her feudal grants, in its organization, as well as in its pur- pose, it resembled the private companies for trade based on ancient charters, and in its development is to be understood only through a knowledge of both of these earlier movements.

"Bidflle, CahnI, Appendix, pp. 312, 314, for this rharter.

(■Hakhiyt, Principal Nai-igalions, VIII, 17-23, 289-296.

<^ Osgood, H. L., The American Colonies in the 17lh Century, I, 83.

CHARACTER OF THE COMPAKY 13

Thus in order to protect trade, but not for exploration and settlement, the ancient charters granted to the Merchant Adventurers in 1407 and 1462, and particularly the one of 1564, incorporated that company into a "Body Politick." The words of the grant declared its purpose to be "for the good Government, Rule and Order of the * * * Fellowship of Merchants Adventurers * * *. As also of all and every other of the subject of our heirs * * * using the seate of Trade of the said Merchants Adventurers * * *."" This was also the object expressed in the charter to the East India Company,* although it contained an additional provi- sion for the acquisition of lands by purchase. Monopoly of trade and powers of government over factors, masters, or others in the emploj- of the company were conferred, but the exemption from customs was to continue for only four years, and the only settlements provided for were to have the form of factories. It had been established as a regulated company, that is, one in which each individual invested his own capital subject to the rules of the company'; but in 1612 b}- increasing the importance of the directors and investing sums for a limited period it became a joint stock company."

As a prototype of the companies later incorporated both for discovery and trade, such as the Virginia Company, the Muscovy or Russian Company, known as the " Merchant Adventurers of England for the discoveries of lands and territories unknown," was established in 1555 with a joint stock of £6,000. Sebastian Cabot was appointed governor for life and with him was associated a board of directors of 4 consuls and 24 assistants. However, this company had also the rights of the compa- nies for exploration — that is, those of conquest, of acquiring lands, and of seizing the ships of any who should infringe on their monopoly of trade.'' In 1583 a committee from the Muscovy merchants drew up a set of resolutions concerning a conference with M. Carlile upon his "intended discoverie and attempt into the hithermost parts of America,"* which was not dissimilar to the plan of Sir Walter Raleigh, and hence foreshadowed companies of the seventeenth century. It proposed to send forth 100 men for one year, providing £4,000 for the adventure, in order to gain a "knowledge of the particular estate of the countrv and gather what commodity

oLingelbach, Tlie Merchant Advenluren of England, 218-236 for extracts fr<>m the charters. The first two are published in Rymer, Foedera, and Hakluyt.

b East India Companij, CItnrters.

"Cunningham, W., the Growth of English Indastri/ and Commerce hi Modem Times (edition of 1903), Part I, ch. VI, sec. YII.

''See the patent in Ilakhiyt, II, 304-316. For full citation of the titles of printed '.vorks rcferrtnl to in the notes, see the Biblioj^raphy, p. 212, jiost.

(■See "Articles set down by the Committees appointed in behalfe of the Company of -Muscovian Marchants to conferre with M. Carlile, upon his intended discoverie and attempt into the hither- most parts of America," printed in Hakluyt, VIII, 147-150.

14 JlfTRODVCTION

may hereafter be looked for." Also, like the Virginia Company, it provided for a joint stock consisting of two groups, one of "adventurers" and one of "enterprisers," each to have one-half of the lands which should be divided among the members by the generality, but all trade was to belong to the adventurers and the corporation was to be closed after the first adventure. The scheme differed from the sixteenth century enterprises, which were especially intended for exploration, in that no question of government was considered, but it conformed to the ideas of Gilbert and Raleigh and of the trading companies, in that its rights over trade were to be purely monopolistic.

Apparently this plan of the Muscovy Company stands as a connecting link between the ideas of the explorer and those of the trader and the planter, a plan which may be said to have been carried out by the Virginia Compan}'. It is significant that many of the members of the Virginia Company were men who had taken part in the expeditions of the late sixteenth century and had been interested in certain private voyages of exploration carried on during the five years preceding the receipt of its first charter, while most of the leaders of this company were at the same time stock- holders and even officers in the Muscovy Company, the Company of Merchant Adventurers, the East India Company, and later of the Turkey, the Guinea, and the African companies.

It is unnecessary to cite the charters of other companies or to search the history of the trading corporations of the sixteenth century in order to show that the Virginia Company was similar in character. But, like the ^Muscovy Company and the East India Company, it was established to carry on trade in new and uninhabited lands, and hence had the additional features of a company whose purpose was exploration and plantation. The hitter characteristic appears more especially in the charter, the former in the instructions and correspondence of the entire period of its life. The object of its first undertakers was doubtless to search for minerals and for a route to the southwest, and to secure for trade the materials which were native and peculiar to those regions. The plantation was a necessity for this purpose, and incidentally, because of the character of the country, it was forced to become a colony. To estab- lish a settlement which should become a market for English goods, to advance the shipping, to spread the religion of the Kingdom were doubtless motives which aroused sympathy for the undertaking; but the arguments which brought investment were the opportunities for gain.

The position of the Virginia Company in the development of English exploration and trade was therefore important, and the studj^ of its history is of value not only for the light which it throws on Virginia itself but for an understanding of the economic condition of Kngliind as well. Nor is this all. The few private records which remain of the Merchant Adventurers Company and those of the East India

CHARACTER OF THE COMPANY 15

Company correspond so closely in form and in subject-matter to the court book of the Virginia Company that the similarity in form of organization and methods of conducting business is established. The fact that the private records, the books from which the knowledge of the actual financial transactions could be obtained, are missing in most cases, may prove that their loss in the case of the early Virginia Company is not due to intentional destruction, but to the general opinion of the period that such material was valueless.

The only other enterpi'ise of which there is sufficient material for anything like an exhaustive study is the East India Company, and hence its records combine with those of the Virginia Company to supply a source of information concerning all of these companies. The conclusion seems valid, therefore, that the great ma.ss of min- utes, orders, instructions, letters, and memoranda of the company for Virginia will aid in the interpretation of the comparativelj- few records of the earlier associations. The records of this company are necessary to enable one to comprehend the life of the other companies, as is its history to the understanding of their development.

It was during the life of the company that the plantation gradually assumed the aspects of a colony, that the settlement which was originallj' planned for exploration and the discovery of gold became a center for the development of the natural and agricultural resources of the surrounding country. The origin within the colony of the assembly, of local government, of private ownership of land, and of freedom of trade is to be found before the dissolution of the compan}' by the Crown. There- fore the records of the company, as well as those of the colony, form the material through which the history of the beginnings of English colonies, viewed from the standpoint of the colonist, is to be gained.

Their value for the comprehension of the development of political institutions in England is not so patent. The growing correspondence between the Crown and the company and the interference in the acts of the company stand as evidence of the gradual increase of the interest of the Crown or its council in the undertaking. This interest was most apparent when the tobacco trade promised a revenue to the Crown, but the encouragement of the growth of other staple products, the spasmodic revival of acts touching English shipping and the balance of trade, and the main- tenance of staple ports in England are all new activities appearing in the records of the company. Throughout, also, is apparent the readiness to allow the already uncertain economic policy to be altered or nullified by the political relations with Spain, or because of moral or whimsical views.

The gradual definition of polic}' on the part of the Stuarts, perhaps first apparent

under Charles I, is closely connected with the leaders of the Virginia Company. The

opinions expressed in the courts of the company by the adherents both of the Puritan

party and of the party of the Crown, the correspondence between the Privy Council

16455— VOL 1—06 2

16 INTRODUCTION

and the company, the letters and memoranda concerning the company and its policy, and the story of the formation of the Sandys and the Warwick factions, resulting in the dissolution of the company, furnish evidence of the gradual development of the despotic attitude of the Stuarts, especially in their reach for revenue and in their repression of the principles of freedom. The appointment of the commissions to investigate the affairs of the company and the condition of the colony, the creation of a commission for the control of the colony after the overthrow of the charter, the later appointment of a committee of the Privy Council for the same purpose are all steps in the growth of a colonial S3'stem and of a colonial polic}^ Although the maturity of this system and policy is not reached until after the Commonwealth, the influence of the associates of James 1 and of Charles I is apparent.

Every phase of colonial development, from the mixed system which existed under the patent of 1606 to the chartered proprietary company after 1609 and the royal province after 1624, is here illustrated. The transition from the chartered to the Royal Government in 1624, the prelude to "the most important transition in American histor}"^ previous to the colonial revolt," is only to be understood from these records, since the tendency to self-government in the colony is one of the pretended reasons for the overthrow of the company. All the steps of the change are to be traced in the royal correspondence, in the memoranda of the royal party, and in the record of the suit under the writ of quo warranto. The significance of such material is best understood from the fact that "the constitutional law and practice of the old colonial system has not yet been attempted to be known," and as 3'et no book has been written concerning the forms or functions of the British Government as employed in colonial administration.

Z. QIIiP l^prnrbB of tl|p (Unmpattg xtnhn Bit

The Organization of the Company as in 1606

In the year preceding the grant of a charter to the Virginia Company there had been movements along two lines for establishing plantations in Virginia, one by private investment and the other by royal patronage. Examples of the private interests are the enterprise of the Earl of Southampton in 1605 and that of Lord Zouch as set forth in his contract" with Captain George Waymouth of October 30, 1605. In this Lord Zouch agreed to secure and provide two ships and 200 men of "arts suitable for a colony," and to pay £100 to Captain Waymouth for the trans- portation of the same. The interesting feature is the agreement, suggestive of feudal relations, that Lord Zouch should be the first officer and have the first choice of land, while Captain Waymouth as second officer should have second choice of land, which he was to hold from the former as lord paramount for himself, his heirs and assigns. At the same time Sir John Popham was busily engaged in the attempt to form royal colonies by obtaining charters from the Crown, whereby the territory from 3-1'-' to 45'^ north latitude should be taken under the protection of the King, and private settlements should thus be excluded.

The plan which obtained followed neither course, though it was bound to result in a modification of Popham's scheme. The motives of the grantees and the arguments which induced the King in 1606 to abandon the policy of Elizabeth and to give royal patronage to the undertaking, and even to assume royal control, are set forth in a petition presented to Parliament in 1606, entitled "Reasons for raising a publique stocke to be imploied in the discovering of such countries as may be found most convenient * * * ."* It is evident, however, that the unknown plan of investment in the adventure of 1606 is not here suggested, since there was no intima- tion of financial support by the King. The stock was apparently to bo raised by a tax "Upon the emoderate gainesof those that contrary to lawe abuse the poo re," and was not in any way to be " raised upon the sweat of the poore or the Industrie of the

^Printed in full in Brown, Genesis of the United States, I, 33-35. ^Printed in full, Brown, Genesis, 1, 3&-42.

17

18 INTRODUCTION

husbandmen, Artificer, or tradisman," but in such a way that nothing should "be demanded from anie man without presente assurance of gaine and hope of future profit * * * but in such sorte that the payer shall for every ij" paied gaine iiij"." To the Kingdom and to the Crown were to redound the greatest gain. Ten thousand pounds a year were to be added to His Majesty's receipts by an increase of many thousand pounds in the imposts and customs; and furthermore it "would savior too much of affectacon of a popular State to levie monies without imparting some convenient portion to his Majestie." But the value to shipping was emphasized perhaps more vigorously as developing a defence to the island, as furnishing a source for the necessities for ships^ — cordage, pitch, tar, and resin — and as protecting the shipping from decay. The desirability of a revival of the declining export trade, as well as that of establishing the importation of necessities from a part of the dominions, though distant, was urged, together with the importance of strengthening by settlement those countries already acquired by discovery. That such undertakings by private enterprise had been failures; that it was more honorable for the State to back an exploitation by public consent than by private monopoly; that public colonies were boimd to be more obedient and industrious because of the greater confidence in the character of the control, were all reasons which had long before been set forth whereby to gain the support of the Crown.

CHARTER OF 1606.

The royal aid as finally obtained for a colonial enterprise came in a somewhat different form. The letters patent to Sir Thomas Gates and others for plantations to be made in Virginia" show that the investment was made solely by individuals, and that the joint stock was not public, although in the regulation of affairs in the colony the body of undertakers was to have little influence, even as far as its commercial interests in the plantiition were concerned. The business management was left to the joint stock companies, and the magazine was controlled by a treasurer or cape merchant and by two clerks elected by the President and Council in the Colony. In fact, the only activity of the adventurers, so far as it is revealed in the extant documents, consisted in the choice in London of one or more groups of agents, called " companies," to manage the goods sent out and received and to look after the profits.* The undertakers were to have all lands with their resources

a For a reprint of the letters patent, see Brown, Genesis, I, 52-62, or Poore's ConstUiUions.

t> Articles, Imtructiom and Orders for the government of the (Colonies, November 20, 1606. Reprinted in Brown, GenetM, I, 64-75, from a manuscript record book in the register's office of Virginia. There is a manuscript copy in the Library of Congress, in the Virginia iliecellaneous Records, 1606-1692, pp. 26-33.

UNDER SIR THOMAS SMYTHE 19

which lay within 50 miles of the plantation in any direction, together with the islands within 100 miles of the coast, and were privileged to inhabit and fortify the same according as the council for Virginia should direct. The right freely to transport subjects was granted the investors, while they were permitted customs free for seven years to export armor, provisions, and all necessities of life for the colonists. They could impose upon any subjects of the Crown, who were not adventurers, trafficking in those regions, a tax of 2^ per cent of the articles concerned, and upon foreigners twice that amount, and thus maintain a control of the trade for twenty-one years.

But the government of the colonies and of the territory of Virginia was reserved to the Crown through the council of thirteen for Virginia, which was to be appointed by the King and to reside in England. Instructions" were issued and signed by the royal hand, which outlined the form of administering atfairs in the settlement and created a council of thirteen in the colony. They conferred upon it the right to coin money and to pass ordinances which should be valid till altered by the Crown, provided that they should be consonant with the laws of England. This council in Virginia was to choose its own president for one year. It could remove him or any member for just cause and fill the vacancies. All civil causes and all lesser criminal cases were to be decided by the president and council, the former having two votes in case of a tie. Cases of manslaughter and the more heinous crimes were to be tried before a jury and were punishable with death. To the president and council was reserved the right of pardon.

The council in England nominated to the Crown the persons to whom lands were to be granted by the King. It had, in fact, the supervision of affairs, appointed the first council in Virginia, issued orders for the conduct of the first expedition under Captain Newport,* and provided a paper of advice'^ as to the establishment of a fort and of a town.

It is in this latter document that the first indication of the real motive of the undertaking is found. The orders laid down were to "make choice*' of tne river "which bendeth most toward the North-West, for that waj- you shall soonest find the other sea," while the choice of a healthy location, wise inter- course with the natives, and the fortification and preparation of a single settle- ment were emphasized. The chief objects, however, were to plant in a place

« Printed in full, Brown, Genesis, I, 64-75.

>> See Certain Orders and Directions, December 10, 1606. Manuscript in the Library of Congress, Virginia Miscellaneous Records, 1606-169S, pp. 19-23. Reprinted in Brown, Genesis, I, 75-79.

'See Instructions by way of Advice, December, 1606. JIanuscript in the Library of Congres*, Vir- ginia Miscellaneous Records, 1G06-169S, pp. 14-17. Reprinted in Brown, Genesis, 1, 79-85.

20 INTRODUCTION

which should be fitted " to receive the trade of all the countries about," to dis- cover minerals, and to find the passage to the western sea.

The loss of the records, both of the council and of the "companies" for trade, covering this period, leaves, as the only source of information, both for affairs in England and in Virginia, the narratives of the earl)' settlers. Of these the most important are the reports of Captain Newport, and the relations of John Smith, of Edward Maria Wingfield, and of George Percy." The council had dispatched three expeditions, all under Captain Newport; one in December, 1606, in three ships with 120 emigrants; another in October, 1607, with two vessels and about the same number of passengers; and a third in August of 1608 with about 70 emigrants.

The reports of Newport, Percy, Wingfield, and Smith encouraged the managers of the enterprise to continue their efforts, but proved that a change in object as well as in policy would be necessary. From Newport came descriptions of the fruitful- ness of the soil, of the quantities of fish and of timber, and of clay for making brick, and enumerations of the possible exports, comprising sturgeon, clapboard, wainscot, saxafrage, tobacco, dyes, furs, pitch, resin, turpentine, oils, wines, wood and soap ashes, iron, copper, pearls; but the reports as to the mines were vague. He declared that the country was rich in gold and copper, and took home with him earth to be assayed, while Smith, in A True Relation^ states that he had been left to dig a rock which Captain Newport thought was a mine, but no mention of results is made.

The full description of the country by Newport and also by Captain John Smith gave the council a clear idea of its geography, as is indicated by the instructions to Sir Thomas Gates in 1609. But the expedition, which penetrated to a distance of 160 miles up the river, brought the explorers to hostile tribes and left the council still uncertain, though hopeful of the discovery of a passage to the south sea. Further- more, Captain Newport positively stated that there could be no commerce with the Indians, and all evidence shows that the natives were to be a resource for the neces- sities of life rather than for the exchange of lucrative objects of trade. Hence it is that the broadside which was issued by the company in 1609,* as an incident of its

" See John Smith, A True Relalimi, 1608, reprinted in Arber, Works of John Snrith, 1884; Discourse of Virginia, by Edward Maria Wingfield, printed in the Arrhaeologia Americana, IV, 77-103; Observa- tions gathered out of a Discourse of the Plantation * in f^rginia * 1606, by George Percy, printed in Brown, Oenesis, 1, 152-168; and the following documents probably written by Captain Archer: A Relatyon of the Discovery of Our River, from James Forte into the maine: * * by Capt. Christopher Newport, 1607, printed in Archaeologia Americana, IV, 40-58; The Description of the now-discovered river and country of Virginia, printed in the Archaeologia Americana, IV, 59-62; A Brief Description of the People, printed in Archaeologia Americana, IV, 63-65.

*> Noiu Britannia, printed February 18, 1609. This document is reprinted in Force's Tracts, I, No. 6.

UNDER SIR THOMAS 8MYTHE 21

attempt to secure capital for the undertaking in its new form, emphasized the rich- ness of the soil and the resources of the country — which in later years would yield abundant return — the value of the settlement as a market for English cloths, and the advantage to shipping and shipbuilding which would come from colonization.

But the effort to develop the resources of the country and to found a settlement for such purposes rather than for exploration required larger investments and more men. Then, too, the regulation of the affairs of the colony without any control from the council in England meant continued jealousies and quarrels among such a small number of colonists and under such unsettled conditions. According to Wingfield the provisions for defense seem to have been insufficient, the magazine was mismanaged, and the relations with the Indians were strained. To John Smith must be attributed the wisdom of foreseeing the necessity of strong support from England and of the establishment of permanent colonial settlements and the develop- ment of the country for self-support."

The Change in Chakacter fbom 1606 to 1609

The fact that the source of authority before 1609 was in the Crown is nowhere so clearly evidenced as in the records themselves. The fundamental documents emanated from the King and his Council or from the council for Virginia representing the royal authority, all instructions to officers bore the sign manual and all letters and reports from Captain Newport, from Edward- Maria Wingfield, and from his associates were addressed to the council for Virginia. Furthermore, the president and council appeared in the name of the Crown as the plaintiffs in a suit by which an attempt was made to enforce the contract with the master of the "Guift of God" for supplying provisions to the passengers in a voyage to North Virginia.* The direct relations of the planters to the Crown are similarly emphasized by two heretofore unpublished documents, which are in the Library of Congress, consisting of the oaths administered to the colonists and to the secretary of the colony. "^

The commercial status of the undertaking is more difficult to determine than the political. That the company was organized for the purpose of exploration and trade has been proved, but whether the control of trade was vested in the council or in companies or groups of undertakers is uncertain. The exact relation of the council to the plantation and of the Crown to the enterprise must have been stated in the

<» For a history of the organization of the company and of the founding of the colony, see Osgood, I, Cha. i-iv.

6 Bibliographical List of the Records of the Virginia Company, post, p. 121, No. 7. c List of Records, p. 121, Nos. 5, 6.

22 INTRODUCTION

court book, in which were kept the records of the acts of the council and perhaps of the companies for the administration of trade. This book, covering the period from the 28th of January, 1606, to the 14th of February, 1615, was in the possession of the company as late as 1623, but unfortunate!}' no trace of the book has yet been discovered and even its existence has heretofore been unknown."

Whatever may have been the source of control, the narrations of Captain Percy, Edward-Maria Wingtield, and Captain Newport indicate that the business of the company consisted chiefly in raising funds and equipping expeditions to be sent to Virginia under Captain Newport. This failure of the investment to bring in returns of gold and silver and of articles for trade, or to accomplish anj'thing in the way of discovery of trade routes to the East Indies during the first three years, served to convince both King and undertakers that a change in method of control was essential. The document known as "Reasons against publishing the Kings title to Virginia. A justification for planting Virginia"* seems to show an agitation among the investors arising from fear lest the desire to placate Spain, or religious considerations, might lead the Crown to abandon the scheme. The arguments there adduced may well explain the readiness of the King to surrender not only the com- mercial and territorial control but also full rights of government to the corporate body of the Virginia company, and thus to avoid any rupture with Spain. Certain it is that the desire for more direct authority and for securing larger investments) were the motives of the petitioners in asking for a new charter.

As a result of this movement the letters patent of 1609 were issued, transform- ing the undertakers into a body politic. In this case also the documents are especially characteristic of the organization. Whereas the Crown was formerly the source of all power, beginning with 1609 the council of the companj', acting as a standing committee for the adventurers rather than in the name of the King, exercised the controlling authority. After the charter of 1612 had provided for more frequent meetings of the generality, the council was gradually superseded by special committees and the tendency arose to decide all matters of hnportance in the general quarter courts and to insist upon all communications being addressed to the company rather than to the council. The act of incorporation erected a commercial company and made it the overlord of a proprietary province. It at once strengthened its plantation as a center for traffic and established a system for joint management of land and trade to extend over a period of seven j'ears, prom-

a When the Privy Council demanded the records of the company, a receipt bearing the date April 21, 1623, was given to the secretary of the company for the "several court books." This document was discovered by the Editor among the Ferrar papers, Magdalene College, Cambridge, in December, 1903. See List of Records, p. 171, No. 470.

iiThis document was recently found by the Editor in the Bodleian Library. Ibid., p. 121, No. 1.

UNDER SIR T BOM AS SMYTBB 23

ising dividends to the adventurer and support to the planter. The records of the corporation reveal as clearly as do its broadsides and pamphlets that it was a business venture. These records may be grouped into seven classes."

The Classes of Kecords

I. The fundamental documents of the company were those by virtue of which it had its legal formation, and consisted of the letters patent, charters, and orders in council issued by the King and Privy Council.

II. The activity of the adventurers was recorded in the court books, which com- prised the minutes of the transactions of the company. In those books were kept the discussions and decisions with regard to the plantation, the granting of land, and all financial policies and plans for developing the enterprise and increasing the income.

III. In carrying on its business the company gave commissions to the governors of the colony, issued regulations for the settlers, and, from time to time, sent instructions to the governor and council of the colony. It also granted lands and patents, entered into contracts, issued receipts, made pleas in court, and kept statements of accounts.

IV. From the colony itself came reports, declarations, letters, and complaints. They were an essential part of the records of the company and often determined its course of action.

V. To the public, for the purpose of inspiring confidence, securing adventurers, and maintaining the interest and support of its members, as well as of defending itself against the accusations of its enemies, the company issued advertisements, broadsides of its shipping investments, declarations, pamphlets, and sermons.

VI. A large part of the information which came to the company was derived from private correspondence between members of the company and individual plant- ers. Furthermore, there was a gradual tendency to permit individuals or groups of individuals of the company to form stock companies for trade or plantation, and records of these transactions formed a valuable supplement to those of the compan}' itself.

VII. To the student of history another group of supplementary material is of great value. It comes from the records of contemporary companies, corporations, and towns, as well as from the correspondence of officers of state or of other persons who were not directly concerned in the transactions of the Virginia Company.

« For the documents in these various classes, see the claasificationa by Koruan numerals at the left of each entry under the " List of Records," poat, pp. 121-205.

24 INTRODVCTION

All of these records of the company for the period previous to 1616, so far as they were known to him, were collected and reprinted in full or cited, if already available in America, by Alexander Brown, in the year 1890."

I. — FUNDAMENTAL DOCUMENTS

As far as appears from the evidence of the extant documents, when by the charters of 1609 and 1612, James I surrendered to the company full rights of trade, as well as territorial and governmental rights in Virginia he apparently lost all interest and part in the undertaking, and it was only when the plantation had developed into the colony, and when at the expiration of the privileges of free importation in 1619, the business of the corporation had become so good as to offer a prospect of revenue that the King in his council began to interfere in the affairs of the company.* In 1613, under the administration of Sir Thomas Smythe, the adventurers were com- pelled to appeal to the Crown because of the complications with France which arose from the expedition of Sir Samuel Argall along the northern coasts of America,"^ while a similar relation was brought about by the controversy with Spain with regard to the attack on Spanish vessels b}' the ship Treasurer in 1619/' In both instances the protection desired was granted. When the financial stringency forced the adven- turers to great efforts in 1614, and they appealed unsuccessfully to Parliament for aid, the Privy Council attempted to arouse confidence in the undertaking throughout the country. It passed orders urging the cit}' companies of London to invest sums in the Virginia lottery, and in the following year it addressed similar orders to the "Several Cityes and Townes of the Kingdome,""" with special letters to the lieu- tenants of County Surrey .•''

But the aid thus secured was not such as to draw upon the resources of the Crown, and the attempt of members of the company to gain a monopoly of the tobacco trade in 1616 met with the same opposition as had similar efforts on the part of the merchant adventurers in previous years. On the other hand the company was com-

oFor the documents of the period from 1606-1609 not mentioned by Mr. Brown in his Genesis of the United Slates, most of which have recently been discovered, see List of the Records of the Virginia Company, post, pp. 121-125, Nos. 1-38.

''In March, 1619, Abraham and John Jacobs received a grant for tlie collection of customs or imports on tobacco. This became an important feature of the business of the company in its later procedure. See List of Records, pp. 127, 129, Nos. 53, 73.

•■Brown, Genesis, IL 640-644.

d List of Records, p. 132, No. 102.

' Brown, Genesis, II, 676, 679, 685, 733, 760. •/ List of Records, p. 126, No. 49.

UNDER SIR THOMAS SUYTHE 25

pelled against its will to submit to the treatment of its plantation a3 a penal colony by James I in his spasmodic efforts to develop a policy which should save England from an ovei'population of vagabonds."

With the exception of these unimportant relations with the Crown, the company seems to have conducted its business independently of royal aid or interference dur- ing the first decade of its existence as a corporate body.

II. — THE COURT BOOK

It is therefore in the court book of the company and in its instructions, corre- spondence, and other records suggested under the preceding classifications II and III, that its activity and methods must be found. That court books were kept under the administration of Sir Thomas Smythe is known from the receipt in the Ferrar papers, already referred to. The first book extended from January 28, 1606, to February 14, 1615, and with it were "other perticuler writings belonging to the company." The second included the period between January 31, 1615, and July 28, 1619. What these books contained can only be surmised from the scope of the two later volumes, dated April 28, 1619, to May 22, 1622, and May 20, 1622, to April 2, 1623, the contemporaiy copies of which are now extant and in the Library of Congress, at Washington.'' The contents of the "other perticuler writings," none of which are now known to be extant, are suggested b\' a memorandum of Sir Nathaniel Rich in a document among the Manchester papers. In attempting to prove the good done during Sir Thomas Smythe's administration Rich cites certain records as authoritj'. The first one mentioned was a "bookeof perticulers'' con- taining the "Public workes: done in S'' T. Smithes tyme", and showing "the plenty of Armes &c left in S'' Th. Smithes tyme"; the second was a "pticular already deliuered to the Com''." in which appeared the "Staple Cofflodityes raysed in S"' T. Smithes tyme"; while the third formed a "coUeC of the publiq, workes made by S"' Sa. Argall w'" he [comenset]" and was entitled "The pticulars of the Boates". Rich mentions two documents contained in this volume. He states

"There is a eeries of 14 orders of the Privy Council for the transpoitation of prisoner.-) to Virginia in the years 1617 and 1618 not hitherto noted. List of Records, pp. 121-131, Nos. 4, 41, 65, 90. The transportation thus effected is mentioned by Miss E. M. Leonard, The Early History of tlu- Engliih Poor Relief, pp. 229-230, n.

bThia receipt covered these four volumes, "the other perticuler writings belonging to the company," and two volumes of the court book of the Somers Islands Company, December 3, 1613, to January 24, 1620, and February 7, 1620, to February 19, 1622. However, the second volume of the court book, which is now in the Library of Congress — the fourth volume here mentioned — was continued until June 19, 1624, after the return of the records to the company.

26 INTRODUCTION

that pages "11, 12, 13, 14, 15, &c.," contain the "League of the Natiues," and that on pages 51 to 59 was "Sir T. Dales tre." In his notes for discussion Kich also refers to "The Courte Bookes," and further declares that "Wrott remembers 4 warrants" by which lotteries were erected under the hands of the "Counsell of Virginia". In connection with the lottery he cites "th' Accompts" of Gabnell and declares that "He kept Tables"." Thus the discovery by the Editor of these two documents in these two similar collections belonging to the hostile factions has proved that the company possessed record books; but a knowledge of their contents must be gained from other sources.

To supply the loss of these documents of the company, both during the control of the council and after that control had passed into the hands of the companj' b}' virtue of the charter of 1612, there is a considerable mass of material, which affords a fair outline of the transactions of the company and the life of the colony. But much of this information is lacking in the completeness and authenticity which would have been supplied by the court book and the other records. The greatest loss is perhaps that of definite knowledge concerning the financial status of the company. The sums adventured by individuals and corporations is preserved in two alphabetical lists; but, so far as is known, onl}' one of these lists is official, and that includes the names of the particular adventure about the year 1610.' The other is an unpublished list apparently both incomplete and unofiicial, and was probably made somewhat later than 1618 at the order of the court,'' although the date 1618 has been assigned to it in the Manchester papers, where it is to be found.'' From the records of the various London companies and fi'om records of English towns, as also from adventui-es sealed to individuals by the Virginia Compan}', comes the most authentic information concerning the large sums invested during this decade. In a similar way the knowledge, otherwise to be found in the court book and "The pticulers of the Boates," concerning the ships dispatched and the sums expended for the equipment of planters, individuals, and companies, is scattering and indefinite. The broadsides issued are calls for adventurers, planters, and colonists, with the requirements or statements concerning the lottery schemes; but the}' do not furnish the wide information which is found in those of the later period. So far as revenue is concerned, there was probably little except that which came from new adventurers

" This paper is evidently a Beries of rough notes of he.idw antl references to prove charges of mismanagement by the Sandys faction. It is in the handwriting of Sir N. Rich. List of Records, p. 167, No. 438.

!> Brown, Genesis, I, 465-469.

f For an act providing for such a compilation see the record of the court, Dec. 15, 1619.

^ List of Records, p. 127, No. 58.

UNDER SIR THOMAS SMYTEE 27

and the lotteries, but we have no way of knowing even that resource, while our knowledge of the income from tobacco and commodities brought from Virginia is derived from three or four scattering receipts only, found mostly among the papers of the Earl of De La Warr and of Lord Sackville."

Even our knowledge as to the economic condition of the colony is most indefinite and comes only from printed pamphlets issued by the company. Judging from the sources of information in the later period, this uncertainty is due to the disappearance of the letters themselves, since, after 1619, the published relations of individual planters, the declarations by the company, and even the records of the court books are all more general in character than the letters which were sent from the colony to the company. Furthermore, in the later period the daily acts of the colonists and their needs, as reported from time to time by returning ships, afforded the adventurers a bod}' of information concerning the social condition of the colony which in form and accuracy left little to be desired. After the time of Captain John Smith not much was accurately known of the colony until the year 1617, when Captain John Rolfe and Ralph Hamor supplied statistics as to the numbers, condi- tion, settlements, and resources of the colony as it then was.

The individual enterprises of this decade in the life of the company are altogether unknown, except from a few contracts for shipping found here and there. Such movements must at least have been noted in the court book. Of the first "hundred," established in 1618, nothing is recorded except the single report, heretofore unknown,* of a meeting of the committee for Smythes Hundred. But the greatest loss which we suffer through the disappearance of the court book is that of material which should thi'ow light on the aims, motives, and unsuccessful efforts of the company and on the struggles and difEculties through which it passed. For example, there is a single reference to an attempt to found a college, but no infor- mation whatever on the subject. The factions which developed and which resulted finally in the dissolution of the company evidently existed in this period, for a letter from Chamberlain to Carleton, dated May 8, 1619, <" in which he speaks of the failure to reelect Sir Thomas Smythe as treasurer of the Virginia Company as having been "somewhat bettered at a later meeting of the Summers Island Company by his choice as treasurer of that company," proves that the change was due to factional differences, although the extant court books open with the refusal of Sir Thomas Smythe to continue as treasurer. Similarly, the choice of officers for the company, the votes received by each candidate, the appointments to positions in the colony,

"List of Records, Nos. 59, 60. Also Brown, Genesis, II, 772.

^ Ibid., No. 76. This is among the Ferrar papers of Magdalene College, Cambridge.

cllnd., No. 108.

28 INTRODUCTION

the petitions to the company and its action thereupon, and numerous other acts, revealing the relations and attitude of the individual members, are all unknown.'^

III. — DOCUMENTS ISSUED BT THE CXDMPANY

Of the official documents issued by the company during the decade from 1609 to 1619 the most important have been unknown up to this time. They include the first instructions ever given to a governor of a colony by an English administrative body, and the records of the first suits entered by the company in chancery for the purpose of enforcing the payments of sums adventured in the company and of securing a part of the income from the lottery, which the company claimed had been withheld by the agent, William Leveson.*

The knowledge which the administrators of the affairs of the company had gained from the early settlers, and their grasp of the necessities for exploration, for trade, and for the conduct of affairs in the plantation, has hitherto been a matter of surmise based on the relations of the planters. From the " Instruccons, orders, and constitucons to Sir Thomas Gates," "^ in May, 1609, and a similar document given to "Sir Thos. West Knight LorLawarr"** in 1609 or 1610 comes a revelation of the motives of the adventurers, as well as of the polic}' adopted and of the methods outlined for the prosecution of their efforts. These instructions to Gates and De La Warr afforded the authority for the termination of the previous govern- ment in Virginia, the stated ideas of the company as to locations for settlements, forts, and magazines, and concerning journeys inland. It also included an interesting reference to Raleigh's colonists. The general polic}' in administering the affairs of the colonists and the detailed orders as to the relations with the Indians, as far as they concern guards, trade, and treaties, and the daily life of the inhabitants, indicate a definiteness in the control of the company which formerly was not understood. In such a revelation of the knowledge of the country and of the natives there is a

"Scattering information of such a character concerning this period appears in the discussions and quarrels recorded in the later court books.

6 List of Records, pp. 123-124, Nos. 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31.

There are three cases recorded in the chancery proceedings in which the company attempted to enforce the payment of adventured sums. The bill of complaint is identical in each case, with the exception of the names of the defendant and the sums they underwrote. The bill, dated April 28, 1613, against Sir Henry Nevile, Sir Henry Carye, and eighteen others is printed in Brown's Genesis of the United States, II, pp. 623-631, from a copy found among the Smyth of Nibley papers. It differs slightly in orthography only from the original record. The five recorded answers supply even more valuable information than the bills of complaints.

cThis manuscript is in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, Ashmolean Manuscripln, 1147, folios 175-190*. It was discovered by the Editor in October, 1903. See also List of Records, p. 122, No. 10.

''Ashmolean Manuscripts, 1147, folios 191-205". See also List of Records, p. 122, No. 11.

UNDER SIB TBOMAS SMYTH E 29

basis for belief that the affairs of the company were managed and its records were kept in a systematic and businesslike way. "

The company had become convinced that the policy of John Smith was a wise one, and hence it ordered that a number of plantations should be settled and that efforts should be immediately directed to building healthful and sufficient houses and to planting widely enough for the self-support of the community. Here was the germ which was to develop into the colon}', but the plan was as 3'et by no means so far-reaching. A common store, a common magazine, common refectories, labor by groups with a superintendent for each five or six persons, the prohibition of trade with the Indians except through the truck merchant were economic methods which looked to the gain of the adventurer in London rather than to the develop- ment of a colonial settlement. When the settlers had become self-supporting and capable of defense, then measures were to be taken to provide returns, so "that our fleetes come not home empty." Discovery of the seas and of royal mines, exchange of commodities, the exaction of tribute, and the development of the resources of the country for the purpose of securing "wines, pitche, Tarre, sope-ashes, Steele, Iron, Pipestaues, hempe, flaxe,'' silk grass, fishing for pearls, cod, and sturgeon were to be the sources of revenue. The instructions placed authority implicitly in the hands of the governor, who was expected to hear, but not necessarily to heed, the advice of the council and to judge according to "naturall right and equity then vppon the nicenes of the lawe."

The agents of the corporation — the governor and his council in Virginia — received their authorization for the exercise of judicial as well as legislative powers through a commission. The one issued to Sir Thomas Gates is lost, but doubtless is as similar to that given to Lord La Warr'' as are his instructions. With the exception of a set of "Instructions for such things as are to be sente from Virginia, IdlO,""^ these orders and commissions are the onh' documents which show anything of the direct authority exercised by the company over affairs in the plantation until the issue of the "Great Charter of privileges, orders, and Lawes" in November, IBIS."*

Otherwise, the whole course of the activity of the company under Sir Thomas Sraythe was in strong contrast with the work of Sir Edwin Sandys. It was a con-

«Care on the part of the company is also seen in the general instructions of 1609 to the lieutenant- governor of Virginia, which are known only through a copy of the sixth article, preserved in the papers of the Marquis of Lansdowne. Ihid., No. 9.

6 The commission bears the date February 28, 1610. It is printed in full in Brown, Gmesit. I, 376-384.

c Printed in full in Brown, Oenesis, I, 384-386.

'' Post, p. 34. This set of instructions to Governor George Yeardley, although given late in 1618, belongs both in spirit and effect to the period of the Sandys-Southampton administration.

30 INTRODUCTION

tinual struggle to arouse such interest in the scheme as would result in investment. The problem of marketing the products of the colony, which concerned the later company, did not arise until toward the close of the period, when a single unsuccessful effort was made to gain a monopoly of the sale of tobacco. In order to increase the capital stock, the company made personal appeals and issued printed statements and descriptions which it scattered broadly. The story is told in the lists of adventurers cited above, in the earnest endeavors to secure new planters and new adventures from individual town and guild, in the efforts to enforce the paj'ment of sums already adventured, in a few receipts concerning tobacco, in the lottery schemes, which were legalized by the charter of 1612, and in printed broadsides and declarations. Thus the sums adventured b}' individuals, by the various London companies, and b3' the towns of England are given in a series of requests for adventure and in bills of adventure" issued b}' the company and found in the records of those companies and towns* as also in private collections. The chancery proceedings, in three suits, state that the company attempted to secure an adventure of £18,000 and the equipment of 600 men during the year 1611, and the failure to accomplish its purpose was set forth by the defendants as a reason for refusing to pay the sums adventured. Incidentally there was mentioned an income in the year 1613 of £8,000 from the lottery, of £2,000 from the sale of the Somers Islands, and of £600 or £800 from the disposal of the ship De La Warr.'^ However, with the exception of an unpublished letter from Sandys to the mayor of Sandwich'' concerning the adventure by that town, in which he inclosed a list of the subscribers to that particular adventure, with the sums set down bj' each,' the official records reveal but little as to the sums which must have been received by the company.

In a similar manner there are unauthentic records of economic value concerning the lotteries and the importation of tobacco. Of the latter a few receipts and mem- oranda among the papers of Lord Sackville.'" and the Earl De La WarrJ' are positively

"For the text of these adventures, see Brown, Genesis, I, 238, 252-3, 308, 391-2 (has signature of secretary and seal of company), 452-3, 453-4, 461-2, 463-5; II, 496 (signature and seal), 555. For two not yet published see List of Records, pp. 122, 123, Nos. 16, 17, 23.

» For this series of about 30 records see Brown, Genesis, I, 254, 257, 257-8, 277, 277-8, 278, 280-2, 291, 292-3, 302-6, 306-7, 309-10, 388-9, ,390, 344; II, 558-9, 560, 561, 592,686-8, 690-1, 768-9, 757. Also List of Records, p. 122, No. 15.

clbid., Nos. 21,22, 25, 27, 31.

d Printed in Brown, Genesis, I, 461-2, 463-5.

'The list is printed in full in Brown, Genesis, I, 465-9.

/ List of Records, p. 127, No. 59.

9 Ibid., No. 35, 60, and Brown, Genesis, II, 772. See also reference to payments for tobacco sent to Virginia in the List of Records, p. 122, No. 13.

DNDER HIR THOMAS SMYTHB 31

all there is in existence relating to the origin of a trade which was estimated in 1619 to be worth £100,000. Of the former, there is a "Declaration for the Lottery," published in 1615 by the company, and an order of the Privy Council, together with letters urging the towns of the Kingdom to adventure in this the second great lottery of the company.'* A letter from the governor of the Virginia Compan}- to the mayor and aldermen of Ipswich * is to the same eflFect, but none of these documents tell of the income therefrom. The only record which will give an idea of the value of the first lottery is in the chancery proceedings, and relates to a suit of the company with William Leveson to secure monej's from the lottery,*^ in which the sum received in 1613 is here stated to have been £2,793 and 10 shillings. The answer of Leveson is of further interest in that it alone tells of the methods by which the business was conducted and of the house built for the lottery west of St. Paul's Church.

V. — PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMPANY''

The struggle for capital and for settlers before 1616 is most apparent from the advertisements that were issued. The broadsides of the years 1609, 1610, and 1611 are printed as official declarations of an intention on the part of the company to send voyages to Virginia, and contain the necessary information as to the classes of emigrants wanted — artificers only — and the conditions and rewards for emigration. The broadside of February, 1611, is of most value, in that the classes of emigrants with the numbers of each desired are specified, while that of 1610 is a defense against the slander of recently returned colonists, and emphasizes the former need of artificers as colonists.'^ The broadsides of 1613 and 1615 concern the di-awing of the lotteries, the latter declaring in a general way the prosperous condition of the country and announcing the prizes and rewards, thus affording some conception of the sums received from such an enterprise.-'^ The publications of the year 1616 disclose, as well as assert, the prosperity of the settlement and the assurance of its success, though giving no statistical information. That of April arranges for the first division of lands among old adventurers and promises the same to new adven-

« Brown, Genesis, II, 760-766. For unpublished letters, see List of Records, p. 124, Nos. 32, 33, 34.

blbid., No. 71.

clbid., No. 28.

<* Because of the close relation of the publications of the company to the documents issued by the company, the discussion of Class V precedes that of Class IV.

'These are all reprinted in Brown, Oenem, I, (1) 248-249, (2) 364-356, (3) 439, (4)445, (5) 469-470.

/Brown, Oenesis, I, 608, 761-765. 16465— VOL 1—06 3

32 IKTRODVOTION

turers, declaring the intention to send a new governor and surveyors to the colony for the purpose, while that of the winter of the same year announces that any settlers may return to England who will.°

In addition to the advertisements for investment and adventure, both of person and of money, the company put forth a series of publications, consisting of four sermons preached before the company at stated intervals, intended to arouse both interest and confidence in their undertaking. These afford but little if any definite information, but reveal the spirit of the times, as also the lines of criticism and resistance which the compan}' had continuailj' to meet.*

But of far gi-eater importance to a comprehension of the attitude of the com- pany, and especially of the progress of the plantation, are the declarations concern- ing the colon}-, which were published by the company.'' They are nine in number, and bear the following titles and dates:

(1) J^ova Britannia. London, 1609.

(2) Virginia richly valued. London, April 15, 1609.

(3) A True and sijwere declaration of the purpose and end^ of the Plantatim^,

"by the authority of the Governor and Councellors of the Plantation." London, 1610. [December 1-1, 1609.]

(4) Newesfrom Virginia — a poem. 1610.

(5) A True declaration of the estate of the colony of Vi/rgini<i, by the order of

the "Councell of Virginia." London, 1610.

(6) De La Warr''s Relation. London, July 6, 1611, with Crashaw's Epistle

Dedicatorie as a preface.

(7) The Neil} life of Virginea — second part of Noua Britannia., by "the Coun-

sell of Virginea." London, May 1, 1612.

(8) Good Newes from Virginia., by Whittaker. London, 1613.

(9) A hooke called an narracon of the presetit State of Virginia hy Ralph

Hammer. London, 161.5.

The documents published in 1609 and also the poem of 1610 were efforts on the

part of the company to defend itself against charges of failure in earlier years and to

reveal the advantages which were promised under the new system of government.

This is distinctly the tone and motive of the Nova Britannia, in which appear argu-

a Brown, Oenem, I, 774-779, 797-799.

6 Brown, Genuin, I, (1) 282; (2) 293; (3) 312-316; (4) 360-373. A fourth rermon preached by Richard Crakanthorpe, March 24, 1608/9, on the anniversary of the accesBion of James I, has favorable references to the project. See Brown, Genem, I, 255-256.

'^ Brown either reprints all of these or cites the reference. Genem, J, (1 ) 241-243; (2) 279-280; (3) 337-353; (-1) 420-426; (5) 427-428; (6) 477-478; II, (7) 658-569; (7) 577-588, 611-620; (9) 746-747.

UNDER SIB THOMAS SM7THB 33

ments in favor of the colony, and the statements of the plans, resources, and needs of the colony, together with an outline of the government which was now to be administered.

A True and sincere declaration further explains the unsatisfactory condition of the colony by reference to the incompetence of previous governors, furnishing perhaps the best historical narrative which was issued by the company during the first period of the plantation. It also holds out the promise of improved conditions under Gates and De La Warr, who are to be shortly sent to Virginia with a complete outfit of men and provisions. The second document describes the southern part of the countrj^ and cites the advantages of Florida as evidence of the opportunities in Virginia. After the time of De La Warr the published accounts of the plans, movements, and successes of the colonists became more complete. While the state- ments of De La Warr in his Relation are a bare outline of the conditions as he found them and the improvements in trade and discovery to which Captain Argall had contributed, together with his lordship's plans for the future, it is of value as forming, with Hamor's narrative four years later, a surprisingly accurate and satisfactory treatment of the development in the colony during those years.

Hamor gives a clear statement of the methods and success of Captain Dale in his relations with the Indians, of his organization and reform of the colony, and of his establishment of order therein, and reveals clearly the state of affairs on the arrival of Gates, the cause of the failure heretofore, and the details of the building of the successive towns, with descriptions and statistics for each. He gives also an his- torical narrative of the relations with the various Indian tribes and his knowledge and statements concerning the resources of the country are equally satisfactory. While Whittaker's Good Neioes from Virginia and The New Life of Virginia are of value as corroborative evidence, they add but little to the knowledge of condi- tions or resources, and evidently were written more in the spirit of the poem of 1610, being intended to inspire confidence in the management of the colons, in the new system, and in the ofiicers installed, as well as to arouse enthusiasm in the project.

It is evident that these publications are of more direct value in the study of the progress of the colony and tell at first hand but little more than the methods employed by the company to gain its end, but, together with the other reports from the colony which are preserved in manuscript form, they to an extent supply what has been lost by the disappearance of the court book. They prove that there was a gradual change in the motive and means of the company, due entirely to the exigencies of the case. The failure to discover precious metals forced the

34 IXTRODVCTIOy

company to concern itself with the development of the resources of the country and with the production of staple articles which were needed in England. Then, too, the first written laws promulgated by Gates, De La Warr, and Dale in 1610-1612, martial in form and harsh in character, reveal the type of the plantation which the compan}- now proposed;" the freedom of the individual was to be reduced to a minimum, all labor was to be regulated as if it were a military discipline and the produce was to belong to the common store. Thus the evils of the earlj' settlement were to be avoided. But of necessity this plan was temporary. Argall, like Smith, was a good colonizer. The explorations of Smith and his trade with the Indians, together with the order and prosperity which were brought by Dale, resulted in the founding of various settlements, such as Henrico and others farther south, which became self-supporting and independent of the "supplies" from England. This meant that the company was to be forced to assume a different attitude toward the colony; that the common labor, common store, and common trade must be abandoned. By 1614 private lands had been given to a few inhabitants, every family had been assured of a house of four rooms, rent free, for one j'ear, and women had been sent to the colony to aid in keeping the settlers contented and permanent.

Whether the company made any resistance to this development within the set- tlement, by which the adventurer in London must share the profit with the planter, will onl}- be known when the court book shall have been discovered, but it is certain that by 1616 the point of view of the leaders of the company had changed. They had then come to realize that they were to be the middlemen for the marketing of the produce of the planters. This is proved by the movement in 1616 for the monopoly of the importation of the only lucrative staple, tobacco. Again, in 1619, when the time for free importation from the plantation had expired, they most eagerly sought an adjustment with the Crown, although, in 1614, Sir Edwin Sandys, by this time the leading spirit in the companj', had been the chairman in the House committee which reported against monopolies.

To such an extent had the colony now grown that the instructions given to Sir George Yeardley in November, 1618, called "The Great Charter of privileges, orders, and Lawes," recognized the necessitj' for local government. They provided for two houses, the "Council of State," to be chosen by the companj^ in its quarter court, and the general assembl}', to consist " of the Council of State and two Burgesses

"For the Colony of Virgiiua Britannia, Lawei Diiine, Morall and Martiall, li'c, entered for publica- tion on December 13, 1611, is a code first established by Sir Thomas Gates, May 24, 1610, approved by the lord governor, June 12, 1610, and exemplified and enlarged by Sir Thomas Dale, June 22, 1611. They are reprinted in Force, Tracts, Vol. III.

UNDER SIR THOMAS SM7THE 35

chosen out of each Town Hundred or other particular Plantation."" The great dif- ference between this act of the company and that of nine years before, when the instructions to Gates were issued and the laws of Dale were approved, is apparent. Whether it was due entirely to the necessities arising from the changed conditions in the colony heretofore noted or to the abuse of power by Saumel Argall, from 1616 to 1619, is uncertain.* Whether it was but a reflection of the growing popular senti- ment within the company by which the generality exercised the powers of adminis- tration or whether it was due to the influence of the "opposition" in parliament can not be settled without fuller records than are at present extant.

IV. — LETTERS FROM THE PLANTERS AND RECORDS OF THE COLOXY

The printed reports from the colonists and the printed declarations of the company were of course based on the letters from the planters and on those from the governor and council of Virginia to the Virginia Company. There were also letters from indi- viduals in the colony to ofiicers of the company or to other adventurers in England. They may perhaps reveal more clearly the condition of afl'airs in the colony and the influences which moved the company in its change of policy, since they do not attempt to conceal, excuse, or palliate any of the circumstances. Six of these narrate the story of the voyage of Gates and Somers, the misery in the plantation on the arrival of Gates and of De La Warr in 1610, and the steps that were taken to improve con- ditions.'' Through other letters from the colony the company gained its knowledge respecting voyages to Virginia, progress and order in the colon}', and the building of Jamestown,'' especially under Sir Thomas Dale, and as to the prosperity of the settlers. Dale in 1611, outlined his plans and his achievements, urged the sending of 2,000 men, and suggested that the difiiculty of securing planters might be overcome by making the settlement a penal colony. In 1615, 1616, and 1617 the company received reassurances from Dale, Hamor, and Rolfe of the prosperity of the colony; but the publications of the company and the letters from the colony from 1615 to 161S were

"List of Records, p. 129, No. 72.

* There are extracts from two letters dealing with the alleged misappropriations and abuse of power by Captain Argall, deputy governor from May, 1617, to April 20, 1619. One of these was addressed to Captain Argall and bears the date August 22, 1618; the other to Lord De La Warr, August 23, 1618. They are preserved in the court book of the company under the date of June 19, 1622. .See also Ibid., Noa. 82, 83.

<^ These letters were from the governor and council, July 7, 1610; from John RadcUffe, October 4, 1609, Gabriel Archer, August 31, 1609, and from Captain Somers and Lord La Warr, August, 1610, to the Earl of Salisbury; and from William Strachey in .1 TYue Reptrtorii, July 15, 1610. They are reprinted in Brown, Oenesis, I, 328-332, 400-402, 402-413, 416-417.

''See Strachey, .4 TVue Repertory, in Ihtrchas, His PUgrimes, IV, pp. 1734-1756.

36 INTRODVCTION

either very few in number, or have not been preserved. These were the years of the excessive abuses in the colony under Sir Samuel Argall."

The only evidence of records kept by the colonists is an abstract of " A Register book during the Goum' of Sam' Argall Esq'' admiral, and for 3'" time p''°sent, prin cipal Gou'' of Virg"" in the year 1618. This abstract was probably made in 1730 under the direction of R. Hickman, deputy clerk of the general court of Virginia at that time, and has heretofoi-e been unnoticed. From it comes a knowledge of correspondence between the governor and Bermuda Hundred and Kicoughtan, and between the governor and the company in London. A complaint of the largeness of privilege given to Captain Martin in his grant is significant because of the long con- test during later years, between the company and Captain Martin over this patent. There are, too, a number of commissions to officers for trade and for command, and several warrants, edicts, and proclamations. These are very similar in character to those issued by the governor and council in 1623, and reveal the fact that methods of government had not altered materially, though the source of authority had been changed by the great charter of 1618. The severitj' of penalty and the threats of reduction to slavery for offense are perhaps the features most characteristic of the period.*

VI. — PRIVATE PAPERS OF ADVENTURERS

While the company probably did not officially use the private correspondence received from the colony by individual adventurers, it doubtless profited by the information which it contained. Thus, the relation of John Rolfe,'' addressed to Lord Rich and the King in 1616, ranked in value with the descriptions of Ralph Hamor, for it discussed the water supply of the colon}', its food, clothing, houses, and government and gave statistical information as to the various towns, their location, the number of their inhabitants, and their officers. There are at least six other letters extant, similar in character, though of less value.**

But another series of private papers partakes most strongl}' of the nature of documents of the company. These are the contracts and correspondence relating

" For the log book of Argall and for these letters from Spelman, Dale, Argall, and Rolfe, see Brown, Genesis, I, 428-439, 483-488, 488-i94, 501-508; II, 639-640: rirginia Magazine of History, IV, 28, 29; X, 134-138. Also noted in the List of Records post, p. 125, Nos. 39, 40.

i>For full citation of these abstracts of about twenty documents, see Ibid., Nos. 40, 42^8, 50- 52, 55-57, 64, 65, 67, 74, 75.

<^ Reprinted in the Virginia Historical Register, I.

''(I) Sir Samuell Argall to Nicholas Hawes, June, ;i613; (2) Whittaker to Crashaw, August 9, 1611; (3) Percy to Northumberland, August 17, 1611; (4) Dale to Winwood, June 3, 1616; (5) Dale to D. M., June 18, 1614; (6) Whittaker to Master G., June 18, 1614. See Brown, Genesis, I, (1) 640-644; (2) 497-500; (3) 500-601; II, (4) 780-782; (5) 747; (6) 747.

UNDER SIR THOMAS SMYTHE 37

to individual adventures to Virginia or to groups of adventurers. They indicate a tendency in the company to grant private monopolies and to encourage private settlements — measures which indicate the growing importance of the undertaking and the development of individual trade. Only one series of documents relating to individual adventures is extant, those by which Lord Zouch's investment in Virginia was secured to him. His contracts were made in May, 1618, with John Bargrave and James Brett. There is also his warrant to John Fenner to pass to Virginia and trade with the colony and the savages in his pinnace Silver Falcon, in February, 1618'19.«

The other series of documents, which illustrate the legal forms and methods of the company, as also the way in which the tirst plantations were undertaken by private means, concern Smythe's Hundred and Berkeley Hundred. Among the Ferrar papers are the minutes of the meeting of the committee for Smythe's Hundred on May 8, 1618,* the first record concerning the hundred, which provides for the sending out and equipment of thirty -five men at an expense of £657 9s. id.

VII. — SUPPLEMENTABY CONTEMPOKARY CORRESPONDENCE AND RECORDS

In addition to the documents which are either ofiicial records or similar to such records in character, there is a large amount of correspondence between officers of state in England and other individuals which by its reference throws light on the aflfairs of the company or gives additional or corroborative data. All of this which is earlier in date than 1616 has been published by Alexander Brown.

There are seven letters, the dates of which fall between 1616 and 1619, that are of the same character; but they add nothing in fact to the other documents, although two of them reveal the measures taken even at this early date to impress youths and maidens for Virginia and to send reprieved prisoners to the colony."^ Of the documents of this character, which are given by Brown, perhaps the correspond- ence between the Spanish ambassador in London and the King of Spain is the most valuable, not in the trustworthiness of the data — though much of it confirms other sources — but in the revelation it contains of the part that Spanish relations played in the development of the company' and especially in its decline during the follow- ing decade, while its reference to prevalent rumors, reports, and sentiment are extremely illuminating. There are thirty-seven of these documents in all, including the correspondence concerning the Spanish ship Chaloner. TheChamberlain-Carleton, Digby-Salisbury, Cottington-Salisbury, and Lee- Wilson correspondence add occa-

« For these documents see List of Records, p. 129, Nos. 77, 82, 98, 99.

^Ibid., No. 76.

olbid., Nos. 84, 85, 88, 89, 96.

38 lyTRODVCTION

sional data and serve to fix dates and facts which are known from other sources." Of similar value are the chronicles of Howes, Abbot's Geography, Smith's Map of England and his General Histor\', the Commons Journal, the writings of Sir Fer- dinando Gorges, and other material which emanated from the Plymouth adventurers."

o See Brown, Gmem, "Table of Contents."

3. ®l|? ainlbrttnna at BamxnmtB, lfilB-lfia4

General Character of the Records

The character of the documents of the company after 1619 is fundamentally the same as in the preceding decade. Virginia was still a proprietarj' province with a commercial company as an overlord, and therefore the company was still the immediate source of all government in the colony. To it came all appeals from colonial authorities; it exercised control over all commerce, both from and to Virginia; it granted all land and all privileges. Although the number of doc- uments emanating from the Crown " — that is, of the first class — is large, they are rather an indication of the increasing wealth and importance of the company, than of royal interference. They concern the regulation of trade, complain of the abuse of power by the company, or provide for the investigation of its acts rather than assume any authority in the direct administration of its affairs. In them interference in the management is foreshadowed, but it is not until the dissolution of the company that the Crown again becomes the proprietor.

The mass of materials which form the records for this period is much greater than in the earlier decade. This is due on the one hand to their preservation in two or three collections, and on the other especially to the vast growth of business in the company and the rapid development from a colony for exploitation into a colony for settlement. Thus the minutes of the company, forming the second class of documents, show that it conducted a larger amount of business than any other proprietary company.* These minutes comprise two large volumes of the court book, and fill 741 manuscript pages.'' In the third class there are nine letters from the company to the governor and council in the colony, and twelve from the latter body to the company, in addition to a large number of receipts, commissions, instructions, and laws.** A mass of material belonging distinctly to the plantation seiTes as a part of the records of the

oSee documents under Class I in the List of Records.

''For this statement, as also for a full understanding of the character of the company, see Osgooii, The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century, I, 61. 'Grouped under Class II in the List of Records. <ilbid., Class III.

40 INTRODUCTION

company and at the same time furnishes the story of the beginning of the political unity of the colony. This group consists of the "court booke" of the council of the colony during the last year of the authority of the company, covering about 65 pages; 54 commissions, orders, proclamations, and warrants to subordinates in the colony issued by the governor and council in Virginia, and 35 petitions to the same body from the members of the colony." The publica- tions of the company for this final period of its existence number 3 lai'ge broadsides, 11 declarations containing 168 printed pages, and 4 sermons and treatises made up of 150 pages.* The supplementary oiEcial material found in the correspondence between individuals of the company and of the colony or between members of the company in England, in addition to the records of the private companies within the larger body, includes many documents and memo- randa.*^ Sixty-six of these are preserved in the Manchester papers, while 78 are from the Ferrar papei's, which are now first made known and published. The unoflicial material, consisting of records of other companies, of towns, and of correspondence touching on the affairs of the company or colony, numbers about 40 documents.''

The relative value of the various classes of the records for this period has been altered by the preservation of the court book which has made the other material supplementary, or even subsidiary, with the exception of the correspond- ence; for in it is either recorded or summarized the information which the company had received from all other sources, or which it imparted to individuals or to the public by other means. But the fact that the other records are supplementary does not decrease their value, for they often furnish the data which are the basis of the acts and conclusions of the company, while some of them also reveal the legal or political processes of the company, of the colony, of the courts, or of the sovereign authority, and others are of great value in the light which they throw on the dissenting party within the company.

The subject-matter of the court book, as well as the character and contents of the various documents, proves the changed condition which the increase of business had brought about, since a large proportion of the records deal with the founding and conducting of private enterprises, and many of them are really documents of a private nature. It is apparent that the company still looked upon the colony as a source of income for the investors, but that the ulterior object

a Grouped under Class IV in the List of Records. These papers are all in the Library of Congress. bJbid., Class V. cjbid., Class VL dibid., Class VII.

THE COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMENTS, 1616-1624 41

had become the development of the resources of Virginia instead of the produc- tion of wealth through mines and the opening of new trade routes. As a result of this change in commercial object had come the need of larger, more numerous, and more scattered settlements in the colony, and of greater co-operation on the part of the settlers, although it may well be claimed that the latter uecessit}^ had been urged upon the leadei'S by the mismanagement of Captain Argall during the three years previous to the change in administi'ation. In order to increase the number of planters, concessions of privilege had been made to private parties or groups as earlj' as 1618, since such investments were doubtless easier to secure when the adventure was under the immediate control of the undertaker. Simi- larly, for the purpose of stimulating capital and gaining the co-operation of the planters, the division of land, promised in 1609, was proclaimed in 1616. Free tenancy was now guaranteed to all individuals, even to indented servants, at the expiration of seven years. The organization of joint stock companies for the manage- ment of trade, which supplanted the magazine, was a movement toward private enter- prize. Hence it is that these subjects, together with those which concern the impor- tation and sale of tobacco, occupy the greater part of the court book, and must have consumed most of the attention of the corporation. The burden of discussion in the courts concerned the best means of marketing the products, whereas in the earlier decade it must have related to the increase of capital. The records of the colony were no longer simple reports to the company and instructions from the proprietor, but assumed the character of political documents, since liberty of land and trade, and the creation of numerous plantations and scattered settlements resulted in the growth of "political conditions and forces side by side with the commercial and economic." The minutes of the colonial legislative assembly, the records of the colonial court, the petitions to the governor and council, and the commissions and orders granted by that body are all distinctively new features in the records. Here is evidence of the crea- tion of the colony, with its body of free citizens, out of the plantation, with its body of half -servile laborers.

THE JEFFERSON LIBRARY IN THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

The records of the company under the administration of Sir Edwin Sandy.s and the Earl of Southampton, or the copies of them so far as extant, are to-day scattered among many public and private collections both in England and in America. The Library of Congress at Washington possesses by far the largest and most impor- tant collection in this country. It contains the contemporary certified copy of the court book from 1619 to 1624, as well as a mass of original correspondence, or contemporary copies of the same, between the company and the council iu Virginia.

42 IXTRODVCTION

It also includes mauy original records of the colouj', many eighteenth centurj' tran- scripts of the original commissions, patents, and other records, and many recent transcripts and photographs of documents in the collections of England.

The eighteenth century transcripts and the original documents and contemporary copies came to the Library of Congress from Thomas Jefferson's collection in two diflferent groups: the tirst in 1815, when his library, purchased " in a lump as it stood on the catalogue,"'' was secured by Congress for the sum of $23,950; the second was secured when the books of Mr. Jefferson were sold at auction subsequent to his death in 1826. The catalogue of the auction sale classitied those acquired by the Library of Congress at the latter date under two numbers as follows: *

"No. 121. Records of the Virginia Company, 2 vols., fol. MS. (the authentic copy mentioned in Stith's Histoiy).

"No. 122. Old Records of Virginia, 4 vols. fol. MS. viz:

"A. Letters, proclamations in 1622-23, and correspondence 1625. (42) Transactions in council and assembly, their petition and his majesty's answer.*^

"B. (9). Orders from Feb. 1622 to Nov. 1627.''

"C. (32) A. Foreign business and Inquisitions from 1665 to 1676. Transactions of the council from Dec. 9, 1698, to May 2U, 1700."" The volumes of Jefferson manuscripts relating to the company, which became the property of the Government in 1815, were as follows:

(1) J^irst lavjs made hy the Assembly in Va. anno 1623/ (Used by Hening.)

(2) Journal of the Council and Assembly, 1626-1634. (Used by Hening.) 'J

(3) Miscellaneous Records, 1606-1692, with a small quarto containing abstracts of Rolls in the offices of State bound into the volume. (Commonly known as the Bland copy, because so cited by Hening.)

" Manuscript letters of Thomas Jefferson in the Library of Congress. In this letter to William Hening, March 11, 1815, from Monticello, Mr. Jefferson stated that he could not retain a volume, since Congress had purchased his library.

''The "Catalogue. President Jefferson's library (as arranged by himself, ) to be sold

at auction, at the Long Eoom, Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington , 27th of February, 1829,

," p. 4, is in the Library of Congress, Miscellaneous Pamphletn, Vol. 859, No. 14.

i^This is classified as one folio manuscript in the catalogue of the Library of Congress, 1830, and the latter is doubtless the manuscript covering the period from 1626-1634.

''This manuscript also contains loose papers to 1632.

''Calalogue of the lAhrary of Congress, ISSO, p. 167.

/ Catalogue of the Library of Congress, 1S16, p. 73.

? This is probably the same manuscript as that mentioned above under the Jefferson catalogue as No. 122 (42). There ia no other manuscript in the Library which corresponds to the title here given or to the description above.

TBE COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMENTH, 1616-1624 43

(4) Mucellaneous Papers, 1606-1683. Instructions, Commicons letters of Advice cmd admonitions and Puhlic Speeches, Proclamations ike. Collected, transcribed and dAligently examinedhy the Originall Records, nmo extant, helongiiuj to the Assemhlie.

The entire set in the first group, acquired in 1829, is composed either of original documents or of contemporary transcripts, while the second paper of the second group belongs to the same period. The Miscellaneous Papers, 1606-1683, are a seventeenth century transcript. The Laws of 1623 and the Miscellaneous Records, 1606-1692, are transcripts of the early eighteenth century and are attested by R. Hickman, who was clerk of the general court in 1722. The origin and identification of these various volumes, together with a later copy of the court book of the com- pany, now in the library of the Virginia Historical Society and commonly known as the [John] Randolph [of Roanoke] copy, has been a subject of doubt and discussion, arising from the conflicting descriptions of the volumes by the early historians of Virginia, William Stith and John D. Burk, and by the editor of many of the documents in 1809, William Hening.

The following statements with regard to the first group made by Mr. Jefferson in a letter to Hugh P. Taylor, October 4, 1825," will serve as a basis for the attempt to ascertain the history and authenticity of those manuscripts:

" The only manuscripts 1 now possess relating to the antiquities of our country are some folio volumes: Two of these are the proceeding[s] of the Virginia company in England; the remaining four are of the Records of the Council of Virginia, from 1622 to 1700. The account of the first two volumes, you will see in the preface to Stiths History of Virginia. They contain the records of the Virginia Company, copied from the originals, under the eye, if I recollect rightly, of the Earl of South- ampton, a member of the companj-, bought at the sale of his library by Doctor Byrd, of Westover, and sold with that library to Isaac Zane. These volumes happened at the time of the sale, to have been borrowed by Col. R. Bland,* whose library I purchased, and with this they were sent to nie. I gave notice of it to Mr. Zane, but he never reclaimed them.

" The other four volumes, I am confident, are the original office records of the council. My conjectures are, that when Sir John Randolph was about to begin the History of Virginia which he meant to write, he borrowed these volumes from the council office to collect from them materials for his work. He died before he had made any progress in that work, and they remained in his library, probably unobserved, during the whole life of the late Peyton Randolph, his son. From his executor, 1 purchased his library, in a lump, and these volumes were sent to me as a part of it. I found the leaves so rotten as often to crumble into dust on being handled; 1 bound them, therefore together, that they might not be unnecessarily opened; and have thus preserved them forty-seven years."

oFrom the National Intelligencer, October 19, 1825. ^Col. R. Bland died October 26, 1776.

44 INTRODUCTION

CONTEMPORARY COPT OF THK COURT BOOK

The two volumes referred to by Mr. Jefferson as the "proceedings of the Virginia Company in England" are the contemporary copies of the court book which were secured by the Hon. William Byrd, of Westover, Virginia, from the estate of the Earl of Southampton, either at the time of his death in 1667 or later. Since Mr. Byrd was a boy of 15 living in London in 1667, it ma}' have been when the Virginia estates were left him in 1671, or even in 1687 when he made a visit to England, that he made the purchase." That the books remained in the possession of the descendants of Mr. Byrd for a century is proved by the fact that they are mentioned in a manuscript catalogue of the library of the third William Byrd, who died in 1777,* but these two volumes were not in the library of Colonel Byrd, when it was sold by his widow in Philadelphia to Isaac Zane. Mr. Jefferson's statement that he purchased them from Colonel Bland may be accepted,'^ but it would be difficult to prove whether he is equally reliable when he states that the volumes had been loaned to Colonel Bland and had not been returned by him to Colonel Byrd, or whether Mr. Deane is correct in saying that Colonel Bland, as an antiquary, had secured them. That Stith used these contempo- rary copies of the court book in his History of Virginia is apparent from his description of them, as also from his statement that they had been communicated to him by the "late worthy president of our council, the Hon. W^illiam Byrd, esq."''

MANUSCRIPT RECORDS OF THE COMPANY, VOLUME III

The other manuscript volumes, which the Library of Congress acquired from Mr. Jefferson and which are included imder No. 122 of the Jefferson catalogue, belong to the early seventeenth century. They are the documents which Mr. Jefferson referred to in his letter to Mr. Taylor as having come from the library of the Hon. Peyton Randolph in such a fragile condition, and which in a letter to Mr. "Wythe, of January 16, 1795, urging the necessity of publishing the laws of Virginia, he describes in a similar way.^

a William Byrd died December 4, 1704. See Byrd, History of the Dividing Line.

b "Catalogue of the Books in the Library at Westover belonging to William Byrd, Esqr.," p. 437, in 77ie Writings of Colonel William Byrd, edited by J. S. Bassett.

r- For a description of these volumes and the circumstances of their making, see the discussion, pp. 78-84, post.

d It is hardly possible that Mr. Jefferson's statement is incorrect and that, instead of having been acquired by Col. Richard Bland at that time, they passed from Stith to his brother-in-law, Peyton Randolph, and with the library of the latter to Jefferson. This is one of the solutions suggested by Justin Winsor. See Narrative and Crilical Hiftory of the United States, III, 158.

<■ Hening, Statutes at Large, I, p. viii.

THE COLLECTIONS OF DOCDMENTf?, 1616-16Si 45

That these are the papers discussed by Stith is proved by comparing them with the Hickman (Bland) transcripts. In his preface, Stith confirms the de.scription by Mr. Jefferson, but he apparently destroys the latter's theory that the papers had been in the possession of Peyton Randolph since the death of Sir John Randolph in 1736. Mr. Stith wrote his preface in 1746, and suggests that they were at that time in the possession of the House of Burgesses, although he does not make a positive statement to that effect. His assertions are worth recording, since they carry the history of the volumes back thirty years and also throw light on the Hickman transcripts.

"I must chiefly depend upon such of our Records, as are still extant. Many of them doubtless perished in the State-house at James-Town, and by other Accidents; and those, which have survived the Flames and Injuries of Time, have been so care- lesly kept, are so broken, interrupted, and deficient, have been so mangled by Motha and Worms, and lie in such a confused and jumbled State (at least the most ancient of them) being huddled together in single Leaves and Sheets in Books out of the Binding, that I foresee, it will cost me infinite Pains and Labour, to reduce and digest them in any tolerable Order, so as to form from them a just and connected Narration. And some of them have been lost, even since Mr. Hickman was Clerk of the Secretary's Oflice. For I cannot find, among the Papers in our Oflices, some old Rolls, to which he refers. I have therefore been obliged, in a few Points, to depend upon the Fidelity of that Gentleman's Extracts out of our oldest Records, made for the Use of Sir John Randolph. But these things were so far from discouraging and rebuffing me, that they were rather an additional Spur to my Industry. For I thought it highly necessary, before they were entirely lost and destroyed, to applv them to their proper Use, the forming a good History. But as the House of Burgesses in a late Session, upon my shewing their moldering and dangerous State to some of the Members, have justly taken them into their Consideration, and have ordered them to be reviewed and fairly transcribed, I doubt not, by their Assistance, and with the Help of the late Sir John Randolph's Papers, and such others, as are in the Hands of private Gentlemen in the Country, and will undoubtedly be readily communicated to further so noble and so useful a Design, to be able to collect and compose a tolerably regular and complete History of our Country.""

Hence, we are again left in a quandary. The papers may have come into Peyton Randolph's possession through the arrangement made by the burgesses for their transcription; but no transcript made directly from the documents as late as 1746 is known to us. Whether they were borrowed from the pi'ovince by Mr. Stith or by Peyton Randolph, his brother-in-law, or by some other historian or antiquarian is not yet proved; and our only evidence that Jefferson secured them from Peyton Randolph's executor is his statement made twenty years after the date of the purchase.

" Stith, History of Virginia, preface, p. viii.

46 INTRODDCTIOy

The papers, after almost a century in the Capitol, were in a still more deplorable condition in 1901 than that described by Mr. Stith, but the loose pages have now been carefuUj* and skillfully repaired. The order of contents of the volumes (while not chronologicall}' arranged) may be known from the abstracts made under the direction of Hickman about 1722. This agrees with an arrangement determined by the early pagination, the subject-matter, and the writing. That these manuscripts are original records or contemporary copies is evidenced by the form of some of them, bj' the signatures of others, and by the autographs of the secretaries and clerks of the period. The supposition is that the}^ escaped destruction when the Province House was burned in Bacon's rebellion in 1678, during the administration of Gooch in 1698, and again during the Revolution, only to be lost to the State in the latter half of the eighteenth centurJ^

The volume designated as 122, A, in the Jefferson catalogue, and there entitled "Letters, proclamations in 1622-23, and correspondence 1625," is evidentlj- the one referred to by page in the Hickman abstract of the rolls as "the other side of No. A -12." " This abstract is a quarto bound into the Miscellmnious Records, 1606-1692, called by Hening the "Bland copy." In pages 1 to 1-1 a of this volume are eighteen letters from the colony to the King or to the company between 1621 and 1625, while pages 15 to 30 contain nine letters from the company to the colony between 1621 and August 6, 1623. The first group are holographs, but of a secretary' or clerk not yet identified. The second are doubtless in the autograph of Edward Sharpless.' Both are contemporary copies of the originals.*" The documents classed in the Jefferson catalogue as 122 (42) form the balance of this volume and also probably include the journal of the council and assembly, 1626-1634. The latter was evidently used by Hening in compiling his statutes.

Presuming that this fragile document, which is the only one concerning the company and the colony while controlled by the company, formed one volume, its contents was as follows:

No. A 42:

1. (a) Miscellaneous letters from the Privy Council to the governor and council in Virginia in 1623, pp. 1-3". An unknown holograph.

(b) Declarations of the condition of the colony and answers thereto in 1623/4, pp. S"-?". An unknown holograph.

"This volume of correspondence is cited in the List of Records as the "Manuscript Records of the Virginia Company of London, Vol. Ill, pt. ii," thus including in Vol. Ill all of this miscellaneous manuscript material of the company.

("Edward Sharpless had been a clerk of the secretary of the colony, Christopher Davison, and succeeded him upon his death in the winter of 1623/4. He remained as acting secretary until his trial on May 20, 1624, for giving copies of the acts of the assembly to the commissioners of the King; John Sotheme then took up his duties.

« See Plates, post, Vol. II for illustrations of these holographs, and for evidence as to the autographs.

THE COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMENTS, ir,16-162f, 47

2. Fundamental orders, charters, ordinances, and instructions by the company in London and hiws of the assembly in Virginia, pp. 8-21. Parth' holographs as above." No. A 42. "The other side:'"

1. (a) Letters from the colony to the King or to the company between 1621 and 1625. An unknown holograph.

{h) Letters from the company to the colony between 1621 and August 6, 1623. Holographs of Edward Sharpless.

2. Instructions, commissions, proclamations, orders, warrants, and letters of the governor and captain-general of Virginia and of the assembly, pp. 36-53. Partly the holograph of P^dward Sharpless and partly perhaps of Christopher Davison, the secretary of the colony from November, 1621, until his death in the winter of 1623/4.*

4. Petitions to the governor and council in Virginia, pp. 58-63. Holo- graphs as of the preceding.

5. A miscellaneous collection of letters between the Privy Council and the Commissioners for Virginia on the one hand and the governor and council in Virginia on the other, in 1625 6, pp. 68-70; a letter from the Virginia Company of London in 1626, p. 71, and a census of 1624, pp. 71-75. Unknown holo- graphs similar to those in the first part of this end of the volume.''

The first part of the volume thus opens with the letters of the Privy Council to the colony on April 28, 1623, when the King first began the action looking toward the dissolution of the company, and with the first direct correspondence with the officers of the colony. The writing and the dates place the documents as consecutive through the entry of the acts of the assembly, March 5, 1623 4, when the assembly seems to have ceased. After that page, copies of scattered documents appear in a different writing, commencing on the back of the last assemblj' record. These are largely fundamental or constitutional, including the instructions of November 20, 1606, the charter of 1606, the order of 1607 enlarging the council, and the oaths administered to officials of the colony of the same period. The other part of the volume opens with the correspondence between the colony and the home government. After a hiatus of fifteen pages the documents of the governor and assembly begin as indicated under the second division above. The writing is that of Edward Sharp- less and Christopher Davison, and remains the same throughout the petitions of the next group. The last group of miscellaneous documents agrees in subject with the

"Thia volume is cited in the List of Records, as "MSS. Records of the Virginia Company of Lon- don, VoL III, pt. i."

'I Christopher Davison was appointed at a quarter court, June 23, 1621. His commission was sealed November 28, 1621.

Incited in the List of Records as " MSS. Records of the Virginia Company, Vol. Ill, pt. ii."' 16466— VOL 1—06 4

48 INTRODVCTION

letters of the first part and in autograph with the first section of those letters. On a fly leaf among the loose papers is inscribed the following: "Records of W. Clay- bourne or Claiborne. / p Joseph [Jokeg] / Tho Farloue & ' Vpton gent / Thos. Ba[u]rbag[e] / Clef Cone"./ This may belong to the records of the period after May 14, 1626, when William Claj'bourne was appointed secretary of the colony by Charles I, or it may have been placed in an earlier volume, or it may indicate that a part at least of the earlier volume was transcribed under his direction.

Section B (9) of No. 122 in the Jefferson catalogue, cited as orders from February, 1622, to November, 1627, and including loose pages as late as 1634, is the only octavo manuscript of these records and has been saved from its almost useless condition by repair. That this is the original blotter of the court book of the gover- nor and council in Virginia, containing the original record of suits tried before that body and of orders issued by it, is proved b}- the hasty and brief entries, giving the volume an entirely diflferent character from those of the carefully elaborated tran- scripts of the clerks. The records of twenty-three courts held as here given and of the cases considered during the era of the authority of the company, consisting of about forty-five pages of manuscript, are noted in the list of the records of the company, but are not printed in this collection since they may be included more properly in a publication of the "Records of the Colony."

THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE VIRGINIA RECORDS

RANDOLPH COPT

It is now certain that at least two copies of the court book existed at the beginning of the nineteenth century, since the so-called John Randolph [of Roanoke] copj' has recently come to light." It bears every evidence of being an eighteenth century transcript made from the contemporary copy now in the Library of Congress; the manuscript is of the century following that of the contemporar}' copy; the order, paragraphing, form of iasertion of documents, and material is identical; but the omissions and errors arise from illegibility in the earlier manuscript. The other differences lie in occasional carelessness by the copyist and in the fact that the abbreviations are expanded and the spelling and the capitalization are modernized.

The caption of the first volume of this eighteenth century copy is as follows: "The Ancient Records of this Colony under The Treasurer and Company." It opens with "A Quarter Court held for Virginia at Sir Thomas Smith's house in

oThe three volumes are in the collection of the Virginia Historical Society in Richmond, but they are so closely associated with the Library of Congress MSS. that they are discussed here rather than under the MSS. of Richmond.

TBE COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMENTS, 1616-16Si 49

Philpott Lane, 28th of April 1619," and ends on page 535 with the court of July 3, 1622. The final statement is as follows: "The rest of the Company's Acts are contained in a Second Volume." Volume II begins with a court of July 17, 1622, and closes on page 491 with the proceedings of June 7, 1624. It bears the caption, "The Records of the Company of Virginia, Vol. 2"." Pages 492 to 502 include a list of "The names of the Adventurers for Virginia, as they were in the Year 1620." On the inside of the board of this volume is written the name, "Sam'l Perkins of Cawson." There is a third volume of this series of transcripts which is described by Mr. Robinson thus: "The other volume begins with the first charter to the proprietors of Carolina dated the 24th of March, in the fifteenth 3-ear of Charles II, (1663) and ends page 543 with report of the petition of Philip Laudwell against the Lord Effingham made by the Lords Committees of Trade and Plantations, Dated at the Council Chamber 26th of April 1689." This document ends on page 530. The volume closes on page 544 with "A Memorial for obtaining a more perfect Rent Roll, & advancing Her Majesty's Quit Rents in Virginia". On the first cover is the date, "Sep 19'" 1759."

Mr. Brown thinks that these copies were made for Colonel Richard Bland from Colonel Bj-rd's volumes and passed to Theodorick Bland of the family of Cawson, the grandfather of John Randolph of Roanoke, to whom they finally came. He adds that the B3'rd volumes went to Mr. Jefferson with the Bland collection, which he bought about 1776, instead of the copies therefrom." Mr. Jameson suggests that John Randolph of Roanoke may have inherited these transcripts from his great uncle, Sir John Randolph. In this case also they would have been made from Mr. Byrd's volumes, and perhaps should have gone to Mr. Jefferson with the Peyton Randolph library, but this would not account for the name "Cawson" in the second volume. Furthermore, according to Mr. Stanard, John Randolph of Roanoke was not an heir to Sir John Randolph, and the families were not even on friendly terms. Mr. Brown's supposition seems the more plausible, since Theodorick Bland, jr., of Cawson may have received the volumes from the son of Richard Bland by gift or purchase, though not by inheritance, and, as Theo- dorick Bland, jr., died without heirs in 1790, the books may have become the property of his sister's son, John Randolph of Roanoke.

The location of these volumes since the time of the death of John Randolph of Roancke is known. According to Mr. Brown, John Randolph'' in a codicil to

"See an account of "Two manuscript volumes now in the Library of Congress, at Washington, D. C," in The Magazine of American History, New York, Vol. 29, April, 1893.

6 Not to be confused with Sir John Randolph, father of the Pej-ton Randolph whose library Jefferson says he purchased in 1778.

50 INTRODUCTION

his will in 1826 left hi« library to the master and fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge, but in 1831 so altered the will as to bequeath it to his niece, E. T. Bryan. Certain it is, however, that for ten years after his death on May 4, 1833, the volumes remained in his library in Roanoke, for Hon. Hugh Blair Grigsby examined them at that place on January 11, 1843. The librarj- was sold in 1845, but it is evident from the statement of Judge William Leigh, the executor of the estate, that tlie Randolph copy of the court book remained in his hands.

The later history of this copy is told by Mr. Leigh Robinson, of Washington, D. C, as follows:

"A complete transcript of the Records of the Virginia Company had been in the possession of John Randolph of Roanoke, and by Mr. Randolph's executor, Judge William Leigh, was placed in the hands of m}- father, shortly after the termination of the war between the States. The Virginia Historical Societ}-, having then no shelter of safety for such a work, my father placed it in the Vaults of one of the banks of Richmond, with a view to transferring it to the Society, as soon as it could be done with Safety. His death occurred before (in his opinion) this could be done. After his death, his familj' transferred to the Societj- the copj^ made bj- him- self. It was some time before they were able to discover the place of deposit of the Randolph Copy. But they finally recovered it, and transferred this also to the Vir- ginia Historical Society, where it now is.""

Mr. Conway Robinson, the father of Mr. Leigh Robinson, prepared for the press two volumes of abstT-acts from the court book, which were edited later by R. A. Brock for the Virginia Historical Society and entitled Virginia (Jomjxiny, 1619-1621^. Robinson states that in the preparation of the volumes he had many transcripts made through Mr. Mehan from the copy in the Library of Congress, and also from the Randolph volumes which Judge Leigh had loaned to him.*

The third volume of this Randolph series, which is cited both b}^ Burk and by Hening'' as "Ancient Records, Volume IH," was copied from the transcript attested by R. Hickman. This volume of Miscellaneous Records, 1606-1692, is the only volume which contains the substance found in the Randolph copy, and is of

"See a luanusi-ript letter to Mr. Worthiiigton C. Ford, Chief of the Division of Manuscripts in the Library of Congress, December 15, 1902. These volumes, and the third described by Mr. Robinson's father are now in the Virginia Historical Society collection in Richmond.

^ A letter of Mr. Robinson to Jlr. Deane, July 1 , 1868. For the use of this letter, as also one from Mr. Deane to Mr. Robinson of .July 6, 1868, the Editor is indebted to Mr. J. Franklin Jameson, professor of history in Chicago University. In a memorandum Mr. Deane states that he inspected these volumes in April, 1872, at which time they were at the house of Mr. S. A. Myers, the law partner of Mr. Con- way Robinson.

t'For the extracts from the "Ancient Records," Vol. Ill, so called, by Hening, see Statutes at targe, I, 76-113 (collated readings given), 113-120, 145,146, 209, 223.

THE COLLECTIOyfi OF DOCVMESTS, 161G-1G21, 51

an earlier date, and, like the original rolls, is leas chronological in arrangement. That the Randolph copy was not made from the original records is evidenced by the fact that the abstracts are identical with those of the Hickman or "Bland" copy. That both Hening and Burk used the Randolph copies of the court book and also the third volume of that series is proved by their descriptions of the volumes, while the page references to "Ancient Records" cited by Hening coincide in each case with these three volumes. Mr. Hening speaks of three large folio volumes not in the orthography of the age of the events, and compiled without nmch regard to method for the purpose of forming material for a history of Virginia, and states that the first two volumes are minutes of the proceedings of the London Companj-, and the third an epitome of the legislative and judicial acts of authorities in Vir- ginia, so far as then extant, which were regularh* transmitted to England. These, he continues, were used by John Burk, who got them from .John Randolph, and also by Skelton Jones, 1809, to complete Burk's History of Virginia." Mr. Burk himself declares that there are two large volumes, instead of three, a.s stated by Hening, "containing the minutes of the London Company together with the pro- ceedings of the Virginia Councils and Assembly, with little interruption to the middle of the reign of George H."'

JEFFERSON TRANSCRIPTS

The three volumes containing transcripts of the Virginia Records which came from the Jefferson Library in 1815 are unique, containing copies of records since destroyed. Two of them are attested by R. Hickman, the deputy clerk of the general court in 1722, and the third is the only seventeenth centurj- transcript in our possession. Unlike the Randolph copies, the two large volumes include copies of records since destroyed.

Of this group the "First laws made by the assembly in Va. Anno 1623" bears on the back of the last page the following indorsement in ^Ir. Jefferson's hand: "This was found among the manuscript papers of S'' John Randolph and by the Honble. Peyton liandolph, esq. his son was given to Tho'. Jefferson," and is attested as follows: "Copia Test R. Hickman D C G C." This early eighteenth century transcript was made by the same copyist as were the ISliscellaneous Record.-, 1606-1692, and is the volume used by Hening and referred to in his first volume, pages 121-129. It must also be the subject of a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Hening, April 8, 1815, in which he states that the manuscript marked "A" contains laws of 1623-24, thirty -five acts, which was given him by Peyton Rjindolph from the materials used by Sir John Randolph, and which Mr. Jefferson declares to

oHening, Statutes at Large, I, 70 n. (a). ''Burk, Histurt/ of Viiyinia, I, ih. V; II. 7, 42. 67.

52 INTRODUCTION

be the "Only copy extant of those laws 1"" In 1803 Mr. Jefferson had declined to lend to Mr. John D. Burk some of the printed laws of Virginia in his possession, since they were unique and could not be replaced.* The internal evidence points to the fact that Hening also used the other volumes of this set, a fact corroborated b}' the following statement of Mr. Jefferson in a letter to Mr. George Watterson, May 7, 1815: "I gave to Mr. Milligan a note of those folio volumes of the Laws of Virginia belonging to the Library which being in known hands, will be recovered. One is a MS. volume from which a printed copy is now preparing for publica- tion.""^ Mr. Hening was doubtless using them in the preparation of his later volumes. Certain it is that these documents form the basis for a part of his first volume, in which he cites the Jaurnal of the Council and Assembly, 1626-1634-, as belonging to Thomas Jefferson, and as having been "purchased by him with the librai'y of Peyton Randolph, from his executors." The third, the Miscellatieous RecoroU, 1606-1692, he states was bought by Mr. Jefferson "from the executor of Richard Bland, dec'd."<«

The seventeenth century volume, entitled Instructions, Commidons lettei'S oj Admice and admonitions and PiMique Speeches, Proclamations dec: Collected, transci'ihed and diligently exaviinedliy the Originall Records, 7imo extant, belonging to the Assemhlie, is a vellum-covered book, with an embossed figure on the back cover, and with the following: " E ; 1621 / Publiq, Letters ' and Orders." On the outside of the front cover upside down is: "E / John Bland / Richard Blan [d] / Alexander Morrison," / while on the half that remains of the first fly leaf is the name "Nelson." On the fly leaf in the book in pencil is the statement: "date of MSS 1650-1695;" and on the front cover similarly is: " 17" Century copie Bland." This presence of Richard Bland's name in the book shows that Mr. Jefferson secured it with the Bland Library. The writing of the volume is similar to the early seven- teenth century system in many of the abbreviations, the use of the double y, and the formation of some of the letters. Evidently this is a collection of correspondence of the colony, transcribed from the court books and from the miscellaneous papers of the three volumes of the manuscript records of the company.*'

The second volume of documents from 1606 to 1692 is in an eighteenth century hand, many of the documents bearing the attestation of R. Hickman. The binding

"Jefferson Letters, in the Library of Congress. This is an error, since a contemporary copy has been found among the "fragile papers" in Jefferson's own possession at the time.

^Thomas Jefferson to John D. Burk, Monticello, February 21, 1803.

""W. D. Johnston, History of the Library of Congress, I, 178.

ii Hening, Statutes at Ixtrge, I, 147, 152, 224. The first four volumes of this work were published in 1809. By an act of the assembly in 1819 the work was completed. In 1823 the first four yolumea were reprinted.

«For the contents of this volume as late as 1624 see the List of Records.

THE COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMENTS, 1616-1624 53

is in calf and bears on the back the red label, "Vir/. Records." Bound into the back of this volume is a small quarto of twenty-five pages, containing outlines of documents in the Manuscript Records of the Companj^ which serves to identify the loose pages of the original records as Roll A. 42, and an abstract of Captain Argall's register during his government." The documents in the folio volume are charters, instructions, commissions, letters from the Privy Council, and other documents emanating from the Crown, together with one or two from the company and from the council in Virginia.* That this volume is the one used by Hening in his Statutes and referred to as the "Bland copy""^ is indicated by the contents as well as by the fact that it includes the quarto volume. His reason for citing it as the " Bland copv" can only be surmised, namely, that he had Mr. Jefferson's statement that it had been secured with the Bland library, an erroneous designation as is proved by Stith's statement in his preface, that R. Hickman made a copy of the Records for Sir John Randolph."^ But the volume has been known for the past century as the "Bland copy," although its title as a "Hickman" or a "Randolph" volume would be more appropriate.

The conclusions which have been formed with regard to these original and contemporary manuscripts and the later transcripts disclose little concerning the circumstances under which they were made, or the original owners of the volumes. But the important facts to discover, in order to determine their authenticitv, are the period of the transcript and the documents from which the copies were made, and these facts in each case have been ascertained.*

"The documents there referred to by page are noted in the "List of Records." The original register of Captain Argall has not been found.

t> For the contents of this volume see the List of Records.

c Hening, fitatutes, I, 223, 224-238.

<* Stith, History of Virginia, Preface, which is dated December 10, 1746.

«For published statements and discussions of the history and identity of the volumes in the Library of Congress which concern tlie Virginia Company, as also of the Randolph copy, see:

Robert C. Howison, History of Virginia, I, 212 (footnote). 1843.

Fordyce M. Hubbard, Life of Sir Francis Wyatt in Belknap's American Biography (footnote). 1843.

Hugh Blair Grigsby in the Southern Literary Messenger, February, 1854.

J[ohn] W[ingate] T[hornton], in the Hintorical Magazine, February, 1858.

Charles Campbell, History of Virginia, p. 174. 1860.

William Green, in the Southern Literary Messenger, September, 1863.

Justin Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America, III, 158. 1885.

E. D. Neill, Virginia Company of London. 1889.

J. Franklin Jameson, "The Records of the Virginia Company." An address delivered before the Rhode Island Historical Society, November 27, 1888. (The manuscript used by the Editor.) Reviewed in the Magazine of American History trith Notes and Queries, Vol. XXI, January-June 1889 p. 82.

Alexander Brown, in the Magazine of American History, April, 1893.

Lyon G. Tyler, in the Report of the American Historical Association, 1901, I, 545-550.

54 INTRODUCTION

The Library of Congress has recently acquired a large number of transcripts of those manuscripts now in the libraries of Great Britain pertaining to the Virginia Company or to the colony under the authority of the company. It thus possesses reproductions of all of the Virginia material in the British Museum, the Privy Council office, the Bodleian Librar}% and the Magdalene College Library, Cambridge. In the Public Record Ofhce all docquet notices on Virginia, all records of suits in chancery and the admiralty pertaining to Virginia, and the qiio vjai^anto in the King's Bench, by which the company was dissolved, as well as the most important documents and correspondence, have been transcribed or photographed for the Library of Congress, but the correspondence of the planters, the less important correspondence of the company, and mere memoranda are yet to be transcribed. The latter material is fairly outlined in the Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1574 to 1660, and in the Appendi.x of the eighth report of the Royal Commission on Historical Ma7iuscnpts, or is printed elsewhere in full."

The collection of publications by the companj' belonging to the Library of Congress is fairly good. It contains twelve of those which were issued before 1616, but of the later books it has only three. The Declaration of 1620, the Declaration by Waterhouse in 1622, and John Donne's Sermon of the same year, in addition to Smith's General History, are the only ones of the eighteen now extant which are in the Library.

DOCUMENTS IN RICHMOND

The colonial records in Richmond, Virginia, relating to the period of the company are extremely few in number. Fortunately^ the original documents, which are in the Library of Congress, were borrowed or abstracted from the state house in time to save them from destruction during the Revolution or by tire in 1865.' There are, however, two volumes of original records in the Virginia State land office containing grants of land in 1623 and 1624, which were evidently entered by William Cla}' bourne, at that time surveyor for the colony. The his- tory of contemporary documents before 1625, which are located in the district of the old settlement, may thus be briefly told.

The valuable collections of the Virginia Historical Society in Richmond embrace the John Randolph of Roanoke transcripts described above, while the State librar}' has three sets of transcripts and one set of abstracts from the British Public Record Office. Of the latter the De Jarnette papers, 1606-1691, include only

a All of these papers are included in the Liat of Recorda.

''William G. Stanard, "The Virginia Archives" in the Report of the A7)ierican Historical Associa- tion, 190S, I, 645-664.

THE COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMENTS, 1616-1624 55

a few of the documents of interest; in the Macdonald and Winder papers are full and careful copies of several of the long and important documents, following generally the orthography of the originals; while the Sainsbury abstracts contain comparatively full outlines of those documents included in the Calendar of Stutt Papers, Colonial Series.

MANUSCRIPTS IN THE NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY

The New York Public Library is next in importance to the Library of Congress in manuscript material on the Virginia Company and second only to the John Carter Brown Library of Providence, Rhode Island, in publications. In the Lenox branch of the New Yorli Library is to be found a unique set of documents relating to the settlement of Berkeley Hundred in ltil9, known as the Smyth of Niblev papers which "are from the collection of Virginia manuscripts originalh' brought together by John Smyth (or Smith) of Nibley, the historian of the Berkeleys, who was born in 1567 and died in 1641. The collection comprises over sixty papers, original and contemporary transcripts, relating to the settlement of Virginia between 1613 and 163-1:. After passing into the hands of John Smyth the younger, and more recently into the Cholmondeley collection at Condover Hall, Shropshire, the manuscripts were offered for sale in January, 1888, by Mr. Bernard Quaritch, from whom they were lately bought and given to the New York Public Library by Mr. Alex- ander Maitland."" With the exception of the manuscripts in the Ferrar collection relating to Smythe's Hundred, these form the only extant records of the important movement for private plantations in Virginia under the regime of the company. Two other valuable documents are now in the possession of the Lenox Library,* the holographic letter of John Pory, secretary of the colony, dated September 30, 1619, and Commissioner John Harvey's declaration of the State of Virginia in 1624.

COLLECTIONS OF AMERICANA

The manuscripts in the Library of Congress, the Smyth of Nibley papers in the New York Public Library, and the patent books in Virginia are the only original records of the company or of the colony previous to 1625 now in America. But there are two public collections of Americana which are extremely valuable for this period: The John Carter Brown Library in Providence. Rhode Island, which contains only books on America published before the year 1800, and the New York Public Library.

"Quoted from the New York Public Library Bulletin (1897), I, 68, and (1899), III, 160. 6 List of Records, Nos. 133 and 640.

56 INTRODUCTION

In the John Carter Brown Library are two royal proclamations, which are the only documents of the character for the period in America; while a declaration of a division of land in 1616, which is a supplementary pamphlet in the Declaration by the Company of June 22, 1620, has no duplicate in existence, although there is an imperfect copy of the latter in the British Museum. The copj' of the 1620 declara- tion in the Lenox Library is also unique, since it contains a different supplementary pamphlet of which there is but one other to be found, neither of which has hereto- fore been noted. "^ It is a declaration of November 15, 1620, concerning the dispatch of supplies, and proves by its date that this is a later edition of the declaration of June 22. The John Carter Brown Library also contains a unique treatise by John Brinsley, bearing the date 1622, the only other copy of which is in the Lenox Library. It has also two sermons, one by Patrick Copland, entitled Virginia^ Qod he Thanked,'' with duplicates in the possession of Edward E. Ayer, and of the Pequot Library, Southport, Connecticut, and one by John Donne, of which there are copies in the Lenox, the Aj'er, and the Congressional libraries. In addition to these rare books, the Declaration of Edward Waterhouse of 1622, containing "The Inconveniences that have happened, 1622," and Observations to be followed for making of fit roomes for silk worms, 1620, including "A valuation of the commodi- ties growing and to be had in Virginia; rated as they are worth," are to be found in the Providence collection, while the latter is also in the Harvard and the Lenox libraries.'^ In the same year a Treatise on the art of making silk was published by John Banoeil, containing a royal letter of encouragement to the Earl of Southampton, now to be found both in the Brown and the Lenox libraries.

The New York Public Library is second only in value to the John Carter Brown Library for this subject. In addition to the books noted above it contains two unique publications of the compan}', the first is a broadside of May 17, 1620, which is the only cop}' known to the Editor. A catalogue of Bernard Quaritch, in

n The other copy is in a private collection in New York. This library has also the first editions of the declaration of 1620; the treati.'ie by Banoeil, reprinted in 1622, containing the letters of the King and of the council; Patrick Copland's Virginia's God be Thanked, and his Declaration hoiv the monies were disposed, published in 1622; Edward Waterhouse's Declaration of tlie State of the Colony, 1622; John Donne's Sermon, 1622.

b There is a manuscript copy of this sermon in the Library of Congress.

<:"The Inconveniences" was published separately as a broadside, and copies are to be found in the Lenox Library and in the collections of the Society of Antiquaries, London. A copy was in the Cholmondeley collection, which is probably the one mentioned in the Quaritch catalogue of May, 1887. This, as also a copy of the Observations, was sold to Mr. Kalbfleisch. The supposition that it was originally published as a part of the Declaration of Edward Waterhouse does not seem valid, since the John Carter Brown copy is the only one containing the broadside, and the page in that case has endently been trimmed and inserted.

THE COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMENTS, 1616-1621, 67

May, 1887, describes such a broadside, which is known to have been purchased by Mr. Kalbfleisch. The second is A Note of the Shipping, etc., sent to Virginia in 1621. The Cholmondeley copy of this also was sold by Mr. Quaritch to Mr. Kalbfleisch." A third copy of the same is iu the collection of printed broadsides of the Society of Antiquaries in London.

The volumes of printed material relating to the Virginia Companj', which are in the Harvard Library, have been mentioned above.

Two private collections deserve mention for their comparatively large number of important publications of the company, the private collection in New York and that of Mr. Edward Ayer, in Chicago, Illinois.* In addition to twenty other rare publications of the company Mr. Ayer has a unique book entitled "Greevovs Grones for the Poore," 162L It refers to the Virginia Company in its address only, and in the statement of the number of poor that had been sent to Virginia, but is of value for an understanding of that movement. The other private collection is of about the same size. It contains the duplicate of the 1620 declaration in the Lenox and the only known copy of a four-page tract entitled "Declaration how the monies were disposed (being) collections for the Grammar Schooles," by Patrick Copland.''

«In the catalogue of Bernard Quaritch for May, 1887, the broadside of May 17, 1620, and the Note of the Shipping, 1621, are both noted as being unique since each contains the final clause: " Who- soever transports himself or any other at his own charge unto Virginia, shall for each person so trans- ported before mid-summer, 1625, have to him and his heirs forever 50 acres of land upon a first and 50 acres upon a second division." A copy of the Note of the Shipping, 1621, in the Cholmondeley collection is similarly described in the fifth report of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, page 341. The Quaritch copies were sold to Mr. Kalbfleisch, whose collection went to Mr. Lefferts, and finally through the dealers, Geo. H. Richmond or Dodd, Mead & Co., either to a private collection or to the Lenox Library. But the Lenox copies either do not correspond to these descriptions or were not purchased from Mr. Lefferts. The volumes of the Lefferts collection, which were not sold in America, were sent to Sotheby, England, but Mr. Eames of the New York Public Library states that no early Virginia material was allowed to return to England.

6 The collection of Americana belonging to Mr. Ayer is open to the public through the Newberry Library. For the early Virginia material of the library see Inde.x under "Ayer, Edward."

"This tract is described in the Appendix of the Fifth Report of the Historical Manuscripta Commission, as follows: "A Declaration how the monies, viz., 70", 8s. 6d., were disposed, which was gathered (by Mr. Patrick Copland, preacher in the Royal James) at the Cape of Good Hope (toward the building of a free schoole in Virginia) of the gentlemen and mariners in the said ship; a list of whose names are under specified, &c. 4" 7 pp. Imprinted at London by F. K. 1622."

58 IXTRODVCTION

TRANSCRIPTS IN THE NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY

Other attempts have been made to secure resources for reseai'ch in America. Not only is there the aggregation of excerpts from the English documents in Richmond, as described above, and the acquisition of transcripts in the Librarj' of Congress within recent years, but half a century ago a similar interest was displa^'ed by collectors and historians in New York City, forming three collec- tions which are to-day in the Lenox Library.

William H. Aspinwall, a merchant, secured among other papers the Chalmers collection of letters and documents relating t(j Virginia from 1606 to 1775. The}' were in turn sold to Samuel Latham Mitchell Barlow, a lawyer and notable collector of New York City, from whom a part were purchased by the librar}", while others came to the Lenox with the Bancroft transcripts in 1893. Chalmers had been a clerk in the State paper office and seems to have taken these extracts, outlines, and sometimes full copies from the Plantation office papers, since he continually refers to them in his PoUtical Annah." They are modern- ized transcripts, failing to follow the early orthography, abbreviations, and capitalization. The writing is cramped and often almost illegible, while the table of contents is incomplete and useless. They comprise (1) a series of brief outlines of Privy Council orders; (2) extracts from the Dudlej'-Carleton papers: (3) outlines of additional Council orders; (-1) a calendar of certain of the colonial State papers; (5) outlines of council orders dealing with other trading companies. All of the original documents are at present in the Public Record Office and are noted in the Bibliographical List of Records following.

The Bancroft papers relating to Virginia and the Simancas Archives are well bound, clear, and apparently careful, correct, and full copies of the documents included. The first two volumes of the Bancroft collection bearing on the Virginia Company are transcripts of man}- of the documents in the State paper office, probably made in 1852 by Noel Sainsbury, but the list is not complete. While the peculiar and characteristic signs of abbreviation are not followed, the orthog- raphy seems to be accurate throughout. Furthermore, the collection includes the document entire, unless otherwise indicated. The table of contents is carfeul and correct.'' The "Simancas Archives" is a volume of transcripts of "Papers in the Simancas Archives relating to the History of Virginia and other portions

a See a statement by Victor H. Paltsita, April 14, 1896, inserted in the firat volume of these papers now in the Lenox.

'' The documents transcribed in botli the Chalmers-Barlow and the Bancroft volumes are noted in the List of Records under "Remarks."

THE COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMEyTS, 1616-162i 59

of America between 1608 and 1624, made for Alexander Brown and many of them used by him in his book, The Genesis of the U, S." The only document relating to Virginia which is not reproduced in that collection is a repetition of the proclamation of the King of England concerning tobacco, bearing the date November 12, 1624.

COLLECTIONS IN ENGLAND

FERRAR PAPERS

The most unique collection in England for the study of the Virginia Company is that in the possession of Magdeleue College, Cambridge. As the propert}' of Nicholas and John Ferrar, who were second only to Sir Edwin Sandys in their activit}'^ in the company, it would be invaluable; but its importance is further enhanced by the fact that it contains the correspondence and papers of Sir Edwin Sandys himself. These seventy-eight papers, which are either records of the company or vitally concern it, cover the period of the Sandys-Southampton influence from 1617 to the summer of 1623. They were the property of Dr. Peckard, master of Magdalene College in 1790, and were bequeathed to the college upon his death. It is probable that the greater part of the collection came from the Ferrar family through Dr. Peckard's wife, Martha Ferrar, the great granddaugher of John Ferrar, since the Virginia papers form but one-third of the group. The remain- ing papers concern family affairs only, and date from 1601 to the middle of the eighteenth century. Some of them are doubtless those received from the Earl of Dorset by Dr. Peckard, when he was preparing his Memoirs of Nicholas Ferrar."

The first knowledge of the Ferrar papers in later j^ears was communicated to the Virginia Magazine of History by Michael Lloyd Ferrar, Little Gidding, Ealing, England. He sent a number of transcripts and photographs of letters to the maga- zine for publication, among which were some half dozen liearing on the affairs of the company, but the number which he was permitted to reproduce was limited by the college. While Mr. Ferrar was completing a history of the Ferrar family the entire collection was deposited at his home, and it was therefore in Ealing in the fall of 1903 that the Editor was tirst permitted by the authorities of the college to "see and note the contents" of the papers. Before the following summer Mr. Ferrar had died and the collection had been returned to Cambridge, where complete trans- cripts of all letters and photographs of all documents relating to the Virginia Company were made for the Library of Congress under the supervision of the Editor.

n In this work Dr. Peckard states that the Earl of Dorset had had his library searched and had sent him a few loose papers belonging to the Virginia Company.

60 IXTRODUCTIOTf

These papers are loose, many of them being much damaged, and it is apparent that they are a part of a larger collection which must have been neglected while in the possession of the familj'. There are some envelopes without letters, many rough memoranda by both Nicholas and John Ferrar, some account books, and some rough drafts of petitions to the House of Commons and of discussions on the silkworm. The autographs which they furnish of both Nicholas and John Ferrar have been of no little interest, as well as value, for the identification of other papers in the Public Record Ofiice, and in the Library of Congress. Furthermore, the proof that Nicholas Ferrar himself supervised the transcript of the court book is thus gained.

In this collection are twenty-three papers which are veritable records of the company. '^ Two documents give our only knowledge of the financial affairs of Smythe's Hundred, slight indeed, but from them comes additional information concerning the system of organization of the societies for private adventure. Sundry other unique though scattered documents are among these papers, such as receipts for money expended, showing the method of business, reports of committees, and of proceedings of the commissioners, revealing the bitterness of the factions, drafts or original records of certain courts, forming the only proof of the accuracy of the copies of the court books, and three new proceedings of the courts of the Somers Islands Company. One of the latter is evidently a blotter and reveals the methods used in keeping the court book. The quo warranto in English, which was served upon the treasurer and company, would have been of the greatest value had not the original record of the suit in the King's Bench just been discovered. Another document of great value is the receipt referred to above, which proves that a court book was regularly kept by the company from its very beginning. It reveals how much has been lost.

The series, consisting of twenty letters from Sir Edwin Sandys to John Ferrar, shows more clearly than any other documents we possess * who the real managers of the affairs were and what was the spirit of the Sandys faction. The absolute confidence which Sir Edwin Sandys had in John Ferrar and his great love for both of the brothers is significant. Moreover, the knowledge of the affairs of the company, the careful watch over every act and movement affecting the business, the deep and earnest plans for the advancement of its interests revealed in these letters prove that Sir Edwin Sandys was the keen financial manager of the undertaking. It was evidently he who determined what the policy should be; he was apparently the statesman

«List of Records, Nos. 76, 138, 164, 258, 259, 303, 304, 394, 421, 423, 470, 479, 539, 541, 543, and the (JM> inarranto.

^For these letters see Ibid., Nos. 120, 131, 135, 136, 171, 181, 191, 197, 211, 219, 271, 275, 282, 307, 315, 316, 317, 364, 368.

THE COLLiECTIOyf! OF DOCVMEXTfi, 1616-1624 61

and the politician, directing the method of address to the lords of the council or the attitude to be assumed toward the Crown, controlling the courts so that he might be present when there was danger of faction, concealing the information received from the colony when he feared it would entail criticism. Much of the personal feeling and animosity that existed is here shown, and much also which reveals actual financial conditions.

The last group of these papers comprises thirty-five letters, all but one or two of which were written by planters or adventurers, resident in the colony, to Sir Edwin Sandys. " Of these, five came from Governor Yeardley, ten from either John Pory or George Thorpe, secretaries in the colony at different times, and two from the cape merchant; of the remainder, at least ten are from colonists whose opinions and reports have not reached us in any other way. These letters are as full of complaint with regard to the insufiicient supplies sent with new planters, as are the letters in the Manchester papers which Sir Nathaniel Rich and the Earl of Warwick used as a basis of accusation against the management of the company, but thev diflFei from the other complaints in that they are kindly in spirit. Mr. Pory's letters are full of definite information concerning the affairs, needs, and hopas of the colony, while Governor Yeardlej' also gives some valuable statements with regard to new settlers, the council, the relations with the Indians, and the government of the colony; both complain of the scant provisioning of the new settlers. The burden of the Yeardley letters, however, is the investigation of the affairs of Captain Argall and the consequent criticism drawn upon himself fi-om Lord Rich. Unfortunately, comparatively few additional data are afforded concerning the Argall affair either by Pory or by Yeardley. The planters themselves tell much of their condition and of the districts in which they have settled, but the theme of their letters is most likely to be a demand for promised payments or a complaint as to the scarcity of provisions and clothes. The attitude toward Yeardley is generally favorable, John Rolfe alone supporting Argall and criticizing the governor. As from all correspondence of such a character, new ideas are gained, new points of view, and often additional knowledge of relations with the Indians and with one another. Many of these letters are annotated by John Ferrar, revealing the degree of importance which he attached to their various and often conflicting statements.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE — MANCHESTER PAPERS

A class of documents, very similar in character but of quite different spirit, is the Manchester papers, now in the Public Record Ofiicc, London. Rot>ert, Earl of Warwick, and his cousin, Sir Nathaniel Rich, were both members of the companv.

"For these letters, see List of Records, Nos. 93, 94, 115, 119, 134, 153, 156, 158, 166, 173, 179. ISO, 235, 238, 239, 241, 243-250, 262-255, 285, 343, 466.

62 INTRODUCTION

Sir Nathaniel was a leader in the Warwick faction, while Earl Robert, after the dissolution of the company in 1624, became a member of the council for Virginia. The third wife of the Earl was Eleanor, Countess of Sussex, daughter of Richard Wortlej, and she, after the death of the Earl of Warwick, married, as her fourth husband, Edward Montague, second Earl of Manchester. Thus it is that the Kimbolton manuscripts, M'hich are the records of the Duke of Manchester, contain a large collection of petitions, declarations, memoranda, letters, and lists which emanated from the Warwick faction of the Virginia Company.'' Many of these are holographs of Nathaniel Rich and Alderman Johnson, prime movers in that conflict. Henrj' Montague, Viscount Mandeville and later Earl of Manchester, was at one time lord president of the Privy Council. Therefore many of the Manchester papers ma}' have belonged to him. The autographs, however, identify those which concern the Virginia Company as having belonged to Nathaniel Rich.

The Manchester and the Ferrar papers therefore present the two sides of this conflict, not in open court or even in private contest, but in the private documents and memoranda of the leaders. The collections are of about the same size, there being sixty-six papers in the Manchester series, to seventy -eight in the Ferrar group. These, also, are unbound, but since the greater part are rough notes of documents, or drafts of propositions or speeches, thej' are much more diflScult to decipher than the Ferrar papers. Indeed many of them are almost illegible, and not a few are unintelligible, having no connecting thought.

A dozen of these papers may be considered documentary, that is, rough copies of letters, petitions, and declarations, or of acts of the compan\-, or of its members and officers in an official capacity. A few of these only are to be found among the other records of the company. Like the rest of the set, they, almost without exception, concern the accusations against the Sandys-Southampton management. Three of them are petitions or letters concerning the extent of the tobacco trade, but the rest are petitions to the King against one faction or the other, and answers to those petitions. Of these, one of the most important is a copj^ of the opinion of counsel concerning the powers conferred on the Virginia Company by the several letters patent.* Accusation and defense are set forth in these documents, but the headings of speeches, the drafts of propositions, and the notes from docu- ments on which the arguments are based proclaim the motives and methods of the accusers. No proof could be clearer than these memoranda by Alderman Johnson and Nathaniel Rich that the company was to be overthrown by fair means or foul. In two or three papers are carefully prepared lists of alleged evil deeds of Sir

« These Manchester papers are calendared by the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, Report VIII, Part 2.

»List of Records, p. 140, No. 170.

THE COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMEVTS, 1616-162J, 63

Edwin Sandys and catalogues of the faults and errors of the company, while the criticisms of the policy and of the management of the company are set down in order, based on letters from colonists, of which there are eleven in the collection. In these criticisms and drafts of propositions much information is afforded concerning the management, organization, and condition of the colony and com- pany. Thus, various books kept by the company during Sir Thomas Smythe's time, and not otherwise known, are mentioned." B'ive or six rough drafts of pi'opositions concerning the tobacco and salary question are also to be found here, as well as numerous statements of sums adventured, of the number of men sent to the colony, lists of members favorable to one faction or the other and candidates for office from both parties. Many of the rough notes of both Johnson and Rich furnish the only source of information concerning the directions given to the commissioners appointed by the Crown to investigate the condition of the companj' and of the colony and their acts and reports, but a fact of greater sig- nificance is this, that the Warwick collection contains a dozen rough drafts of directions to those commissioners, of charges against the company to be sent to that body, of preliminary reports concerning the government of Virginia, and of projects for the settlement of the government and the colony. The source of the schism is here revealed, and the accusation by Sandys that accuser and judge were one is justified.'

COLONIAL AND DOMESTIC STATE PAPERS

The other large group of Virginia records, consisting of over one hundred and twenty separate documents, is found among the colonial and domestic papers deposited in the Public Record Office. The source of this collection is uncertain. Much of it came from the Plantation Office, and perhaps from the Privy Council Office. The consolidation of depositories took place in 1578, but the efforts of Dr. Thomas Wilson, the first clerk of the papers, to force the previous and incumbent magistrates to hand over all documents to the State, were evidently often unavailing, and hence it was that the creation of a State Paper Office was not really accomplished until the period of the companj-. After Sir Thomas Wilson succeeded his uncle during the reign of James I the aid of the King was much relied upon, and, though partially successful, the recent revelation of quasi- public documents in private collections shows that not onlv earlier but later officials considered papers of record private property.'' Thus some of the Salis-

" List of Records, No. 438.

''A letter from Sir Kdwin Sandys to John Ferrar, cited in the List of Records, No. 317.

<■ Scargill-Bird, A Guide to the Documents in the Public Record Office, Introduction, p. xxxvi. See also W. N. Sainsbury, "Calendar of Documents relating to the History of the State Paper Office to the year 1800," in the Deputy Keepers Report, No. 30, Appendix, No. 7, pp. 212-293. Hi455— VOL 1— Oa 5

64 INTRODVCTIOy

bury papers, which Wilson failed to secure, are now at Hatfield House; and others have passed with the Lansdowne collection into the British Museum, where they are known as the Burghley papers. Similarly, the Cottonian papers in the Museum originally belonged to Sir Robert Cotton in the time of James I.

Among the State Papers deposited in the Record Office are the letters to John Ferrar, dated from Virginia in April, 1623, which may have been seized by the commission appointed on May 9, 1023, to investigate the affairs of the com- pany. There, too, are found the attested copies of letters and records in the colony which concern the Harvey Commission, sent to the commission in England by Edward Sharpless. A few of these papers seem to have belonged to the company, such as the documents pertaining to the Walloons and dated 1621; Pory's report from Virginia, in the same year; and two copies of documents by Collingwood, dated the latter part of 1623. " All of these facts lead to the con- clusion that a part of the records of the commissions, and a part of the confis- cated records of the company are here deposited. If so, where are the remainder of these most valuable documents? *

The colonial papers and the domestic correspondence include about forty-eight which are records, and about nineteen which are documentary in character. The first group contains, among other papers, many of the petitions and letters addressed to the King and to the Privy Council, and many others of the council. It is thus apparent that the royal correspondence of the Privy Council and the Privy Council papers which should accompany the register are in this collection. To the second group belong those papers which contain projects presented by individuals and answers to such propositions, lists of adventures for the company, and also lists of men sent to the colony and of lands granted in Virginia. Among these papers are seven letters from colonists, in addition to about fifty which may be consid- ered subsidiary correspondence in that thej' refer incidentally to the affairs of the company. Such are the Mandeville-Conway, Middlesex-Conway, Chamberlain- Carleton, Conway-Calvert, and Nethersole-Carleton letters.

EECORDS OF COURTS

In the libels of the admiralty court, instance and prize, are found records of suits in which the Virginia Company is plaintiff. As a part of the controversy in which William Wye appears as defendant is the suit of Yonge vi^. Roberts; while the fragment of the record of the Earl of Warwick vs. Edward Bruister

"List of Records, pp. 145, ff., Nos. 227, 243, 444, 520, 579.

* For a discussion of the fate of the missing records and the probability as to their existence, see ch. V, post.

THE COLLECTION'S OF DOCVME^'TH, 1616-162/, 65

concerning^ the trouble over the ships Neptune and Treasurer completes the list of cases in that court which in any way affect the Virginia Company. The latter is so torn and defaced that but for an occasional date or fact, it affords no information of value. Among the other formal material of the suit against Wye are two valuable documents, namely, the commission given to Wye and a letter from the treasurer and council to Sir George Yeardlej^ dated June 21, 1619. In the latter are valuable references to Argall, and the complaints against Wye, though torn and illegible, reveal something of the loss estimated as resulting from the failure to settle the passengers in Virginia. These records of the admiralty court have not hereto- fore been published, although they were cited by R. G. Marsden in his discu.ssion of those documents." But the chancery files, which have furnished the records of suits h\ the Virginia Company, have only just been indexed, and hence the documents have not heretofore been known.

The record of the quo warranto suit by which the Virginia Company was over- thrown has been erroneously declared to be not extant, a mistake due to a differ- ence in view with regard to the court out of which such a writ would be issued and as to the court in which the writ would be returnable. Hence the search for the document has hitherto been conducted in the Petty Bag of the Chancery instead of in the coram rege roll of the King's Bench. It was in the latter roll that the full record of the writ, the pleadings, and the judgment were discovered by the Editor in the fall of 1903.* In' A Guide to the Documents in the Puhlic Recm'd Office Mr. Bird gives the following explanation of the placita de quo warranto: They "consist of the pleadings and judgments on writs of 'quo warranto' in nature of writs of right on behalf of the King against those who claimed or usurped any office, franchise, or liberty. The pleadings and judgments on writs of 'quo war- ranto' or of 'quo titulo clamat' took place in the King's Bench or the Exchequer and are enrolled on the 'coram rege I'olls' or the 'memoranda rolls' accordingly."'" The statement in the court book of the companj^ is that the "company had been served with process out of the King's Bench by virtue of a quo warranto." It was this clue and that from Mr. Scargill-Bird that led the Editor to conduct the search successfully in the coram rege roll.

In the Record Office are also the docquet books, which afford some knowledge of the grants of the King affecting the customs on tobacco, and the patent rolls,

OR. G. Marsden, "Records of the Admiralty Court" in the Tranmctim\» of the Royal Historical Society, new series, Vol. XVI, 90-96. Many parts of these records are undecipherable, and as a result the transcripts made for the Library of Congress are incomplete.

b For a discussion of the content of the document, see post, p. 103.

": P. 166.

66 INTRODUCTION

which contain the letters patent of 1606, 1609, and 1612. In the colonial entry books and among the proclamations of the King are orders of the Privy Council and of the King, all of which are recorded in the Privy Council register.

PKIVY COUNCIL REGI8TEK

Since the Privy Council took no direct part in the affairs of the company between 1617 and the sunmier of 1622, its orders related to those regulations which would enable the acts of the company to advance the interests of the kingdom, leaving absolute jjower to the company as the proprietor. Thus fully one- half of its thii'ty measures during those five years were reprieves of prisoners, with the warrants nec- essary to send them to Virginia or orders enabling children to be transferred from the cities of the kingdom to the colony. During this period the Crown conmienced its attempts to secure a revenue from the tobacco trade, and a series of orders finally resulted in the approval of the contract with the company in February of 1622 3. In its foi'eign and external relations the company was of course subject to the action of the Pi'iv}' Council, and hence the orders in council concerned the contest with Spain over the attack of the Treasure)'. Furthermore, the disagreement with the northern colon}' concerning fishing privileges had to be adjusted by the council and resulted in the renewal of the patent to the northern colony and in regulations as to rights of fishing. It was in the summer of 1622 that the first movement was made which brought the difficulties between the factions into the open board. The petition of John Bargrave against Sir Thomas Smythe, Alderman Johnson, and others, in which they were accused of mismanagement, resulted in the defeat of Bargrave six months later, as was to have been expected from the hostility of the Crown to the party in Parliament led by Sir Edwin Sandys, of which Bargrave was evidently a member at that time. But the storm broke in the following April, when the commission was appointed to inquire into the true state of the Virginia and Somers Islands companies. From that date until the dissolution of the com- pany in the summer of 162-1 the council busied itself with the affairs of the company. No less than 31 orders are recorded which create commissions and empower them to investigate both the colony and the company and in the end to assume the functions of government in the name of the Crown, while seven of these documents pass directly between the council and the colony, and no other measures were con- sidered except those which enabled the Warwick faction to tear down the work of the adventurers and to take into its own hands the control of the entire business. These forms of government, planned by the Crown and the commissions here recorded, by which the authority was vested in the commissioners and later in a committee of the Privy Council, stand for the beginning of royal control. Here-

THE COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMENTS, 1616-162.', 67

tofore, with a few exceptions, these orders have been known only through the calendar of state papers, and even then not more than one-half have been included. The Privy Council Office and its records are located in the treasury building, Whitehall, London; the registers of the council orders are kept in the clerk's office but all of the early registers are properly about to be transferred to the Public Record Office. These registers contain the orders of the council, and, after Charles I, also the petitions received and the letters issued by the council. In the earlier reigns such documents were not recorded; whether they were even preserved as public documents is not certain, although, as stated above, many of them have found their way to the Record Office and are there calendared among the colonial, domestic, or foreign papers. There is a collection of such original material, dating from the close of the seventeenth century, in the treasury building."

BRITISH MUSEUM

The collection of manuscripts from which the most valuable returns might be expected is in the British Museum. The documents there deposited are small in number but they are of great value, and none of them have heretofore been printed. The originals of the precedents for patents of the Virginia Company, which are now noted for the first time, evidently formed a part of the records of the company, and it may be that thej' are some of the copies of the records made under the super\asion of Nicholas Ferrar, or they may be the drafts of patents which were filed by the company according to an order of its court. Not only is the writing similar to much of that in the contemporary transcripts of the court book, but they are unsigned copies, and the headings of a number of them seem to be in the autograph of Edward CoUingwood. The caption of the series shows that the copies were made for the sake of preserving the form, and reads as follows: "Presidents of Patents, Grants & Commissioners by the Virginia Company. 1621.''* The company thus preserved the legal form of the various grants. Four of them are of value not only for the form but for the knowledge they furnish of the distinction made between the four classes of adventurers: those who paid money into the treasury and agreed to plant one hundi'ed persons, those who established a private plantation, those who were private planters, and those whose "shares exceedinge 50 acf are exempted from payinge any Rent to y° Company for the persons they transporte." In addition certain knowledge is afforded concerning the grants. Two out of the other nine documents are commissions granted to owners and masters of ships for voyages to Virginia, by

"The clerk's oflSce is entered from Downing street, but the library containing the original docu- ments must be reached through the main entrance on Whitehall.

»"List of Records," pp. 149 ff., Nos. 256, 257, 267, 276-278, 298, 299, 323-325. The volume is cata- logued as Additional MSS., 14385.

68 INTRODUCTION

which they are to transport passengers to Virginia. Another is a covenant by the company to pay for the victualing and transporting of passengers, while still another is for the transporting of goods only. Other forms are those used for granting rights of fishing on the coast of America, for voyages to Virginia, and free fishing along the shores, and others still for discovery, fishing, and trading in furs in Virginia. The covenant signed by William Ewens in which he agreed to fit out the ship George reveals the form of contract required of the masters of ships by the company.

These papers form the last group in a volume which contains "A Catalogue of the Nobility of England in the time of King James the first," 1626, and "A list of all the Officers belonging to Courts of Justice the Kings household & Eeuenue w"" their seuerall fees." There are several signs for identification, but none which indicate the original owner of the volume. It is a small quarto in leather, bearing the signature, "H Cowle A. 29," on the inner cover, and also the arms of James Bindley with the motto, "unus et idem." At the bottom of the same cover is written the following: ''Purchased at the sale of W. Berwicks library* at Sotheby's, 27 Apr. 1863. (Lot 427)," while on the second fl)' leaf in the upper right-hand corner is the inscription: ''The gift of M'' Dan' Prince, Bookseller. Oxford — Julj* 23* 1776." Farther than this the history of the papers is unknown.

Another set of documents in the Museum is also unique. One of these sup- plies all that is known outside of the court book and a single reference in Argall's register book regarding the controversy over the grant of land to John Martin in Virginia. The other letters from Martin to his brother-in-law, Sir Julius Caesar, written in December, 1622. give startling suggestions with regard to an ideal policy for the colony. "The manner howe to bringe in the Indians into subiection w"" out makings an utter extirpation of them . . ."is the heading of the paper in which Martin proposes to disable the main body of the enemy by cutting them off from their sources of supply at home and by destroying their trade. He would thus require two hundred soldiers ''Contynuallie harrowinge and Inirneinge all their Townes in wynter." Bj- this means and by gaining a store of grain for two years' suppl}^ he plans for the recovery from the massacre. In order to secure the entire territory from the Indians, in a second letter he propounds a scheme by which the Crown or the company can make a "Royall plantation for gods glory his Ma"": and Royall progenyes euer happines and the Companies exceedinge good." The responsibility and control was to be thrown upon the shires of England. The fact that the Martin letters have not heretofoi'e been generally known may be due to an error in the catalogue. They appear under the name "Tho. Martin" instead of "Jho. Martin.""

"List of Records, Nos. 378, 384, 385.

TBE COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMENTS, 1616-16U 69

Two other projects for the advancement of the colony are in the same collection of papers; one by Captain Bargrave, brother of the Dean of Canterbury, is dated December 8, 1623, and the other a year later. The latter relates to the division of income from tobacco between the King, the planter, and the grower, with a reward to those endeavoring to preserve the plantation, but approves the Ditchfield offer. The Ditchfield offer itself is also in this collection." Captain Bargrave's proposition for the government of the colony stands midway between absolute roj'al control and full autonomy of the planters, and holds an important place in the develop- ment of the plans from the proprietary to the royal colony. Furthermore, it is rather significant that in the collection of Sir Julius Caesar are to be found the propo- sitions of Martin, of Bargrave, and the document by which the commission was finally appointed in 1624, to establish the government in Virginia under royal control. Sir Julius Caesar, having been a judge of admiralty under Elizabeth and chancellor of the exchequer in the reign of James I, became master of the rolls on Januarv 16, 1610'll, and one of the keepers of the great seal on May 3, 1621. His position evidently enabled him to secure a large collection of valuable drafts of documents. This was sold at auction in 1757. One-third of the collection was purchased by the Earl of Shelburne (Lord Lansdowne) from Webb and came to the Museum among the Lansdowne papers.

Two collections of printed material of the company are to be found in England, the British Museum and the Society of Antiquaries. While the British Museum has a large number of the earlier publications, it possesses only the declaration of June 22, 1620, and also the unique note of shipping of 1620, the only other copy of which is owned by the Society' of Antiquaries. The collection of that society is rich in royal proclamations, besides possessing a copy of the Note of Shipping, 1621, and of the Inconveniences of 1622. The scattering documents to be found in private collections throughout England are often valuable, but nowhere else is to be found any considerable number of papers or any that are of great importance.*

a, List of Records, Nos. 604 and 733.

6 For those documents in private collections, see the List of Records. In the concluding section of this " Introduction " will be found a discussion of the collections which have been searched in vain for material relating to the Virginia Company. Furthermore, a statement will there be found of those families in whose possession we should expect to find Virginia records, because of their connection with the men prominent in the company or in the commissions which supplanted the company. A very helpful article, entitled "The Stuart Papers," is published by Mrs. S. C. Lomas, in the Tramact\<m» of the Royal Historical Society, new series, XVI, 97-132.

^anbga-^flutliamptnu Abmtntstrattnn

Organization of the Company

In order to comprehend what the records of the company were and what their value, it is necessar}' to gain an understanding of the system which the corporation worked out in order to further its purposes. The forms and usages of the company after 1619 were determined bj^ the charters granted by the King and by the "Orders and Constitutions" which it adopted in 1619 and printed in June, 1620," although the latter were altered or newly interpreted from time to time by action of its courts.

The membership of the company was unlimited and was granted by the courts to anyone who had "adventured" £12 10s. for a share of stock or to whom the com- panj^ had awarded a share of stock for services.* The distinction between a member who was free of the company and an owner of land in Virginia was brought out in a controversy on February 19, 1622 3. in which a proposition to limit the adventurers to those approved by the generality met with opposition on the ground that land in Virginia was held in free and common socage and could not be forbidden to any man. But Sir John Brooke, the legal authority in the company, declared that such exclusion was agreeable to the law since it was a question of a vote in a court and not a ques- tion of ownership of land. The argument was based on the power to withhold the privilege of voting from Samuel Wroth, who was under censure, and similarly on the power to exclude any man who had purchased land from a member who was indebted to the company until the debts were paid. This discussion also revealed that no oath of fidelity was required in the Virginia Company as in the Muscovy and other corporations. At a later date the King proposed that no member should be free of the courts who had not sent men to the colony as planters, claiming that less than thirtj' of the adventurers could meet the requirement.'' The power to dis- franchise an unworthy member was reserved to the company.

oLiat of Records, No 183.

*MS. Records of the Virginia Company of London, Court Book, Vol. I, Nov. 15, 1619.

clbid., II, Feb. 19, 1622/3; I, Nov. 3, 1619.

71

72 lymoDVCTiON

The members met in four great or quarter courts, held on the last Wednesday except one of each law term. On the Monday preceding they assembled in a prepar- ative court and on every Wednesday fortnight thereafter in a common or ordinary court, as required by the charter of 1612; and they might also be summoned to an extraordinary court by the treasurer or deputy. The meetings were held in the private houses of various members of the company " until the time of the tobacco contract, when a company house was established.

In the quarter court the adventurers elected all councilors and principal officers of the company and colony, made all laws and ordinances, confirmed all grants of land, settled all questions of trade, and passed all measures which should bind the company for a term of years. Their action with regard to questions of a new charter and of investment for the colony was legal only when transacted in a quarter court, but they might transfer to other courts actions which concerned correspondence with the lord treasurer or similar business. Fifteen of the generality and five of the council formed a quorum for the ordinary courts, and in those they signed warrants, ordered the payment of bills passed by the auditors, and sealed bills of adventure. In that meeting also were perfected commissions for transportation of men and provisions and for trade and barter. Special officers and committees were appointed in this court, and even actions of great importance, such as the dissolution of the magazine or the extension of freedom of the company to hon- orary members, were consummated.*

The officers chosen by the company were a council, a treasurer, a deputy, auditors, a general committee of sixteen, a secretary, a bookkeeper, a husband, and a beadle. The adventurers looked to the treasurer or governor not only as the president and moderator, but as the manager of their business interests, and expected him to be responsible for the policy of the company in its relations with the govern- ment and to formulate and present plans for the development of the plantation and the profit of the adventurers. To him was entrusted the supervision of the treasury and the collection of moneys.

The care of the court books was given to the deputy. It was his duty to attend to the engrossing of the orders and resolutions of the courts, the registration of letters to and from the company, and the formulation of statements to be given to the public. He also kept the court of the committees and supervised the issue of warrants.

The council was a body, gradually increasing in size, elected for life, and was sworn bj' the lord chancellor or by the lord chamberlain. In the earlier years it was the most important committee of the generality of the company, but after 1621 its

o MS. Eecords of the Virginia Company of London, Court Book, Vol. II, May 24, 1623. bibid., I, Dec. 15, 1619; Dec. 3, 1619; Jan. 12, 1619/20; Feb. 16, 1619/20; Feb. 22, 1619/20.

UNDER TBE SANDYS-fiOUTHAMPTON ADMINWTRATION 73

duties seem oftentimes to have been assigned to the auditors or to special committees. According to the "Orders and Constitutions'' its chief care was the preparation of laws for the company and for the colony, the issue of instru(;tions to the governor and council of the colony, and the formation of a preliminary court for the trial of the officers of the company or of the colony. But the practice in the courts was to refer to it those difficult duties for which its titled and distinguished personnel made it especially lit. To it was I'cferred, as a final resort, the examination of the claims of John Martin, the attempts to gain a statement of accounts from the old magazine, and the settlement or arbitration of both the Bargrave and the Argall cases. "

A body called the "committees" was at first composed of twelve members, six being chosen annually, but later the number was increased to sixteen, four being elected anew each year.'' Its duties were chiefly to attend to the buying and selling of the couunodities of the company, and to the furnishing of ships depaiting for Virginia.

The auditors formed the other important standing committee, composed of seven members, elected annually. The chief duty assigned to them by the "Orders and Constitutions" was that of reducing to a book the receipts and expenditures. The court book discloses the fact that the company imposed upon them the burden of examining all claims against the company, as well as all claims of the company, of investigating the accounts of the lottery and of the magazine, of determining the awards of land or of shares for service or for adventure, of perfecting all patents and grants, and even of investigating controversies, such as the Bargrave and Martin cases and the dispute as to the seal and coat of arms."

The other officers performed such duties as usually pertain to those who hold the corresponding titles.'*

As the business of the company increased additional officers were chosen, as those for the control and execution of the lotteries and of the tobacco contract: while the custom of I'eferring important matters to special committees grew rapidly, until in the later years many duties were transferred to them from the council, and even from the auditors. In this way such affairs as the securing of men to send to the

"MS. Records of the Virginia Company of London, Court Book, Vol. I, Nov. 17, 1619; Nov. .3, 1619; June 28, 1620.

bibid., I, May 2, 1621.

<:Ihid, I, June 24, 1619; Dee. 15, 1619; Feb. 2, 1619/20; Feb. 16, 1619/20; May 23, 1620. For a discu.ssion of the seal of the company, see Cooke, "Clayborne the Rebel," in the .\fngaziue of Ammccin Tlistory, New York, Vol. X (18S;i); and also Baxter, "Great Seal of the Council for New England" in Ibid., Vol. XI (1SS4).

<<A report of the committee appointed to describe the "particular duties" of the several officers is among the Manchester papers. It is incorporated in the published "Laws and Orders." List of Records, No. 106.

74 INTRODUCTION

colony, the provisioning of ships, the hearing of petitions, the investigating of claims, the sending of maids to the colony, the planning for new settlements and industries, the representing of the interests of the company in Parliament, the defending of the company in the suit of the quo warranto were intrusted to special committees."

METHODS OF PROCEDURE

In order to secure legality of action, the "Orders and Constitutions" were read at one quarter court each year, since in those meetings the measures of great importance were determined.* That the forms and usages followed in other com- mercial companies, in other corporate bodies, and in Parliament greatly influenced the decisions of the company is seen in the following illustrations: The question as to the entry in the minutes of the names of dissenters or of reasons disallowed by the court except by special order was thus settled according to the practice in Parliament; to prove that individual adventurers would not be liable for the debts of the company in the management of the tobacco magazine, decisions were cited both in a case involving the corporation of Norwich, and in the insolvency of the Muscovy Company; when the question arose as to salaries in the tobacco business involving £100,000, the precedent furnished by all joint stocks of no greater capital than £7,000 was brought forward; the custom of private corporations as well as of judicial bodies of imposing a fine upon any man who spoke against the judge or the court was urged \>y Lord Brooke as a proper action to be taken against Samuel Wroth.'' Elections were conducted by ballot, except for the council, in which case, as in all other matters, the will of the court was determined by an "erection of hands."

The reward for services rendered by the ofl3cers was determined by the court and set down in the Orders and Constitutions. The annual payment to the secre- tary was £20, to the beadle £40, to the husband £50, and to the bookkeeper £50. Although the chief officials and committees received no salary, at the expira- tion of the year's term of office it was customary to award 20 acres of land in Virginia to each individual, with the provision that such land should not be sold. The company similarly rewarded individuals who had rendered great service, but sometimes it granted shares of stock instead, or agreed to transport for the indi- vidual a certain number of men free of charge. Shares thus given could not be sold below par value of £12 10s. "* Each share carried with it the privilege of a vote in

"■Cmirt Book, July 13, December 15, 1619; March 2, 1619/20; June 26, July 7, 12, November 15, December 13, 1620; July 3, October 7, November 6, 1622. i>Ibid., I, Jan. 31, 1619/20.

elbid., II, Dec. 11, 1622; Jan. 14, 1623; Feb. 4, 1622/23; Dec. 11, 1622. dJbid., I, June 28, 1620; November 15, 1620; May 2, 1621.

VNDER TEE SANDYS-BOVTHAMPTOy ADMmiSTRATIOy 75

the courts and the receipt of 100 acres of land in Virginia on the first division, with a similar amount on the second division providing the first section had been peopled. In addition, the sending of a man to the plantation before midsummer of 1625 entitled the adventurer to 50 acres of land on each division. If a planter had adventured his person only, after three yeai's' residence in the colony the company gave him one share of stock; or if a resident in England had sent a man to the colony who had remained there three years, the one who bore the charge was simi- larly rewarded. Through reward or by purchase an individual might thus own land and not possess stock, but he might secure the latter within three years by '"plant- ing" or peopling his land. The result was that there were five classes of individuals connected with the company.

(1) The old adventurer who had paid at least £12 10s. for a share of stock, and who thus owned, rent free, at least 100 acres of land after the first division which took place in 1616.

(2) The new adventurer who had exactly the same privileges, except that after

seven years he must pay 12d. to the company for each 50 acres gained by ti-ans poi'tation of settlers.

(3) The adventurer who received a share of stock for service or for adventure of person and who would have the privileges of an old or of a new adventurer according to whether he received the award before or after 1619.

(4) The individual who had received a grant of land for service or who had purchased land and had not yet gained the grant of shares of stock by adventure of his pei'son or by sending out planters.

(5) The individual who had purchased land of a debtor of the company and could not become free of the courts until the debts were paid.

It will thus be seen that ownership of land and possession of freedom of the company were not always coexistent, but that each involved the possibility of the other." No assessments were ever levied upon the shareholders, the first sugges- tion of such a course coming from the Privy Council in July, 1623.*

RECORDS PROVIDED FOR BY THE COMPANY

The company was thus a body of adventurers, who had gained the freedom of the company by payment of money, by rendering a service, or by settlement of land in Virginia. It was presided over by a treasurer chosen by itself at will, and conducted all of its business through its regularly elected oflicers or coumiittees, or by special committees. According to the "Orders and Constitutions" it kept

""Orders and Constitutions:" List of Records, No. 183. Court Book, 1, May •>, 1621; June 28, 1620; Nov. 15, 1620.

blbid., II, July 9, 1623.

76 INTRODUCTION

a complete record of its actions in the courts and compelled its officers and committees to do the same. Provision was thus made for six books which were to contain the following records:

(1) Copies of the letters patents, and also of all letters, orders, and directions from the King and his council, as well as the replies of the company'.

(2) The laws and standing orders passed in quarter courts for the company and for the colony.

(3) A register of all patents, charters, and indentures of validity granted by the company, of all instructions issued by the council, and of all public letters sent to or received from Virginia.

(4) The acts of the general courts.

(5) The acts of the committees; invoices of provisions sent to Virginia by the company; the certificates of the receipts to be returned from Virginia; invoices of goods sent from Virginia with the husband's certificate of receipt or defect.

(6) The names of adventurers, by payment of money or bj' rendering service, to whom shares of land had been given, together with the number of shares belonging to each person; the lawful transfers of shares from one to another; the names of His Majesty's council for Virginia.

(6a) The names of all planters in Virginia on the public and on the private plantations separately, based on the certificates from the governor and council in Virginia and from the heads of each plantation."

All of these books were in the custody of the Secretary, and were to be kept in the company's chest, together with the originals of the letters patents and all other papers. In his custody also were the husband's books of accounts of every voyage to Virginia, all accounts approved by the auditors, the canceled and uncanceled charter parties, and all bonds issued to the company.

The proof of the care with which the company kept its records is found in the contemporary copy of the court book, and in a few scattering originals and copies of originals which are presei'ved among the Ferrar and Manchester papers and in the British Museum. That all of the books required by the orders and constitutions were really kept can not be proved, since not a page nor a copy of a page of many of them is known to be extant; but the copy of the court book serves as an evidence that the laws were as carefully obeyed in this respect as in others. The references in the minutes to many of these records, the inser- tion of many of them in the copy of the court book, and the continual provision for supplementary records all go to show that the "Orders and Constitutions" furnish a reliable outline of the I'ecords kept by the company.

" A note of such a list of men sent to Virginia during the time of Sir Thos. Smythe is among the Manchester papers. List of Records, No. 443.

UNDER THE 8ANDY8-80VTHAMPT0y ADMINISTRATIOy 77

The books which the courts added to the list of records from time to time reveal an increasinj^ effort to conduct the business in an orderly manner. Imme- diately upon assuming his duties as treasurer, Sir Edwin Sandys instituted an investigation of the accounts of Sir Thomas Smythe. In this connection four books and four rolls were prepared containing the subscriptions, which had been made for carrying on the business, and a list of the adventurers with the sums invested during the previous years. The treasurer made a similar request of the deputy, John Ferrar, on September 18, 1620, in which he asked that the secretary and Mr. Carter should make three catalogues of the adventurers indebted to the company in order that they might be given to a solicitor for collection. He throws light upon the customary carelessness by urging that the lists should be made "from the company's books and not from memory,'" lest many a £12 10s should be lost."

On May 17, 1620, three books of the deputy were audited. The first contained an account of the money disbursed for provisions,* the second, a catalogue of the provisions sent to the colony, and the third, a list of the names of the per.sons dispatched to the plantation with the trade of each. Because of the erection of private plantations in later years it was necessary that these records should be supplemented. Hence an order of court provided that the names of all persons transported to Virginia should be reported to the company and that a bookkeeper should be appointed to be at the house of the court to register the names before the departure of every ship. This record was to consist of the name, age, country, profession, and kindred of each individual and was to state at whose charge the transportation was effected. Contrary to custom each person was required to pay a fee for registration. A duplicate of the register was to be sent to the Governor of Virginia, but the names of those departing were not to be made public until after the ship had sailed.''

Provision was made in 1620 for keeping duplicates of all patents issued. A part of this series is now deposited in the British Museum, from which the various kinds of patents and the terms for each maybe discovered.'' A registra- tion of all shares passed from one member of the company to another was ordered on November 19, 1621, and such a book was to be used as evidence of the right to be admitted to courts. Other records added from time to time were a book containing the rates of commodities, ■' a register of all petitions to the court,

"List of Records, No. 211.

' Two warrants are preserved among the Ferrar papers, one addressed to the Earl of Southamp- ton and one to Deputy John Ferrar. List of Records, p. 149, Noa. 25S, 259. « Court Book, II, Nov. 18, 1622. dAnte, p. 67. "Order of Court," I, June 26, 1620. 'Court Book, I, Dec. 13, 1620; Jan. 31, 1620,21.

78 mTBODUCTION

with the action thereupon," and a record of all covenants between adventurers and indentured servants, a copy of which was to be sent to the governor of Virginia.* The rolls signed by adventurers must have been numerous. Nine are mentioned in the court book on July 24, 1621, in addition to others cited at various times.''

With the increase in trade and the establishment of the company magazines new measures were adopted for controlling the business. These often consisted of separate documents rather than books. A statement was thus required of the deputy certifying that the freight had been paid before any goods should be delivered, and invoices were also demanded of the cape merchant.'' Copies of such certiticates, as also of the accounts of the treasurer of the various joint stock investments for the glass works and for the fur trade, were kept in the company's chest.*

THE EXTANT RECORDS— THE COURT BOOK

HISTOKT OF THE CONTEMPORARY COPT

The paucity of the actual extant documents of the company has made the circumstances of the transcription of the court book the more interesting and its authenticity the more important.

As the growing controversy between the two factions of the company resulted in serious accusations of mismanagement by sundrj' adventurers and planters, the Crown soon appointed a commission to investigate the affairs of the company, with a consequent sequestering of all of the company's court books in May, 1623.-'" The clear mind of Nicholas Ferrar immediatel}' foresaw the danger of a seizure of the documents of the company, and appreciating full well the value of the "court books, registers and writings, instructions, letters, etc.," as political papers and also as evidences of the possession of land and investment of capital, upon their return by the Privy Council, he "did fairly copy out all the court books, etc. (which cost 50") and carried them to the noble Earle of Southampton." s'

a Court Book, II, Oct. 23, 1622. iJUd., II, Nov. 18, 1622; Nov. 20, 1622. clbid., I, May 8, 1622; II, July 4, 1623. <IIbid., I, Apr. 3, 1620.

'Ibid., I, Jan. 16, 1621-22; Feb. 27, 1621-22. / Court Book, II, May 14, 1623.

?"Some directions for the collecting materiall for the writing the life of Nich: Ferrar," a manu- Bcript in the Cambridge University Library, Mm. 1.46 (Baker 35), pp. 389-432, especially p. 392.

UNDER THE SANDYS-SOUTHAMPTON ADMINISTRATION 79

During the following year the activities of Nicholas Ferrar, as well as the attention of other members of the company, must have been under great .strain. The time not taken in attendance "twice or thrice a week"" upon the Privy Council, and in the attempts to defend the company against the charges of "abuse of its privileges," was evidently devoted to supervising the transcript of the com- pany's records. The attestation at the end of each volume shows that the tirst was completed January 28, 1623'4, and the second June 19, 1624.* This was none too soon, for just a week later the Privy Council ordered Deputy Ferrar to bring to the council chamber all patents, books of accounts, invoices of the company, and lists of settlers in the colony, to be retained by the Privy Council chest until further notice.'^ A commission had been appointed two days before to take into their hands all "charters, letters patent, grantes and instructions, bookes, orders, letters, advices and other writings concerning the company."'' The com- pany urged in these words that the council should permit the books to remain invio- late: "So by this meanes [that is, by the transcripts] have the Original Court bookes yet escaped purging: And w"" all duety wee humbly beseech yo'' Lop° that they may hereafter be protected from it: And that howsover yo"' Lop' shall please for the future to dispose of the Companie, that the records of their past Actions may not be corrupted & falsified." Further, when the council demanded that the Earl of Southampton should surrender to the commissioners his copies of the records, before he sailed for the Netherlands in August, he sent them word, "that he would as soon part w'" the evidences of his Land, as w"" the said copies, being the evidence of his honour in that Service."''

How these transcripts were made, and especially what became of them at that time, and where they remained for the following half centurj' can be a matter of

«Peckard, Memoim of the Life of Mr. Nicholas Ferrar, pp. 89-167.

''According to the attestation two full courts were omitted, May 30, 1620, and June 1, 1622, and also a part of May 20, 1620. The Robinson abstracts comprise a little more than about one-half of the original records and are much more complete for the later years when the controversy with the King over the tobacco contract and the abuses of the company was being carried on. The part of the court book which reveals most with regard to internal organization, commercial activity, and inner life of the company is not included in these abstract*. Thus such data as that which concerns the trouble with Spain over the Treasurer, the suit with William Wye, the accusations again.st Samuel Argall, the old magazine, the Pierce patent, and many other private grants are not included. More- over, a comparison of the publication with the original manuscript shows that the John Randolph of Roanoke copy was used almost exclusively, and many inaccuracies have resulted.

'■Order of the Privy Council, June 26, 1624: List of Records, No. GS9.

''The commission was sealed July 15, 1624: Ibid., No. 701.

"■For these quotations see Discourse of the Old Compaiii/ of Mrginia addressed to the Djrds of the Pricy Council, April, 1625. List of Records, No. 759.

16455— VOL 1—06 6

80 INTRODUCTION

conjecture only, based on the divers statements of contemporary authorities. These are three in number:

(1) The Discourse of the Old Company of Virginia addressed to the Privy Council, May, 1625.

(2) The Memoirs of the Life of I^icholas Ferrar hy Dr. Peckard in 1790.

(3) A Shwt Collection of the Most Reinarkable Passages from the originall to the dissolution of the Virginia Company, by Arthur Woodnoth, written between 1635 and 16J:5, and printed in 1651 by Richard Cotes.''

The Discourse of the Old Company gives much the same history of the records as does Dr. Peckard. The facts set forth by the latter were taiien froui the "Memoirs of Nicholas Ferrar" by his brother John, about 1654, and therefore this work may be considered as based on contemporary authority. According to Dr. Peckard, Nicholas Ferrar, knowing that malice was at work, procured a clerk to copy out all the court books and other writings and caused them to be carefullj^ collated with the original. It cost him the sum of £50, which he thought was the best service he could render the company. After the seizure of all the muniments of the company, and after Lord Treasurer Middlesex had procured sentence against the company, Mr. Ferrar informed Sir Edward Sandys and others of what he had done. These men were greatly rejoiced and advised that the copies be taken to the Earl of Southampton, who was so overcome that he is said to have embraced Mr. Ferrar and to have declared that he valued them as an evidence of his honor more than as evidences of his land. John Ferrar is quoted as having stated that the Earl of Southampton was advised not to keep these records in his house :uid so delivered them to Sir Robert Killigrew, who left them on his death to Sir Edward Sackville, the Earl of Dorset. Mr. Ferrar continues that the Earl of Dor- set died in 1652, but he hopes the records are still in the possession of the Earl's family. *

Certain it is that Dr. Peckard had a large collection of manuscripts which concerned the Virginia Company, some of which must be considered a part of the records of the company, for such were the Ferrar papers described above which Dr. Peckard bequeathed to Magdalene College, Cambridge. That some of them, at least, came from the Earl of Dorset's famil}' is to be concluded from the statement of Dr. Peckard that the "Duke had had his library searched and found a few loose papers, which he sent to him."'" Some of them doubtless belonged to Dr. Peckard's

"This pamphlet ia in the volume entitled: Co-py of a Petition from Tlif Governor and Company of the Sommer Islands, vith Annexed Papers, presented to the Right Honorable The Councel of Slate July the 19th, 1651. London, Printed for Edward Husband, 1651.

6 Peckard, pp. 155-156.

«See discussion of the Ferrar papers, pp. 5y ff., ante.

UNDER THE fiANDY.y-SODTBAMPTON ADMINISTRATION 81

wife, Martha Ferrar. But the story of the purchase of the two volumes from the estate of the Duke of Southampton V)y Colonel William Byrd in 1673 or 16S8 for 60 guineas has firm credence through statements of Mr. Byrd himself; and there is no evidence that they came from the Earl of Dorset's family. That they were sent to Tichfield by the Earl of Southampton before he sailed for the Netherlands and there remained until his son's library was sold after his death in 16G7 seem.s probable. Perhaps some of the other records went to Sir Robert Killigrew, as stated by John Ferrar, and even some from which these copies were made.

The statement by Woodnoth, who was a nephew of Nicholas Ferrar, that Sir John Danvers had the transcripts of the records made in order to keep out of the way an indigent man who had been employed by the company as a copyist and who might be persuaded to say something ill of Sandys and of Southampton, does not bear the stamp of truth or even of probability. There may have been a copy made by Danvers, but the internal evidence reveals that the existing volumes in the Library of Congress were not transcribed by any one man, and that the work was accomplished under the personal direction of Nicholas Ferrar."

DESCRIPTION OF THE CONTEMPORART COPY

The contemporary copies of the court books, which are now in the Library of Congress and which may well be called the Ferrar copies, consist of two volumes of large quarto size well bound in rough calf. About 1898 the books were boxed, that is, repaired with new backs without disturbing the sewing. The old labels were pasted on the new backs and bear the title in gold letters on red leather: Record of the Virgin: / Compan: , while gold letters on black leather indicate the volume: Vol. / I. / and Vol. / II. / . In the first volume raanila strips are pasted from the inner cover to the first and to the last fly leaf in order to strengthen the binding. The paper is of the seventeenth century type, hand-made and uneven in texture. In the first volume there are three hundred and fifty-four pages, with five fl}- leaves in the front and seven in the back, while the second contains three hundred and eighty-seven pages preceded by three fly leaves and followed by four, with two extra manila pages in both the front and back. The pencil entries on the first leaf of the first volume are as follows: "Records of the Virginia Company of London./ Vol I. April 28, 1619 to May 8, 1622. / Vol 2. May 20, 1622 to'june 7, 1627./ The above title in hand of / Mr. A. R. Spoflord ' Sig. : H. F[riedenwald] »

" A Short Collection of the Most Remarkable Passages from the originall to the Jissolutio» of the Virginia Company, pp. 17-18. The description here given of Southampton's attitude on receiving the bookfi is similar to that given by Dr. PeckarJ.

f> Mr. Si)offord was the Librarian of Congres.s from 1864 to 1897. Mr. Friedeuwalil was in charge of the Division of Manuscripts from 1897 to 1900.

82 INTRODUCTION

Oct. 11 ; 97./ ". On the inside of the front cover of the second volume in an unknown modern autograph i.s: " p. 366 cf with p. 71 v 3," " and on the first manila leaf: " May 20, 1622 / to ; June 7, 162i."

The discovery of the Ferrar papers has made it possible to make a final state- ment both as to the method of the transcription of the documents and as to its accuracy, for the autographs there found of Nicholas Ferrar and also of his clerk or business agent in his private accounts prove indisputably that these two men supervised and carried on the copying of the volumes.' Particularly in the second volume, where there are many entries of reports of committees, projects, objections, letters, petitions, declarations, and relations by the company or by individuals, the headings, the initial words, even the first line of each document, and sometimes entire documents are in the autograph of Nicholas Ferrar. The rest of the insertion is usually by his assistant, who was perhaps Thomas Collett, his nephew. All of the insertions in the first volume and about twenty in the second are entirely in the so-called Collett autograph, numbering about the same as those superintended by the deputy himself. The way in which these insertions are often crowded in, is evidence that they were copied from the original documents in spaces left for the purpose by the hired copyist. ■■

As to the identity of the other three or four distinct autographs, in which the remaining part of the volumes appear, nothing has been determined. The first and third copyists are distinctly different in style, while what appears as the writing of a fourth and a sixth clerk may possibly be identical with that of the first. With the exception of the autograph of Nicholas Ferrar, the whole is clearly, carefully, and legibly written in the characteristic running hand of <