<35>The want of sympathy which undoubtedly existed between James and the existing House of Commons had been shown 1609.Probable opposition in Parliament.whenever the king’s financial difficulties had been treated of; and when Parliament met for another session, it would be those difficulties which would have the first claim on its attention. The root of the evil lay deeper than in mere finance. It lay in James’s habit of treating all questions which came before him as if they were to be decided by his own personal wisdom, without any reference to the current of ideas which prevailed in the country at large. He lived a life apart from the mass of his subjects, and by failing to understand them he became unable to give them that true guidance which is the highest form of service.
During the years which had elapsed since the last session, a warm discussion had taken place on a constitutional question which deeply affected the King’s position in the state. 1606.Coke on the Bench.Coke had scarcely taken his place on the Bench when he sought to animate his colleagues with his own spirit of opposition to all who in any way interfered with the pre-eminent jurisdiction of the courts of common law. The quarrel had indeed commenced before he became a judge. It had frequently happened that the common law judges had issued prohibitions to the Ecclesiastical Courts, in order to compel them to proceed no further in the causes before them, till they had proved to the satisfaction of the judges that the matter in hand was really one which ought to fall within their <36>jurisdiction. The clergy naturally resisted this claim, and argued that their courts were independent of any other, and that their jurisdiction flowed directly from the Crown.
Towards the end of 1605, Bancroft presented a series of complaints to the King against these proceedings of the judges. 1605.Bancroft’s Articuli Cleri.In the course of the following year, the judges, who had now the assistance of Coke’s stores of knowledge, answered the complaints one by one.[84] Both parties were, no doubt, pleading their own cause, and feeling, as they both did, 1606.The judges appeal to Parliament.the weakness which resulted to their case from this, were ready to appeal to a third party for support. Whilst Bancroft would have placed the power of granting prohibitions in the hands of the Court of Chancery, the judges, who were well aware that that court was far more subject to political influences than their own, at once declared that though they were ready to submit to an Act of Parliament, they declined to surrender their immemorial rights to any lesser authority. It is this appeal to Parliament which raises the dispute from a mere quarrel about jurisdiction to the dignity of a constitutional event. Whilst the clergy were content to rely upon the Sovereign, the interpreters of the law entered boldly into alliance with the nation.
Shortly after the prorogation in 1607 a case occurred which drew the attention of all who were interested in ecclesiastical affairs to 1607.Fuller’s case.the question of the prohibitions. Fuller, who, as a member of Parliament, had always been the first to give expression to the fears and wishes of the Puritans, had frequently been employed as a lawyer to plead the cause of those who were endangered by opinions which they held in common with himself. In this way he had been retained to demand the interference of the Court of King’s Bench in the case of two persons who had suffered hard usage at the hands of the High Commission.[85] Case of Ladd,The first of these, Thomas Ladd, had been brought before the Chancellor of the diocese of Norwich on the charge <37>of having attended a conventicle. According to Fuller’s account, his client had been living with one of the suspended ministers, named Jackler. He had been accustomed to join the master of the house on Sunday evenings in repeating the sermons which he had heard at church. Though it was not stated by Fuller, it is not improbable that they added observations of their own, nor is it unlikely that some of their neighbours were occasionally present at their meetings. On being brought before the Chancellor, Ladd was compelled to answer upon oath to the questions which were put to him, and was finally sent up to Lambeth upon a charge of perjury, as having given false information at Norwich. He was then required by the High Commission to swear that he would answer truly to such questions as might be put to him. This time he refused to take the oath, unless the questions were previously shown to him. He was, in consequence, thrown into prison, where he remained till he appealed to the common law judges.
Fuller’s other client, Maunsell, was imprisoned at Lambeth and of Maunsell.for having taken part in the presentation of a petition to the House of Commons, and for having refused to take the oath when brought up for examination.
Fuller, in defence of Ladd, whose case first came on, boldly denied that the Court of High Commission had any right whatever to fine or imprison, and he seems, Fuller’s argument.in putting his case, to have indulged in unguarded language, assailing the High Commission as a Popish authority, by which men were imprisoned without sufficient cause, and by which the true doctrine of the Church was imperilled. The statute of Elizabeth,[86] indeed, under which it acted, had been drawn up with a singular want of precision. Fuller’s contention was at least arguable, though it certainly was not accepted by the judges at that time.[87] The Court did not grant the whole of his request, but they issued a writ of consultation — that is to say, a modified form of prohibition, acknowledging the right of the High Commission to imprison for schism or heresy, but forbidding that <38>court to restrain the liberty of Fuller’s clients on any other grounds. Either at that time, however, or on some subsequent application, the Judges of the King’s Bench referred the legality of their proceedings to all the twelve judges.
Fuller was retained to plead once more on behalf of his clients. Before the day for his argument arrived, he was November.Fuller imprisoned.himself in prison. The High Commission had summoned him to account for his attack upon its jurisdiction. Fuller at once applied for a prohibition, and obtained a writ of consultation on the same terms as Ladd had obtained one before. The High Commission was not to be baffled thus. Charging Fuller with ‘schism and erroneous opinions,’ as contained in the words which he had addressed to the Court of King’s Bench, it imposed on him a fine of 200l., and committed him to prison.
When, therefore, the twelve judges met to consider the point of law which had arisen through Ladd’s committal, they were naturally led to turn their attention to the more striking case which had then arisen through Fuller’s imprisonment. In the end, while acknowledging the claim of the ecclesiastical court to punish for heresy and schism, they declared that a contempt of an ecclesiastical court committed by a barrister in his pleading was to be punished by the common law court, and not by the ecclesiastical.[88] Fuller seems to have interpreted this decision as being on the whole in his favour, and he applied to the King’s Bench for a writ of habeas corpus.
Bancroft was not likely to be satisfied with the position in which he was placed. He appealed to the King on the ground that Bancroft appeals to the King.the judges were merely the King’s delegates, and that James was therefore at liberty to take what causes he pleased out of their hands and to determine them himself. On this, Coke fired up, and, with the full support of the judges, Altercation between Coke and the King.assured the King that he could do nothing of the kind. James replied that ‘he thought that the law was founded on reason, and that he and others had reason as well as the judges.’ Coke <39>answered that ‘true it was that God had endowed His Majesty with excellent science and great endowments of nature; but His Majesty was not learned in the laws of his realm of England; and causes which concern the life, or inheritance, or goods, or fortunes, of his subjects are not to be decided by natural reason, but by the artificial reason and judgment of law, which law requires long study and experience before that a man can attain to the cognizance of it; and that the law was the golden mete-wand and means to try the causes of the subjects; and which protected His Majesty in safety and peace.’ At this James grew excessively angry, “Then,” he said, “I shall be under the law, which is treason to affirm.” Coke replied by quoting the well-known maxim of Bracton, that the King ought not to be under any man, but under God and the law.[89]
James was probably inclined to rebel rather against the yoke of the lawyers than against that of the law. What he wanted was to prevent the common law judges from overthrowing November.The King’s interference.the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. “I pray you,” he wrote to Salisbury, “forget not Fuller’s matter, that the Ecclesiastical Commission may not be suffered to sink, besides the evil deserts of this villain; for this farther I prophesy unto you that, whensoever the ecclesiastical dignity, together with the government thereof, shall be turned in contempt and begin evanish in this kingdom, the kings hereof shall not long after prosper in their government, and the monarchy shall fall to ruin, which I pray God I may never live to see.”[90]
<40>It was probably in consequence of this letter from the King, that the twelve judges assembled to discuss the point of law raised by Fuller’s application. The opinion of the judges.They maintained distinctly the right of the common law judges to prevent the High Commission from deciding the legality of its own acts; but they expressly acknowledged its claim to punish for schism and heresy under the Act of Elizabeth, and thus abandoned Fuller, as the charge against him had been one of schism.
It would seem that Coke, who probably held that the imprisonment of Fuller for schism was technically correct, had unexpectedly The judges decide against Fuller.thrown the influence of his authority upon the side of the Government. Salisbury at all events was assured, before the case came on, that Fuller would have the Court against him. “The judges,” wrote James, “have done well for themselves as well as for me. For I was resolved, if they had done otherwise and maintained their habeas corpus, to have committed them.” As to the conduct of the judges in issuing prohibitions, he added ‘that, by their leaves, they should not use their liberty, but be prescribed.’[91]
Accordingly, when, on November 24 and 26, Fuller pleaded his cause before the King’s Bench he found but little favour.[92] He was Fuller before the King’s Bench.left to the High Commission Court to be dealt with at its pleasure. Fuller soon found that he had no further assistance to expect. After a short imprisonment of nine weeks, he paid his fine, and having made his submission, Jan. 1608.Fuller’s submission and release.was released.[93] A few days later he was again taken into custody, some indiscreet admirers having published his argument in the cases of Ladd and Maunsell. An inquiry by the Attorney General, however, made it plain that he had taken no part in the publication, and he was probably restored to freedom after no long delay.[94] At <41>all events, he was in his place in Parliament two years afterwards.[95]
Though Bancroft had triumphed over Fuller, he had not succeeded in stopping the flood of prohibitions by which the Dissatisfaction of the ecclesiastical lawyers.ordinary ecclesiastical courts were threatened.[96] Finding that their professional gains were at stake, some of the leading ecclesiastical lawyers petitioned the King to take up their cause and begged Bancroft to continue his exertions in their behalf.[97] Bancroft condoled with them on their hard case, and Jan. 23, 1609.Bancroft takes their part.told them that he was anxious that the King should take the decision of the question into his own hands. He added that he had no wish that the King should assume absolute power; but he believed that, as the fountain of justice from whom both courts derived their jurisdictions, he had a right to act as mediator between them. He thought it more likely that the poor would obtain justice from the King than from the country gentlemen who composed the House of Commons, or from the judges, who were in league with them. Juries were generally dependents of the gentry, and the cause of justice could not but suffer from their employment.[98]
Accordingly, in February, 1609, Coke and some others of the judges were summoned to Whitehall to discuss February.Coke attacked by the King.the general question of prohibitions with the ecclesiastical lawyers. In the course of his argument, Coke pleaded with the King to respect the common law of the land, and to consider that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction was a foreign one. James was furious. He clenched his fists, as if he were <42>about to strike the Chief Justice. Coke fell grovelling on the ground, and begged for mercy.[99] James perhaps felt that, after such a scene, it was useless to continue the discussion, and the debate was postponed.
At last, on July 6, the parties were once more summoned before the King. The discussion lasted three days. The actual July 6–9.The question discussed before the King.point at issue was the right of deciding questions connected with the payment of tithe; but the controversy ranged over a far wider field. The judges claimed to interpret all statutes under which the ecclesiastical courts acted, and to interfere with their jurisdiction in every possible way. Their arguments were, of course, resisted by the bishops and by the lawyers who practised in these courts.
James was anxious to keep the peace, but he was fairly puzzled by the opposing reasons to which he had been listening. The King postpones his decision.He must wait, he said, for further information. For the present, the issue of prohibitions was to cease. He wished to support both jurisdictions. He was anxious, he added in his good-natured way, that the two parties should cease to abuse one another, and that they should live together in future ‘like brothers without emulation.’[100] It was not very likely that this wish would be gratified. As the ecclesiastical courts were then constituted, they had little hold on the national feeling. In appealing to the King, for support, the Bishops were widening the chasm between him and his subjects.
Nothing, however, made James so unpopular as the wealth which he showered down upon the Scotch courtiers. Amongst them 1603.Robert Carr.a new favourite was rapidly obtaining the pre-eminence. That favourite, Robert Carr, was descended from the well-known family of the Kers of Ferniehurst, and had, as a boy, attended the King in Scotland, in the capacity of a page. After James’s accession to the English throne, <43>he had been dismissed from his post, and had sought to push his fortunes in France. Having failed of success upon the Continent, he returned to England, where he attached himself to the service of Lord Hay. He had not been long at Court before he had the good fortune to break his leg at a tilting match in the presence of the King.[101] From that moment his success was certain. James was attracted by his personal activity and his strong animal spirits. He delighted in his company, and, having knighted him, was eager to provide him with a fortune suitable to his merits. Step by step the lad rose in the royal favour, till he took his place among the old nobility of the realm.
James was indeed ready himself to be the founder of Carr’s fortune; but the way in which he did it exposed his favourite to contact with a man far greater than himself. Amidst the wreck of his fortune, 1604.Raleigh and the manor of Sherborne.Raleigh had succeeded in inducing the King to make over his life interest in the manor of Sherborne, which was all that had been forfeited to the King by his attainder,[102] to trustees who were to hold it in behalf of Lady Raleigh and her eldest son. Immediately upon his death, it would descend to his son, in virtue of the conveyance which he had signed in the days of his prosperity. Discovery of a flaw in the conveyance of the land.A few months after this arrangement had been made, he was horrified by the news that a flaw had been discovered in the conveyance, which would after his death place the whole property at the King’s disposal. He immediately wrote to Salisbury, begging him to come to his help, and 1605.requesting that the deed might be laid before Coke and Popham, in order that he might know what the real state of the case was.[103] His request was acceded to. Unhappily, there could be no doubt whatever as to the fact. The words omitted were of such importance that Popham could do nothing but declare that, as a legal document, the conveyance was worthless. He added, however, that <44>he believed the error had arisen from the fault of the clerk who had engrossed the deed.[104]
As soon as it was known how the case really stood, Lady Raleigh lost no time in imploring the King not to take advantage of The King promises to give up his claim.his legal rights to ruin her innocent children. James at once consented to waive all pretensions to the reversion of the land, and directed Salisbury to prepare a grant of it to Lady Raleigh and her children.[105] It would have been well for James’s good name if these directions had been carried out. There are no means of knowing with certainty what the inducement was which caused him to draw back. James retracts his promise,It is possible that the foolish rumours which reached him shortly afterwards of Raleigh’s participation in the Gunpowder Plot,[106] caused delay, and that when those rumours proved to be without foundation, some new influence had obliterated his good intentions from his facile mind.
In the summer of 1606, Raleigh even entertained a hope that he might recover his liberty.[107] He supposed that the King of Denmark, who was 1606.on a visit to his brother-in-law, might be induced to plead his cause.[108] When these expectations proved to be without foundation, Lady Raleigh, <45>in despair, made her way to Hampton Court, where she threw herself on her knees before the King. James passed her by in silence.[109]
Another year passed away, and the King had taken no steps to call Raleigh’s conveyance in question. But before the close of 1607 1607.and determines to procure the manor for Carr.a temptation was presented to him which he was unable to resist. Carr was rapidly rising in favour, and James was anxious that he should become a landed proprietor. He was, however, preparing at that time to entail the greater part of his own lands upon the Crown, and had, probably, already come to the determination to grant away no more manors excepting those which might fall into his hands by forfeiture.
In this difficulty Salisbury, quick to detect the inclinations of his master, suggested that the manor of Sherborne would be 1608.a suitable gift for the new favourite.[110] Early in 1608, an information was exhibited in the Exchequer, calling upon Raleigh to show the title by which his heirs held the reversion of the manor. He could only produce the conveyance, which, as he knew, would not bear the scrutiny of the court. In order that he might have fair play, the judges assigned him counsel. The lawyers who were thus appointed, after consultation amongst themselves, refused to argue the case, as it would be impossible to find any line of defence to which the court could be induced to listen. It was not, however, till October 27 <46>that Judgment in the Exchequer in favour of the Crown.judgment was finally pronounced in favour of the Crown.[111] James had already bought up for 5,000l. the interest which, by his grant in 1604, Lady Raleigh possessed in the estate during her husband’s lifetime.[112] If, therefore, he determined to present it to Carr, the new owner would be able at once to enter into possession, without waiting for Raleigh’s death.
A letter has been preserved in which Raleigh, a few weeks after the decision of the court was known to him, begged Carr to The manor granted to Carr.do him justice, and implored him not to build his rising fortunes upon the ruin of an innocent man.[113] Lady Raleigh, too, made one more attempt to move the compassion of the King. Taking with her young Walter and the boy who had been born to her in her hours of sorrow in the Tower, she again threw herself at James’s feet and begged for mercy. It is said that his only answer was, “I maun have the land, I maun have it for Carr.” On January 9 the grant was passed 1609.by which the estate, which Raleigh had received from Elizabeth in the days of his prosperity, came into the possession of a worthless favourite.[114]
In preferring Carr to Raleigh, James had given to the world an additional evidence of his shortsightedness. He had, however, Compensation to Raleigh.no intention of taking the land from Raleigh without allowing him compensation for his loss. He therefore ordered a survey to be taken of the lands, and, as a guarantee that it would be fairly carried out, he allowed the name of Raleigh’s follower, Keymis, to appear amongst those of the Commissioners by whom the survey was to be made.[115] A negotiation was entered into with Sir Arthur <47>Throckmorton and the other feoffees to whom the estate had been conveyed by the deed lately proved to be invalid, which ended in the renunciation[116] of the 5,000l. which was to have been paid to Lady Raleigh for her interest in the land, and in the grant by the King of a pension of 400l. a-year, to be paid during her own life and that of her eldest son. To this was added a sum of 8,000l. in ready money.
In order to judge the extent of the wrong done to Raleigh, it is necessary to know what was the precise money value of the land which was taken from him. Unfortunately, it is not very easy to obtain this information. Raleigh, indeed, writing in 1604, under circumstances in which it was his interest to calculate the value of his property as low as possible, made it out to be considerably under 400l. a year.[117] But in 1612 the payments on account of the manor amounted to a little more than 750l.,[118] and there is other evidence which makes it probable that this was in reality the amount of revenue derived from it <48>at that time. As the ordinary value of land in the reign of James was calculated at sixteen years’ purchase,[119] this would give 12,000l. as the total value of the estate, which would be about equivalent to the 8,000l., with the 400l. pension[120] which was granted. If this calculation be admitted, it would appear that Raleigh obtained a fair payment for his property, and that the wrong that was done him consisted only in the compulsion which was used to force him to sell it — a wrong the hardship of which was considerably lessened by the known fact that he had long been anxious to find a purchaser.[121]
There is, however, evidence in existence which conflicts strangely with the result of these calculations. When, shortly after Carr had received the manor, he resold it to the King, he obtained 20,000l.; and when, in 1615, he bought it back again, it was, according to a statement made by Bacon, valued at 25,000l.[122] Either, then, the value of the house and pleasure grounds must have been expressed by this very great difference, or the expectations, which do not appear to have been realised,[123] <49>of a great increase in the future income to be derived from the land, raised its value in the market. Whether this or some other explanation be the true one, it would seem that the difference between the actual value of the estate and the ordinary market value of the revenue derived from the estate at the time, will give the amount of which Raleigh was mulcted.
Such is the true story of the transfer of the manor of Sherborne[124] from Raleigh to Carr. As it stands it is bad enough, but it is needless to say that this is not the story which has obtained credence for more than two centuries. Posterity has revenged itself upon James by laying to his charge sins of which he was guiltless, and by exaggerating those which he in reality committed. The value of the lands was swollen, in the imaginations of men, to an enormous amount, and it has been believed by one of Raleigh’s biographers after another, that James threw to the man from whom he had, by means of a sentence procured in a corrupt court, wrenched an estate worth 5,000l. a year, a pittance which barely exceeded the annual rental of the land.
Worn out with weariness and sickness, Raleigh continued from time to time to send forth piteous cries to those who, like the Queen, were ready to sympathise with him. But towards his enemies he bore himself as proudly as ever, as Northampton found to his cost, when he attempted to extract from him some information of which he was in need.[125] <50>Poor Raleigh paid for his outspoken language by being placed in closer confinement than before;[126] but it is hardly likely that, Raleigh remains in prison.1611.if he could have known what was coming upon him, he would have consented to purchase a remission of the rigours of his imprisonment by flattering Northampton. He consoled himself as best he could with his books and his chemical experiments. It is to his enforced leisure that we owe the History of the World; but we may be sure that he would willingly have surrendered all his fame as an author for one whiff of fresh air on the western seas.
Whilst Raleigh was longing for escape one great dream of his life was becoming a reality. His had been the fertile brain which had 1585.The first colony in Virginia.conceived the idea of sending out settlers to Virginia. The first colonists sent out in 1585 were appalled by the dangers of their undertaking, and returned to England with Drake. A second colony landed in 1587, and had 1587.subsisted for some time. But the vessels which had been sent to its relief failed in their object, either from accident or negligence. The colony was lost sight of, and when the next vessel appeared to bring help, not a trace of it could be found.
In 1602 an attempt was made by Bartholomew Gosnold to colonise New England, which was then known by the name of 1602.Gosnold’s voyage to New England.Northern Virginia. The enterprise failed, but Gosnold came back fully impressed with the idea of its feasibility. He succeeded in imparting his views to a little knot of men, among whom was the Richard Hakluyt who had devoted his life to the celebration of the deeds of maritime daring by which the last reign had been distinguished. It was of far more importance for the ultimate destinies of the colony that he succeeded in obtaining the cooperation of John Smith. Smith was still a young man, but he had gone through more hardships and adventures than had fallen to the lot of any other Englishman, even in that adventurous age. He had served in the Low Countries against the Spaniards, and in Hungary against the <51>Turks. He had been thrown overboard in a storm in the Mediterranean, by the crew of a French ship in which he was, who imagined that the presence of a Huguenot on board had called down the vengeance of Heaven upon their vessel. He had been taken prisoner by the Turks, and had been sent to serve as a slave amongst the Tartars on the Don. But whatever might happen, he was always able to turn it to account. In the worst dangers, he knew what was the right thing to be done. For such a scheme as that which Gosnold proposed, the presence of such a man was indispensable to success.[127]
For a year, Gosnold and his friends were unable to find means to carry their plan into execution. They were, however, not alone in Sir Ferdinando Gorges.the hopes with which they were inspired. In 1605, a ship, commanded by Captain Weymouth, was fitted out by the Earls of Arundel and Southampton. On his return Weymouth brought with him five natives of New England. Sir Ferdinando Gorges, who was Governor of Plymouth, fell in with him, and conversed with him on the countries which he had visited. He took three of the Indians into his house, and obtained every possible information from them. From that time he set his heart upon the colonisation of America. He acquainted Chief Justice Popham with his designs. Popham had always taken a deep interest in the mercantile and maritime enterprises of the time, and readily agreed to ask the King for a charter authorising the proposed undertaking. He became acquainted with Gosnold’s desire to carry out a similar enterprise, and both schemes were comprehended in the charter which he obtained.
That charter was dated April 10, 1606.[128] It declared that Virginia extended from the thirty-fourth to the forty-fifth degree of latitude, or, in other words, from 1606.The first Virginian charter.what is now the southern boundary of the State of North Carolina to the shores of Nova Scotia. On this long line of coast two settlements were to be made. Gorges and his <52>friends from the West of England were to choose a place for a colony somewhere in the Northern part of the territory, whilst the London merchants and gentlemen who had listened to Gosnold’s persuasion were to confine themselves to the South.
It was necessary to devise some form of government for the two colonies. The rock upon which all former attempts had split, was The instructions for the colonists.the difficulty of inducing the spirited adventurers who took part in them to submit to control. The crews of the vessels which had been sent out had been too often bent merely upon making their fortunes. The chance of capturing a Spanish prize had frequently lured them away from the object for which they were despatched, and had ruined the best concerted undertakings. Many of the emigrants carried with them the idea that in America gold lay upon the ground in lumps; and when they discovered, by a bitter experience, the terrible hardships which awaited them amidst hostile tribes on an uncultivated shore, their hearts too often gave way at once, and they could think of nothing but of the easiest way of return.
In the hope of providing some authority which might prevent the recurrence of these disasters,[129] a machinery was introduced, which was far too complicated to work successfully. By the side of the company itself, upon which the burden rested of supporting the colonists, and which was to be in exclusive possession of the trade which might spring up in consequence of their settlement, a council was erected in London, the members of which were nominated by the King. This council was entrusted with the general supervision of the colonies. By it were to be appointed the first members of the two colonial councils, and their presidents, to whom was assigned a casting vote in their deliberations. In each colony the really important part of the machinery of government was in the hands of these local councils. They were empowered, after the expiration of the first year, to elect the annual president, and they were to depose him in case of his misconduct. They might fill up all vacancies occurring in their own body, <53>and the whole of the administrative and judicial authority was assigned to them, without any check or control whatever, beyond the necessity — to be interpreted by themselves — of conforming, as closely as was possible under the circumstances, to the laws of England. The criminal law was, however, to be milder than it was at home, as the punishment of death was to be reserved for certain specified crimes of peculiar enormity. On the other hand, it was only in these special cases that a jury was to be allowed to pronounce its verdict; in all others the sentence of the council would be sufficient. Power was reserved to the King to veto the legislation of the councils, and to overrule it by the issue of regulations in England.
American writers have, with one accord, cried out against these instructions, on the ground that they contain no grant or acknowledgment of representative institutions.[130] This complaint, which would have been valid enough if it had only referred to a colony which had once been completely settled, is founded upon a forgetfulness of the difficulties which beset an infant settlement at the commencement of the seventeenth century. The only chance of success for such a colony lay in the introduction of some strong rule by which a check might be put upon the independent action of the settlers. Immediately upon landing, they occupied the position of a garrison in a hostile territory. The folly of a few wild spirits might compromise the safety of the whole community, and it was but seldom that the adventurers of whom it was composed were distinguished either for prudence or self-restraint. In their dealings with the Indians, the utmost foresight was needed. By provoking the native tribes, a danger of hostilities was incurred which might end in sweeping the infant colony into the sea. What was, in reality, the first necessity of the settlement, was not a parliament to discuss laws and regulations, but a governor of sufficient ability to know what ought to be done, and of sufficient authority to persuade or compel the most refractory to yield obedience to his commands.
<54>From the want of such a man, the Northern Colony proved a total failure. It was under very different auspices that, after a Failure of the Northern Colony.delay of many years, a permanent settlement was made upon the shores of New England. If the Southern Colony proved more successful, it was in spite of the elaborate arrangements which James had made for its guidance.
On December 19, 1606, the little company which was destined to succeed where so many had failed, sailed from the Thames in three small vessels.[131] The Southern Colony.They were in all a hundred and five. The vessels were commanded by a Captain Newport. It was arranged that the names of the colonial council should be kept secret until the arrival of the expedition in America. This precaution had probably been taken to prevent any collision between Newport and the colonial authorities. It was, however, attended with unforeseen results. The chief persons who had engaged in the undertaking were jealous of the abilities of Smith, and absurd rumours were spread among them that he intended to make himself King of Virginia. They, therefore, resolved upon anticipating his supposed design by placing him in confinement; and they conducted across the Atlantic as a prisoner the man to whom the whole conduct of the enterprise ought to have been confided.
After a tedious voyage, the expedition arrived at the mouth of the Chesapeake. They gave to the headlands between which they sailed 1607.They arrive in the Chesapeake.the names of Cape Henry and Cape Charles, in honour of the two English princes. As soon as they had landed, they opened their instructions, and found that seven of their number had been appointed to form the council, and that both Smith and Gosnold were included in the number. After some hesitation, they selected a site upon a stream to which they gave the name of the James River, upon which they proceeded to build the town which is known as Jamestown to this day. The first act of the council was to nominate Wingfield, one of the earlier promoters of the expedition, to the presidency, and to expel Smith from their <55>body. It was not till some weeks had passed that they were persuaded to allow him to take his seat.
In June Newport returned to England with the vessels. As soon as he had left Virginia the troubles of the colonists began. Difficulties of the settlers.They had arrived too late in the season to allow them to sow the seed which they had brought with them with any hope of obtaining a crop. The food which was left behind for their support was bad in quality, and the hot weather brought disease with it. Nearly fifty of their number were gentlemen, who had never been accustomed to manual labour. Half of the little company were swept away before the beginning of September. Amongst those who perished was Gosnold, whose energetic disposition might, perhaps, if he had survived, have done good service to the colony. To make matters worse, the president was inefficient and selfish, and cared little about the welfare of his comrades, if he only had food enough for himself. The council deposed him; but his successor, Ratcliffe, was equally incompetent, and it was only by the unexpected kindness of the natives that the colonists were enabled to maintain their existence. As the winter approached, their stock was increased by large numbers of wild fowl which came within their reach. In spite, however, of this change in their circumstances, it was only at Smith’s earnest entreaty that they were prevented from abandoning the colony and returning to England.
During the winter Smith employed himself in exploring the country. In one of his expeditions he was taken prisoner by the Indians. Smith taken prisoner by the Indians.Any other man would have been instantly massacred. With great presence of mind, he took a compass out of his pocket, and began talking to them about its wonders. Upon this, the chief forbade them to do him any harm, and ordered him to be carried to their village.
Whilst he was there he still more astonished his captors by sending a party of them with a letter to Jamestown. They were unable to comprehend how his wishes could be conveyed by means of a piece of paper. At last he was conducted before Powhattan, the superior chief over all the tribes of that part of the country. After a long consultation, it was <56>determined to put him to death. He was dragged forward, and his head was laid upon a large stone, upon which the Indians were preparing to beat out his brains with their clubs. Even then his good fortune did not desert him. The chief’s daughter, Pocahontas, a young girl of ten or twelve years of age, rushed forward, and, taking him in her arms, laid her head upon his, He is set at liberty.to shield it from the clubs. The chief gave way before the entreaties of his daughter, and allowed him full liberty to return to Jamestown.
On his arrival there he found all things in confusion. The president had again formed the intention of abandoning the colony, and was only deterred once more by the energetic exertions of Smith. The colonists were also indebted to him for the liberal supplies of provisions which were from time to time brought to them by Pocahontas.
He had not been long at liberty, when Newport arrived with a fresh supply of provisions. He also brought with him about 1608.Newport’s return.a hundred and twenty men, the greater part of whom were bent upon digging for gold. Smith applied himself to the more profitable undertaking of carrying his explorations over the whole of the surrounding country. The gold-diggers did not add anything to the stock of the community; and it was only by the arrival of another ship that the colonists were enabled during the summer of 1608 to avoid absolute starvation. Some little corn had, however, been sown in the spring, and it was hoped that, with the help of what they could obtain from the natives, there would be sufficient provision for the winter.
Shortly after Newport had again left the colony, Smith returned from one of his exploring expeditions. He found the whole colony Smith elected president.dissatisfied with the conduct of the incapable president, who, with the exception of Smith, was the only member of the original council still remaining in Virginia. A third member had, however, been sent out from England. This man, whose name was Scrivener, had attached himself warmly to Smith, and, to the general satisfaction of the settlers, the two friends deposed Ratcliffe, and appointed Smith to fill his place.
<57>Smith had not long been president when Newport again arrived. The members of the company in England were anxious to see a return for the capital which they had expended. They pressed Smith to send them gold, and threatened to leave the colony to starve, if their wishes were not complied with. The only conditions on which he was to be excused were the discovery of a passage into the Pacific, or of the lost colony which had been founded by Raleigh. They sent him seventy more men, of whom, as usual, the greater number were gentlemen. They expected him to send them home, in return, pitch, tar, soap-ashes, and glass. To assist him in this, they put on board eight Poles and Dutchmen, who were skilled in such manufactures.
He at once wrote home to the treasurer of the company, Sir Thomas Smith, explaining to him the absurdity of these demands. The colonists, he told him, must be able to feed themselves before they could establish manufactures. If any more men were sent out, ‘but thirty carpenters, husbandmen, gardiners, fishermen, blacksmiths, masons, and diggers-up of trees’ and ‘roots,’ would be better ‘than a thousand of such’ as had lately arrived.
Under Smith’s rule the settlement passed safely through another winter. The Indians were compelled to respect the rising colony. The greater part of the gentlemen were induced to work heartily, and those who refused were plainly told that if they would not do the work they would be left to starve. It appeared as if, at last, the worst difficulties had been overcome.
The summer of 1609 was drawing to a close, when news arrived in Virginia that a fresh charter had been granted, by which 1609.The new charter.considerable changes were authorised in the government of the colony. The working of the original arrangements had been, in many respects, unsatisfactory. The council at home, which had been enlarged in 1607,[132] had found but little to do, as all practical business connected with the support of the colony was in the hands of <58>the company. The company itself had proved but ill-fitted to devise the best measures for the maintenance of the settlers. Its members had been too anxious for a quick return for the money which they had laid out, and had been too eager to press the colonists to engage in trade before they had brought under cultivation a sufficient quantity of land for their own support. On the other hand, nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the accounts which they received of the proceedings of the colonial council. It was certain that the whole attempt would prove a failure if the settlement were allowed to be distracted by the disputes and follies of the members of the local government. When the last news was brought to England in 1608, Smith had but just entered upon his office; and, even if the good effects of the change had already begun to appear, the company was not likely to receive any information which would give them an idea of the value of his services. Those who returned in the vessels which had left Virginia in the autumn were the declared enemies of the new president. Newport especially, who commanded the expedition, had been too often made to feel the superior ability of Smith to be likely to speak many words in his favour.
The company, therefore, in asking for a change in its original charter, was acting in ignorance of the improved state of things in Virginia. The alterations made were, on the whole, calculated to benefit the colony.[133] In the first place, an end was put to the double government. The council in London was from henceforth to take charge as well of the commercial as of the political interests of the colony. Though the first appointments were to be made by the King, vacancies, as they occurred, were to be filled up by the company. Care was taken that, of the fifty-two persons who were named to take their seats in the new council, but a very small number should be engaged in commerce. For some years to come, the arrangement of the intercourse which was to be kept up between Virginia and the mother country would no longer be in the hands of men who were liable to look upon the whole affair as a mere commercial <59>speculation. There would, therefore, be some chance that the necessities of the colonists would be regarded, as well as the pockets of the subscribers. At all events, as long as such men as Bacon and Sandys took part in the deliberations of the council, the colonists were not likely to be again urged to search for gold, under the threat that, if they failed, they would be cut off from all further assistance from England.
It was no less necessary to carry out a thorough reform in Virginia itself. The first thing to be done was to sweep away Change in the system of government in the colony.the colonial council, with its annual presidents. Even had the home government known what was passing in the colony, they could hardly have come to any other conclusion. The accident which had brought about the election of Smith might never again occur, and even during his year of office the council, if its vacancies were filled up, would be rather an obstruction than an assistance to him. By the new charter, the council in Virginia was deservedly swept away, and the council in London received full powers to appoint all officers who were needed for the government of the colony.
Undoubtedly, the best thing which the new council could have done would have been to have placed Smith at the head of the settlement. Appointment of Lord De La Warr as Governor.But, being ignorant of his true value, they took the next best step in their power. The government of merchants and captains had proved only another name for organised disorder. They, therefore, determined to try the experiment of sending out persons whose rank had made them accustomed to command, and who, if they were under the disadvantage of being new to colonial life, might be supposed to be able to obtain respect from the factions by which the colony was distracted. It was also plain that the settlement must be regarded, at least for the present, as a garrison in a hostile country, and that the new government must be empowered to exercise military discipline. The selections made were undoubtedly good. Lord de la Warr, an able and conscientious man, was to preside, under the name of General; Sir Thomas Gates, one of the oldest promoters of the undertaking, was to act as his Lieutenant; Sir George Somers <60>was to command the vessels of the company as Admiral; Sir Thomas Dale, an old soldier from the Low Country wars, was to keep up discipline as Marshal; whilst Sir Ferdinando Wainman was invested with the rather unnecessary title of General of the Horse. Lord de la Warr was to be preceded by Gates, Somers, and Newport, who were jointly to administer the government till the appearance of the General himself.
The whole scheme was well contrived, and if it had been carried out according to the intentions of the council all would have gone well. In May, nine ships sailed, with five hundred fresh men to recruit the colony, and with large stores of provisions.[134] Unfortunately, the ship which contained the three commissioners Shipwreck of the Commissioners.was wrecked on the Bermudas, and the remaining vessels, with the exception of one which perished at sea, arrived in the Chesapeake with the information that Smith’s authority was at an end, but without bringing any new officers to fill his place. To make matters worse, the men who arrived were chiefly a loose and disorderly mob, who had been chosen without any special regard for the requirements of an emigrant’s life, and with them were several of Smith’s old opponents, who had previously returned to England.
Smith, seeing that no lawful authority had come to replace his own, determined to maintain himself in his post. The newcomers raised unlooked-for difficulties. They not only showed great disinclination to submit to his orders, but they set at naught all the ordinary rules of prudence in their intercourse with the natives. The Indians came to Smith with complaints that his men were stealing their corn and robbing their gardens. He was doing his best to introduce order again amongst these miserable men, when an accident deprived the colony of his services. Some gunpowder in a boat, in which he was, accidentally took fire, and the wounds which he received made it impossible for him Smith returns to England.to fulfil the active duties of his office. He accordingly determined to return to England, leaving the unruly crowd of settlers to discover by a bitter experience the value of his energy and prudence. <61>They were not long in learning the extent of their capacity for self-government. They utterly refused to submit to Percy, who had been elected by the council as Smith’s successor.[135] As soon as the natives heard that Smith was gone, they attacked the settlement, and met with but little resistance. The settlers themselves wasted the provisions which should have served for their subsistence during the winter. There was no recognised authority, and every man followed his own inclination. When Smith sailed for England Wretched state of the colony.the colony consisted of four hundred and ninety men. Within six months a miserable remnant of sixty persons was supporting itself upon roots and berries.
In this extremity, Gates[136] arrived, having contrived to escape in a pinnace from the Bermudas. On May 23, 1610, he landed at Jamestown. 1610.Arrival of Gates.He had expected to find a flourishing colony, where he could obtain support for the hundred and fifty shipwrecked settlers who accompanied him. He found famine staring him in the face. The corn which had been sown would not be ready for harvest for months, and the Indians refused to bargain with their oppressors. When he had landed all his little store, he found that there would only be enough to support life for sixteen days. It was therefore determined, by common consent, to forsake the country, as the only means to avoid starvation, and to make for Newfoundland, where the fugitives hoped to obtain a passage to England in the vessels which were engaged in fishing.
On June 7 the remnants of the once prosperous colony quitted the spot which had been for three years the centre of their hopes, and The colony saved by the arrival of Lord De la Warr.dropped down the river. Before, however, they had got out into the Chesapeake, they were astonished by the sight of a boat coming up to meet them. The boat proved to belong to Lord de la Warr’s squadron, which had arrived from England in time to save the settlement from ruin.
The arrival of Lord de la Warr was the turning point in the <62>early history of Virginia. He brought provisions upon which the settlers could subsist for a year, and by his authority he was able to curb the violence of the factions which had been with difficulty kept down even by the strong hand of Smith. Peace was restored with the Indians, and the colonists worked willingly under the Governor’s directions.
He had not been long in Virginia before ill health compelled him to return. After a short interval he was succeeded by Sir Thomas Dale. Sir T. Dale’s administration.Dale introduced a code of martial law.[137] This code was unjustifiably severe, but even that was better than the anarchy which threatened to break out again on Lord de la Warr’s departure. A still more advantageous change was brought about under his government. Hitherto the land had been cultivated for the good of the whole colony, and it had been found difficult to make men work heartily who had no individual interests in their labours. Dale assigned three acres of land to each settler. The immediate results of this innovation were manifest. The improvement was still more decided when Gates, who had been sent back to England, returned as Governor, in August 1611, with considerable supplies, of which the most valuable part consisted of large numbers of cattle. From that time the difficulties which had impeded the formation of the settlement were heard of no more.
[84] 2nd Inst. 601.
[85] The Argument of Master Nicholas Fuller in the case of T. Ladd and R. Maunsell, 1607.
[86] I Eliz. cap. i.
[87] Fuller’s case, Lansdowne MSS. 1172, fol. 100. Fuller’s statement, Hatfield MSS. 124, fol. 59.
[88] Rep. xii. 44.
[89] Rep. xii. 65. The date of this altercation is given as Sunday, Nov. 10, 5 Jac. i., i.e. 1607. In that year, however, Nov. 10 fell on a Tuesday, and the probable date is Nov. 8. It is only by conjecture that I have put it between the opinion of the judges and the King’s letter to Salisbury, as we can only give them approximate dates. Mr. Foss (Lives of the Judges, vi. 1), in telling the story, prefaces it by a statement that James occasionally appeared in the Court of King’s Bench, when the Chief Justices made way for him and sat at his feet. It was, however, Edward IV., not James I., who did this. Mr. Foss was led astray by a mistake in the State Trials, iii. 942, where Popham is printed instead of Markham.
[90] The King to Salisbury (Nov. 7), Hatfield MSS. 134, fol. 126.
[91] Lake to Salisbury, Nov. 27, ibid. 123, fol. 55.
[92] Salisbury to Lake, Nov. 25 (?). Salisbury to the King, Nov. 28, ibid. 123, fol. 137, 59.
[93] Chamberlain to Carleton, Jan. 5 and 8, Court and Times, i. 69.
[94] Whyte to Shrewsbury, Jan. 26, Lodge, iii. 225. Hobart to Salisbury, Hatfield MSS. 124, fol. 81.
[95] The well-known assertion of Fuller, the Church historian, that he died in prison is certainly untrue. He is said, in the inquisition post mortem on his son, Sir Nicholas Fuller, who died on July 3, 1620, to have died at Chamberhouse in Berkshire, on Feb. 23 in the same year.
[96] The language of the King addressing the judges on Feb. 15 (Bacon’s Comm. Sol. Letters and Life, iv. 89) appears to have been directed against interferences with lay courts. The Council of the North was much troubled by prohibitions.
[97] Petition of the lawyers to Bancroft, Cott. MSS., Cleop. F. i., fol. 107.
[98] Bancroft to ———, Jan. 23, Cott. MSS., Cleop. F. ii., fol. 121.
[99] Bosworth to Milborne, Feb., Hatfield MSS. 125, fol. 36.
[100] Notes by Sir J. Cæsar, Lansd. MSS. 160, fol. 406; Coke’s Rep. xiii. 46. There are papers connected with this affair in Cot. MSS. Cleop. F. i.
[101] Wilson in Kennet, ii. 686.
[103] Raleigh to Cranborne, 1604 (?). Edwards’s Life of Raleigh, ii. 311.
[104] Popham to Salisbury, June 7, 1605, Add. MSS. 6177, fol. 393. Much indignation has been thrown away upon this opinion, which was given at Raleigh’s own request, and which, as will be seen, could not possibly have been given in favour of the validity of the document. In 1608, the Attorney-General, Hobart, said, in the Court of Exchequer, that ‘the sentence that should have appointed the said Sir W. Raleigh, his heirs and assigns, or such as had estate in the same premises to stand and to be seized thereof to the intended uses, was all wanting’ (Memoranda of the King’s Remembrancer, R.O., Mich. Term, 6 Jac. i. 545). See also an extract from a letter of Coke, Add. MSS. 6177, fol. 391, the date of which should apparently be June 7, 1605.
[105] Add. MSS. 6177, fol. 323. The date 1603 in the copy is clearly wrong. The petition was probably sent and answered in the autumn of 1605.
[106] Add. MSS. 6178, fol. 469, 553. Hoby to Edmondes, Nov. 19, 1605. Add. MSS. 4176, fol. 34 b.
[107] Examination of Cottrell, Feb. 4, 1607, S. P. Dom. xxvi. 42.
[108] Carleton to Chamberlain, Aug. 20, 1606, S. P. Dom. xxiii. 10.
[109] Whyte to Shrewsbury, Sept. 24, 1606, Lodge, iii. 186.
[110] “The more I think of your remembrance of Robert Carr for yon manor of Sherborne, the more cause have I to conclude that your mind ever watcheth to seek out all advantages for my honour and contentment; for as it is only your duty and affection to me that makes you careful for them that serve me, so must I confess that he is the only young man whom, as I brought with me and brought up of a child, that was now left unprovided for, I mean according to that rank whereunto I have promoved him, besides that the thing itself, when I have now considered it, will prove excellent fit for him; and withal that 3,” i.e. Northampton, “before my parting, requested me for him in it, who, as I told you, was ever before otherways minded in that matter, whomunto I seemed not to take knowledge that any other had moved me in that matter before.” The King to Salisbury. Undated. Hatfield MMS. 134, fol. 149.
[111] Memoranda of the King’s Remembrancer, R.O. Mich. Term, 7 Jac. i. 253.
[112] Devon. Issues of the Exchequer, p. 99. The first instalment was not to be paid till June, 1609, though the writ for its payment was dated March 13, 1608. This may have been in order to leave the rents in the hands of Lady Raleigh’s trustees till the decision was given in the Exchequer.
[113] Raleigh to Carr, Jan. 1609 (?); Edwards’s Life of Ralegh, ii. 326.
[114] Pat. 6 James 1., part 32.
[115] Keymis to Salisbury, Sept. 23, 1609, S. P. Dom. xlviii. 5 A, printed <47>in the Literary Gazette, new series, No. 18. The survey is also referred to in the Exchequer Depositions, 7 James I. Mich. Term. No. 24, R.O.
[116] This may, I suppose, be taken for granted, as the payment to Lady Raleigh of the interest due upon the 5,000l., which had been retained in the King’s hands, was made on Jan. 13, 1610 (Issue Book of the Exch.), and the two patents assigning the pension on the two lives, are dated on the 16th of the same month (Pat. 7 James I., part 13). Nothing further is heard of the 5,000l. The 8,000l. was paid over to Keymis on Dec. 23, 1609. During the year 1609 a second information had been exhibited in the Exchequer, calling upon Raleigh to produce any other title by which the land might be claimed from the Crown. He had been heard to speak of an earlier conveyance which he had made in 1598, of the ninety-nine years’ lease which he held. As he was unable to produce it, and no witness could be found to speak to its contents, judgment was given against him on Nov. 23, 1609. — Memoranda of the King’s Remembrancer, R.O. Mich. Term. 7 Jac. I. 253.
[117] Raleigh to the Council, 1604. Add. MSS. 6177, fol. 297, 305.
[118] On March 15, 1614, R. Connock, bailiff of the manor of Sherborne, paid money into the Exchequer as part of 754l. 11s. 10½d., as arrears of his office due at Michaelmas 1612, at which time Sherborne was the property of Prince Henry. I suppose this is the amount of the rents of the year, which would agree with Chamberlain’s statement that Sherborne, ‘besides the goodly house and other commodities, is presently worth 800l. a year, and in reasonable time will be double’ (Court and Times of James I. 426). It <48>might be supposed that this is inclusive of the rent paid to the Bishop; but I can find no payment to the Bishop in the Issue Books.
[119] Bacon, in his Essay on Usury, speaks of this as if it were the ordinary rate, and this is confirmed by a note in Sir Julius Cæsar’s handwriting, appended in 1612 to a calculation of the revenue derived from the estate of Lord Vaux of Harrowden: ‘After sixteen years’ purchase, the common rate of sale there,’ &c.
[120] It is sometimes stated that this pension was very irregularly paid. This charge seems to have arisen from the difficulty she had in obtaining payment on one occasion, apparently shortly after her husband’s execution. Lady Raleigh to Cæsar. — Lansd. MSS. 142, fol. 282, and note at fol. 280.
[121] Raleigh to Cecil, Add. MSS. 6177, fol. 281. Raleigh to Cranborne, Add. MSS. 6178, fol. 457.
[122] Bacon to Villiers, Nov. 29, 1616, Letters and Life, vi. 115. The sum actually paid into the Exchequer in 1615 by Somerset was only 20,000l., but 4,000l. more may be accounted for, as the King owed him that sum at the time. Perhaps the remaining 1,000l. was wiped off in the same way.
[123] By the account in the Royalist Composition Papers, Ser. i. xcii. 605, it appears that in the time of the Commonwealth the gross annual value of the property was 1,302l. 6s. 8d.; but of this 286l. stands for the Prebend which had been bought since the land came into Digby’s hands, and for <49>certain new purchased grounds. For the purposes of comparing the value of the property at the two periods, Raleigh’s outgoings of 334l. 13s. 0d., must also be deducted, leaving 681l. 13s. 8d., or less than the value in 1612. Of course land may have been sold, but of this there is no trace, at least in Hutchins’s Dorsetshire.
[124] An accusation was brought against Raleigh about this time, by John More, of having offered him a bribe to give false evidence concerning the conveyance. Mr. Sainsbury, who published More’s letter in the Literary Gazette (New Ser. No. 18), together with the enclosed letter of Raleigh’s offering the bribe, pronounces the latter to be a forgery. His suspicions derive confirmation from a sentence taken from a letter of Raleigh’s written to Cecil in 1601 (Add. MSS. 6177, 187). He there says that More ‘writes my hand so perfectly as I cannot any way discern the difference.’
[125] Northampton to Rochester, July 12, 1611, S. P. Dom. lxv. 26.
[126] Bennet to Carleton, July 15, 1611, S. P. Dom. lxv. 32.
[127] The Travels of Captain Smith. On the general credibility of the narrative, see Vol. III. p. 158.
[128] Hening, Statutes of Virginia, i. 57.
[129] Instructions, Nov. 20, 1606. Hening, Statutes of Virginia, i. 67.
[130] Smith’s Hist. of Virginia, 1747, 41. Bancroft, Hist. of America, i. 121.
[131] Purchas, iv. 1683–1733. Smith’s Hist. of Virginia, 41.
[132] Ordinance in Hening, i. 76.
[133] Second charter, Hening, i. 80.
[134] Compare Purchas, iv. 1733, with Smith.
[135] “They persuaded Master Percy to stay … and be their president” (Smith, 93), must mean that the council persuaded him.
[136] Purchas, iv. 1745.
[137] For the Colony of Virginia Britannia, Laws divine, moral, and martial.