University of Virginia Library

THE EXTANT SUPPLEMENTARY RECORDS

DOCUMENTS OUTLINING THE ACTIVITY OF THE COMPANY

The organization and the method of procedure of the company have been
outlined, in order to enable the reader to comprehend the nature of the records, and
through them the machinery by which it conducted its internal affairs; but there is a
wider and more important field to consider. The real interest in the company comes
from its activity in carrying on trade and in developing the resources and
government of the colony. Again, the starting point must be the court book, not
only as a guide to the records which it kept in executing its purposes, but in
discovering what activities are to be traced. Two kinds of documents afford the
clearest outline of the subject; in one are the reports which the treasurer offered to
the company and which are spread upon the minutes; in the other are the printed
declarations and broadsides which the company issued for the purpose of securing
interest, confidence, and investment in the undertaking. With the same motive it
reprinted treatises and published sermons which had been delivered before the
company.

The first report of Sir Edwin Sandys after he became treasurer was offered
on November 3, 1619, in which he thus defined his policy: The resources of the
company were to be augmented by settling and developing the company's land and
by increasing the number of industries to be established, an action which must
advance the plantation from a colony for exploitation into a colony for settlement.
The report begins with a statement of the number of men which had been transported

by the company for the college land and for the public land during the summer and
continues with propositions to the same effect, by which 300 additional persons
should be sent to the colony, 100 of whom were to be maids for wives and 100 to be
apprentices or servants from the city. The other measures discussed are indicative
of the development which rapidly took place. First of these was the effort to
establish other commodities in Virginia and restrain the excessive production of
tobacco; the second was the encouragement of a spirit of local patriotism in the
colony. The treasurer urges that men should be sent from the low countries to
raise fortifications for the colony, stating that the colonists were willing to bear the
charges of the work since they had recently been encouraged by the charters and
grants of liberties. The dependence of the company upon the lotteries for an
income and the care to arrange for an economical transportation of the men are
indications of the financial policy and status of the colony. The income of the
lottery is estimated at £3,500, and the total expense of perfecting the plan submitted
is placed at £4,000 or £5,000.

Six months later the treasurer made his annual report, which revealed to what
extent his plans had been executed. It was issued as a broadside under the date of
the court in which it was delivered and describes the state of the colony from April,
1618, to April, 1619, taken from a general letter to the company, and then proceeds to
outline the successful activity of the colony during the succeeding year. It empha-
sizes the erection of private plantations, the number of men sent to the company's
land, the commodities provided for—there being ten instead of two as in the former
year—the interest in the care of religion and education in the colony, and the stable
financial condition of the company. The general receipts amounted to £9,831 14s 11d
and the disbursements were £10,431 14s 07d, but the surplus in the college fund more
than exceeded this deficiency, the receipts from that source being £2,043 02s 11½d and
the expenditures £1,477 15s 5d. The lottery was reported to have an increase in stock
over the previous year of £1,200. Although not re-elected treasurer, the financial
management remained in the hands of Sir Edwin Sandys, as is proved by the entries
of his plans in the court book and by his private letters to John Ferrar. A scheme
outlined in the court of July 7, 1620, is practically the measure put forth in the
printed declaration of June 22, 1620, and proposes a continuation of the policy stated
above.

The printed documents of 1619 and 1620 add but little to the plans revealed in the
treasurer's reports concerning the activity of the company, although the measures
taken to advance the comfort of the planters and of the tenants upon arrival in
Virginia, the establishment of many private plantations, and the encouragement
given to the self-government of the colony are brought out more clearly. After the
note of the shipping in 1621, so far as is known, there were no propositions issued

by the company. This was due to the massacre which paralyzed the efforts of the
company for a time and forced upon it publications of defense and excuse or
directions of warning. While the company was torn by dissension, after 1622 the
colony slowly but steadily advanced. The proprietor was no longer active, and the
center of interest is therefore transferred from the courts in London in which the
plans had been conceived to the settlement in which they were maturing.

The various publications of the company afford not only an understanding of the
measures proposed, but also of their execution. They were in themselves a means of
carrying out its schemes. Before 1622 five of these advertisements were issued by
the company. The broadside bearing the date May 17, 1620, is a full statement of
the prosperous condition in the colony, setting forth the ability of the colony to
receive newcomers in its guest houses, newly built in each of the four ancient
boroughs and in the other plantations, and describing the measures provided to sus-
tain ministers in each borough. It states the number of men who had been sent to
the public land, with the provisions allowed, and describes fully the efforts which
had been made to establish six industries in the colony.[204]

A book of great importance was issued by the company in June of the same
year containing a series of declarations.[205] There were at least two editions in the
year 1620, having variations in the title page; in the first edition the pages are
numbered according to each pamphlet and the imprint is "T. S.," while in the
second the pagination is consecutive from 1 to 92 and the imprint is that of Thomas
Snodham. The latter varies also in the orthography of the word "colony" in the title.
The former was probably the first edition and was composed of pamphlets, each of
which may have been issued separately, and seems to have been reissued, with an
additional pamphlet concerning a division of land in Virginia,[206] in which the
signature is consecutive. Copies of the first issue of the first edition of the "Decla-
rations" are in the Harvard Library and in the New York Public Library ("No.
1"), but the only copy of the second issue is in the John Carter Brown Library
(copy "A"). The copies in the British Museum, the Cambridge University
Library,[207] the Library of Congress, the John Carter Brown Library (copy "B"),
and the New York Public Library (Thomas Addison Emmet Collection, "No. 2")
are identical and are evidently the first issue of the second edition. The copies in
the New York Public Library and in a private collection in New York are probably
a second issue of the second edition, having four additional pages and containing a

declaration, "By his Maiesties Councell for Virginia," dated November 15, 1620.[208]
The pagination and the signature are consecutive but the style of type is changed.

The pamphlets included in all editions are as follows:

(1)

• "By his Maiesties Counseil for Virginia." This is a declaration of the
  industries which have been established, of the good government which has been
  formed in the colony so that it "begins to have the face and fashion of an orderly
  State," and of the purpose of the company in the division of land.

(2)

• "A Note of the Shipping, Men and Prouisions sent to Virginia, by the
  Treasurer and Company in the yeere 1619."

(3)

• "A Declaration of the Supplies intended to be sent to Virginia in this
  yeare 1620. 18 Julij, 1620."

(4)

• "The Names of the Aduenturers, with their seuerall summes aduentured
  * * * paid to Sir Thos. Smith," to "Sir Baptist Hicks," and to "Sir Edwin
  Sandys."

(5)

• "Orders And Constitutions, * * * for the better gouerning * * *
  of the said Companie * * * Anno 1619, and 1620."

Some light is thrown upon these publications by the court book, in which
provision for four similar pamphlets was made between November, 1619, and June,
1620, as follows:

(1)

• An advertisement for laborers, approved to be published on November 17,
  1619.

(2)

• A publication which should confute the slander as to the barrenness of the
  soil in Virginia, ordered November 22.

(3)

• A list of the names of adventures with the sums adventured, ordered to be
  drawn up by the treasurer and Dr. Winstone, December 15.[209]

(4)

• An apology for Virginia, ordered to be printed June 23, 1620. On June 26
  and 28 it was provided that the standing orders should be printed and annexed to
  the book to be given to all members by order of the council.

The conclusion seems valid that these pamphlets are the ones included in the
book and that they first appeared at various times, but that finally in June, 1620, they
were collected, the fourth one added, and the volume published under the date of
the latter.

The publication of this declaration in four different issues during the year 1620
indicates the interest which Sir Edwin Sandys had aroused in the measure, as well as

the virility of the company, while reference to the book in much of the corre-
spondence of the day reveals the same attitude toward the venture. In order to
promote the silk industry a pamphlet entitled "Observations to be followed for
making of fit roomes for silk wormes," written by Banoeil, was translated under the
patronage of the company toward the end of the year 1620.[210] It contains a pamphlet
called "A Valuation of the Commodities growing and to be had in Virginia: rated
as they are worth," in which is presented the astonishing list of 49 articles. The
natural commodities which did not require especial cultivation, such as various kinds
of fish, furs, woods, shrubs and berries, were of course included. But this proof of
rapid development in the industrial habits and occupations of the colonists is most
important, and the note of the shipping of the same year and the one in 1621 are
confirmatory. In the former is the statement of the number of men sent for each of
four industries, and in the latter a similar declaration. The rapid transportation
of settlers and the development of private plantations in these two years is as sur-
prising. Thus in 1620 six ships with 600 persons were sent to the colony, and 400
more settlers were to be sent at once, of whom 500 were destined for the com-
pany's land. The next year the number of ships dispatched increased to twenty-one
and the number of persons to 1,300, while the number of patents for private
plantations grew from six to twenty-six.

During the year 1622 the books printed by the company were much less valuable,
although more numerous, there being seven in all. The Declaration of the state of
the Colony of Virginia with the Relation of the Massacre of the English, by the
Natiue Infidells with the names of those that were Massacred, by Edward Waterhouse,
was more concerned with the disaster than with the previous development of the
plantation.[211] A broadside is inserted in the copy of this declaration in the John
Carter Brown Library, entitled "Virginia Inconveniences,"[212] which was published
separately and was a set of directions with regard to the provisions which each person
should have before sailing for the colony. This included apparel, victuals, household
implements, arms, sugar, spice, and fruit for consumption at sea, and nets, hooks,
lines, and a tent for large numbers. The declaration was made that for its own
tenants the Virginia Company followed the proportionate provision as set forth in
this broadside. It is at once an advertisement for new tenants and a warning against
the dangers which had wrought dissatisfaction and brought complaints to the com-
pany. Two sermons and two treatises were published in the same year; one of the

latter was a reprint of Banoeil's book on silk worms, including a letter of encourage-
ment from the King and one of advice from the treasurer, which were intended to
promote the industry of silk as opposed to that of tobacco;[213] the other treatise was
by John Brinsley and was an encouragement for the advancement of learning and
the foundation of schools.[214] Of the same character was a four-page pamphlet, which
was published in the same year, declaring the sums which had been coll͠ected "towards
the building of a free schoole in Virginia."[215]

A number of general works were approved by the company in the courts or were
accepted and rewarded. Thus the proposition by Smith to write a history of Vir-
ginia on April 12, 1621, seems to have been acceptable to the adventurers, while
George Rugh, who had rendered service to the Virginia council by writing a treatise
on government, was publicly eulogized upon his bequeathing £100 to the company
for the education of infidels' children.[216] Edward Bennett was admitted to the com-
pany as a reward for a treatise against the importation of tobacco from Spain, and
the chronicler, Howes, was granted 12 pounds of tobacco as a yearly payment for his
references to Virginia.[217]

A number of works were suggested in the courts of which we have no trace or
which can not be identified as appearing under other titles. To what the company
referred when it petitioned the Archbishop of Canterbury for permission to publish
the book which he had prohibited is unknown.[218] The printed book proposed by Sir
Edwin Sandys on November 4, 1620, in which he wished to defend the lotteries and
to hasten the dispatch of persons to Virginia, may have been the declaration of the
shipping in 1620, but it is not mentioned again in the court book. In 1621 three other
proposed publications failed to be executed, so far as is known, the first of which was
a treatise on the government of Virginia by Thomas Bargrave.[219] The second was a
defense of the company, and concerned the health, trade, and manners of the colony,
and the third considered the defects and remedies of Virginia and discussed the food,

health, fortifications, wealth, and religion of the colony.[220] In the following year an
attempt was made to collect the "binding laws which had been ratified in courts"
and to add them to the printed books, but it seems to have failed, since no trace of
such a publication has been found, and no final action is recorded in the court book.[221]

DOCUMENTS REVEALING THE MOVEMENTS FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The printed advertisements between 1619 and 1621 were successful in securing
the capital with which to carry on the enterprise. It now remains to discover how
the trade was conducted and controlled, how the plantation was developed and
governed, and how the business was finally destroyed.

The income which enabled the company to provide for new industries in 1619
and 1620 was derived from the £12 10s. paid by each new adventurer for each new
share of stock, and from the lotteries. Special collections and particular gifts for the
advancement of religion and of education in the colony were frequent, and thus the
account and management of the college land became important. Before the intro-
duction of freedom of trade into the colony, and the dissolution of the old magazine
on January 12, 1619/20, the company had some profit from that monopoly,[222] but the
ease with which returns came from the lotteries had doubtless led the company to
abolish the monopoly of trade which had become so difficult to maintain. That the
company depended on the lotteries is indicated by the following statements in the
court book: On December 1, 1619, the lotteries were continued until summer because
there was no other means of securing money, and the plan put forth for the devel-
opment of the colony on July 7, 1620, provided that the estimated expense of £17,800
should be met by the income from the lotteries, which would amount to £18,000.
Information concerning the organization for conducting the lottery is wanting.
Books and rolls and catalogues of prizes are referred to but have not been found.[223]
Thus the only documents which throw light on the system outside of the court book
are the records of the suit of the Virginia Company against William Leveson, an
agent for the lottery in 1613, which discloses that books and rolls had been kept, and
that a house for the lottery had been erected and furnished "at the west end of St.
Paules Church;" a proclamation by the King for the overthrow of the lottery on
March 8, 1620/21; and a few letters solicting investments.[224]

The investments by the company during the period of the lotteries followed
three lines—the old magazine, the planting of the public and the college lands in

Virginia, and the erection of industries for the production of certain commodities.
The court book is the only source of information with regard to the old magazine,
in which the company through its general stock of the company had invested more
than twice as much as any other adventurer. Hence, during the last half of the year
1619, it made every effort to gain an account and secure a settlement of that adventure.
The discussion, which resulted in the adoption of free trade to the colony, reveals the
system used for the control of the magazine, indicates to a slight degree the income
which the company had had from that joint stock, and incidentally shows that it had
some returns from the public lands in Virginia.[225] The numbers of men sent to the
company's land and their equipment are given in the printed declarations, in the
reports of the treasurer spread on the minutes, and in the discussions recorded in
the court book, and although the sums invested for the purpose are not recorded,
the statement was made by Sir Edwin Sandys that 800 men were sent through the
income from the lottery. The transportation of dissolute persons in the year 1619
to meet the command of the King, and the settlement of boys and girls on the
company's land previous to 1622, were other means used to people the public and
college lands.[226]

Five commodities enumerated in the broadside of May 17, 1620, were established
by action of the court. No record is extant of the exact nature of the investment,
but it appears from the court book to have been chiefly an investment from the general
stock. The movement for monopoly of certain industries rather than a monopoly
of all trade began during the latter part of the year 1620, and as a result the records
deal extensively with plans for the sole importation of tobacco, by which a joint
stock of £15,000 was to be raised to carry out what is known as the "Somerscales
plan."

The overthrow of the lotteries carried consternation to the company. An
income was essential with which to send out settlers to develop the soil or to create
new industries, but the general stock was so low that the company could not even
carry out its plans for glassworks. Finally, after several months of discussion,
recourse was had to special adventure or new joint stock companies for special
undertakings, controlled by a treasurer who should be elected by the adventurers in
the scheme. Thus followed the creation of a series of magazines for the erection of
a glass furnace, for the establishment of a fur trade, for sending maids for wives,
and for supplying a magazine for apparel. The records of these ventures are to be
found only in the court book, and the data there given is very insufficient. This, of
course, meant no advantage to the general stock, and the company was forced to
discover means for securing returns from the general investment and an income with

which to develop the company's land. Hence, private plantations were organized,
and private patents and monopolies for the industry of pitch and tar, for ironworks,
for new discoveries were granted, while special commissions for trade along the coast
and for fishing added to the revenue. With the exception of the movement for
private plantations and for the sole importation of tobacco, but few records exist
outside of the court book to reveal these vigorous endeavors to reap the results of
the great investments in the earlier years.[227] The grants for private plantations to
individuals or groups of individuals, called hundreds, commenced as early as 1616,
but increased rapidly during and after 1621, there being entries in the court book of
over fifty patents granted in four years, which provide for the transportation of at
least 100 men each and often for four times as many. The system by which each
hundred in Virginia and the adventurers for the hundred in England was organized
is to be found in the court book and in the extant records of the companies. The
minutes of one meeting for Martin's Hundred and one for Smythe's Hundred, and
the forms for patents deposited in the British Museum, in addition to about seventy
papers of Berkeley Hundred, afford a very satisfactory reconstruction of the terms of
agreement, the expenses, the provisioning, the form of government, the instructions
issued to the captain or governor of the hundred, and the terms of settlement with
tenants and servants. The adventures of Lord Zouch and Lord La Warr in 1617
and 1618, and of the Walloons and French in 1621, complete the series of which any
record exists.[228]

But the private grants did not promise sufficient income to meet the great
demands for supplies from the general stock which the massacre of 1622 brought
about. As a result the company turned to the income from tobacco, regardless
of its high purposes and its endeavors to enforce the production of other com-
modities. This feeling of the importance of a contract for the sole importation of
tobacco took such a strong hold upon the company that from May, 1622, until
its dissolution, just a year later, nothing else worth mentioning is recorded in the
court book, while the quarrel concerning the salaries to be paid for the manage-
ment of the £100,000 to be invested in this project monopolized the attention
of several courts. In addition to the record of an entire year in the court book,
numerous memoranda of various estimates of the value of the tobacco monopoly
to the Crown and to the company are deposited among the Manchester papers

in the Public Record Office. The communications with the Privy Council on
the subject are spread on the company's minutes, and are also to be found among
the Colonial State papers. This series includes the proclamations of the King in
1624, and the new propositions and measures for tobacco importation of the
same year. The economic condition of the planter, the necessity of a revenue to
the company, the amount of the importation and of the customs value to the
King, the relations with Spain, and the economic values in England are all brought
out in the estimates, discussions, and arguments.[229]

DOCUMENTS DISCLOSING THE RELATIONS WITH THE COLONY

The study of the relations of the company to the colony and the development
within the colony may be based on a greater variety of documents than any other
phase of the subject, especially with regard to the political conditions. The court
book furnishes an understanding of the attitude and motives of the company and
often serves to connect the data gathered from letters, instructions, commissions,
patents, and grants. Thus the emphasis on the custom of martial law in the colony
and the severity of penalty imposed is revealed both in the court book and in the
extracts from Governor Argall's register.[230] The additional forms of government
required by the development of the colony are recorded in the court book, by which
the company created the offices of deputies to the governor for the college and for
the public land, secretary, treasurer, chancellor, and surveyor, and provided for the
compensation of officers by grants of land, by transportation of tenants, by the
income of the company's land, and by allowance of fees.[231] The requests for the
appointment of a council of State and for laws and orders, urgently repeated by
Governor Yeardley, as recorded in the court book in 1619, give evidence that the
source of such development was in the colony. But the fundamental law for the
government of the colony is recorded in three documents, the instructions to Gov-
ernor Yeardley, November 8, 1618, which created the land system, the instructions
to Governor Wyatt, July 24, 1621, which emphasized the industrial development,
and "An Ordinance and Constitution * * * for a Councill of State and Generall
Assembly" in Virginia, which confirmed the political forms.

These documents provided for the creation of two councils. The council of
state, composed of the governor and council, was to form an executive and

judicial body, and the assembly, composed of the council and two burgesses from
each town or borough, was to be purely a legislative body.[232] The approval of a
quarter court of the company, which was necessary for legalizing the acts of the
assembly, is referred to in the court book in three places only.[233] The constitution
and the provisions for division of the country into cities and boroughs, recorded
both in the instructions and in the patents by which the government of the private
plantations was delegated to a private body, form the basis for a study of the
local systems. The records of Smythe's, Martin's, and Berkeley Hundred referred
to above, the correspondence of Samuel Argall with Bermuda Hundred, and the
commissions for government issued by Governor Argall and later by the council
of state complete the sources on this subject.[234] The precedents for patents are
valuable in the information which they afford with regard to the position of the
following classes of colonists: The old adventurer not subject to rent; the
adventurer paying money for his shares and agreeing to transport 100 persons;
the adventurer settling a private plantation; the individual planter.[235] These
documents also throw light on the liberty of the individual, his exemption from
taxation without his consent by the colony or by the private plantation, and his
submission to a government almost military in character.

The strict supervision which the company exercised over the economic, indus-
trial, and social conditions of the colony is to be seen in the measures enacted in
the courts and in the correspondence between the company and the colony, sup-
plemented by a large number of private letters to the officers of the company.
Four letters to the colony are mentioned in the court book, of which two have not
been found, but eight others not mentioned are extant. It is more difficult to
determine what letters came from the colony, due to the usually brief reports of
the letters in the court book, to the omission of the date from the copies of the
letters, and from the uncertainty of the date of the receipt of the letters as noted
in the court book. Seven letters seem to have been received by the company of
which no trace has been found, while only four of the ten extant are mentioned
in the court book. It is apparent therefore that only a part of the official corre-
spondence is in existence. The directions to the colony disclose the care and
earnestness of the company, and emphasize the endeavors to establish the various
commodities, while the descriptions given by the colonists are extremely valuable
in the picture they present of their efforts, ambitions, and attainments. The pri-

vate correspondence proves that the official letters were likely to give but one
phase of the conditions.

About thirty-five letters addressed to Sir Edwin Sandys during the years 1619
to 1621 have been found among the Ferrar papers, which are full of complaint
because of the scarcity of provisions. Apparently Sir Edwin's policy to develop the
plantation, and especially the company's land as a source of revenue, was overdone,
and he was not as wise in carrying out his plan as he had been in forming it, since the
colony was unable to provide for the large numbers sent out. These complaints are
casually mentioned in the court book, but the Sandys-Ferrar correspondence shows
that it was the desire of the administration to conceal the difficulties and distress
of the colony not only from the public but also from the hostile faction. The Man-
chester papers preserve letters, or copies of them, which came to the company or
to individuals in 1622 and 1623 complaining of similar deprivations in the colony.[236]

The company was not only interested in the economic and industrial develop-
ment and the necessary political forms of the colony, but, as Sir Edwin Sandys
declared, it had a higher purpose than the Muscovy or the other commercial corpo-
rations. This high ideal is proved by the attention which is devoted to plans for
the college, by the appointment of ministers, by the collections in the churches, and
by the gifts received,[237] but the theory that the chief motive of the enterprise was
religious is not supported either by the spirit or by the data of the records.

RECORDS KEPT BY THE OFFICERS IN THE COLONY

The acts of the administration in Virginia are recorded in the volume of
contemporary records of the company kept by the colony which are described
above. They consist of a series of nine orders and proclamations by the governor
and council and of twenty-one orders, proclamations, commissions, and warrants
issued by the governor as the executive officer of the council for the regulation
of affairs in the colony. They cover the years 1621, 1622, and 1623, and concern
the collection of taxes, the designation of laborers for public works, the regu-
lation of prices of commodities, the restraint of relations with the Indians, and
the control of the morals of the citizens. In addition to these documents issued
by the governor is a series of twenty-four commissions and warrants issued to
individuals to act as commanders of cities and hundreds, to carry on trade with
the Indians, to make discoveries, to wage war upon the Indians, and to collect
moneys. Another group of documents in the same collection consists of thirty-
six petitions to the governor and council between 1622 and 1624. They are

claims for wages and for moneys due, demands for fulfillment of contracts,
requests for pardon and for justification in personal quarrels, demands for lands,
and petitions to be allowed to return to deserted plantations and to England.[238]

The only extant record of the council for 1619 is an account of the "putting
out of the Tenants that came over in the B[ona] N[ova] wth other orders of the
Councell," found among the Ferrar papers.[239]

The "courte booke," or original record of the meetings of the governor and
council, in which these petitions were heard and orders issued, is extant from 1624
to 1632, with a record of one court in 1622 and of one in 1623. These are mostly
the actions of the council sitting in a judicial capacity and concern controversies
over property, probate matters, and criminal charges. The punishment seem
extreme. Two actions of the court are particularly interesting, one affecting
Edward Sharpless for sending copies of the colonial records to England, and the
other consisting of accusations against Captain John Martin of slanderous and false
utterances. A few additional orders and warrants are preserved among the Colonial
State papers,[240] together with a report of the proceedings of the assembly in 1619,
written by John Pory and sent to England, the only other account of which was
sent to Sir Edwin Sandys by John Rolfe, and is among the Ferrar papers.[241] The
acts of the assembly for March 5, 1623/24 are the only measures of that body
during the life of the company which are extant, with the exception of the letters
and petitions addressed to the company and to the King, and of a few orders.

DOCUMENTS CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF FACTIONS AND THE DISSOLUTION OF THE COMPANY

A series of documents remains which does not bear directly on the organization
of the company or the expression of its activity in trade and in colonial enterprise,
but is invaluable for a study of the history of the company, since it concerns the
relations of the individual members to one another, reveals the inner life and motive
of the company as a whole and of the various groups, and explains the conditions
which resulted from the interference of the King and the overthrow of the corpora-
tion. The entire movement centers about the growth of factions in the company.
The movement begins in the years just preceding the accession of Sir Edwin Sandys
to the position of treasurer, and seems to have had its origin in the trouble over

Sir Samuel Argall and the appointment of Sir George Yeardley as governor of the
colony. It finally involved many of the personal complaints and difficulties which
presented themselves to the company, and therefore requires a study of those
problems before it can be understood.

The measures which thus arose with regard to individuals are to be found
chiefly in the court book. They supply much information which can not be
obtained elsewhere with regard to the methods of procedure of the company,
and afford scattered data of great importance in addition to the light they throw
on the disputes of the factions. The subjects discussed include such problems
as the relations with the northern colony, the conflict with Spain concerning the
ship Treasurer, the suit against William Wye for failing to land settlers in Vir-
ginia, and various accusations against Governor Yeardley and Captain Argall for
misgovernment in the colony. The accounts of Sir Thomas Smythe, the settle-
ment of Alderman Robert Johnson's accounts for the magazine, and the illegality
of Captain John Martin's patent for a plantation, were also questions which were
of vital importance to the financial affairs of the company and took the atten-
tion of numerous courts; but neither the accounts of Sir Thomas Smythe nor of
the magazine were ever adjusted.

The claims against the company presented by William Tracey, by William
Weldon, the deputy of the college land who was superseded by George Thorpe,
and by the heirs of Sir George Somers for a compensation for the Somers
Islands are but illustrations of the many demands made upon the company.
The court sat as a judiciary body to settle numerous personal quarrels, including
the Brewster-Argall, the Argall-Smythe, the Bargrave-Smythe, and the Johnson-
Southampton cases. Disputes which arose within the courts and resulted in
slander and counter accusations took much of the time and attention of the
company, the trouble between the council and Samuel Wroth over the question
of salaries thus consuming the entire time of the courts for three months, from
December to February, 1622/3. In the various collections in London are about
a dozen papers which give additional information on the Argall-Rich troubles,
the censure of Alderman Johnson, the Martin patent, the accounts of Sir Thomas
Smythe, and the suits against William Wye.[242]

The documents which bear directly on the factional differences in the company
are among the Manchester and the Ferrar papers. From them comes the insight
into the very motives and thoughts of the opposing parties, and the proof that

the accusations of the Warwick party are well founded, in so far as they relate
to concealment of the sufferings and dissatisfactions in the colony, comes as a
surprise.[243] For a history of the factions the student must first review the
reports of the personal conflicts referred to above and then turn to the numerous
documents which include the accusations against the company, the defense of the
colony and of the company, and the memoranda and letters upon the charges.

When the quarrels had finally been carried to the Privy Council, the matter
was taken up officially by the company, and the second volume of the court book
after the spring of 1623 is composed entirely of documents spread upon the minutes
which concern the action of the company. In fact, all of the papers after that time
are of the same character except the records of the governor and council in Virginis.
Since they number upward of two hundred, it will be impossible to discuss them
separately, but it must be remembered that in them is to be found an outline of the
history of the company reaching back into the time of Sir Thomas Smythe, presented
first by one faction and then by the other. The most important of these reviews
are the charges of Captain Butler, of Alderman Johnson, and of Captain Bargrave,
with replies to each; the complaints of the adventurers and of the planters against the
Sandys administration, and a declaration by the "ancient planters" comparing the
two administrations in the colony. Finally, the "Discourse of the Old Company"
is the last review of the whole situation. Another most important group of papers
is a series of projects for readjusting the government of the colony and the adminis-
tration of the company. The projects of Martin, Bargrave, Ditchfield, and Rich
thus afford an opportunity to study the beginnings of royal control.

The relations between the Crown and the company assume three different
phases during the Sandys-Southampton administration—the first before the dis-
cussion over the tobacco contract in 1622, the second concerning that contract, and
the third relating to the abuses in the company and the dissolution of the corpora-
tion. The court book shows a readiness and a desire on the part of the company
before 1622 to refer to the Privy Council such matters as the magazine accounts
which seemed beyond their control, but it also contains declarations to the effect
that an interference with the patent rights is not to be tolerated. The questions
arising in those years concern the transportation of dissolute persons to the col-
ony, the right of the King to nominate men from whom the treasurer should be
chosen, the restriction on trade to other countries, the refusal of a new charter to
the company, and the dissolution of the lotteries. Supplementary to these records
in the court book are the orders of the Privy Council affecting all of these

problems. One of the most important documents, however, has not been found,
since the efforts for a new patent can not be traced beyond the statement in
the court book. It was first proposed November 15, 1620, and was ordered to be
continued and to be confirmed by Parliament on January 31, 1620/21. On the
22d of the following month the Lords were appointed to secure the seal, and
on April 12 the objections of the attorney-general, to whom the King had referred
the patent, were discussed. That it never went into effect is certain, since no
record is to be found among the sign manual warrants in the record office or in
the signet docquet book. Furthermore, it is not enrolled in the chancery files,
and it is not entered on the patent rolls, while in the suit of the quo warranto
the only letters patent cited are those already known of 1606, 1609, and 1612.[244]

Unless the documents have been lost or the date of the entry has been mis-
taken the conclusion must be reached that after the surrender of the draft of the
new charter to the solicitor-general it disappeared from sight. During the year 1622
the communications between the King and the company concerned the tobacco con-
tract and its final acceptance at the command of the King, and revealed the maturity
of the policy of interference which had been developing during the previous years.
The number of accusations against the company increased during the year, and the
records of the early part of 1623 abound in letters of complaint and charges of
mismanagement from the colony. The memoranda of the Warwick party, found
among the Manchester papers, are also essential to the understanding of the
movements toward the overthrow of the company. Many of the forty communi-
cations between the King and the company are spread on the court book, while
all of them are found in the Privy Council register. These include the commis-
sions to the board chosen to investigate the affairs of the company,[245] and the

directions to the commissioners sent to Virginis. The correspondence between
the King and the colony during those months of struggle concerned the latter
commission and established the royal authority, but the letters from the colony
were addressed to the company as late as the close of the year, six months after
the judgment was rendered in the quo warranto suit.

The record of this suit is found in the coram rege roll of the Kings Bench. In
the entry the usual writ served upon the company is followed by the information
read by Edward Offley, the attorney for the company, citing the letters patent of
1606 and especially of 1609. It enumerates the rights granted to the corporation,
and claims that other privileges were never used. The third document is the reply
of Attorney-General Coventry in which he prays for the conviction of the accused
on account of the usurpation of privileges, and cites those mentioned in the infor-
mation, claiming that there had not been sufficient answer in any point. The answer
of Nicholas Ferrar and others states that the company is ready to verify its rights
as quoted. The judgment was rendered on the morrow of Holy Trinity, and
declares that Nicholas Ferrar and the others are convicted of the usurpation of
privileges and that the "said privileges are taken and seized into the hand of the
King and the said Nicholas Ferrar and the others shall not intermeddle but shall be
excluded from the usurpation of liberties, privileges, and franchises of the same so
taken from the King, and that they are to satisfy to the King his fine for the usurpa-
tion of said privileges." The writ of quo warranto was issued out of the Kings
Bench on the Tuesday next after the morrow of All Souls (November 4, 1623).
The suit was opened on the Friday after the quindecim of St. Martin's (November
28), and was then postponed until the eight of Hillary (January 20). It was
postponed a second time to the quindecim of Easter (April 11), and judgment was
finally rendered on the morrow of Trinity (May 24, 1624).