University of Virginia Library

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Weldon, the deputy of the college land who was superseded by George Thorpe,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).