University of Virginia Library

5. The Fate of the Original Records[246]

It was in July, 1622, that the controversy between the factions in the company
was first brought before the Privy Council, and, strangely enough, the plaintiff was
John Bargrave, who later championed those whom he now accused. The complain-
ant declared that he had lost 6,600 pounds through the "unjust practices and
miscarriage of government" on the part of Sir Thomas Smythe and Alderman
Robert Johnson. The matter was referred to a committee composed of Lord
Viscount Grandison, Lord Brook, the master of the rolls, Lord Keeper Coventry,
and Secretary Conway, but the affair dragged on in the council until it was finally
settled on January 22, 1622/3, by its ordering Bargrave to forbear troubling Sir
Thomas Smythe.[247] From that time the battle between the factions in the company had
begun. The tobacco contract between the lord treasurer as representative of the
King on the one hand and the company on the other, which had occupied so much of
the time of the courts, was allowed by the Privy Council on the 2d of February.[248]
But the spirit of conflict was seen in the entire correspondence, and during the few
succeeding months bitter complaints concerning the mismanagement of affairs in the
colony were made by Nathaniel Butler in his Unmasking of the Colony of Virginia
and by Alderman Johnson in his Declaration.[249] That both of these originated in the
Warwick faction has been revealed by the Manchester papers.

On April 17 a committee headed by Lord Cavendish was summoned before
the Privy Council to defend the Virginia Company against the "grievances of
Planters and Adventurers." As a result, the first blow was struck at the liberty

of the company when the Privy Council announced that it was the King's intention
that a commission should be appointed to inquire into the state of the Virginia
and Somers Islands plantations.[250] From that time the affairs of the company were
under surveillance, and the correspondence, the trade, and even the personal liberty
of its officers were subject to restraint. The company was immediately forbidden
to receive any private letters except on its own business, while on the 28th of the
same month its letters were disallowed by the Privy Council because they failed
to "certify the King's grace to the Colonies." Already the court books and other
writings had been required of the secretary of the company, as is shown by a
receipt for the same, dated April 21, among the Ferrar papers. This receipt was
given to Edward Collingwood by the clerk of the council. As a concomitant the
council dissolved the tobacco contract and reduced the former customs on tobacco
from twelve to nine pence per pound. It allowed the companies the sole importation
of tobacco, but it required that the whole crop should be brought into England.[251]

There were other acts which partook of the same spirit as the interference with
the correspondence and business of the company. On May 13 the Privy Council
ordered that Lord Cavendish, Sir Edwin Sandys, and Nicholas and John Ferrar
should be confined to their house, a punishment inflicted for a contempt of an
order of the council table against the use of bitter invectives, and brought
about by the complaint of the Earl of Warwick. Lord Cavendish was in restraint
five days and the others eight days. The release came as a result of their
"acknowledgment of offence and expression of sorrow."[252] The threat of the King
was carried out, and the declaration of war was made on May 9 by the appointment
of a commission to investigate the disputes in the Virginia Company and to report
upon their method of procedure.

The danger of confiscation of the company's records was fully realized for the
the first time on May 22, 1623, when the Privy Council enforced a previous order to
surrender "all Charters Books, (and by name the blurred Book or Books), Letters,
Petitions, Lists of Names and Provisions, Invoyces of Goods, and all other writing
whatsoever, and Transcripts of them, belonging to them." The new order declared
that the "Blurred Book or Books" had been kept back. The documents were to be
surrendered to the clerk of the council, but the custody of the records was given to
the commissioners. Each party was to have free use of them "in such sort as to ye
Commissioners shall seem good." Furthermore "all Boxes & Packages of Letters
which hereafter shall be brought over from Virginia or ye Summer Islands during
this Commission" were to be "immediately delivered to ye Commissioners by them

to be broken open, perused or otherwise disposed [of] as they shall find cause."[253]
The records were in the possession of the clerk of the council from the date of this order,
or earlier, until November 7, 1623, as is shown by a warrant bearing the latter date,
in which the commissioners of May 9 required of the council a "trunk of writings"
locked up under the custody of the Privy Council to be delivered to the "bearer."[254]

A careful search for the missing papers must commence at this point. Although
the records, or at least the court books, were later returned to the company, some of
them may have been retained by the commissioners or by individuals thereof.
Therefore, hidden away in the collections of the heirs of these men, it might be
supposed, would be found the much sought-for documents. The members of this
commission, created April 17, were Sir William Jones, Sir Nicholas Fortescue, Sir
Francis Gofton, Sir Richard Sutton, Sir William Pitt, Sir Henry Bouchier, and
Sir Henry Spiller.[255] But, as far as can be determined from personal investigation,
from the report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, from conversa-
tion with Sir Henry Maxwell Lyte, of that body, or from other men conversant with
the private and public depositories in England, none of the papers did remain in the
possession of those commissioners.

A committee of the Privy Council may have had access to these papers, for on
July 22 Lords Grandison, Carew, and Chichester were appointed to take into con-
sideration the reports on the colony and to present to the council orders most fit for
the regulation of the government of Virginia.[256] Another group of men intrusted
with the investigation of affairs at that time, and into whose hands and private
possession might have come papers belonging to the company, were John Harvey,
John Pory, Abraham Percy, Samuell Matthews, and John Jefferson. This commis-
sion was sent to Virginia for the purpose of investigating conditions, and many of
the documents bearing on their relations with the colony are among the colonial
State papers.

The documents remained in the custody of the commission until November 21,
and were then returned to the secretary of the company. An order in council
declared that all the "Books and writings, whether remayneing in the hands of the
Comrs or elswher, shalbe fwthwth deliuered by Inventorie vnto the said Company."
The complaint had been made by the treasurer that they could not make answer to
the quo warranto which had been issued out of the King's Bench against the company
without the use of their records.[257] Therefore, from November, 1623, until June,

1624, the company was in possession of its documents, and it was during that period
that Nicholas Ferrar was busily engaged in having them transcribed.

The last order which concerned these records from December 30, 1623, until
the company was finally overthrown, in June of the following year—when the organi-
zation, according to Nethersole, became a company for trade and not for government—
was a letter of the council to "Nicholas Ferrar, Deputie," to bring to them unopened
all letters which had come in a ship lately arrived from Virginia.[258] That the King
in the meantime was concerned in the preservation of all papers relating to Virginia
is seen in a letter from Secretary Conway to Sir Thomas Merry, in which he was
requested to preserve all papers in the possession of "his late cousin," John Puntis,
vice-admiral of Virginia, and any others which concerned the business.[259]

Following up the recall of the charter, the Privy Council declared that it was the
King's intention to renew the charter of the company without the imperfections of
the former grant. A committee was therefore appointed on June 24 to resolve on the
well settling of the colony, to give the orders therefor, and to report to the King for
further directions. This body consisted of Lord President Mandeville, Lord Paget,
Lord Chichester, the lord treasurer, the comptroller, the principal secretaries of
state, the chancellor of the exchequer, the chancellor of the duchy, the attorney-
general, the solicitor-general, Sir Robert Killigrew, Sir Thomas Smythe, Francis
Gofton, John Wolstenholme, and Alderman Johnson.[260]

Two days later an order in council was issued instructing Mr. Ferrar, deputy of
the company, to bring to the council chamber all patents, books of accounts, and
invoices of the late corporation and all lists of people in the colony, to be retained by
the keeper of the council chest till further order.[261] Thus was ended the control of the
government by the old organization, if not of the affairs of the company and
its colony, and thus the records passed into the charge of the clerk of the Privy
Council.

A commission to establish a government in Virginia is to be found in the chan-
cery privy seals under July of the twenty-second year of James I, countersigned to
pass by immediate warrant. The patent roll of the period records this commission,
dated July 15, 1624, by which the Virginia Company was to be supplanted and the
first royal province in America was to be established.[262] The records of the old com-
pany, however, are not lost to sight till three days later. On July 15 the commis-
sioners met at Sir Thomas Smythe's house and determined that the charters, seals,
and writings of the company were to be brought to Sir Thomas Smythe's house and

kept in charge of the clerk of the commissioners, H. Fotherby, to be used by the
commissioners at pleasure.[263]

In the Privy Council register, under date of June 26, 1624, there is an order for
Mr. Ferrar to deposit in the council chamber the papers of the late corporation, and
in the margin is a note which gives the last glimpse of those records. It reads
as follows: "Nd: All theis Patents bookes of accounts &c were delivered to
Henry Fotherby clarke to the Commissioners, by order from the Lords the 19 of
July 1624."[264]

That these members of the Privy Council and others of the commissioners for
Virginia had all of the original records of the company in their possession at that
date is thus proved. What became of them later can be a matter only of specu-
lation. That they had been so carefully preserved and were deposited "for use by
the members of the commissioners," seems to indicate that the theory of their
destruction by the Crown is not tenable. There are two theories which seem much
more likely. it may be that they passed finally into the possession of the Privy
Council, which evidently soon assumed the burden of the control of the affairs of the
province; for, on May 13, 1625, a royal proclamation arranged for a council which
was to the subordinate to the Privy Council.[265] The papers may thus have remained
with the King's Council until the creation of the commission for Virginia in 1631,
which in turn was supplanted by the Board of Commissioners for Foreign Plantations
in 1634.[266] The commission created in July of 1624 was composed of the lords of the
council and "certain others," and the council register seems to indicate that it was
usually the council sitting as a commission. After 1624 the papers, letters, and
instructions were all issued by the council, the commissions to the councillors and to

governors of the colony passed the privy seal and were engrossed on the patent roll,
and the letters or papers from the colony were addressed to the council.

Another theory as to the fate of the records is that they were at first in charge of
Henry Fotherby, clerk of the commissioners, but that they were gradually scattered
among the members of the commission most interested in the career of the company
as the authority of the commission became purely that of government. The
members of the commission, created July 15, 1624, in whose families such papers
might be found, are as follows: Henry Viscount Mandeville, Lord President of the
Council, Wm. Lord Paget, Anthony Lord Chichester, Sir Thomas Edmonds, Sir
John Suckling, Sir Geo. Calvert, Sir Edward Conway, Sir Richard Western, Sir
Julius Caesar, Sir Humphrey May, Sir Saville Hicks, Sir Thomas Smith, Sir Henry
Mildmay, Sir Thomas Coventry, Sir Robert Heath, Sir Ferdinando Gorges, Sir
Robert Killigrew, Sir Charles Montague, Sir Philip Carew, Sir Francis Goston
[Gofton], Sir Thomas Wroth, Sir John Wolstenholme, Sir Nathaniel Rich, Sir
Samuel Argall, Sir Humphrey Handford, Mathew Sutcliff, Dean of Exeter, Francis
White, Dean of Carlisle, Thomas Tamshaw, Alderman Robert Johnson, James
Cambell, Ralph Freeman, Morris Abbott, Nathaniel Butler, George Wilmore,
William Hackwell, John Mildmay, Philip Germayne, Edward Johnson, Thomas
Gibbes, Samuel Wrote, John Porey (?), Michael Hawes, Edward Palavacine, Robert
Bateman, Martin Bond, Thomas Styles, Nicholas Leate, Robert Butt, Abraham
Cartwright, Richard Edwards, John Dyke, Anthony Aldy, William Palmer, Edward
Ditchfield, George Mole, and Richard Morer.[267]

Had not the receipt from the Privy Council to the secretary of the company
revealed the existence of the early records in 1623, and had not the memoranda of
Sir Nathaniel Rich confirmed the fact,[268] the theory might be put forth that the papers
of the early period were burned in the destruction of Sir Thomas Smythe's house at
Deptford on February 6, 1618/19. The fire at Whitehall on the 16th of January,
1618/19, at which the privy seal, signet, and council records are supposed to have
been destroyed, is sometimes suggested as the cause of the disappearance of the
Virginia records. But the facts given above, in addition to the statement of Sir
Thomas Wilson to the King that there had been but little loss of papers since they
had been transferred to the new office refutes that theory.[269]

It remains for the future enquirer to examine the collections which are known to
contain papers belonging to the families indicated by the names of the various com-
missioners and of the Privy Councillors for that period. Such investigations are made
difficult by the transfer of papers from one branch of a family to another, necessitating

a knowledge of the genealogy of the various families represented. Having found the
heirs of the families in question, the search may then be conducted through the reports
of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts. But this is not sufficient. Since
trace of the family is often lost, or no evidence can be found of collections of docu-
ments, it becomes necessary to search through every section of those reports of the
commission for stray sets of papers. The greatest confusion also results from the sale
of libraries, and while the catalogues of Quaritch or Sotheby may afford a clue to the
offer of such material for sale, often in small lots, the name of the purchaser is not
usually to be discovered. The result is that the student must wait in patience until
the papers have drifted into some great depository—such as the British Museum and
the Bodleian Library—or until they have been made known to the public through
the Manuscripts Commission or by private enterprise.[270]

Another difficulty, which can not be overcome by the individual student, is the
insufficiency of the catalogues of early date. This is gradually being met by the
re-issue of catalogues and calendars in the British Museum, and the Bodleian, although
the new catalogue of the latter is only "summary." The Ashmolean and Rawlinson
papers in the Bodleian may afford many surprises. Furthermore, the early reports
of the Manuscripts Commission were often incomplete and too general in character.
However, the more recent volumes are full calendars, and the older volumes may
be republished in time.

In the great collections of the British Museum are brought together the papers
or portions of the papers of a few of the men with whom we are concerned. In
the Lansdowne collection are about one-third of the papers of Sir Julius Caesar,
master of the rolls, which were sold at auction in 1757. Among these have been
found the valuable letters of John Martin and the draft of the commission of 1624.
In the Harleian collection, brought together by Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford, at
the close of the seventeenth century, and among the papers of Sir John Cotton, who
was a noted antiquarian of the time of James I, are a few important documents.

The valuable collection of the Marquis of Bath, containing the Cecil papers, has
been recatalogued and found to contain nothing which concerns the company after
1616, and nothing of the earlier period not known to Alexander Brown.

Two other collections, imperfectly calendared by the Manuscripts Commission,
are those of Lord Sackville, of Knole, Seven Oaks, Kent, and of the Earl of
Coventry, Croome Court, Severn Stoke, Worcestershire. Since the statement was
made by John Ferrar, in the later years of his life, that Sir Robert Killigrew had
left the Virginia papers to Sir Edward Sackville, the Earl of Dorset, our interest in

this collection is intensified. Both Sir Robert Killigrew and Richard Sackville, Earl
of Dorset, are seen to have been vitally connected with the company and the settle-
ment of its affairs. Two other connections of this family may have brought together
collections which might contain Virginia papers. Richard Sackville, Earl of Dorset,
married Frances, the daughter of Lionel Cranfield, the first Earl of Middlesex, and
he himself became heir to the Cranfield house and title as third earl. The first Earl
of Middlesex was the lord treasurer during the régime of the company and figures
prominently as the individual who conducted the quo warranto suit against the
Virginia Company. Furthermore, Lionel Sackville West is the direct descendant
of Lord De La Warr, of Virginia fame. The combination of the four houses of
Killigrew, Sackville, Middlesex, and De La Warr, which were of so great importance
in Virginia affairs, leads to the hope of a valuable collection of manuscripts. Four
documents are mentioned in the report of the commission, and these refer to the
tobacco trade, but an inquiry of Lord Sackville as to other material in his posses-
sion elicited the reply from Lionel Sackville West that Lord Sackville knew of "no
other papers at Knole relating to the colony of Virginia than those mentioned in the
report of the commissioners." It may be, however, that a more careful calendar
of this collection will disclose papers of great importance.

From March 14, 1616, to January 11, 1620, Thomas Coventry was solicitor-
general; later, during the Sandys-Southampton administration of the Virginia
Company, he held the position of attorney-general. On November 1, 1625, he
became lord keeper, and remained in that office during the period coinciding
with the organization of the colonial administration. Hence it was that, when it
was found from the report of the Manuscripts Commission that many of Lord
Keeper Coventry's papers had not been investigated, the Editor addressed a letter
to the Earl of Coventry, Croome Court. This resulted in a confirmation of the
statement, and a promise to search the papers which are now in the "strong
room here." In a letter to Ambassador Choate, July 27, 1904, the Earl of Cov-
entry made the following statement: "In company with a son I went through
the boxes containing papers of the Lord Keeper Coventry in which I thought it
likely I might find the documents referring to the Virginia Company of London,
some time ago, but I could discover nothing relating to the company." The
letter goes on to say that the "papers are in bad condition and very difficult
to decipher." Hence the conclusion may be reached that this most likely hiding
place for Virginia records is not to reveal new material.

The collections at Thirlestaine House, Cheltenham, and at Hatfield House, are
extremely valuable, but T. Fitzroy Fenwick, esq., the present owner of the former,
states that there is no material in that collection relating to the early history of
Virginia, and a manuscript catalogue, kindly loaned to the writer by Lord Salisbury,

indicates that the papers at Hatfield House, now being calendared, have no bearing
on the subject in hand.

By tracing the family connections of the descendants of Sir Thomas Smythe and
the Earl of Southampton intermarriages are found which might result in the location
of valuable papers in many of the large depositories. All of these have been
investigated by the Manuscripts Commission. Thus, from Sir Thomas Smythe the
documents might have been inherited by the first or the second Earl of Leicester;
by Sir Sydney Stafford Smythe, baron of the exchequer in 1772 and last of the
descendants of the male line; by the eighth Viscount Strangford, vice-president of
the Royal Geographical Society, with whose death in 1869 the senior branch of
the family was terminated; and by the present Duke of Marlborough through the
second marriage of Lady Dorothy Sydney Smythe, daughter of Robert, second
Earl of Leicester. The Wriothesley family is to-day represented in the houses of
the Duke of Bedford and of the Duke of Portland, the former having inherited the
London property of Robert, third Earl of Southampton, and the latter the Tichfield
estate.

The large number of documents among the Smyth of Nibley papers[271] suggests
that in private collections may be many records which concern the private enterprises
or companies formed within the corporation for setting out plantations and carrying
on trade. Other groups of manuscripts and early books have seemed to offer
opportunities for the discovery of the missing records. But the Lambeth Palace
Library, the college libraries both of Oxford and of Cambridge have proved value-
less, with the exception of that most important group in Magdelene College,
Cambridge. Every one of the college libraries, has been searched or investigated,
but to no avail. All Souls College, Oxford, contains a collection of manuscripts which
may afford a few papers on the subject when it has been more carefully catalogued.

The fact that the original records of the company before 1619, and a compara-
tively small portion after that date have not been discovered has led generally to
the conclusion that the party of the Crown destroyed the evidences of the misman-
agement during the first decade and of the comparatively prosperous condition in
the second. That they failed to take into account the records in the colony and the
Ferrar transcripts of the court book is the good fortune of posterity. But the
destruction of the records can not properly be considered as proved until the public
collections have been more carefully calendared and the private collections have
been more thoroughly investigated. The absolute lack of evidence that the Crown
and its supporters held such an attitude and the knowledge that the commissioners
took the records into their charge "for use" encourages the hope that a faithful
endeavor to discover their location may yet be rewarded by success.