_To the Editors of the Boston Daily Advertiser_:--
Absences have prevented my notice of the article of your correspondent
"P.," as early as I could have wished. I now take it up for some
remarks on its most prominent positions.
To his criticisms, both merited and unmerited, I desire to bow in meek
thankfulness. They are merited only as the imperfections were the
result of haste in writing on the eve of a journey. Though they may
injure the advocate, the cause stands as impregnable as ever. The
unmerited are to be attributed to the indistinctness of my rapid
penmanship. If our articles shall have the fortune to come to a second
edition, he will not be sorry to see that his sagacity has been made
useful in aid of my argument.
As to the pervading personalities in the communication, I have but
little to say. Of my position and acts in connection with the
commemorations of the colony, it asserts matters which never existed,
and attributes to me motives which I have never entertained. These
allegations do not change the facts of history. It is because of this
_personal_ phase of the discussion, that I propose to make no farther
reply to your correspondent, even if he should attempt a
sur-rejoinder. I do not know him. But he seems to know me, in this
connection, more than well,--more than I know of myself, or any one
knows or can know of me.
In ascribing to me the origination of the celebrations of the Popham
Colony, the communication ignores the fact, that the "founding"
thereof (and I use the word in its dictionary sense) was commemorated,
in "a bi-centenary celebration," by the Rev. Dr. Jenks, "with a party
of gentlemen, in 1807." So that, if there could be claimed any virtue
for an Episcopal origination of the commemorative visit to
Sabino,--which has never been claimed by any one acquainted with the
facts,--this early act by this lover of the olden days would take it
all away. Indeed, I have had nothing to do with the later
celebrations, as their "original inventor and patentee," in any sense
whatever. Its suggestion even was not Episcopal, but simply
historical. I have been only auxiliary.
The communication has not a little to say about the bad traits of
character in Chief Justice Popham, as displayed in a portion of his
early manhood. But it wholly neglects testimony--elsewhere cited--to
traits of an opposite kind, appearing in his more matured years. This
evidence appears in the writings of his cotemporaries, who speak of
him in terms of high commendation. Whatever might have been his
earlier life, the path of repentance and amendment was open for his
entrance. After his marriage, he changed his early courses; and by his
diligence in his legal studies qualified himself for his later eminent
position. When Strachey, Smith, Croke and Mather, writing after his
death, and of course after his character was completed, call him "the
upright and noble gentleman," "that honorable pattern of virtue," "a
person of great learning and integrity," "the noble lord," with other
words of approval, and none of censure, a reader of the paper cannot
but wonder that the better part of his later life was not noticed as
well as the worse parts of his earlier. Fuller has placed him among
the "Worthies," and says: "If _Quicksilver_ could really be _fixed_,
to what a treasure would it amount! Such is _wild youth_ seriously
reduced to _gravity_, as by this young man did appear."
The opinion of Lord Campbell in his favor should not be neglected by
an impartial seeker for truth. He is severe on most of the Chief
Justices, not sparing even the good Sir Matthew Hale. His
commendations are therefore the more valuable. In his "Life" of this
Chief Justice, he describes the particular traits to his discredit,
when, with other young men, he entered on his illegal acts on the
highway; and then says, "We must remember that this calling was not
then so discreditable as it became afterwards." He speaks of the
change in his purposes; his diligence as a student; and, after some
quotations, presented in this discussion, he says, "He held the office
(of Chief Justice) fifteen years, and was supposed to conduct himself
in it very creditably." "Many of his judgments in civil cases are
preserved, showing that he well deserved the reputation which he
enjoyed." "On the trial of actions between party and party, he is
allowed to be strictly impartial, and to have expounded the law
clearly and soundly." "I believe that no charge could justly be made
against his purity as a judge."
And then, as to the reasons why censures were brought against him,
this biographer says, "Yet, from the recollection of his early
history, some suspicion always hung about him, and stories, probably
quite groundless, were circulated to his disadvantage." "Of these we
have a specimen" about "Littlecote Hall." It is "unfair to load the
memory of a judge with the obloquy of so great a crime, upon such
unsatisfactory testimony." A distinguished ruler--more exalted than
Popham, whom Palfrey calls "that eminent person"--once wrote,
"Remember not the sins of my youth."
If he was called "the hanging judge," it was because criminals were to
be punished. Lloyd says, to his credit, that "the deserved death of
some scores preserved the lives and livelihood of some thousands;
travellers owing their safety to this judge's severity many years
after his death." Aubrey says the same.
But, if all were true, as alleged to the disparagement of the Chief
Justice, is there so necessary a connection between him and the
colonists at Sabino as that they, except the ten men in office, must
therefore have been "villains and convicts"? He certainly has on all
sides the praise of having been the earliest and the most active
promoter of colonization on our wild New England shores. In this
relation he gained the distinct commendation of Hubbard, as "the first
that ever procured men or means to possess New England,"--"the main
pillar" of the enterprise, with not the remotest allusion to any such
acts in its accomplishment as are mentioned by your correspondent. His
statement leads one to think, that he regarded these early movements
as preparatory to the settlements in Massachusetts. He certainly has
said nothing that can lead us to suppose he connected "convicts" with
Popham's efforts.
There is a statement made, derived from Strachey's use of the word
"prepared," in two instances, as though this _preparation_ consisted
chiefly in furnishing convicts for transportation to Sagadahoc. Where
is the proof? There is not a word in the context to warrant any such
application, and indeed no where else. One of the "prepared"
expeditions was captured by a Spanish fleet, and the men held in a
kind of piratical duress. The communication proceeds to say, in
condemnation of the old historians and Popham, that "no word of
sympathy was expressed by the old writers for the persons enslaved by
the Spaniards; nor did Popham, so far as we know, make any attempts to
rescue them from their hard fate." Alas! where is the proof of this
sweeping assertion? Exactly opposite was the fact. His humane regard
for the captives was forthwith put into action. It would have been
well for the furtherance of history, if one well versed in "the old
writers" against Popham had also seen and produced a single testimony
in his favor. Take one sentence from Gorges, relating to this Spanish
capture: "The affliction of the captain and his company put the Lord
Chief Justice to charge and myself to trouble in procuring their
liberties, which was not soon obtained." This citation is enough to
show his efforts for their release, and proves great humanity on the
part of this "noble patron of justice and virtue," as he has been well
described; and that he was not herein "a heartless wretch," as your
correspondent writes, and furnishes no proof of his allegation.
The quotations from Lloyd--himself mostly valuable for _his_
quotations--are prominently presented, as bearing on the character of
the colonists. He says that Popham "provided for malefactors." But
that is no certain proof that he sent them to Sagadahoc. The plan and
its completion are different things, and its completion was not
necessarily here. "He first set up the discovery of New England to
maintain and employ those that could not honestly live in the Old."
But this proposal, this "setting up," if made in regard to Sagadahoc,
does not _prove_ that the suggestion was ever carried out. With the
singularly imperfect knowledge of foreign geography, that has always
characterized English education, all Virginia seems to have been New
England, and _vice versa_. New England was North and South Virginia.
We admit the plan. We demand the proof that convicts were banished to
this region. Besides, where is the inhumanity of the proposal, or its
fulfilment? It was intended to save the lives of criminals, who
otherwise would have been hung, according to evidence and the laws of
their time; and doubtless the culprits condemned would have deemed
the provision merciful, that by banishment allowed them to live.
The quotation from Sir William Alexander has been often made; and it
is valuable, as coinciding accurately with the views expressed in my
communications. His book is rare; and I take his words from your
columns:--
"Those that went thither being pressed to that enterprize, as
endangered by the Law, or their own necessities, (no enforced
thing prouing pleasant, discontented persons suffering while
they act can seldom have good success and neuer satisfaction)
they after a Winter stay dreaming of new hopes at home
returned back with the first occasion."
Here we are accurately taught that the people--that is, the laborers
in the colony--went "as endangered by the law, or their own
necessities." How were they "endangered"? By what "law"? By what
"necessity"? A writer of that time furnishes the reply,--in the
crowded population, the poverty of the working class, and the
encroachments of their rich neighbors; and urges emigration as the
relief. He writes the following:--
"Look seriously into the land, and see whether there bee not
just cause, if not a necessity to seek abroad. The people do
swarme in the land as young bees in a hive in June: insomuch
that there is hardly room for one man to live by another. The
mightier, like old strong bees, thrust the weaker, as younger
out of their hives. Lords of manors convert townships, in
which were a hundredth or two hundredth communicants, to a
shepheard and his dog. The true laboring husbandman, that
sustaineth the prince by the plow, who was wont to feed many
poore, to set many people on work, and pay twice as much
subsidie and fifteenes to the king for his proportion of
earth, as his landlord did for ten times as much; that was
wont to furnish the church with saints, the musters with able
persons to fight for their soveraigne, is now turned laborer,
and can hardly scape the statutes of rogues and vagrants....
The poore metall man worketh his bones out and swelteth
himself in the fire; yet for all his labor, having charge of
wife and children, he can hardly keep himselfe from the almes
box.... The poor man receiveth very neere four pence for
every sixepeny worth of work. The thoughtfull poore woman
that hath her small children standing at her side and hanging
on her breast, she worketh with her needle and laboureth with
her fingers, her candle goeth not out by night, she is often
deluding the bitterness of her life with sweete songs, that
she singeth to a heavy heart.... I warrant you her songs want
no passion; she never saith, O Lord, but a salt teare
droppeth from her sorrowfull heart, that weepeth with the
head for company with teares of sweetest bloud. And when all
the week is ended, she can hardly earn salt enough for her
water gruel to feede on upon the Sunday."
Surely here is a picture of extreme poverty,--fully corroborated by a
document in Mather,--showing how "the land grew weary of her
inhabitants;" and how "children, neighbors and friends, especially the
_poor_, were counted the greatest burdens." It tells us how the honest
yeomanry and worthy laborers of that day were harassed by the
encroachments of their "mightier" neighbors, and the rigid oppression
of the civil law. They were "endangered" through no fault of their
own. One cannot but recall a part of the petition of Agur,--"lest I be
poor, and steal" to support life. But are we to consider such men as
"rascals and villains"? And were any such men, sentenced, as men of
guilt, to go forth as a part of the colony? Symonds here gives a full
and sufficient interpretation to the meaning of Lloyd and Alexander.
Let us now see who had the power to sentence and fix the place of
exile. The Statute of 39 Elizabeth c. iv, 1597-8, to which your
correspondent refers as being ample enough to cover "the plan of
colonizing by banishment of convicts," authorizes this penalty for
"dangerous rogues," who "shall and may lawfully be banished out of
this Realme and all other the Domynions thereof." This was to be done
"by the Justices of the Peace" at the "Quarter Sessions." Not a word
is said about the Chief Justice. The place to which they were to be
sent was to be decided "by the Privie Council;" and thus, certainly,
not by Popham alone. So that, if there were shame in the transaction,
the most honored men of the nation were equally involved in the
disgrace. It is unfair and ungenerous to single him out to meet a
purpose, as the sole object of obloquy and rebuke.
And now, as to the return of these persons to England. Your
correspondent, assuming that a part of them were convicts, truly says,
in agreement with his assumption, that they would not be "over-anxious
to revisit their native land. They had saved their necks once by
emigrating, and were not in haste to put them again into the halter."
And so he invents the story about a second pinnace, with which they
could "lead generally a wild and free life, such as was congenial to
their character and dispositions." This is a precious statement; but
it happens to be directly opposite to the citation fearlessly made
from Sir William Alexander, which declares that "Those that went
thither,--as endangered by the laws,--dreaming of new hopes of home,
returned thither with the first occasion." None were left behind. If
they had been convicts, they would have pursued some such plan as is
intimated by your correspondent, and not have gone back to the hazard
of certain death. For the statute last quoted enacts, "if any such
Rogues, so banished as aforesaid, shall returne againe into any part
of this Realme or Dominion of Wales without lawful Lycence or Warrant
so to do, that in every such case such offence shall be Fellony, and
the Party offending therein shall suffer Death as in case of Fellony."
This was but poor encouragement for convicts to seek their native
shores. The winter had been hard. But Captain Davies, who had borne
news of the "success" of the enterprise to England, had come back to
Sagadahoc in the spring, "with a shipp laden full of vitualls" and
other useful things, so that starvation had no horrors; and the
summer was at hand. Sir William testifies that they had "new hopes"
inviting them to go home. But, if they were condemned criminals, what
"new hopes" could have been cherished by men who had nothing to expect
but certain detection, by the letter R "branded in the left shoulder,"
for identification, as soon as they stepped on their native shores;
and penal death as its sequel? These "hopes" must have been "new"
indeed, if they rested only on a halter, a hangman, and a gallows!
Here your correspondent and one of his chief witnesses entirely
disagree. The former says, they "were not over-anxious to revisit
their native land," fearing the halter. The witness says, that "they
returned back with the first occasion"--hasting, and hopeful of a
better condition than the one they had left. The one says, that, as
liberated jail-birds, they led a roving life here, fearing death at
home. The other, in effect, says they had a happy voyage to England,
with bright anticipations of a more prosperous life!
We may now look at the kind of men who were to go as settlers to the
early colonies on our coast. The Charter of James, April 10, 1606,
under which this colony was formed, gives the information. It proves
that the specially enumerated patentees, "they and every one of them,
shall and may, at all and every time and times hereafter, have, take,
and lead in the said voyage, and for and towards the said Plantations,
and Colonies, and to travel thitherward, and to abide and inhabit
there, in every the said Colonies and Plantations, such and so many of
our subjects as shall willingly accompany them or any of them, in the
said voyages and Plantations."
The reader will note the sole condition annexed, as to the persons
selected to go: "such and so many of our subjects, as shall WILLINGLY
accompany" any or all of the patentees. Can any language be plainer?
Force by the sentence of the civil law is not here thought of. The
"willingness" of the "honest," hard pressed yeomanry, seeking to
better their livelihood, is here provided for. The "willing" ones are
allowed to go, except such as, by the royal power might "be specially
restrained." So that the real rogues, however "willing" to go, might
thus be forbidden, lest they should contaminate the honest men,
described by Gorges, who, "not liking to be hired out as servants to
foreign states, thought it better became them to put in practice the
reviving resolution of those free spirits, that rather chose to spend
themselves in seeking a new world, than servilely to be hired out but
as slaughterers in the quarrels of strangers." The same provision
existed in the patents to Gilbert and Raleigh. Yet no one has supposed
that these leaders took convicts.
Yet this is not all. The same Charter of 1606 expressly provides:
"that all and every the Persons being our subjects, which shall dwell
and inhabit within every or any of the said several Colonies or
Plantations, and every of their Children, which shall happen to be
born within any of the Limits and Precincts of the said several
Colonies and Plantations, shall HAVE and enjoy all Liberties,
Franchises and Immunities, within any of our other Dominions, to all
Intents and Purposes, as if they had been abiding and born, within
this our Realm of _England_, or any other of our said Dominions." Now,
if the Popham Colony was composed of convicts, how enviable their
condition! The sentence of the law did not touch them, except in
words! They still had all the "Liberties" of the most innocent
Englishman on his native soil! They were "subjects,"--"loving
subjects," as the same class of "willing" emigrants were called in the
Charter of 1609. What "convicts" ever had such "Franchises and
Immunities" since the world began? Their state was nothing less than
perfect freedom! They were, therefore, _no convicts at all_; and so
could return home safely, and with "new hopes," just as soon as they
deemed the change desirable.
In double confirmation of this fact, we may go to the Charter of 18
James, Nov. 3, 1620, which speaks of the efforts made in divers years
past, in the Northern Colony, by former grantees, who had "taken
actual possession of the Continent," and had "settled already some of
our People in Places agreeable to their Desires in those parts." This,
certainly, is very far from sustaining the opinion, that the occupants
of Sagadahoc were convicts. For they were settled in a place
"agreeable to their Desires," until calamities darkened all their
prospects. It is worth noting here, that Lord Campbell says nothing
about Popham in connection with convicts and the colony. This omission
is significant.
A question is proposed, with an air of confidence, as if its answer
must demolish the positions of my former article. It is this: "Will
'Sabino' please point out the 'law' under which James sent off a
hundred convicts in 1619, that did not exist in 1606?" The demand is
adroitly made, but not pertinently. To make it touch the point, it
should have been 1607. My reply is readily given.
The statute for the punishment of rogues by banishment, already noted,
(39 Eliz. ch. iv.,) expired by its own limitation, in 1601; when it
was renewed, to continue till the end of the first session of the next
Parliament, which was held in 1603-4. It was then re-enacted, (1
James, ch. iv. and xxv.,) when the additional provision was made, that
persons condemned under its sanctions should be branded on the left
shoulder with "a greate Romane R," for their detection in case of
their unlicensed return, so as to secure the death of the offender,
"as in case of Felonie." This statute was to continue "until the end
of the first session of the next Parliament" (ch. xxv.). I have no
means at hand of knowing the precise date when this session closed;
but the Parliament itself ended on May 27, 1606, and the _statute was
not revived_. The temper of the king and that body was shown in the
statute (3 James ch. xxvii.) entitled, "An acte for the King's most
gracious generall and free Pardon." The next Parliament began Nov. 18,
1606, and ended July 4, 1607. Such was the forbearance of the supreme
legislature in relation to the transportation of condemned criminals,
that the session passed away, and the law, that had expired by its own
limitation, was allowed to remain in this state of its natural death.
Transportation seems not to have been in favor.
Therefore, from "the end of the firste session" of the Parliament
whose final session was terminated May 27, 1606, till after the Popham
Colony sailed, May 31, 1607, there was no statute of transportation in
existence.
A re-enactment of the law, or rather a law for punishing rogues by the
workhouse, and not by transportation, was not made until the
Parliament beginning Feb. 9, 1609. This was four days more than a year
after George Popham's death, and a year and a half after the death of
the Chief Justice. So that here was at least an interval of more than
two years and three-fourths, when there was no law for the exile of
convicts from the royal dominions. In this space of time, the Popham
Colony had its beginning, its continuance and its end,--beginning more
than a year after the law had died; continuing through the larger part
of the year; and ending nearly another year before it was revived, in
a very different form, and with a milder penalty. During this period,
no law appears in the "Statutes of the Realm" for the transportation
of convicts; and it is perfectly incredible that any persons were so
sentenced by the justices of the peace, and sent to Sagadahoc under
any sanction of the highest judicial authority in the realm, with the
specific designation of the place by the Privy Council.
The preamble of the statute of 1609 for "punishing rogues" makes known
the inactivity of the magistrates in the enforcement of former
provisions, and the desuetude into which this law had fallen. It
declares that the earlier "Statutes had not been duly and severely
putt in execution." Therefore the requisitions are made stronger, to
bind the proper officers to their more stringent execution, in regard
to "Houses of Correction." Transportation is not even hinted at. This
previous easy state of affairs on this topic shows that the rigor of
expulsion, ascribed to Popham, is a thought of later times.
It is also to be noted, that the Charter of 1606 is in strict harmony
with the fact that the expired law had not been revived. Among the
twenty-seven Acts of 3, 4 James, 1605-6, and the thirteen of 4, 5
James, 1606-7, no one appears on the pages to authorize the
exportation of criminals. Those who went to either of the Virginias
were to go "willingly," and enjoy their "liberties." If, in any other
book of laws besides the "Statutes of the Realm," if there be such, or
by any new and singular interpretation of any provision there can be
found a rule requiring the transportation of convicts, it will not
thence follow that any were sent to Sagadahoc. For the Charter will
still say that only _volunteers_ were to go, who should be free men as
long as they remained in connection with the company.
I did not refer to Ogilby and Chalmers as original authorities, but as
good investigators. The former has been long known. My favorable
opinion of the latter is drawn from the Preface to his "Introduction
to the History of the Revolt in the American Colonies." Your
correspondent seems to undervalue him. But to sustain my estimate, I
may quote the expressions of the American editor of the above-named
volumes. "His works are deemed to possess much merit as the result of
profound research and a discriminating judgment."--"His official
station gave him access to all state papers."--"He took advantage of
this opportunity, to investigate in its original sources the history
of the colonies."--"His work (Political Annals) has ever been quoted
with entire confidence and respect; and this circumstance speaks
clearly in favor of the author's candor and honesty." When he speaks
of no earlier transportation than 1619, I have been ready to give him
credit. Your correspondent refers to him as writing, "that the policy
of sending convicts to the plantations originated with King James, and
that in the year 1619 he issued an order to send a hundred dissolute
persons to Virginia." I am content with this statement. Bancroft
thinks "some of them were convicts: but it must be remembered that the
crimes of which they were convicted were chiefly political;" and
political felons, as well as those whom in the same volume he calls
"the Puritan felons that freighted the fleet of Winthrop," were
"endangered by the law;" and yet not for this reason to be regarded as
tainted in the least with moral guilt. His opinion, too, is that there
was never sent to South Virginia--for he seems not to have heard of
the accusations brought against the northern colony--any "considerable
number" of persons convicted of "social crimes;" "certainly not enough
to affect its character." This statement may be taken as a sufficient
reply to the charge that Popham "stockt" the plantations out of "all
the gaoles of England." Indeed, all that Bacon, nearly twenty years
after his colony had ceased, and other far later writers have said, on
the topic contained in the quotation from him, relates to the later
affairs in the southern colony; and can be connected with Popham only
as he was a prime mover in the enterprise of colonization, carried on
after his death. It cannot be shown that they had Sagadahoc in mind.
Weber, as "revised and corrected" by Professor Bowen, adheres to 1619.
Against a remark of mine, the communication states, that there was "no
later occupancy of New England till the Pilgrims arrived in 1620." I
said "the Popham Colony was followed by a succession of occupancies,
that proved title." I say so still. I did not mean that all these
occupancies were colonies. They were at Monhegan, by Sir Francis
Popham and Captain John Smith; at Pemaquid, by the annual visits of
the English from Virginia; at Mount Desert, by Argall; at Saco, by
Vines; at Plymouth, by the Pilgrims and by numerous others, after that
great and memorable event in our national history. They were made
under the protection of the Charter of James in 1606; energetically
promoted in the outset by Popham, "the first to procure men and means
to possess New England;" and sustained for years at great expense by
Sir Ferdinando Gorges. In this connection I wish to supply an omission
noticed by your correspondent, where I said, that the colony "proved
title as against the former and never-revived claims of France." "West
of the Kennebec" was in my mind, but not written. I thank him for the
correction, as it strengthens my position. It would have been better
to have said, "the French never had any possession on the coast, west
of the Kennebec."
As to the settlement of Gosnold, I have before shown that it was not a
"chartered colony." It was deserted on the day when its small house
was scarcely fitted for a permanent dwelling. It was "undertaken on
private account;" asserted no general claim; proved no title; and was
not renewed.
The powder and cannon stories appear to be singularly confused by
Williamson. His misplaced footnote referring to the History of King
Philip's War has misled us both. It is made as authority for the
latter, when it should be for the former, and the tradition (I quote
from memory) is from "an ancient mariner." As it is unsupported, it
can hardly be claimed as history. As to the cannon story, one of our
best antiquarians thinks that it has had no earlier mention than is
found in Morse and Parish, about two centuries after its alleged
occurrence, as derived from the Norridgewock Indians. Such a tradition
is of very little account. If these stories had been true, it is
marvellous that the "speechifying" Indians round about Arrowsic should
not have told their prowess and their sufferings to the listening
Jesuits in 1611. It may be well to know that a valued New Hampshire
historian locates the narrative about the cannon at Dover, N. H., in
the time of Waldron, when a large number of Indians were captured by
stratagem. If the servants of the colony set dogs on the meddlesome
Indians, the wise men in council in a later colony in New England, as
Hazard gives it, decided to employ "mastiffe-dogs" to hunt down
Indians in 1656. Why not blame both?
That portions of the population in Maine were corrupt, after
settlements were dotted along the coast, is true. Deterioration often
follows colonization. For all the influence for good that
Massachusetts has spread, here and elsewhere, all ought to be glad,
though here it was somewhat irregularly introduced. The celebrations
at Sabino Head are not intended to detract from the merits of Plymouth
Rock. They were many. It is no harm to wish that they had been more.
The letter of Mr. Kidder relative to the "pretty pynnace of about
thirty tonne," is again referred to by your correspondent. What are we
to understand by the few notices of her history? Simply this, that on
"August 28," "the carpenters labored about the building of a small
pinnace." Their first act was to prepare the timber from the
surrounding forest,--not necessarily of "green pine," where the ridge
bears oak, maple and spruce now, and perhaps did then,--and put it
into shape for future use. It was left to season during the autumnal
months. Then, after Captain Davies returned to England, with an
account of the "forwardness of their plantation," on the 15th of
December, the seasoned timber was "framed," and the craft completed,
as the "Brief Relation" says, "notwithstanding the coldness of the
season and the small help they had." For reasons satisfactory to the
leaders of the colony, after Captain Davies returned to them, Strachey
says "they all ymbarqued in the new arrived shipp and in the new
pynnace, the Virginia, and sett saile for England." Gorges says they
"all resolved to quit the place, and with one consent to [go] away."
Sir William Alexander says, "Those that went thither ... returned back
with new hopes." The "Briefe Relation" says the news from home "made
the whole company to resolve upon nothing but their return with their
ships; ... having built a pretty bark of their own, which served them
to good purpose, as easing them in their returning;" and asserts "the
arrival of these people here in England,"--of course, the same
"people" who embarked, and in the same "ships" in which they
commenced the voyage. Any other interpretation will be a violent
perversion of language. As to any persons of the colony remaining to
be rovers on the coast in another supposed pinnace, it will be time
enough to consider that conjecture, when proof shall be brought to
change it into history. It will be "credulity" to answer such a
"demand" on our faith, as long as it is unsupported by evidence; and
we shall still believe that "The Virginia" was not, perhaps the first
craft of the Northmen, French, Basques, Dutch, or Indians, of whom we
were not thinking--but was the pioneer ship of the _English people_ in
the new world, and was a striking proof of the skill and enterprise of
the laboring colonists, with Digby, the London shipwright, as their
head in her construction.
But, whatever may be said of the enterprise or its details, whether
favorable or unfavorable, the true and single point for grave
consideration is the prominent fact, that a colony was founded at the
mouth of the Kennebec under the charter of James, 1606, which Popham
"certainly was a chief instrument in procuring," and that this was the
_first_ thus laid in New England under English sway.
No personalities, no imputation of sinister and never existing
motives, no disparagement of the character of the prime movers and
later advocates,--for Gorges has been blamed as well as Popham,--no
reproaches thrown upon the laboring colonists, and no finger of
derision pointed at the failure of their purpose, should turn the
reader of history away from this path. The leading minds in England,
with the King as their friend, were actuated by the desire to turn to
good account the discoveries of the early navigators; the reports of
fishermen returning from our coast, and the more systematic researches
of Gosnold, who, Strachey says, came "for discovery;" and Weymouth,
whose narrative, and Pring, whose exact description pointed out the
Kennebec as the place for speedy occupation. Emphasis was given to the
determination of the associates, by their bearing with them a charter
and a constituent code of laws, carrying out the principles of the
English Constitution. An expedition of that nature, and at that time,
required relatively much more of thought, energy and means than one of
ten times its numbers and power would do at the present day. The fact,
that it came directly to the Kennebec, shows that its course and
destination did not depend on any capricious views of its commander;
but were in accordance with a previously matured plan "for the seizing
such a place as they were directed unto by the council of the colony."
Its approach near to the claimed territory of France implies a
previous knowledge of the coast, and a purpose to take possession
within the chartered limits, fully up the undisputed boundary line.
This occupation, and those made in the few following years, were
called in the patent of 18 James, Nov. 3, 1620, the "actual possession
of the continent;" thus showing how exalted a value was placed on
these incipient, though feeble measures, by the highest authority in
the mother land. The commercial purposes of the undertaking at
Sagadahoc were not all. A religious purpose was connected therewith,
and carried on during its continuance. Its great purpose was to secure
title within the territory granted to the company. Signal disasters
attended the later part of its life; and, though it failed
commercially, Gorges "had no reason greatly to despair of means." In
its historic influence, and in its opening the way for immediate and
successive efforts, it was, in the words of Maine's most worthy and
distinguished living historian, "_one_ of the steps in the grand march
of civilization."
As such, and as the _first_ chartered "step" on our rock-bound coast
by "English hearts and hands," we have thought it proper to do it
honor; and this too as persons united in no one single denomination of
Christians. We have taken pleasure in aiding to bring before the
appreciative mind of the community "this _initial point_ in the
history of the settlement of New England," and its bearing on
subsequent settlements along our shores. We have thought that the
Charter of 1606 gave life to this and other enterprises. It was in
harmony with its design and privileges, that "the King's Majesty and
the bishops consented" to the wishes of the people at Leyden to remove
to this land; and so far gave them the aid of the Church, which Mather
says was not possessed with the spirit of persecution against them,
though some of its members indulged that folly. The several documents
following this leading instrument of title and occupation, such as the
enlarged charters, "The First Plymouth Patent," and the patents issued
for the benefit of Maine and Massachusetts, are traceable to this
source, and to the able men concerned in its origination and
provisions. So that, in a pure and great historical fact and its
sequences, we have had enough to warrant our past commemorations. It
is no fault of ours, that other colonies came earlier and later, and
did not build a sea-going vessel in this northern latitude in the
first year of their stay. We rejoice where they were successful,
permanent, and a blessing to the world. But why cannot we be allowed
to celebrate an event, one of the greatest of its times, without being
taunted with sayings, which, while bearing bitterness, need the
support of evidence; and with words which, however amiably they may
have been intended, boldly represent us as culprits, "indictable at
common law"?
In taking my leave of your columns, courteously allowed for this
discussion, I regret that I have been compelled to occupy so much
space. But much more would have been needed to rectify all the
applications of the quotations from the old writers, who, so far as
the colony of Sagadahoc is concerned, must be explained in harmony
with the Charter of 1606, which provided only for "willing" men to
join in the enterprise, and continued to them all the franchises of
Englishmen at home. I wish now only to add, that I stand not alone in
my opinions about the Popham Colony. Persons of the highest historical
authority in the State and elsewhere support the same view. One of
these, the late Bishop Burgess, had designed to write at length on
this debated subject. He had been in correspondence with the present
Duke of Somerset for information on one part of its history. He had
already said, and patriotically too, of the chaplain of the colony,
"Seymour was the first preacher of the Gospel in the English tongue,
within the borders of New England, and of the free, loyal and
unrevolted portion of these United States. Had he inherited all the
honors of his almost royal grandsire, they would have given him a far
less noble place than this, in the history of mankind." But the fatal
illness of this eminent historical scholar has prevented the intended
gift of his deliberate and final testimony in defence of the claims
here set forth in behalf of "that northerne colony uppon the
Sagadahoc."