(Vol. iv., pp. 190. 241.)
Raleigh never visited Virginia. The numerous expeditions thither, set on
foot by him, and in which he had so large a concern as to cause them to
be called _his_ voyages, no doubt gave rise to the popular error.
We first find Raleigh's name, in connexion with discovery in North
America, in 1579. In that year Sir Humphrey Gilbert, his stepbrother,
prevailed upon him to join in a projected voyage. The accounts of this
voyage are very scanty: all, I believe, that is known on the subject is
to be found in Hakluyt, vol. iii. p. 146., in the following words:
"Others failed of their promises contracted, and the greater
number were dispersed, leaving the Generall with few of his
assured friends, with whom he adventured to sea; where having
tasted of no lesse misfortune, he was shortly driven to retire
home with the losse of a tall ship, and (more to his grief) of a
valiant gentleman, Miles Morgan."
It will be observed that Raleigh's name is not mentioned, the "Generall"
being Gilbert. It appears, however, to be generally assumed by his
biographers that he did accompany this expedition in person. It may, at
all events, be predicated with tolerable certainty, that Raleigh was not
amongst those who deserted Sir Humphrey. Tytler adds the following
particulars, in his _Life of Raleigh_ (Edinburgh, 1833), p. 27., on the
authority of Oldys's _Life of Raleigh_, pp. 28, 29.:
"On its homeward passage the small squadron of Gilbert was
dispersed and disabled by a Spanish fleet, and many of the company
were slain; but, perhaps owing to the disastrous issue of the
fight, it has been slightly noticed by the English historians."
Schomburgk adds, in the Introduction to his reprint of Raleigh's
_Guiana_, published for the Hakluyt Society in 1848, also on the
authority of Oldys, that during the engagement "Raleigh was exposed to
great danger."
We may therefore assume that he did sail with Gilbert on this occasion.
There is no appearance, however, of the expedition having reached
America at all; and most certainly Virginia was not then visited.
The next voyage undertaken by Gilbert was in 1583. Raleigh took a great
interest in this expedition, and fitted out a barque of two hundred
tons, which bore his name; and although the "most puissant" vessel in
the fleet, it only ranked as "Vice-admirall." The "Delight, _alias_ the
George, of burthen 120 tunnes, was Admirall, in which went the
Generall." They "began their voyage upon Tuesday, the eleventh day of
June, in the yere of our Lord 1583;" but "about midnight" of the 13th
June, "the Vice-admirall forsooke us, notwithstanding that we had the
winde east, faire, and good. But it was after credibly reported that
they were infected with a contagious sickness, and arrived greatly
distressed at Plimmouth.... Sure I am no cost was spared by their owner,
Master Raleigh, in setting them forth." So writes worthy Master Hayes,
who commanded the Golden Hinde, the "Rear-admirall" of the expedition.
It may be easily believed that Raleigh was not on board of the vessel
which belonged to him. Sir H. Gilbert, who was ignorant of the cause of
desertion, wrote thus to Sir George Peckham, after his arrival in
Newfoundland:--"On the 13th the bark Raleigh ran from me, in fair and
clear weather, having a large wind. I pray you solicit my brother
Raleigh to make them an example to all knaves." The subsequent history
of this disastrous expedition need not be dwelt upon. Gilbert reached
Newfoundland, but was lost in returning on board the Squirrel of ten
tons!
On the 25th March, 1584, Raleigh obtained letters patent from Queen
Elizabeth authorising him to establish a colony in North America, south
of Newfoundland. "The first voyage made" under this patent "to the
coasts of America" was "with two barks, wherein were Captains M. Philip
Amadas, and M. Arthur Barlowe, who _discovered_ part of the countrey now
called Virginia, anno 1584:" the account of which voyage is stated to
have been "written by one of the said Captaines, and _sent_ to Sir
Walter Raleigh, knight, at whose charge and direction the said voyage
was set forty"--_Hak._ vol. iii. p. 246.
The next voyage is called (p. 251.) "The voyage made by Sir Richard
Grenvill _for_ Sir Walter Raleigh to Virginia, in the yeere 1585." Sir
Richard left a colony under the government of Master Ralph Lane. A list
of all the colonists, to the number of 107, "as well gentlemen as
others, that remained one whole yeere in Virginia," is given in Hakluyt,
at p. 254. The first name is Master Philip Amadas, Admirall of the
countrey;" the second is "Master Hariot." On the 10th June of next year
the colony was visited by Sir Francis Drake, with no less than
twenty-three sail of vessels, "in his prosperous returne from the
sacking of Saint Domingo." Sir Francis gave the colonists, who had
suffered severely from "scarsity," the means of returning to England,
which they did, leaving Virginia on the 18th of June, and arriving at
Portsmouth on the 28th of July, 1586. Governor Lane was greatly blamed
for his precipitate desertion of the colony. Hariot wrote a description
of the country, which occupies fifteen folio pages of Hakluyt. Hallam
(in the passage quoted by MR. BREEN) is correct in describing Hariot as
the companion of Raleigh; for that he was, and very much esteemed by
him: but he is wrong in making it appear that they were together in
Virginia.
In the meantime Raleigh at home was far from being forgetful of his
colonists, although they seemed so little inclined to depend upon him.
He got ready no less than four vessels: various delays, however,
occurred to retard their sailing; and Raleigh at last getting anxious
started off one of them as a "bark of aviso," or despatch boat, as it is
called in one of the old accounts. It arrived at the site of the colony
"immediately after the departing of our English colony out of this
paradise of the world;" and "after some time spent in seeking our colony
up in the countrey, and not [of course] finding them, it returned with
all the aforesaid provision into England." Thus Hakluyt, page 265., who
also states that it was "sent and set forth at the charges of Sir Walter
Raleigh and his direction;" expressions surely inconsistent with any
supposition that he was on board of this bark of aviso; and yet it would
appear, from the Introduction of Sir Robert Schomburgk, already referred
to, that _this_ was the identical occasion on which Raleigh was
erroneously supposed to have visited Virginia. As what Sir Robert says
is very important, and bears very directly on the question, I quote his
words:
"It has been asserted by Theobald and others, that Sir Walter
Raleigh himself accompanied this vessel, which he sent for the
relief of the young colony; such may have been his intention, as
Captain Smith states in the first book of his _General History of
Virginia_; but we have so many proofs that Sir Walter did not
leave England in that year, that we are surprised that such an
erroneous statement has found credence up to the present day."
This is a strong opinion of Sir Robert, and if borne out by evidence,
would be conclusive; but in the first place, his reference to Smith's
_Virginia_ is incorrect; and besides, Smith, for anything he relates
prior to 1606, is only secondary evidence. His book was published in
1624, and is reprinted in Pinkerton's _Voyages_ (1812). On reference to
it there I can find no such _intention_ attributed to Raleigh; and in
fact Smith's account is manifestly taken from Hakluyt (1599), who, it is
well known, had his information on these voyages chiefly from Raleigh
himself[1]. In the second place, it would have been well if Sir Robert
had mentioned some distinct proof that Raleigh was in England on some
one day that the vessel was absent, rather than generally stating that
he did not leave England during 1586. Unfortunately, there is a want of
precision as to the exact dates when the vessel left and returned to
England; enough is said, however, to fix upon the two months _at least_
from the 20th of May to the 20th of July as being embraced in the period
during which she was on her voyage. In Hakluyt it is stated that she did
not sail until "after Easter:" in 1586 Easter Sunday was, by my
calculation, on the 3rd April. The 20th of May is therefore a liberal
meaning to attach to the expression "after Easter." She arrived in
Virginia "immediately after" Drake sailed, on the 18th of June. Say then
that she even arrived on the 19th June; only spent one day in searching
for the colony; and took thirty days to go home; this would bring us to
the 20th July. It will be noticed that I narrow the time as much as
possible, to strengthen the evidence that would be gained by proving an
_alibi_ for Sir Walter. If it can be shown that he was in England on any
day between the 20th May and the 20th July, the supposition that he went
on this occasion to Virginia must be given up as untenable. I have
therefore directed my inquiries to this point. In the sketch of the life
of George Clifford, Earl of Cumberland, given in Lodge's _Portraits_, a
work certainly not of indisputable authority, but tolerably correct
notwithstanding, I find the following statement:
"His [Cumberland's] fleet consisted of three ships, and a pinnace,
_the latter commanded by Sir Walter Raleigh_.... It sailed from
Gravesend on the 26th of June, 1586; but was repeatedly driven
back by contrary winds, and could not finally leave England till
the end of August."
[Footnote 1: What Smith really says is, speaking generally of
_all_ the voyages, that Raleigh's occasions and employments were
such that he could not go himself; but he says nothing about his
intentions specially as to this particular voyage.]
Now, if this were quite correct, it would be conclusive, that if Sir
Walter Raleigh sailed from Gravesend on the 26th June, he could not have
started from Virginia to return to England on the 20th of the same
month. I thought it well, however, to verify this statement of Mr.
Lodge, and had recourse to my old friend Hakluyt as usual. I there found
(vol. iii. pp. 769. et seq.) that on starting from Gravesend, there were
only two vessels called respectively the Red Dragon and the Clifford;
these vessels arrived at Plymouth on the 24th of July, and were there
detained by westerly winds until the 17th of August, when they--
"Then departed with another ship, also for our Rear-admirall,
called the Roe, whereof W. Hawes was Captaine; and a fine pinnesse
also, called the Dorothie, _which was Sir Walter Raleigh's_."
It therefore follows, that the pinnace might have joined them
immediately before the 17th of August, a date too late for our purpose.
Nay more, the only authority for Mr. Lodge's statement, that the vessel
was commanded by Sir Walter, rests upon the words which I have put in
Italics; his name is not mentioned in the subsequent account of the
expedition, although, on the 7th of February, 1587, it was found
necessary to hold a council of war, at which no less than eighteen
officers assisted, all of whom, beginning with the admiral, are named.
Raleigh's name does not occur; and is it conceivable that he, if present
in the fleet, would have been absent on such an occasion? This therefore
affords one additional instance in which Raleigh was presumed to be
present merely because he fitted out a vessel. Being inconclusive as a
positive piece of evidence on the main question, my chief reason for
referring to it was to show how hastily some writers make assertions,
and how probable it is that "Theobald and others" went upon similar
grounds in their statement as to Raleigh's having visited Virginia. In
justice to Mr. Lodge, I must mention that the error into which he fell
with respect to Raleigh, in his sketch of the life of the Earl of
Cumberland, is not repeated in his biography of Raleigh, in which it may
be supposed he was more careful. Raleigh's having concerned himself
sometime in July or August in fitting out a vessel for Cumberland's
expedition, undoubtedly forms part of that chain of evidence alluded to
by Schomburgk, tending to prove his continued residence in England in
1586. I feel inclined, however, to search for positive evidence on the
point. In the very valuable collection of letters entitled the
_Leicester Correspondence_, published for the Camden Society in 1844, I
find his name occurring several times. On the 29th of March, 1586,
Raleigh writes "from the court" to the Earl of Leicester, at that time
in the Low Countries: he states that he had moved the Queen to send
Leicester some pioneers, and found her very willing; but that since, the
matter had been stayed, he knew not for what cause. He then goes on to
protest against certain rumours which had been afloat as to his having
been acting a treacherous part with the Queen against the Earl.
Leicester had been in some disgrace with her Majesty, and Raleigh in a
postscript says:
"The Queen is in very good tearms with yow, and, thanks be to God,
well pacified, and yow are agayne her 'sweet Robyn.'"
On the 1st of April the Queen herself writes to Leicester a letter,
which will repay perusal. And on the same day, Walsingham, at the
express instance of the Queen, signifies to Leicester that Rawley, "upon
her honor," had done Leicester good offices; and that, during the time
of her displeasure, he dealt as earnestly for him as any other of his
friends. All this shows Raleigh in high favour and standing at the
court; and it is most improbable that he could, at such a moment, absent
himself no less than three months from it. These letters appear to have
been unusually long in reaching Leicester; in the early part of April he
complains of not getting letters from the Queen, and on the 27th a great
many reached him all at once. On the 31st of May, Leicester writes to
Walsingham, and speaks of Rawley's pioneers; saying that he had written
to him saying that they were ready to come. This could not refer to
Raleigh's letter of 29th of March, because in it he states that the
matter had been stayed; it must refer to one of a later date, which does
not appear, but which was written, in all probability, some time on in
May; it could not have been in Leicester's possession on the 29th of
May, because on that day he writes to Walsingham, and mentions the same
subject; namely, his wish for a reinforcement of 1000 men, which led him
to speak of Rawley's pioneers on the 31st. With regard to the time it
took to communicate with Leicester, he was at the Hague on the 30th of
July, and on that day he knew of Drake's arrival at Portsmouth, stated
in Hakluyt's account of Drake's voyage to have taken place on the 28th;
although it is true, Governor Lane, who came home in the fleet, says the
27th of the same month. This was very speedy communication; but the
arrival of Drake, and the results of his enterprise, were looked for
with the utmost anxiety by the English ministry; and, no doubt, their
satisfaction on the subject was communicated to Leicester by a rapid
express. On the 9th of July we find Walsingham writing to Leicester:
"And lastly, that yt shall in no sorte be fyt for her Majestye to
take any resolutyon in the cause until Sir Francis Drake's
returne, at lest untyll the successe of his vyage be seene;
wheruppon, in verry trothe, dependethe the lyfe and death of the
cause according to man's judgment."
In a letter from Burleigh to Leicester, dated 20th of June, 1586, occurs
the following:
"In Irland all thynges are quiet, and a nombre of gentilmen of
Somersett, Devon, Dorcet, Cheshyre, and Lancashyre, are making
themselves to go to Monster, to plant two or three thousand
people, mere English, there this year."
In a note to this, Mr. Bruce, the editor, states, that Stow records the
names of the honourable and worshipful gentlemen who made the attempt to
colonise Munster, and names, amongst others, Sir Walter Raleigh. It was
on this occasion that the poet Spenser got his grant of 3,028 acres in
the county of Cork, which "is said to be dated June 27, 1586." So the
Rev. Mr. Mitford, in his life of Spenser, prefixed to the Aldine edition
of his poems (1839); and although he seems uncertain as to the date,
there can be no doubt but that it is correct. Now I think that most
people will agree with me in thinking that the whole of this, Raleigh's
movements so far as they can be traced, his position at court, and the
busy and stirring nature of the time, make it altogether improbable that
Raleigh was absent in the month of June, 1586, on a voyage to Virginia.
Hakluyt's not mentioning that he was in the vessel, would of itself be
convincing to my mind, knowing the extent of his information on all
subjects connected with Raleigh, and his minute and painstaking
accuracy. Knowing, however, that _this_ was the voyage in which Raleigh
was stated to have visited Virginia, I have thought it worth while to
search for more positive evidence. How far I have succeeded may be seen,
but it is open to others to fix the fact of Raleigh's having been in
England within the time I have limited. As a hint to go upon, I may
mention that Babington's conspiracy was known to the English ministry on
the 9th of July, although the conspirators were not apprehended until a
month after; if Raleigh could be shown to have had any share in the
discovery of the plot, his presence in England in the beginning of July,
1586, would be established beyond all doubt.
I have already been more than sufficiently tedious on the subject of the
voyage of this little bark; what I have brought forward however bears
more or less upon the question as to Raleigh having visited Virginia: I
am clearly of opinion that on this occasion he did not. I cannot
refrain, however, from adding a word or two of purely speculative
conjecture. There is something rather suspicious in Drake visiting
Virginia with the whole of his armament, and losing time in doing so,
when the whole nation, from the queen downwards, was on the very
tenter-hooks of anxiety for intelligence of him and of his success. The
question arises, was it a rendezvous? and did the "bark of aviso" bear
other and more important despatches than those addressed to Master Ralph
Lane? Might not its arrival a day or two earlier have directed Drake to
strike a blow at some defenceless but important part of the Spanish
empire, deadly in proportion to its being unexpected? These are
questions which I can in no wise answer, but they have arisen in my
mind; and if it were so, we might be fain to believe, in spite of
everything that I have been able to bring forward, that Raleigh was
indeed on board his gallant little bark, but that, the mark not having
been hit, the attempt was kept secret. It must not be forgotten that at
that time, with the exception of this little colony, England had not a
rood of land in the New World. However, I must remember that history
ought not to deal in conjecture.
About fourteen or fifteen days after the departure of the bark, Grenvill
made his appearance with the other three vessels. After making every
search he returned home, leaving fifteen men on the Island of Roanoke.
Subsequent expeditions found no traces of these men excepting the bones
of one of them. No one has ever asserted that Raleigh was on board of
this fleet.