planters already in Virginia to remain there, and from the decision of
Ralph Hamor and Samuel Argall, both of whom had formerly served the
company in the colony, to return there. Especially significant were the
arrangements under which Hamor and Argall planned their return early in
1617. One of the problems that had undoubtedly discouraged the
adventurers from taking up the company's offer of a land grant in 1616
was the question of the supervision that could be provided for such
tenants as they might elect to put on the land. In Bermuda, the
adventurers had found an answer, or rather thought they had, by
dividing the land into tribes, later designated as parishes, over which
a bailif would exercise an office that was partly civil and partly
traditional on the landed estates of England. In Virginia, Hamor and
Argall pointed the way to a solution by entering into an association
with several of the adventurers in England for the development of a
jointly held plantation. Thus, in January 1617, the company awarded 16
bills of adventure to Hamor and six associates for the 16 men they
proposed to transport to Virginia at their own charge. The following
month saw a similar transaction with Captain Argall and his associates,
five adventurers who had joined with this seasoned veteran to send out
a total of 24 men. Argall went also as lieutenant governor in
succession to George Yeardley, who had been left as deputy by Dale on
his return to England in 1616, but the cost of getting the new governor
out to his post seems to have been met entirely by his own associates.
The arrangement has an obvious pertinence to an understanding of
Argall's unhappy experience as governor, for he was later charged with
neglect of the public interest through too great concern for his own
personal interests. But here the emphasis belongs to the equally
obvious fact that some of the adventurers were responding to an
opportunity to send out tenants who would work under the management and
direction of an experienced colonist.
In 1618 George Yeardley was back in London consulting with other
adventurers, including some of the leading members of the company, who
were interested in forming associations for the development of
"particular plantations." Late in the year he sailed for the colony as
the newly designated governor of Virginia. With him he carried
instructions which record for us further developments in the company's
land policy. All adventurers, including delinquents who would pay up
their subscription, were now promised 100 acres of land on the first
dividend for each share of stock, and another 100 acres as a second
dividend after the first had been occupied. Such of the ancient
planters as had paid their own way to Virginia, which was to say those
who had settled at their own cost before Dale's departure in 1616, were
also to receive grants in like amount. The adventurers were encouraged
to pool their rights for a common grant of land by the promise that
their estate could be developed under their own management and would be
treated as a separate administrative unit for civil and military
purposes. What the company had in mind were the larger associations
already formed or on the point of being formed, such as that for the
settlement of Southampton Hundred, which eventually embraced a nominal
area of perhaps as much as 100,000 acres and in which the associated
adventurers invested a total of some £6,000. Another example is the
association of Sir William Throckmorton, Sir George Yeardley, Richard
Berkeley, George Thorpe, and John Smyth of North Nibley which early in
1619 received a first joint grant of 4,500 acres and which founded
above Jamestown the plantation known as Berkeley Hundred. These new
associations were very much the same as the association of the Virginia
adventurers which in 1612 had undertaken the colonization of Bermuda.
For the development of their common grant they pooled the necessary
capital in their own joint-stock fund and directed its investment
through their own courts, assemblies, or committees as they saw fit.
For every tenant sent to the plantation, the associated adventurers
were entitled to an additional headright of 50 acres. They were awarded
also an additional 1,500 acres for the support of public charges in the
hundred, such as those incurred for the maintenance of a church and
minister.
How many of the colonists who migrated to Virginia between 1618 and
1624 went by agreement with such associations as these is difficult to
say, but there can be no doubt that they were a very large part of the
total. The Virginia Company, which had served theretofore as the
immediate colonizing agent, was becoming more and more a supervisory
body for the encouragement of individual and associated adventurers in
their own colonizing efforts. For itself, the company looked forward to
a continuing revenue from quitrents to be paid, at the rate of two
shillings per hundred acres after a term of seven years from the
original grant, by all save the ancient adventurers and the planters
who had migrated before 1616 at their own costs. To this revenue from
quitrents could be added the benefit to be expected from the company's
control of the colony's trade.
As in 1609, there seems to be no doubt that all plans looked ultimately
to the establishment of individual land titles. Where the record has
survived, the associated adventurers clearly intended that their common
grant would in time be divided. In the case of Berkeley Hundred, the
evidence suggests too that the associates used the promise of a share
in this division for the recruitment of their first tenants. Yeardley's
instructions reaffirmed the company's promise of a headright in terms
inviting the migration of individual settlers at their own cost.
To understand the plans of 1618, the modern American needs to dismiss
any idea that the isolated farm house of later America represented the
ideal toward which men looked at this time. He should think rather of
the English village community, or of the New England town, where men
lived together with the advantages of a close social relationship and
where the land they cultivated lay close at hand to the village and its
church. If the associated adventurers continued to depend for a time on
variations of the original joint-stock plan, it was not merely because
they wanted to share the risk of a still uncertain venture or because
they were seeking some useful device for meeting the problems of
management. It was also because the plantation they hoped to establish
was to have at its heart a town, and it was thought that the town could
best be built through some common effort.
What has been said above is not intended to suggest that the company's
role after 1618 was to be purely supervisory. Although it had an
accumulated debt of some £9,000, or possibly because of this debt, the
company agreed for the encouragement of individual adventurers to
assume heavy responsibilities of leadership. It directed Yeardley to
lay out four towns, or boroughs, along the James in which grants to
individuals or the lesser associations would fall--Kecoughtan at the
mouth of the James, Henrico at the head of its navigation, and in
between Charles City and James City. From the Bermuda adventurers the
company borrowed the idea of establishing a public estate intended to
meet as nearly as possible all costs of government. In each borough
3,000 acres were to be set aside as the company's land for cultivation
by its own tenants, who would work at half shares. Out of the company's
moiety would come the support of all superior officers, excepting the
governor, for whom an additional 3,000 acres would be set aside in
James City. The company thus committed itself to a not inconsiderable
program of colonization on its own responsibility.
One wonders what it was that inspired this renewed, and most ambitious,
venture in Virginia--a venture that would carry to Virginia over the
next five years something like 4,500 colonists. Several possibilities
can be suggested. First of all, it should be noted that the interest of
the London adventurers in the colonization of America had never
faltered, despite repeated disappointment, since they had originally
laid their hands to the task in 1606. This, at any rate, is true of the
adventurers who led, and more especially of Sir Thomas Smith. After it
had become no longer possible to push the adventure in Virginia, they
had turned to Bermuda, where an initial success seems to have
encouraged another try in Virginia. The plans adopted for Bermuda and
later for Virginia indicate that the adventurers shrewdly capitalized
on the desire of Englishmen in many different walks of life for title
to the undeveloped lands of America. A newly stirring missionary
impulse had its part to play, if only by giving to the name of Virginia
more helpful associations. Argall had captured Pocahontas, the favored
daughter of Powhatan, and with her as hostage the colonists had forced
a peace with a heretofore implacable foe. More than that John Rolfe had
married the Princess Pocahontas, as the English liked to call her, and
Sir Thomas Dale as his last major service to the colony had brought her
to England in 1616. In London, at court, and elsewhere, she and her
entourage of Indian maidens had been a most effective advertisement of
Virginia. Even after her own death in 1617, her maiden consorts had
stayed on for many months before being finally returned to Virginia by
way of Bermuda. Since 1613 the Virginia Company had leaned heavily on
the missionary appeal in its efforts to encourage continued support of
the colony, and it may well have been the company itself which prompted
the bishops of the Church of England in the year of Pocahontas' death
to sponsor a collection of funds for an Indian mission in Virginia. In
any case, the approximately £1,500 raised for the purpose were turned
over to the company, which in 1618 ordered Yeardley to set aside 10,000
acres at Henrico for the support of an Indian college.
The adventurers in 1618 also decreed certain legal and political
reforms that were helpful in giving Virginia a better name than it had
enjoyed for several years past. Disgruntled colonists returning from
Jamestown had brought exaggerated stories of Dale's discipline, with
the result that Virginia had gained the reputation almost of a penal
colony. The company's renewed guarantee that the settlers would enjoy
the full common law rights of Englishmen at home was coupled with
provision for a general assembly of the colonists, a body which first
met at Jamestown in 1619. In short, the company had the benefit in
1618, as so frequently in the past, of leadership of the highest
quality.
Sir Thomas Smith was still the governor of the company in 1618, and
without question his leadership must be considered to be a major factor
shaping the new life then being infused into the colony. But a
factional strife that would soon help to destroy the company already
had made its appearance. The sources of this factionalism were varied,
and some of them had little to do with the affairs of Virginia. Thus,
at this time Sir Thomas found a determined enemy in the Rich family,
headed by the wealthy Earl of Warwick and represented most ably by Sir
Nathaniel Rich, who for many years was an active leader in the House of
Commons. Warwick had a way of investing in voyages which bordered
closely on piracy, and as a result of one such investment had become
involved in a long and bitter conflict with Smith as the governor of
the East India Company. Unquestionably of more fundamental importance
was a growing opposition to Smith that was based upon discontent with
the former management of the Virginia project. It seems almost as
though the Virginia adventurers, before they could place full
confidence in the new program for the colony's development, had to find
some more satisfying explanation for the company's previous failures by
charging gross mismanagement of its affairs. Such, at any rate, was the
conviction to which many adventurers came, chiefly it would seem the
lesser adventurers who were easily prejudiced against the great
merchants of London, of whom Sir Thomas was the chief. In a company
where the ultimate power to decide had been vested since 1612 in a
general assembly of the adventurers voting by head rather than by
share, the discontent of the lesser adventurers could become under the
guidance of an effective leader a very potent force.
The leader was found in Sir Edwin Sandys, one of the ablest
parliamentarians of seventeenth century England. Sandys himself was not
one of the lesser adventurers. He had been a member of the Virginia
Council since 1607, and in 1611 he had responded to the company's
appeal for a subscription of £37 10s. by subscribing double that
amount, thereby matching the subscription of Sir Thomas Smith. With the
aid of other prominent adventurers, including the Earl of Southampton,
and by making common cause for the moment with the Rich faction, Sir
Edwin won election to the governorship of the company in the spring of
1619. In the absence of anything approaching a full record, it is
impossible to say what justification there may have been for the
charges of mismanagement that were brought against Smith's
administration. It would not be surprising if over the long and
frequently discouraging years of his leadership, and especially in the
period since 1612, some irregularities, some carelessness had crept
into the conduct of the company's business. A very noticeable result of
Sandys' election was an effort to systematize the company's procedures
by adoption of new standing orders and regulations, and to bring order
out of an alleged confusion of the company's records, especially those
pertaining to the rights of the adventurers to land in Virginia. But it
is possible to speak with full assurance on only one point: no other of
the adventurers had shown more courage or more devotion to the colony,
no other of them deserves to be better remembered than Sir Thomas
Smith.
There can be no question, however, that the reviving interest in
Virginia received an additional stimulant from the fact that the
business now had a new management. At the close of 1618, and largely as
the result of emigration during that year, the population of the colony
stood at approximately 1,000 persons. During the year after Sandys'
election, a total of 1,261 emigrants left England for Virginia, over
800 of them at the company's charge. This substantial evidence of the
company's determination to assume the lead encouraged additional
associations of adventurers to take up patents for their own
plantations, with the result that by the summer of 1622 the council
could announce that over 3,500 people had migrated to Virginia since
the spring of 1619. This was a remarkable record, testifying to the
very great gifts Sir Edwin possessed as a leader and the confidence men
placed in his leadership.
The minutes of the company's courts have survived for the period after
the election of Sandys, and so it is possible to get a clearer picture
of the company's organization and procedures than can be had for any
earlier date. Further help comes from the "Orders and Constitutions"
drawn up after Sandys' election and published in 1620 as part of a
pamphlet skilfully written to convey the impression that Virginia's
affairs were then being managed much better than in the past. The
company depended basically upon decisions reached in four great quarter
courts, which were general assemblies of all the adventurers who wished
to attend and which were scheduled for regular meeting on next to the
last Wednesday of each of the quarterly terms in which the king's
courts sat at Westminster. Only a quarter court could elect officers,
either of the colony or of the company, enact laws and ordinances, or
determine policies governing the distribution of lands in the colony
and the conduct of its trade. On the Monday preceding each meeting of
the quarter court, a preparatory court would settle the agenda for the
following Wednesday, in order that the members might have warning of
the business to be taken up at that time. Each fortnight, except in the
"long vacations" between court terms, an ordinary court would meet,
again on Wednesday, with a quorum that required the presence of at
least five members of the council, the treasurer or his deputy, and
"fifteene of the generality." The hour of meeting for all courts was 2
P.M., and at no court could a question be put after 6 P.M. A decision
reached by any lesser court, including the extraordinary court that
might be called in case of special emergency, could be overridden by a
quarter court. This was the governing body of the company, a popular
assembly in which Sir Edwin often demonstrated his special talent as a
parliamentary tactician. Attendance varied according to the importance
of the business at hand, but as many as 150 might attend.
The quarter court meeting in Easter term was a court of elections,
where the members cast their votes for all principal officers by secret
ballot. Except for members of the council, all offices of the company
were held by annual election. The chief office was that of the
treasurer, as the governor of the company was still officially
designated. As frequently as not, in common usage he was known as the
governor, but the charters had fixed the title of his office and in so
doing had pointed up a primary responsibility of the office. The
governor of the Virginia Company was in fact its treasurer. After 1619
no man could hold the position for longer than three years, and no man
was eligible for election to it if already he was serving as the
governor of another company, except that he might also serve as the
governor of the Somers Island Company. The election court might vote a
reward for services rendered, but the treasurer, like other principal
officers, served without fixed compensation.
His chief assistant, and the second officer in rank, was the deputy. As
the title suggests, he might be deputized to perform virtually any
function of the governor, including that of presiding at courts in the
governor's absence. But he also had important functions of his own. He
is perhaps best described as the chief administrative officer of the
company. He was specifically charged with superintendence over all
lesser officers, and he had a primary responsibility for contracts and
other business arrangements relating to the dispatch of shipping,
provisions, and passengers to Virginia and to the receipt, storage, and
marketing of cargoes returned from the colony. At all times, he acted,
or was supposed to act, in accordance with instructions from the court,
council, or treasurer, but all such instructions were necessarily
general in character. Many were the opportunities to use his own
judgment, or to confer a favor, as he handled business transactions
involving hundreds or even thousands of pounds. For his assistance and
perhaps to keep a watch on him, he had a committee of sixteen men
chosen by the court under a provision requiring that a fourth of the
number should be changed each year "to the end [that] many be trained
up in the businesse." The committee may have been new, but the deputy's
office was old. It had been occupied for many years before the spring
election of 1619 by Alderman Johnson. Some of the more serious charges
brought against Smith's administration related to the management of
the magazine, as the stock of supplies periodically forwarded to the
colony was generally described. Johnson had managed the successive
magazines, each separately financed by its own joint-stock, until in
1619 he was replaced by John Ferrar.
The council, still described as His Majesty's Council for Virginia, had
become a large and unwieldy body, with many of its members inactive.
Its influence on the conduct of Virginia's affairs was now decidedly
less important than in the earlier years. According to the Orders and
Constitutions, no one "under the degree of a Lord or principall
magistrate" was thereafter to be elected to the council except "such as
by diligent attendance at the courts and service of Virginia for one
year at least before, have approved their sufficiency and worth to the
Companie." As this statement strongly suggests, a place on the council
was for many members an honorary post through which one might lend the
prestige of a great name to a worthy undertaking without assuming much
real responsibility. Nevertheless, the legal powers of the council
under the Virginia charters made its services indispensable, and made
it desirable that at least a few of its members should be intimately
acquainted with the business. The treasurer was supposed to consult
with the council on important occasions, and especially on matters
pertaining to the government of the colony. All formal instructions to
officers in the colony had to be sent in the name of the council and
over its seal. In any case of removal from office, in London or at
Jamestown, the cause had to be considered in council before it could be
taken before the adventurers. But any seven members made a quorum
giving full power to actions taken in council, and the treasurer, who
was always a member of the council, had the custody of its seal.
Two of the seven auditors now required for annual review of
disbursements and receipts had to be members of the council. The
auditors' office had grown out of the disputes over the accounts of Sir
Thomas Smith, and in addition to the annual auditing of the
treasurer's report, which had to be submitted to the Easter court, they
were charged with responsibility for a close review of all earlier
records of the company. The primary purpose was to establish a full and
exact list of all subscriptions, with notation especially of
delinquencies. Salaried officers of the company were a secretary, a
bookkeeper, a husband (or as we would say, an accountant), and a bedel
or messenger. The secretary served all courts held by the adventurers,
the council, and the auditors, or by standing and special committees,
of which last the adventurers appointed quite a number. In addition,
the secretary was custodian of the company's records.
Although Sir Edwin Sandys continued to be the actual leader of the
company until its dissolution in 1624, his tenure of the treasurer's
office was limited to a single year. When the adventurers assembled for
the annual elections in the spring of 1620, they were much disturbed to
receive instruction from the king that Sir Edwin was not to be
re-elected. Instead, the king suggested the choice of some merchant of
means and wide experience--perhaps Sir Thomas Smith, Sir Thomas Roe,
Alderman Robert Johnson, or Mr. Maurice Abbott.
Whether Sandys could have been elected in the absence of this
interference by the king, which the adventurers protested as an
unwarranted invasion of their liberty, is itself an interesting and
debatable question. By his many criticisms of the previous conduct of
the company's affairs, Sandys had won the undying enmity of Sir Thomas
Smith and his important friends. More than that, he had quarreled with
his ally of the preceding year, the Earl of Warwick, who had
connections hardly less impressive than those enjoyed by Sir Thomas.
The quarrel with Warwick was over a question of piracy, as Sir Edwin
chose to regard it. One of Warwick's ships, the _Treasurer_, had sailed
from England in April 1618 with a license to capture pirates, which was
one way of getting a ship cleared from English ports for depredations
against the Spaniard at a time when the king had set his face against
all such activity. The _Treasurer_ had called at Jamestown, where
Governor Argall, who had rendered important services to the colony but
who had special reason to understand that his position in Virginia
depended upon the good will of important members of the company, helped
to outfit the vessel for a raid on the West Indies. Recent studies, and
especially those of David Quinn, a British scholar, argue strongly that
the earlier ventures of Gilbert and Raleigh had been inspired very
largely by the desire to establish some base on the North American
coast that would be useful in attacks upon Spanish possessions and the
trade routes which joined them to Spain. But it is evident enough that
by this time the leaders of the Virginia Company were chiefly fearful
that Spain might attack their colony before it was securely fortified,
and before it had fulfilled the promise of rewards far greater than
anything freebooting ventures could offer. As a result, Governor
Yeardley, on instruction from London, denied the courtesies of
Jamestown to the _Treasurer_ on its return in 1619, and won for Sandys
thereby the bitter resentment of the Rich family.