By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. III (of 8) - English Explorations and Settlements in North America 1497-1689
Author: Various
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. III (of 8) - English Explorations and Settlements in North America 1497-1689" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.


generously made available by Internet Archive/American Libraries

      which includes the more than 240 original illustrations.
      Images of the original pages are available through
      Internet Archive/American Libraries. See

Transcriber’s note:

      Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).

      Text enclosed by equal signs is in bold face (=bold=).

      A carat character is used to denote superscription. A
      single character following the carat is superscripted
      (example: nascim^o). Multiple superscripted characters
      are enclosed by curly brackets (example: C^{no}).

English Explorations and Settlements in North America 1497-1689



Edited by


Librarian of Harvard University
Corresponding Secretary Massachusetts Historical Society


Boston and New York
Houghton, Mifflin and Company
The Riverside Press, Cambridge

Copyright, 1884,
by James R. Osgood and Company.
All rights reserved.


  [_The English arms on the title are copied from the Molineaux map,
  dated 1600._]


  THE VOYAGES OF THE CABOTS. _Charles Deane_                           1

  ILLUSTRATION: Sebastian Cabot, 5.

  AUTOGRAPHS: Henry VII., 1; Henry VIII., 4; Edward VI., 6; Queen
  Mary, 7.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                       7

  ILLUSTRATIONS: La Cosa map (1500), _phototype_, 8, 8; Ruysch’s
  map (1508), 9; Orontius Fine’s map (1531), 11; Stobnicza’s map
  (1512), 13; Page of Peter Martyr in fac-simile, 15; Thorne’s
  map (1527), 17; Sebastian Cabot’s map (1544), 22; Lok’s map
  (1582), 40; Hakluyt-Martyr map (1587), 42; Portuguese Portolano
  (1514-1520), 56.


  HAWKINS AND DRAKE. _Edward E. Hale_                                 59

  ILLUSTRATIONS: John Hawkins, 61; Zaltieri’s map (1566), 67;
  Furlano’s map (1574), 68.

  AUTOGRAPHS: John Hawkins, 61; Francis Drake, 65.

  CRITICAL ESSAY ON DRAKE’S BAY                                       74

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Modern map of California coast, 74; Viscaino’s
  map (1602), 75; Dudley’s map (1646), 76, 77; Jeffreys’
  sketch-map (1753), 77.

  NOTES ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION. _The Editor_                   78

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Hondius’s map, 79; Portus Novæ Albionis, 80;
  Molineaux’s map (1600), 80; Sir Francis Drake, 81, 84; Thomas
  Cavendish, 83.


  EXPLORATIONS TO THE NORTH-WEST. _Charles C. Smith_                  85

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Martin Frobisher, 87; Molineaux globe (1592),
  90; Molineaux map (1600), 91; Sir Thomas Smith, 94; James’s map
  of Hudson Bay (1632), 96.

  AUTOGRAPHS: Martin Frobisher, 87; John Davis, 89; George
  Waymouth, 91; William Baffin, 94.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                      97

  ILLUSTRATION: Luke Fox’s map of Baffin’s Bay (1635), 98.

  HUDSON’S VOYAGES. _The Editor_                                     100

  ILLUSTRATIONS: The Zeno map (_circa_ 1400), 100; map in Wolfe’s
  _Linschoten_ (1598), 101; Beste’s map (1578), 102; Frobisher’s
  Strait, 103.


  GUIANA. _William Wirt Henry_                                       105

  AUTOGRAPHS: Walter Ralegh, 105; Queen Elizabeth, 106; Ralph
  Lane, 110.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     121

  ILLUSTRATIONS: White’s map in Hariot (1587), 124; De Laet’s map
  (1630), 125.

  AUTOGRAPH: Francis Bacon, 121.


  VIRGINIA, 1606-1689. _Robert A. Brock_                             127

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Jamestown, 130; George Percy, 134; Seal of the
  Virginia Company, 140; Lord Delaware, 142.

  AUTOGRAPHS: King James, 127; Delaware, 133; Thomas Gates, 133;
  George Percy, 134; George Calvert, 146; William Berkeley, 147.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     153

  AUTOGRAPHS: William Strachey, 156; Delaware, 156; John Harvey,
  156; John West, 164.

  NOTES ON THE MAPS OF VIRGINIA, ETC. _The Editor_                   167

  ILLUSTRATION: Smith’s map of Virginia or the Chesapeake,
  _phototype_, 167.


  NORUMBEGA AND ITS ENGLISH EXPLORERS. _Benjamin F. De Costa_        169

  ILLUSTRATION: Map of Ancient Pemaquid, 177.

  AUTOGRAPHS: J. Popham, 175; Ferd. Gorges, 175.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     184

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Modern map of Coast of Maine, 190; Henri II. map
  (1543), 195; Hood’s map (1592), 197; Smith’s map of New England
  (1616), 198.

  AUTOGRAPHS: J. Popham, 175; Ferd. Gorges, 175.

  Editor_                                                            199

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Title of Eden’s Münster, 200; Münster’s map
  (1532), 201, (1540), 201; Title of Stultifera Nauis (1570),
  202; Gilbert’s map (1576), 203; Linschoten, 206; John G. Kohl,
  209; Lenox globe (1510-1512), 212; Extract from Molineaux globe
  (1592), 213; Frankfort globe (1515), 215; Molineaux map (1600),

  AUTOGRAPHS: Humphrey Gilbert, 203; Richard Hakluyt, 204; Jul.
  Cæsar, 205; Ro. Cecyll, 206; John Smith, 211.



  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     244


  THE PILGRIM CHURCH AND PLYMOUTH COLONY. _Franklin B. Dexter_       257

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Site of Scrooby Manor-House, 258; Map of Scrooby
  and Austerfield, 259; Austerfield church, 260; Record of
  William Bradford’s baptism, 260; Robinson’s House in Leyden,
  262; Plan of Leyden, 263; Map of Cape Cod Harbor, 270; Map of
  Plymouth Harbor, 272; Historic Swords, 274; Governor Edward
  Winslow, 277; Pilgrim relics, 279; Governor Josiah Winslow, 282.

  AUTOGRAPHS: John Smyth, 257; John Robinson, 259; Robert Browne,
  261; Francis Johnson, 261; Signatures of Mayflower Pilgrims
  (William Bradford, Myles Standish, William Brewster, John
  Alden, John Howland, Edward Winslow, George Soule, Francis
  Eaton, Isaac Allerton, Samuel Fuller, Peregrine White, Resolved
  White, John Cooke), 268; Dorothy May, 268; William Bradford,
  268; Thomas Cushman, 271; Alexander Standish, 273; James Cole,
  senior, 273; Signers of the Patent, 1621 (Hamilton, Lenox,
  Warwick, Sheffield, Ferdinando Gorges), 275; Governors of
  Plymouth Colony (William Bradford, Edward Winslow, Thomas
  Prence, Thomas Hinckley, Josiah Winslow), 278.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     283

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Extract from Bradford’s History, 289; First
  page, Plymouth Records, 292.

  AUTOGRAPH: Nathaniel Morton, 291.


  NEW ENGLAND. _Charles Deane_                                       295

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Dudley’s map of New England (1646), 303;
  Alexander’s map (1624), 306; John Wilson, 313; Dr. John Clark,
  315; John Endicott, 317; Hingham meeting-house, 319; Joseph
  Dudley, 320; John Winthrop of Connecticut, 331; John Davenport,
  332; Map of Connecticut River (1666), 333.

  AUTOGRAPHS: William Blaxton, 311; Samuel Maverick, 311; Thomas
  Walford, 311; Mathew Cradock, 312; John Wilson, 313; Quaker
  autographs, 314; John Endicott, 317; Colonial ministers of
  1690 (Charles Morton, James Allen, Michael Wigglesworth,
  Joshua Moody, Samuel Willard, Cotton Mather, Nehemiah Walter),
  319; Joseph Dudley, 320; Abraham Shurt, 321; Thomas Danforth,
  326; Thomas Hooker, 330; John Haynes, 331; John Winthrop, the
  younger, 331; John Allyn, 335; William Coddington, 336; Samuel
  Gorton, 336; Narragansett proprietors (Simon Bradstreet, Daniel
  Denison, Thomas Willett, Jno. Paine, Edward Hutchinson, Amos
  Richison, John Alcocke, George Denison, William Hudson), 338;
  Roger Williams, 339.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     340

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Seal of the Council for New England, 342; Cotton
  Mather, 345; Ship of the seventeenth century, 347; Fac-simile
  of a page of Thomas Lechford’s _Plaine Dealing_, 352; James
  Savage’s manuscript note on Lechford, 353; Beginning of Thomas
  Shepard’s Autobiography, 355.

  AUTOGRAPHS: Leaders in Pequot war (John Mason, Israel
  Stoughton, Lion Gardiner), 348; Jonathan Brewster, 349;
  Nathaniel Ward, 350; Signatures connected with the Indian Bible
  (Robert Boyle, Peter Bulkley, William Stoughton, Joseph Dudley,
  Thomas Hinckley, John Cotton, John Eliot, James Printer), 356;
  Edward Johnson, 358; John Norton, 358; Edward Burrough, 359;
  Robert Pike, 359; Benjamin Church, 361; Thomas Church, 361;
  William Hubbard, 362; Walter Neale, 363; Ferdinando Gorges,
  364; John Mason, 364; Roger Goode, 364; Thomas Gorges, 364;
  Connecticut secretaries (John Steel, Edward Hopkins, Thomas
  Welles, John Cullick, Daniel Clark, John Allyn), 374.


  ILLUSTRATIONS: Maps of New England (1650), 382, (1680), 383.

  AUTOGRAPH: John Carter Brown, 381.


  THE ENGLISH IN NEW YORK. _John Austin Stevens_                     385

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Sir Edmund Andros, 402; Great Seal of Andros,

  AUTOGRAPHS: Commissioners (Richard Nicolls, Sir Robert Carr,
  George Cartwright, Samuel Maverick), 388; Francis Lovelace,
  395; Thomas Dongan, 404; Jacob Leisler, 411.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     411

  NOTES. _The Editor_ 414

  ILLUSTRATIONS: View of New York (1673), 416; View of The
  Strand, 417; Plan of New York, 418; Stadthuys (1679), 419.

  AUTOGRAPH: Thomas Willett, 414.


  Whitehead_                                                         421

  AUTOGRAPHS: King James, 421; Richard Nicoll, 421; Robert Carr,
  422; John Berkeley, 422; G. Carteret, 423; Philip Carteret,
  424; James Bollen, 428; Edward Byllynge, 430; Gawen Laurie,
  430; Nicolas Lucas, 430; Edmond Warner, 430; R. Barclay, 436;
  Earl of Perth, 439.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     449

  NOTE. _The Editor_                                                 455

  ILLUSTRATION: Sanson’s map (1656), 456.

  NOTE ON NEW ALBION. _Gregory B. Keen_                              457

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Insignia of the Albion knights, 462; Farrer map
  of Virginia (1651), 465.

  AUTOGRAPH: Robert Evelin, 458.


  THE FOUNDING OF PENNSYLVANIA. _Frederick D. Stone_                 469

  ILLUSTRATIONS: George Fox, 470; William Penn, 474; Letitia
  Cottage, 483; Seal and Signatures to Frame of Government, 484;
  Slate-roof House, 492.

  AUTOGRAPHS: William Penn, 474; Thomas Wynne, 486; Charles
  Mason, 489; Jeremiah Dixon, 489; Thomas Lloyd, 494.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     495

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Title of _Some Account_, etc., 496; Title of
  _Frame of Government_, 497; Receipt and Seal of Free Society
  of Traders, 498; Gabriel Thomas’s map (1698), 501; Seal of
  Pennsylvania, 511; Section of Holme’s map of Pennsylvania, 516.


  THE ENGLISH IN MARYLAND, 1632-1691. _William T. Brantly_           517

  ILLUSTRATIONS: George, first Lord Baltimore, 518; Baltimore
  arms, 520; Map of Maryland (1635), 525; Endorsement of
  Toleration Act, 535; Baltimore coins, 543; Cecil, second Lord
  Baltimore, 546.

  AUTOGRAPHS: George, first Lord Baltimore, 518; Leonard Calvert,
  524; Thomas Cornwallis, 524; John Lewger, 528; Thomas Greene, 533;
  Margaret Brent, 533; William Stone, 534; Josias Fendall, 540;
  Charles Calvert, 542.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     553

  AUTOGRAPH: Thomas Yong, 558.

  INDEX                                                              563






_Vice-President, Massachusetts Historical Society._

“WE derive our rights in America,” says Edmund Burke, in his _Account
of the European Settlements in America_, “from the discovery of
Sebastian Cabot, who first made the Northern Continent in 1497. The
fact is sufficiently certain to establish a right to our settlements
in North America.” If this distinguished writer and statesman had
substituted the name of John Cabot for that of Sebastian, he would have
stated the truth.


John Cabot, as his name is known to English readers, or Zuan Caboto, as
it is called in the Venetian dialect, the discoverer of North America,
was born, probably, in Genoa or its neighborhood. His name first
appears in the archives of Venice, where is a record, under the date
of March 28, 1476, of his naturalization as a citizen of Venice, after
the usual residence of fifteen years. He pursued successfully the study
of cosmography and the practice of navigation, and at one time visited
Arabia, where, at Mecca, he saw the caravans which came thither, and
was told that the spices they brought were received from other hands,
and that they came originally from the remotest countries of the
east. Accepting the new views as to “the roundness of the earth,” as
Columbus had done, he was quite disposed to put them to a practical
test. With his wife, who was a Venetian woman, and his three sons, he
removed to England, and took up his residence at the maritime city
of Bristol. The time at which this removal took place is uncertain.
In the year 1495 he laid his proposals before the king, Henry VII.,
who on the 5th of March, 1495/6, granted to him and his three sons,
their heirs and assigns a patent for the discovery of unknown lands
in the eastern, western, or northern seas, with the right to occupy
such territories, and to have exclusive commerce with them, paying to
the King one fifth part of all the profits, and to return to the port
of Bristol. The enterprise was to be “at their own proper cost and
charge.” In the early part of May in the following year, 1497, Cabot
set sail from Bristol with one small vessel and eighteen persons,
principally of Bristol, accompanied, perhaps, by his son Sebastian;
and, after sailing seven hundred leagues, discovered land on the 24th
of June, which he supposed was “in the territory of the Grand Cham.”
The legend, “prima tierra vista,” was inscribed on a map attributed
to Sebastian Cabot, composed at a later period, at the head of the
delineation of the island of Cape Breton. On the spot where he landed
he planted a large cross, with the flags of England and of St. Mark,
and took possession for the King of England. If the statement be true
that he coasted three hundred leagues, he may have made a _periplus_ of
the Gulf of St. Lawrence, returning home through the Straits of Belle
Isle. On his return he saw two islands on the starboard, but for want
of provisions did not stop to examine them. He saw no human beings,
but he brought home certain implements; and from these and other
indications he believed that the country was inhabited. He returned in
the early part of August, having been absent about three months. The
discovery which he reported, and of which he made and exhibited a map
and a solid globe, created a great sensation in England. The King gave
him money, and also executed an agreement to pay him an annual pension,
charged upon the revenues of the port of Bristol. He dressed in silk,
and was called, or called himself, “the Great Admiral.” Preparations
were made for another and a larger expedition, evidently for the
purpose of colonization, and hopes were cherished of further important
discoveries; for Cabot believed that by starting from the place
already found, and coasting toward the equinoctial, he should discover
the island of Cipango, the land of jewels and spices, by which they
hoped to make in London a greater warehouse of spices than existed in
Alexandria. His companions told marvellous stories about the abundance
of fish in the waters of that coast, which might foster an enterprise
that would wholly supersede the fisheries of Iceland. On the 3d of
February 1497/8 the King granted to John Cabot (the sons are not named)
a license to take up six ships, and to enlist as many men as should be
willing to go on the new expedition. He set sail, says Hakluyt, quoting
Fabian, in the beginning of May, with, it is supposed, three hundred
men, and accompanied by his son Sebastian. One of the vessels put back
to Ireland in distress, but the others continued on their voyage. This
is the last we hear of John Cabot. His maps are lost. It is believed
that Juan de la Cosa, the Spanish pilot, who in the year 1500 made a
map of the Spanish and English discoveries in the New World, made use
of maps of the Cabots now lost.

Sebastian Cabot, the second son of John Cabot, was born in Venice,
probably about the year 1473. He was early devoted to the study of
cosmography, in which science his father had become a proficient, and
Sebastian was largely imbued with the same spirit of enterprise; and
on the removal of his father with his family to England, he lived
with them at Bristol. His name first occurs in the letters patent of
Henry VII., dated March 5, 1495/6, issued to John Cabot and his three
sons, Lewis, Sebastian, and Sancius, and to their heirs and assigns,
authorizing them to discover unknown lands. There is some reason to
believe that he accompanied his father in the expedition, already
mentioned, on which the first discovery of North America was made; but
in none of the contemporary documents which have recently come to light
respecting this voyage is Sebastian’s name mentioned as connected with
it. A second expedition, as already stated, followed, and John Cabot
is distinctly named as having sailed with it as its commander; but
thenceforward he passes out of sight. Sebastian Cabot, without doubt,
accompanied the expedition. No contemporary account of it was written,
or at least published, and for the incidents of the voyage we are
mainly indebted to the reports of others written at a later period, and
derived originally from conversations with Sebastian Cabot himself; in
all of which the father’s name, except incidentally, as having taken
Sebastian to England when he was very young, is not mentioned. In these
several reports but one voyage is spoken of, and that, apparently,
the voyage on which the discovery of North America was made; but
circumstances are narrated in them which could have taken place only on
the second or a later voyage.

With a company of three hundred men, the little fleet steered its
course in the direction of the northwest in search of the land of
Cathay. They came to a coast running to the north, which they followed
to a great distance, where they found, in the month of July, large
bodies of ice floating in the water, and almost continual daylight.
Failing to find the passage sought around this formidable headland,
they turned their prows and, as one account says, sought refreshment
at Baccalaos. Thence, coasting southwards, they ran down to about the
latitude of Gibraltar, or 36° N., still in search of a passage to
India, when, their provisions failing, they returned to England.

If the views expressed by John Cabot, on his return from his first
voyage, had been seriously cherished, it seems strange that this
expedition did not, at first, on arriving at the coast, pursue the more
southerly direction, where he was confident lay the land of jewels and

They landed in several places, saw the natives dressed in skins of
beasts, and making use of copper. They found the fish in such great
abundance that the progress of the ships was sometimes impeded. The
bears, which were in great plenty, caught the fish for food,—plunging
into the water, fastening their claws into them, and dragging them to
the shore. The expedition was expected back by September, but it had
not returned by the last of October.

There is some evidence that Sebastian Cabot, at a later period, sailed
on a voyage of discovery from England in company with Sir Thomas Pert,
or Spert, but which, on account of the cowardice of his companion,
“took none effect.” But the enterprise is involved in doubt and


In 1512, after the death of Henry VII., and when Henry VIII. had been
three years on the throne, Sebastian Cabot entered into the service
of Ferdinand, King of Spain, arriving at Seville in September of that
year, where he took up his residence; and on the 20th of October was
appointed “Capitan de Mar,” with an annual salary of fifty thousand
maravedis.[1] Preparations for a voyage of discovery were now made,
and Cabot was to depart in March, 1516, but the death of Ferdinand
prevented his sailing. On the 5th of February, 1518, he was named, by
Charles V., “Piloto Mayor y Exâminadór de Pilotos,” as successor of
Juan de Solis, who was killed at La Plata in 1516. This office gave
him an additional salary of fifty thousand maravedis; and it was soon
afterwards decreed that no pilots should leave Spain for the Indies
without being examined and approved by him. In 1524 he attended,
not as a member but as an expert, the celebrated junta at Badajoz,
which met to decide the important question of the longitude of the
Moluccas,—whether they were on the Spanish or the Portuguese side of
the line of demarcation which followed, by papal consent in 1494, a
meridian of longitude, making a fixed division of the globe, so far
as yet undefined, between Spain and Portugal. On the second day of
the session, April 15, he and two others delivered an opinion on the
questions involved.

In the following year an expedition to the Moluccas was projected,
and under an agreement with the Emperor, executed at Madrid on the
4th of March, Sebastian Cabot was appointed its commander with the
title of Captain-General. The sailing of the expedition was delayed
by the intrigues of the Portuguese. In the mean time his wife,
Catalina Medrano, who is again mentioned with her children a few
years later, received by a royal order fifty thousand maravedis as a
_gratificacion_. On April 3, 1526, the armada sailed from St. Lucar
for the Spice Islands, intending to pass through the Straits of
Magellan. It was delayed from point to point, and did not arrive on
the coast until the following year, when Cabot entered the La Plata
River. A feeling of disloyalty to their commander, the seeds of which
had been sown from the beginning, broke out in open mutiny. He had,
moreover, lost one of his vessels off the coast of Brazil. He therefore
determined to proceed no farther at present, to send to the Emperor a
report of the condition of affairs, and in the mean time to explore
the La Plata River, which had been penetrated by De Solis in 1515. He
remained in that country for several years, and returned in July or
August, 1530. The details of this expedition are described in another
volume of this work and by another hand.

[Illustration: SEBASTIAN CABOT.

[This cut follows a photograph taken from the Chapman copy of the
original. The original was engraved when owned by Charles J. Harford,
Esq., for Seyer’s _Memoirs of Bristol_, 1824, vol. ii. p. 208, and
a photo-reduction of that engraving appears in Nicholl’s _Life of
Sebastian Cabot_. Other engravings have appeared in Sparks’s _Amer.
Biog._, vol. ix. etc. See Critical Essay.—ED.]]

As might have been expected, this enterprise was regarded at home as
a failure, and Cabot had made many enemies in the exercise of his
legitimate authority in quelling the mutinies which had from time to
time broken out among his men. Complaints were made against him on his
return. Several families of those of his companions who were killed
in the expedition brought suits against him, and he was arrested and
imprisoned, but was liberated on bail. Public charges for misconduct
in the affairs of La Plata were preferred against him; and the Council
of the Indies, by an order dated from Medina del Campo, Feb. 1, 1532,
condemned him to a banishment of two years to Oran, in Africa. I have
seen no evidence to show that this sentence was carried into execution.
Cabot, who on his return laid before the Emperor Charles V. his final
report on the expedition, appears to have fully justified himself in
that monarch’s esteem; for he soon resumed his duties as Pilot Major,
an office which he retained till his final return to England.

Cabot made maps and globes during his residence in Spain; and a large
_mappe monde_ bearing date 1544, engraved on copper, and attributed to
him, was found in Germany in 1843, and is now deposited in the National
Library in Paris. This map has been the subject of much discussion.
While in the employ of the Emperor, Cabot offered his services to
his native country, Venice, but was unable to carry his purpose into
effect. He was at last desirous of returning to England, and the Privy
Council, on Oct. 9, 1547, issued a warrant for his transportation from
Spain “to serve and inhabit in England.” He came over to England in
that or the following year, and on Jan. 6, 1548/9, the King granted
him a pension of £166 13s. 4d., to date from St. Michael’s Day
preceding (September 29), “in consideration of the good and acceptable
service done and to be done” by him. In 1550 the Emperor, through his
ambassador in England, demanded his return to Spain, saying that Cabot
was his Pilot Major under large pay, and was much needed by him,—that
“he could not stand the king in any great stead, seeing he had but
small practice in those seas;” but Cabot declined to return. In that
same year, June 4, the King renewed to him the patent of 1495/6, and in
March, 1551, gave him £200 as a special reward.


The discovery of a passage to China by the northwest having been deemed
impracticable, a company of merchants was formed in 1553 to prosecute a
route by the northeast, and Cabot was made its governor. He drew up the
instructions for its management, and the expedition under Willoughby
was sent out, the results of which are well known. China was not
reached, but a trade with Muscovy was opened through Archangel. After
the accession of Mary to the Crown of England, the Emperor made another
unsuccessful demand for Cabot’s return to Spain. On Feb. 6, 1555/6,
what is known as the Muscovy Company was chartered, and Cabot became
its governor. Among the last notices preserved of this venerable
man is an account, by a quaint old chronicler, of his presence at
Gravesend, April 27, 1556, on board the pinnace, the “Serchthrift,”
then destined for a voyage of discovery to the northeast. It is related
that after Sebastian Cabot, “and divers gentlemen and gentlewomen”
had “viewed our pinnace, and tasted of such cheer as we could make
them aboard, they went on shore, giving to our mariners right liberal
rewards; and the good old Gentleman, Master Cabota, gave to the poor
most liberal alms, wishing them to pray for the good fortune and
prosperous success of the ‘Serchthrift,’ our pinnace. And then at the
sign of the ‘Christopher,’ he and his friends banqueted, and made me
and them that were in the company great cheer; and for very joy that he
had to see the towardness of our intended discovery he entered into the
dance himself, amongst the rest of the young and lusty company,—which
being ended, he and his friends departed most gently commending us to
the governance of Almighty God.”


Cabot’s pension, granted by the late King, was renewed to him by Queen
Mary Nov. 27, 1555; but on May 27, 1557, he resigned it, and two days
later a new grant was issued to him and William Worthington, jointly,
of the same amount, by which he was deprived of one half his pay. This
is the last official notice of Sebastian Cabot. He probably died soon
afterwards, and in London. Richard Eden, the translator and compiler,
attended him in his last moments, and “beckons us, with something of
awe, to see him die.” He gives a touching account of the feeble and
broken utterances of the dying man. Though no monument or gravestone
marks his place of burial, which is unknown, his portrait is preserved,
as shown on a preceding page.


UNLIKE the enterprises of Columbus, Vespucius, and many other
navigators who wrote accounts of their voyages and discoveries at
the time of their occurrence, which by the aid of the press were
published to the world, the exploits of the Cabots were unchronicled.
Although the fact of their voyages had been reported by jealous and
watchful liegers at the English Court to the principal cabinets of the
Continent, and the map of their discoveries had been made known, and
this had had its influence in leading other expeditions to the northern
shores of North America, the historical literature relating to the
discovery of America, as preserved in print, is, for nearly twenty
years after the events took place, silent as to the enterprises and
even the names of the Cabots. Scarcely anything has come down to us
directly from these navigators themselves, and for what we know we have
hitherto been chiefly indebted to the uncertain reports, in foreign
languages, of conversations originally held with Sebastian Cabot many
years afterwards, and sometimes related at second and third hand.
Even the year in which the voyage of discovery was made was usually
wrongly stated, when stated at all, and for more than two hundred years
succeeding these events there was no mention made of more than one

[Illustration: LA COSA MAP. 1500. _Left side_]

[Illustration: LA COSA MAP. 1500. _Right side_]

[Illustration: RUYSCH’S MAP, 1508.]

I now ask the reader to follow me down through the sixteenth century,
if no further, and examine what notices of the Cabots and their voyages
we can find in the historical literature of this period; and then to
examine what has recently come to light.

John Cabot had died when his son Sebastian in 1512, three years after
the death of Henry VII., left England and entered into the service of
the King of Spain, who gave him the title of Captain, and a liberal
allowance, directing that he should reside at Seville to await orders.
He there became an intimate friend of the famous Peter Martyr, the
author of the _Decades of the New World_, or _De Orbe Novo_, and a
volume of letters entitled _Opus Epistolarum_, etc., a writer too well
known to need further introduction here. Through Martyr, for the first
time, there was printed in 1516 an account of the voyage of the Cabots.


He published in that year at Alcala (Complutum), in Spain, the first
three of his Decades, addressed to Pope Leo X., the second and third
of which Decades had been written in 1514 and 1515.[3] In the sixth
chapter of the third Decade—of which we give later a page in slightly
reduced fac-simile—is the following:—

 “These northern shores have been searched by one Sebastian Cabot,
 a Venetian born, whom, being but in manner an infant, his parents
 carried with them into England, having occasion to resort thither for
 trade of merchandise, as is the manner of the Venetians to leave no
 part of the world unsearched to obtain riches. He therefore furnished
 two ships in England at his own charges, and first with three hundred
 men directed his course so far towards the North Pole that even in the
 month of July he found monstrous heaps of ice swimming on the sea, and
 in manner continual daylight; yet saw he the land in that tract free
 from ice, which had been molten. Wherefore he was enforced to turn his
 sails and follow the west; so coasting still by the shore that he was
 thereby brought so far into the south, by reason of the land bending
 so much southwards that it was there almost equal in latitude with the
 sea _Fretum Herculeum_. He sailed so far towards the west that he had
 the island of Cuba on his left hand in manner in the same degree of
 longitude. As he travelled by the coasts of this great land (which he
 named Baccalaos) he saith that he found the like course of the waters
 toward the great west, but the same to run more softly and gently
 than the swift waters which the Spaniards found in their navigation
 southward.... Sebastian Cabot himself named these lands Baccalaos,
 because that in the seas thereabout he found so great multitudes of
 certain big fishes much like unto tunnies (which the inhabitants
 call _baccallaos_)[4] that they sometimes staied his ships. He also
 found the people of those regions covered with beasts’ skins, yet not
 without the use of reason. He also saith there is great plenty of
 bears in those regions which use to eat fish; for plunging themselves
 into the water, where they perceive a multitude of these fishes to
 lie, they fasten their claws in their scales, and so draw them to
 land and eat them, so (as he saith) they are not noisome to men. He
 declareth further, that in many places of those regions he saw great
 plenty of laton among the inhabitants. Cabot is my very friend, whom
 I use familiarly, and delight to have him sometimes keep me company
 in mine own house. For being called out of England by the commandment
 of the Catholic king of Castile, after the death of Henry VII. King
 of England, he is now present at Court with us, looking for ships to
 be furnished him for the Indies, to discover this hid secret of
 Nature. I think that he will depart in March in the year next
 following, 1516, to explore it. What shall succeed your Holiness
 shall learn through me, if God grant me life. Some of the Spaniards
 deny that Cabot was the first finder of the land of Baccalaos, and
 affirm that he went not so far westward.”[5]

 [Illustration: STOBNICZA’S MAP, 1512, REDUCED.

 [The legends on the map even on the large scale are not clear, and
 Brunet, _Supplement_, p. 697, gives a deceptive account of them.
 The _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p. 54, makes them thus: On North
 America, “Ortus de bona ventura,” and “Isabella.” Hispaniola is
 called “Spagnolla.” On the northern shore of South Ameica, “Arcay”
 and “Caput de Sta de.” On its eastern parts, “Gorffo Fremosa,” “Caput
 S. Crucis,” and “Monte Fregoso.” At the southern limit, “Alla pega.”
 The straight lines of the western coasts, as well as the words “Terra
 incognita,” are thought to represent an uncertainty of knowledge. The
 island at the west is “Zypangu insula,” or Japan. Mr. Bartlett, the
 editor of the _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, is of the opinion that the
 island at the north is Iceland; but it seems more in accordance with
 the prevailing notions of the time to call it Baccalaos. It appears
 in the same way on the Lenox globe, and in the circumpolar MS. map of
 Da Vinci (1513) in the Queen’s library at Windsor, where this island
 is marked “Bacalar.” The eastern coast outline of the Stobnicza map
 bears a certain resemblance to the Waldseemüller map which appeared in
 the Ptolemy of 1513, having been however engraved, but not published,
 in 1507, and Stobnicza may have seen it. If so, he might have
 intended the straight western line of North America to correspond to
 the marginal limit of the Ptolemy map; but he got no warrant in the
 latter for the happy conjecture of the western coast of the Southern
 Continent, nor could he find such anywhere else, so far as we know.
 The variations of the eastern coast do not indicate that he depended,
 solely at least, upon the Ptolemy map, which carries the northern
 cut-off of the northern continent five degrees higher. “Isabella” is
 transferred from Cuba to Florida, and the northeast coast of South
 America is very different. There are accurate fac-similes of this
 Ptolemy map in Varnhagen’s _Premier Voyage de Vespucci_, and in
 Stevens’s _Historical and Geographical Notes_, pl. ii. See the chapter
 on Norumbega, _notes_.—ED.]]

This account we may well suppose to have come primarily from Sebastian
Cabot himself, and it will be noticed that his father is not mentioned
as having accompanied him on the voyage. Indeed, no reference is made
to the father except under the general statement that his parents
took him to England while he was yet very young, _pene infans_. No
date is given, and but one voyage is spoken of. It may be said that
Peter Martyr is not here writing a history of the voyage or voyages
of the Cabots; that the account is merely brought into his narrative
incidentally, as it were, to illustrate a subject upon which he was
then writing,—namely, on a “search” into “the secret causes of
Nature,” or the reason “why the sea runneth with so swift course
from the east into the west;” and that he cites the observations of
Sebastian Cabot, in the region of the Baccalaos, for his immediate
purpose. Richard Biddle, in his _Life of Sebastian Cabot_, pp. 81-90,
supposes the voyage here described to be the second, that of 1498,
undertaken after the death of the father, as the mention of the three
hundred men taken out would imply a purpose of colonization, while the
first voyage was one of discovery merely; and thinks that this view is
confirmed by a subsequent reference of Martyr to Cabot’s discovery of
the Baccalaos, in _Decade_ seven, chapter two, written in 1524, where
the discovery is said to have taken place “twenty-six years before,”
that is, in 1498.[6]

[Illustration: PETER MARTYR, 1516.]

A map of the world was composed in 1529 by Diego Ribero, a very
able cosmographer and map-maker of Spain in the early part of the
sixteenth century. It is a very interesting map, but is so well known
to geographers that I need give no particular description of it here.
The northern part of our coast, delineated upon it, is supposed to
have been drawn from the explorations and reports of Gomez made in
1525. It was copied and printed, in its general features only, in
1534, at Venice. A superior copy in fac-simile of the original map was
published by Dr. Kohl in 1860, at Weimar, in his _Die beiden Æltesten
General-Karten von Amerika_.[7] On this map an inscription, of which
the following is an English version, is placed over the territory
inscribed Tierra del Labrador: “This country the English discovered,
but there is nothing useful in it.” See an abridged section of the map
and a description of it in Kohl’s _Doc. Hist. of Maine_, i. 299-307.[8]

[Illustration: THORNE’S MAP, 1527.]

In 1530, four years after Martyr’s death, there was published at
Alcala (Complutum), in Spain, his eight Decades, _De Orbe Novo_, which
included the three first published in 1516, in the last of which,
the third, appeared the notice of Sebastian Cabot cited above. And
it may be added here that the three Decades, including the _De nuper
... repertis insulis_, etc., or abridgment, so called, of the fourth
Decade, printed at Basel in 1521, were reprinted together in that city
in 1533. Of later editions there will be occasion to say something
farther on. Martyr’s notice of Cabot was the earliest extant, and the
republication of these Decades, at different places, served to keep
alive the important fact of the discovery of North America under the
English flag. In some of these later Decades, written in 1524 and 1525,
references will be found to Sebastian Cabot and to his employment in

There was published in Latin at Argentoratum (Strasbourg), in 1532,
by James Ziegler,—a Bavarian theologian, who cultivated mathematics
and cosmography with success,—a book relating in part to the northern
regions. Under the head of “Gronland” the author quotes Peter Martyr’s
account of Sebastian Cabot’s voyage:—

 “Peter Martyr of Angleria writeth in his Decades of the Spanish
 navigations, that Sebastian Cabot,[9] sailing from England continually
 towards the north, followed that course so far that he chanced upon
 great flakes of ice in the month of July; and diverting from thence
 he followed the coast by the shore, bending toward the south until he
 came to the clime of the island of Hispaniola above Cuba, an Island
 of the Cannibals. Which narration hath given me occasion to extend
 Gronland beyond the promontory or cape of Huitsarch to the continent
 or firm land of Lapponia above the castle of Wardhus; which thing I
 did the rather for that the reverend Archbishop of Nidrosia constantly
 affirmed that the sea bendeth there into the form of a crooked elbow.”

This writer evidently supposed that Cabot sailed along the east coast
of Greenland, and the inference he drew from Cabot’s experience, as
related by Martyr, confirmed his belief that that country joined on
to Lappona (Lapland),—an old notion which lasted down to the time of
Willoughby,—making “one continent;” and so he represented it on his
map no. 8, published in his book.[10] He places “Terra Bacallaos” on
the east coast of “Gronland.” He believed that Cabot’s falling in with
ice proved “that he sailed not by the main sea, but in places near unto
the land, comprehending and embracing the sea in the form of a gulf.”
I have copied this from Eden’s English version of Ziegler (_Decades_,
fol. 268), in the margin of which at this place Eden says, “Cabot told
me that this ice is of fresh water, and not of the sea.”[11]

There was published at Venice in 1534, in Italian, a volume in three
parts; the first of which was entitled, _Summario de la generale
historia de l’indie occidentali cavato da libri scritti dal signor don
Pietro Martyre del consiglio delle indie della maesta de l’imperadore,
et da molte altre particulari relationi_.[12]

This, as will be seen, purports to be a summary drawn from Peter Martyr
and other sources,—“from many other private accounts.” The basis
of the work is Martyr’s first three Decades, published together in
Latin in 1516, the original arrangement of the author being entirely
disregarded, many facts omitted, and new statements introduced for
which no authority is given. By virtue of the concluding words of
the quoted title, the translator or compiler appears to claim the
privilege of taking the utmost liberty with the text of Martyr. For
the well-known passage in the sixth chapter of the third Decade, where
Martyr says that Sebastian Cabot “sed a parentibus in Britāniam insulam
tendentibus, uti moris est Venetorum: qui commercii causa terrarum
omnium sunt hospites transportatus pene infans” (“whom being yet but in
manner an infant, his parents carried with them into England, having
occasion to resort thither for trade of merchandise, as is the manner
of the Venetians to leave no part of the world unsearched to obtain
riches”), the Italian translator has substituted, “Costui essendo
piccolo fu menato da suo padre in Inghilterra, da poi la morte del
quale trouandosi ricchissimo, et di grande animo, delibero si come
hauea fatto Christoforo Colombo voler anchor lui scoprire qualche nuoua
parte del mōdo,” etc. (“He being a little boy was taken by his father
into England, after whose death, finding himself very rich and of
great ambition, he resolved to discover some new part of the world as
Columbus had done”).

M. D’Avezac has given some facts which show that the editor of this
Italian version of Peter Martyr, as he calls this work, was Ramusio,
the celebrated editor of the _Navigationi et Viaggi_,[13] etc., and
this work is introduced into the third volume of that publication,
twenty-one years later. Mr. Brevoort has also called my attention to
the fact that the woodcut of “Isola Spagnuola,” used in the early work,
was introduced into the later one, which is confirmatory of the opinion
that Ramusio was at least the editor of the _Summario_ of 1534.[14]

Cabot we know was, during his residence in Spain, a correspondent of
Ramusio,—at least, the latter speaks once of Cabot’s having written to
him, and we shall see farther on that they were not strangers to each
other,—and it is possible that this modification of Peter Martyr’s
language was authorized by him. It is here stated, however, that Cabot
reached only 55° north, while in the prefatory _Discorso_ to his third
volume the editor says that Cabot wrote to him many years before that
he reached the latitude of 67 degrees and a half, and no explanation
is given as to whether the reference is to the same voyage. A fair
inference from the passage above cited from the Italian _Summario_
would be that Sebastian Cabot planned the voyage of discovery after his
father’s death, which we know was not true; as it was equally untrue
that the death of his father made him very rich, for the Italian envoy
tells us that John Cabot was poor. Indeed, the whole language of the
passage relating to Sebastian Cabot is mythical and untrustworthy,
whoever may have inspired it.[15]

I now come to a map of Sebastian Cabot, bearing date 1544, as the
year of its composition, a copy of which was discovered in Germany in
1843, by Von Martius, in the house of a Bavarian curate, and deposited
in the following year in the National Library in Paris. It has been
described at some length by M. D’Avezac, in the _Bulletin de la Société
de Géographie_, 4 ser. xiv. 268-270, 1857. It is a large elliptical
_mappe monde_, engraved on metal, with geographical delineations drawn
upon it down to the time it was made. I saw the map in Paris in 1866.
On its sides are two tables: the first, on the left, inscribed at the
head “Tabula Prima;” and that on the right, “Tabula Secunda.” On these
tables are seventeen legends, or inscriptions, in duplicate; that is to
say, in Spanish and in Latin, the latter supposed to be a translation
of the former,—each Latin legend immediately following the Spanish
original and bearing the same number.[16]

After the seventeen legends in Spanish and in Latin, we come to
a title or heading: “Plinio en el secund libro capitulo lxxix.,
escriue” (“Pliny, in the second book, chapter 79, writes”). Then
follows an inscription in Spanish, no. 18, from Pliny’s _Natural
History_, cap. lxvii., the chapter given above being an error. Four
brief inscriptions, also in Spanish, numbered 19 to 22, relating to
the natural productions of islands in the eastern seas, taken from
other authors, complete the list. So there are twenty-two Spanish
inscriptions or legends on the map,—ten on the first table and twelve
on the second,—the last five of which have no Latin _exemplaires_;
and there are no Latin inscriptions without the same text in Spanish
immediately preceding.

There are no headings prefixed to the inscriptions, except the 1st, the
17th, and 18th. The first inscription, relating to the discovery of
the New World by Columbus, has this title, beneath Tabula Prima, “_del
almirante_.” The 17th—a long inscription—has this title: _Retulo,
del auctor conçiertas razones de la variaçion que haze il aguia del
marear con la estrella del Norte_ (“A discourse of the author of the
map, giving certain reasons for the variation of the magnetic needle
in reference to the North Star”). It is also repeated in Latin over
the version of the inscription in that language. The title to the 18th
inscription, if it may be called a title, has already been given.

The 17th inscription begins as follows: “Sebastian Caboto, capitan
y piloto mayor de la S. c. c. m. del Imperador don Carlos quinto
deste nombre, y Rey nuestro sennor hizo este figura extenda en plano,
anno del nascim^o de nrō Salvador Iesu Christo de MDXLIIII. annos,
tirada por grados de latitud y longitud con sus vientos como carta
de marear, imitando en parte al Ptolomeo, y en parte alos modernos
descobridores, asi Espanoles como Portugueses, y parte por su padre, y
por el descubierto, por donde, podras navegar como por carta de marear,
teniendo respecto a luariaçion que haze el aguia,” etc. (“Sebastian
Cabot, captain and pilot-major of his sacred imperial majesty, the
emperor Don Carlos, the fifth of this name, and the king our lord, made
this figure extended on a plane surface, in the year of the birth of
our Saviour Jesus Christ, 1544, having drawn it by degrees of latitude
and longitude, with the winds, as a sailing chart, following partly
Ptolemy and partly the modern discoveries, Spanish and Portuguese, and
partly the discovery made by his father and himself: by it you may
sail as by a sea-chart, having regard to the variation of the needle,”
etc.). Then follows a discussion relating to the variation of the
magnetic needle, which Cabot claims first to have noticed.[17]

In the inscription, No. 8, which treats of Newfoundland, it says: “This
country was discovered by John Cabot, a Venetian, and Sebastian Cabot,
his son, in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ, MCCCCXCIV. [1494] on the
24th of June, in the morning, which country they called ‘primum visam’;
and a large island adjacent to it they named the island of St. John,
because they discovered it on the same day.”[18]

A fac-simile of this map was published in Paris by M. Jomard, in Plate
XX. of his _Monuments de la Géographie_ (begun in 1842, and issued
during several years following down to 1862), but without the legends
on its sides, which unquestionably belong to the map itself; for those
which, on account of their length, are not included within the interior
of the map, are attached to it by proper references. M. Jomard promised
a separate volume of “texte explicatif,” but death prevented the
accomplishment of his purpose.[19]


If this map, with the date of its composition, is authentic, it is the
first time the name of John Cabot has been introduced to our notice
in any printed document, in connection with the discovery of North
America. Here the name is brought in jointly with that of Sebastian
Cabot, on the authority apparently of Sebastian himself. He is said to
be the maker of the map, and if he did not write the legends on its
sides he may be supposed not to have been ignorant of their having been
placed there. As to Legend No. 8, copied above, who but Sebastian Cabot
would know the facts embodied in it,—namely, that the discovery was
made by both the father and the son, on the 24th of June, about five
o’clock in the morning; that the land was called _prima vista_, or its
equivalent, and that the island near by was called St. John, as the
discovery was made on St. John’s Day? Whether or not Sebastian Cabot’s
statement is to be implicitly relied on, in associating his own name
with his father’s in the voyage of discovery, in view of the evidence
which has recently come to light, the legend itself must have proceeded
from him. Some additional information in the latter part of the
inscription, relating to the native inhabitants, and the productions
of the country, may have been gathered in the voyage of the following
year. Sebastian Cabot, without doubt, was in possession of his father’s
maps, on which would be inscribed by John Cabot himself the day on
which the discovery was made.

Whatever opinions, therefore, historical scholars may entertain as
to Sebastian Cabot’s connection with this map in its present form,
or with the inscriptions upon it as a whole, all must admit that the
statements embodied in No. 8, and, it may be added, in No. 17, could
have been communicated by no one but Sebastian Cabot himself. The
only alternative is that they are a base fabrication by a stranger.
Moreover, this very map itself, or a map with these legends upon it,
as we shall see farther on, was in the possession of Richard Eden, or
was accessible to him; and one of its long inscriptions was translated
into English, and printed in his _Decades_, in 1555, as from “Cabot’s
own card,”—and this at a time when Cabot was living in London, and
apparently on terms of intimacy with Eden. Legend No. 8 contains an
important statement which is confirmed by evidence recently come to
light, namely, the fact of John Cabot’s agency in the discovery of
North America; and, although the name of the son is here associated
with the father, it is a positive relief to find an acknowledgment from
Sebastian himself of a truth that was to receive, before the close of
the century, important support from the publication of the _Letters
Patent_ from the archives of the State. And this should serve to modify
our estimate of the authenticity of reports purporting to come from
Sebastian, in which the father is wholly ignored, and the son alone
is represented as the hero. The long inscription, No. 17, contains
an honorable mention of his father, as we have already seen; and in
the Latin duplicate, the language in the passage which I have given
in English will be seen to be even more emphatic than is expressed in
the Spanish text. Indeed, in several instances in the Latin, though
generally following the Spanish, so far as I have had an opportunity
of observing, there are some statements of fact not to be found in the
Spanish.[20] The passage already cited concludes thus in the Latin:
“And also from the experience and practice of long sea-service of the
most excellent John Cabot, a Venetian by nation, and of my author [the
map is here made to speak for itself] Sebastian his son, the most
learned of all men in knowledge of the stars and the art of navigation,
who have discovered a certain part of the globe for a long time hidden
from our people.”[21]

Though we are not quite willing to believe that Sebastian Cabot wrote
the eulogy of himself contained in this passage, yet who but he could
have known of those facts concerning his father, who, we suppose, had
been dead some fifty years before this map was composed?

The map itself, as a work of Sebastian Cabot, is unsatisfactory, and
many of the legends on its sides are also unworthy of its alleged
author. It brought forward for the first time, in Legend 8, the year
1494 as the year of the discovery of North America, which the late
M. D’Avezac accepted, but which I cannot but think from undoubted
evidence, to be adduced farther on, is wrong. The “terram primum visam”
of the legend is inscribed on the northern part of Cape Breton, and
there would seem to be no good reason for not accepting this point on
the coast as Cabot’s landfall. The “y de s. Juan,” the present Prince
Edward Island, is laid down on the map; and although Dr. Kohl thinks
that the name was given by the French, and that Cabot may have taken
it, not from his own survey, but from the French maps, I have seen
no evidence of the application of the name on any map before this of
Cabot. Cartier gave the name “Sainct Jean” to a cape on the west coast
of Newfoundland, in 1534, discovered also on St. John’s Day; but this
fact was not known, in print at least, till 1556, when the account of
his first voyage was published in the third volume of Ramusio.

We find no strictly contemporaneous reference to this map, or evidence
that it exerted any influence on opinions respecting the first two
voyages of the Cabots; and the name of John Cabot again sinks out of
sight. Dr. Kohl has called attention to the fact that the author of
this map has copied the coast line of the northern shore largely from

It may be added that the inscription No. 8, on Cabot’s map, has since
its republication by Hakluyt, with an English version by him, in
1589, been regarded as containing the most definite and satisfactory
statement which had appeared as to the discovery of North America,
the date as to the year having been subjected to some interesting
criticisms, to be referred to farther on.

In the year 1550 Ramusio issued at Venice the first volume of his
celebrated collection of voyages and travels in Italian, entitled,
_Delle Navigationi et Viaggi_, etc. This contained, in a discourse on
spices, etc., the well-known report of a conversation at the villa of
Hieronymo Fracastor, at Caphi, near Verona, in which the principal
speaker, a most profound philosopher and mathematician, incidentally
relates an interview which he had, some years before, with Sebastian
Cabot at Seville. Ramusio, who was present, and tells the story
himself, says he does not pretend to give the conversation precisely as
he heard it, for that would require a talent beyond his; but he would
try and give briefly what he could recollect of it. The substance of
Cabot’s story as related, much abridged by me, is this:—

Sebastian Cabot’s father took him from Venice to London when he was
very young, yet having some knowledge of the _humanities_, and of
the sphere. His father died at the time when the news was brought of
the discovery of Columbus, which caused a great talk at the court
of Henry VII., and which created a great desire in him (Cabot) to
attempt some great thing; and understanding, by reason of the sphere,
that if he should sail by the northwest he would come to India by a
shorter route, he caused the king to be informed of his idea, and the
king immediately furnished him with two small ships, and all things
necessary for the voyage, which was in the year 1496, in the beginning
of summer. He therefore began to sail to the northwest, expecting to
go to Cathay, and from thence to turn towards India, but found after
some days, to his displeasure, that the land ran towards the north. He
still proceeded hoping to find the passage, but found the land still
continent to the 56th degree; and seeing there that the coast turned
toward the east, he, in despair of finding the passage, turned back
and sailed down the coast toward the equinoctial, ever hoping to find
the passage, and came as far south as Florida, when, his provisions
failing, he returned to England, where he found great tumults among the
people, and wars in Scotland.

The volumes of Ramusio became justly celebrated throughout the literary
centres of Europe, and the publication of the account of Sebastian
Cabot’s discovery in the first volume attracted the attention of
scholars in England. It will be noticed that Sebastian Cabot here, as
well as in the account in Peter Martyr, is said to have been born in
Venice, and taken to England while yet very young; yet not so young
but that he had acquired some knowledge of letters, and of the sphere.
He speaks here of the death of his father as occurring before the
voyage of discovery was entered upon, for which he had two small ships
furnished him by the king. He says that this was in the year 1496; yet
he speaks of events occurring in England on his return,—great tumults
among the people, and wars in Scotland,—which point to the year
1497. The latitude he reached “under our pole” was 56 degrees; and,
despairing to find the passage to India, he turned back again, sailed
down the coast, “and came to that part of this firm land we now call
Florida.”[22] Many incidents here described could not have occurred on
the voyage of discovery, as we shall see farther on.

We do not know the precise year in which the interview at Seville
between this learned man and Sebastian Cabot was held, but have given
some reasons below for believing that it took place about ten years
before it was printed by Ramusio.[23]

I might mention here another reference to Cabot, in Ramusio’s third
volume, 1556, though of a little later date. In a prefatory dedication
to his excellent friend Hieronimo Fracastor,[24] at whose house the
conversation related in Ramusio’s first volume took place, Ramusio
under date of June 20, 1553, says that “Sebastian Cabot our countryman,
a Venetian,” wrote to him many years ago that he sailed along and
beyond this land of New France, at the charges of Henry VII. King of
England; that he sailed a long time west and by north into the latitude
of 67½ degrees, and on the 11th of June, finding still the sea open,
he expected to have gone on to Cathay, and would have gone, if the
mutiny of the shipmaster and mariners had not hindered him and made him
return homewards from that place.[25]

I have already briefly referred to this letter, in speaking of the
alleged voyage of 1516-17, contended for by Biddle (pp. 117-19), on
which occasion he thinks Cabot entered Hudson Bay. This passage in
Ramusio is mentioned twenty years later by Sir Humphrey Gilbert, in
his tract, as we shall see farther on, principally on account of the
high degree of northern latitude reached, 67½°, and where the sea
was found still open.[26] As this is the only account of a voyage which
describes so high an elevation reached, and an immediate return thence
by reason of mutiny, some have supposed that the incidents described
must have occurred on a third voyage, in company with Sir Thomas
Pert. On Cabot’s map of 1544 there is inscribed a coast line trending
westward, terminating at the degree of latitude named.

In 1552 Gomara’s _Historia General de las Indias_ was published at
Saragossa in Spain. In cap. xxxix., under the head of “Los Baccalaos,”
he says:—

 “Sebastian Cabot was the first that brought any knowledge of this
 land, for being in England in the days of King Henry VII. he furnished
 two ships at his own charges, or (as some say) at the King’s, whom
 he persuaded that a passage might be found to Cathay by the North
 Seas.... He went also to know what manner of lands those Indies
 were to inhabit. He had with him three hundred men, and directed
 his course by the track of Iceland, upon the Cape of Labrador, at
 fifty-eight degrees (though he himself says much more), affirming
 that in the month of July there was such cold and heaps of ice that
 he durst pass no further; that the days were very long and in manner
 without night, and the nights very clear. Certain it is that at sixty
 degrees the longest day is of 18 hours. But considering the cold and
 the strangeness of the unknown land, he turned his course from thence
 to the west, refreshing themselves at Baccalaos; and following the
 coast of the land unto the 38th degree, he returned to England.”[27]

Francis Lopez Gomara was among the most distinguished of the historical
writers of Spain. In his _History of the Indies_ his purpose was to
give a brief view of the whole range of Spanish conquest in the islands
and on the American continent, as far down as about the middle of the
sixteenth century. He must have known Cabot in Seville, and might have
informed himself as to his early maritime enterprises, but he seems
to have neglected his opportunity. His book was published after Cabot
had returned to England. On one point in the above brief account,
namely, as to whether the ships were furnished at the charge of Cabot,
he speaks doubtfully. Peter Martyr had said that Cabot furnished two
ships at his own charge, while Ramusio, in the celebrated _Discorso_,
makes Cabot say that the king furnished them. As usual but one voyage
is spoken of; and Sebastian Cabot is the only commander, and is called
a Venetian. His statement contains little new, and is principally a
repetition of Peter Martyr. There is added the statement that the
expedition, on returning from the northern coasting, “refreshed at
Baccalaos.” The degrees given, as to the latitude and longitude reached
in sailing both north and south, appear to be an inference from Martyr
and Ramusio. The incidents here related of course refer to the second
voyage. Gomara, in his history, has other notices of Cabot during his
residence in Spain at a later period, in connection with his account of
the junta at Badajos, and the expedition to the La Plata.

In 1553 Richard Eden, the first English collector of voyages and
travels, published in London a translation “out of Latin into English”
of the fifth book of the _Universal Cosmographia_ of Sebastian Münster,
entitling it _A Treatise of the Newe India_,[28] etc. In the dedication
of the book to the Duke of Northumberland, who had been Lord High
Admiral of England under Henry VIII., Eden says, incidentally, that
“King Henry VIII. about the same year of his reign [i. e. between April
1516 and April 1517], furnished and sent forth certain ships under the
gouvernance of Sebastian Cabot yet living, and one Sir Thomas Pert,
whose faint heart was the cause that the voyage took none effect;” and
that if manly courage “had not at that time been wanting, it might
happily have come to pass that that rich treasure called Perularia,
which is now in Spain in the city of Sivil, and so named for that in it
is kept the infinite riches brought hither from the new-found-land of
Peru, might long since have been in the Tower of London, to the king’s
great honor and wealth of this his realm.”

I find no notice taken of this statement of Eden, at the time, and it
is only when we come down to the publication of Hakluyt’s folio, in
1589, that we see an attempt made to attach some importance to it.
Although deviating a little from the chronological order of this
narrative, I propose here to bring together what I may have to say
concerning this voyage.

Dr. Kohl[29] very properly says that this incidental remark of Eden is
all the original evidence we have on this so-called expedition of Cabot
in 1516, to which some modern writers attach great importance, and by
which great discoveries are said to have been made under Henry VIII.
Hakluyt, in his folio of 1589, p. 515, copies the language of Eden
cited above, and also an abstract from a spurious Italian version of
Oviedo, in Ramusio’s collections, in which that writer is made to say
that a Spanish vessel in the year 1517 fell in with an English rover
at the islands of St. Domingo and St. John’s in the West Indies, on
their way from Brazil; and concludes that this English rover could be
none other than the vessel of Cabot and Pert. But Richard Biddle,[30]
nearly two hundred and fifty years after Hakluyt wrote this opinion,
exploded this theory by showing that Oviedo, in his genuine work,
really gave 1527 as the date of the meeting of the English vessel, as
narrated. Biddle, however, still had faith in Eden’s statement that
an expedition sailed from England in the year indicated, commanded
by Cabot and Pert, but held that it took a northwesterly direction,
and that it was on this expedition that Cabot entered Hudson Bay, and
reached the high latitude of 67½ N. as mentioned by him in a letter
to Ramusio;[31] in which letter Cabot says that “on the 11th of June,
finding still the open sea without any manner of impediment, he thought
verily by that way to have passed on still the way to Cathay, which
is in the east, ... if the mutiny of the shipmaster and mariners had
not hindered him, and made him to return homewards from that place.”
Biddle saw a parallel in the language of Eden as to the “faint heart”
of Pert, and in that of Cabot as to the “mutiny of the shipmaster and
mariners;” not forgetting also similar language in a letter written by
Robert Thorne to Doctor Ley, in 1527, relating to a voyage of discovery
to the west, in which Thorne’s father and another merchant of Bristol,
Hugh Eliot, were participants—which voyage, Mr. Biddle says, was in
1517—that, “if the mariners would then have been ruled and followed
their pilots’ mind, the lands of the West Indies, from whence all the
gold cometh, had been ours.”[32] Mr. Biddle forgets that in the letter
of Cabot to Ramusio, cited above, the writer says that the voyage of
which he is here speaking was made in the reign of Henry VII., who died
in 1509, seven or eight years before the date which Biddle assigns to
the alleged Cabot and Pert voyage.

Dr. Kohl, who has very learnedly and at great length examined the
claims for this voyage of 1516-17,[33] has little confidence that
any such expedition actually sailed. Eden says the voyage “took none
effect,” which may mean that the expedition never sailed. It seems
also very improbable that Cabot, so recently domiciled in Spain, where
he was occupying an honorable position, should leave it all now and
re-enter the service of England, by whose Government he had apparently
for so many years been neglected. No English or Spanish writer mentions
his leaving Spain at this time.[34]

In 1555 there appeared in London the first collection in English of
the “results of that spirit of maritime enterprise which had been
everywhere awakened by the discovery of America.” The book was edited
by Richard Eden,—just mentioned as the translator of the fifth book
of Munster, in 1553,—and consisted of translations from foreign
writers, principally Latin, Spanish, and Italian, of travels by sea
and land, largely relating to discoveries in the New World. The book
was entitled, _The Decades of the Newe Worlde or West India_, etc.,
inasmuch as one hundred and sixty-six folios out of three hundred and
seventy-four, which the book contains, consist of the first three
Decades of Peter Martyr, and an epitome of the fourth Decade first
issued at Basle, in 1521. Then follow abstracts of Oviedo, Gomara,
Ramusio, Ziegler, Pigafeta, Munster, Bastaldus, Vespucius, and several
others. Some of the voyages are original and were drawn up by Eden’s
own hand. It is a very desirable book to possess; and though Eden was
a clumsy editor, not always correct in his translations, and did not
always make it clear whether he or his author was speaking, we are
grateful to him for the book. An enthusiastic tribute is paid to Eden
and his book by Richard Biddle,[35] who sets him off by an invidious
comparison with Richard Hakluyt, whom he studiously depreciates. Eden
was apparently a devoted Catholic, and was a spectator of the public
entry of Philip and Mary into London in 1554. He says that the splendid
pageant as it passed before him inspired him to enter upon some work
which he might in due season offer as the result of his loyalty, and
“crave for it the royal blessing.”[36] In his preface to the reader
Eden gives a brief review of ancient history, and coming down to the
time of the conquest of the Indies by Spain he eulogizes the conduct of
that nation towards the natives, particularly in having so effectually
labored for their conversion. His language is one continued eulogy of
the Spaniards. He urges England to submit to King Philip, of whom he

 “Of his behavior in England, his enemies (which canker virtue never
 lacked),—they, I say, if any such yet remain,—have greatest cause
 to report well, yea so well, that if his natural clemency were not
 greater than was their unnatural indignation, they know themselves
 what might have followed.... Being a lion he behaved himself as a
 lamb, and struck not his enemy having the sword in his hand. Stoop,
 England, stoop, and learn to know thy lord and master, as horses and
 other brute beasts are taught to do!”

He earnestly desires to see the Christian religion enlarged, and urges
his countrymen to follow here the example of the Spaniards in the New
World. He says:—

 “I am not able, with tongue or pen, to express what I conceive
 hereof in my mind, yet one thing I see which enforseth me to speak,
 and lament that the harvest is so great and the workmen so few. The
 Spaniards have showed a good example to all Christian nations to
 follow. But as God is great and wonderful in all his works, so beside
 the portion of land pertaining to the Spaniards (being eight times
 bigger than Italy, as you may read in the last book of the second
 Decade), and beside that which pertaineth to the Portugals, there
 yet remaineth another portion of that main land reaching toward the
 northeast, thought to be as large as the other, and not yet known
 but only by the sea-coasts, neither inhabited by any Christian men;
 whereas, nevertheless, (as writeth Gemma Phrisius) in this land
 there are many fair and fruitful regions, high mountains, and fair
 rivers, with abundance of gold, and diverse kinds of beasts. Also
 cities and towers so well builded, and people of such civility,
 that this part of the world seemeth little inferior to our Europe,
 if the inhabitants had received our religion. They are witty people
 and refuse not bartering with strangers. These regions are called
 Terra Florida and Regio Baccalearum or Bacchallaos, of the which you
 may read somewhat in this book in the voyage of that worthy old man
 yet living, Sebastian Cabot, in the vi. book of the third Decade.
 But Cabot touched only in the north corner, and most barbarous part
 thereof, from whence he was repulsed with ice in the month of July.
 Nevertheless, the west and south parts of these regions have since
 been better searched by other, and found to be as we have said
 before.... How much therefore is it to be lamented, and how greatly
 doth it sound to the reproach of all Christendom, and especially to
 such as dwell nearest to these lands (as we do), being much nearer
 unto the same than are the Spaniards (as within xxv days sailing
 and less),—how much, I say, shall this sound unto our reproach and
 inexcusable slothfulness and negligence, both before God and the
 world, that so large dominions of such tractable people and pure
 gentiles, not being hitherto corrupted with any other false religion
 (and therefore the easier to be allured to embrace ours), are now
 known unto us, and that we have no respect neither for God’s cause nor
 for our own commodity, to attempt some voyages into these coasts, to
 do for our parts as the Spaniards have done for theirs, and not ever
 like sheep to haunt one trade, and to do nothing worthy memory among
 men or thanks before God, who may herein worthily accuse us for the
 slackness of our duty toward him.”

The few voyages of discovery made by the English in the first part of
the sixteenth century, either by the authority of the Government or on
private account, were productive of little results; and when Sebastian
Cabot finally returned to England from Spain, in 1547 or 1548, his
influence was engaged by sundry merchants of London, who were seeking
to devise some means to check the decay of trade in the realm, by the
discovery of a new outlet for the manufactured products of the nation.
The result was the sending off the three vessels under Willoughby,
in May, 1553, to the northeast, and finally the incorporation of the
merchant adventurers, with Cabot as governor.

In Richard Eden’s long address to the reader prefixed to his
translation of the fifth Book of Sebastian Münster, written probably
before the Willoughby expedition had been heard from, he speaks of “the
attempt to pass to Cathay by the North East, which some men doubt, as
the globes represent it all land north, even to the north pole.” In
his preface to his _Decades_, cited above, written two years later, we
have seen that he urges the people of England to turn their attention
in the old direction, and to take possession of the waste places still
unoccupied by any Christian people; which regions be says are called
Terra Florida and Regio Baccalearum. These offer a large opportunity
for traffic as a remedy for the stagnation of trade under which England
is suffering, and a wide field for the Christian missionary.

The reader will have noticed, in the above extract, that Eden says
that Sebastian Cabot “touched only in the north corner and most
barbarous part” of the region which he is urging his countrymen to take
possession of, “from whence he was repulsed with ice in the month of

Eden’s _Decades_ placed before the English reader for the first time
the several notices of Sebastian Cabot, of which mention has been here
made; namely, by Martyr, Ramusio, Gomara, and the brief Commentary
by Ziegler. And the fact that this large unoccupied territory at the
west, which Eden here urges the English Government and people to take
possession of, was discovered by Cabot for the English nation, could
not fail in time to produce its fruit upon the English mind.

Sebastian Cabot, as we have seen, was living in England at the time
Richard Eden published his book, and a very old man. Eden appears
to have been on terms of acquaintance with him, if not of intimacy;
and unless the infirmities of years weighed too heavily upon his
faculties, Cabot might have been able to impart much information to
one so curious and eager as Eden was to gather up details. Eden more
than once speaks of what Sebastian Cabot told him. In the margin of
folio 255, where is a report of the famous conversation concerning
Sebastian Cabot, extracted from Ramusio, in which Cabot is spoken of as
“a Venetian born,” Eden says: “Sebastian Cabot told me that he was born
in Brystowe, and that at iiii years old he was carried with his father
to Venice, and so returned again into England with his father, after
certain years, wherby he was thought to have been born in Venice.” This
was a bad beginning on the part of Eden as an interviewer; that is to
say, the truth was not reached.

Sebastian Cabot, if he had been asked, might have told Eden much more.
Why did not Eden hand in a list of questions? Why did he not submit to
him a proof-sheet of the story from Ramusio, which we know contains so
many errors, and ask him to correct it, so that the world might have
a true account of the discovery of North America? What an excellent
opportunity was lost to Cabot for printing here under the auspices
of Eden all those maps and discourses which Hakluyt, at a later
period, tells us were in the custody of the worshipful Master William
Worthington, who was very willing to have them overseen and published,
but which have never yet seen the light![37]

I have already called attention to the fact that Eden had a copy of
Cabot’s map, and translated one of the legends upon it,—that relating
to the River La Plata, no. vii.[38]

About this time, or perhaps a few years earlier, there was painted in
England a portrait of Sebastian Cabot, supposed for many years to have
been done by Holbein, whose death has usually been referred to the year
1554, though recent investigations have rendered it probable that he
died eleven years before. The first notice of this portrait which I
have seen is in Purchas.[39] A minute description of it, with a notice
of its disappearance from Whitehall, where it hung for many years, is
given by Mr. Biddle,[40] who subsequently purchased the picture in
England and brought it to this country, where in 1845 it was burned
with his house and contents, in Pittsburg, Pa. Two excellent copies of
it, however, had fortunately been taken, one of which, by the artist
Chapman, is in the gallery of the Massachusetts Historical Society,[41]
and the other in that of the New York Historical Society.[42] The
portrait was painted after Cabot had returned to England; and it is
said, I know not on what authority, to have been painted for King
Edward VI., who died in 1553. Cabot lived some five years longer.
The picture represents Cabot as a very old man. It has the following
inscription upon it:[43]—

      LÆ REGE.

A peculiar interest is attached to this inscription, from the
circumstance that it must probably have proceeded from Sebastian Cabot
himself; that is to say, the facts intended to be embodied in it by
the artist or herald could best come from him. But being clumsily
expressed, it is uncertain whether the son or the father was intended
to be represented as the knight and discoverer. With the exception
of the legend on the map already mentioned, it is the only direct
testimony presumably from Sebastian himself as to the principal fact
involved. That joins both the father and the son as discoverers. Here
the honor is given to but one of them, but unhappily the only statement
clearly expressed is that Sebastian Cabot is an Englishman and the son
of John Cabot, a Venetian. Which was the knight and the discoverer no
one can tell certainly from the legend itself. The inscription has
been the subject of considerable discussion and even controversy.[44]
Humboldt has a brief note on the subject,[45] in which he says: “Il
importe de savoir si c’est le père Jean ou le fils Sebastien qui est
désigné comme celui auquel la décoverte est due. Si c’était le fils,
Holbein aurait probablement placé le mot _filii_ après _Veneti_. Il
aurait écrit: _Effigies_ Seb. Caboti Angli, Joannis Caboti Veneti
filii....” We now know from other evidence that John Cabot was the
discoverer of North America. He may have been accompanied by his son,
Sebastian, but it would have been a pleasant fact to have the testimony
of the son to his father’s honor clearly expressed, as may have been
intended in this awkward composition. Sebastian Cabot has been the
sphinx of American history for over three hundred years, and this
inscription over his head in his picture does not tend to divest him
of that character. There has as yet appeared no other evidence to show
that either John Cabot or Sebastian was ever knighted. Purchas[46]
insists on giving the title of “Sir” to the son. Laying aside the
question as to the interpretation of the inscription on the portrait,
there is sufficient evidence elsewhere to show that Sebastian Cabot
was not a knight. In two documents to be more particularly noticed in
another place,—one dated in May, 1555, and the other in May, 1557, the
latter dated not long before Sebastian Cabot’s death,—relating to a
pension granted to him by the Crown of England, he is styled “Armiger,”
a dignity below that of knight and equivalent to that of esquire. See
Rymer’s _Fœdera_, vol. xv. pp. 427 and 466.

In 1558 there was published in Paris a book entitled _Les Singularitez
de la France Antarcktique_, etc., by F. André Thevet, the French
Cosmographer.[47] This writer is held in little estimation, and
deservedly so. In chapter lxxiv. fol. 145, _verso_, in speaking of the
Baccalaos, is this passage:—

 “It was first discovered by Sebastian Babate, an Englishman, who
 persuaded Henry VII., King of England, that he could go easily this
 way by the North to Cathay, and that he would thus obtain spices
 and other articles from the Indies equally as well as the King of
 Portugal; added to which he proposed to go to Peru and America, to
 people the country with new inhabitants, and to establish there a
 New England, which he did not accomplish. True it is he put three
 hundred men ashore, somewhere to the north of Ireland, where the cold
 destroyed nearly the whole company, though it was then the month of
 July. Afterwards Jaques Cartier (as he himself has told me) made two
 voyages to that country in 1534 and 1535.”

This passage it will be seen is a mere perversion of that in Gomara,
changing the name of Cabot to Babate, and Iceland to Ireland, but
adding the wholly unauthorized statement that the three hundred men
were put ashore and perished in the cold. Mr. Biddle,[48] who calls
attention to this writer’s recklessness, says that this is a “random
addition suggested by the reference in Gomara to one of the objects
of Cabot’s expedition, and the reasons which compelled him to turn
back.” On the other hand, he thinks it possible that Thevet “derived
his information from Cartier, who would be very likely to know of any
such attempt at settlement.” It is not at all likely that Thevet had
any authority whatever for his statement. His mention of Cartier is
probably suggested by seeing in Gomara,[49] immediately following the
extract from him above quoted, the mention of Cartier as being on that
coast in 1534 and 1535. But Thevet’s statement has entered into sober
history, and has been quoted and requoted.

Captain Antonio Galvano, the Portuguese, had died in 1557, leaving
behind him a _Trádado_, a historical treatise, which was published
at Lisbon in 1563. It gives an account “of all the discoveries,
ancient and modern, which have been made up to the year one thousand
five hundred and fifty.” This is a valuable chronological list of
discoveries in which the writer includes, in the latter part, his
own experience. He spent the early part of his life in India, and the
latter part, on being recalled home, in compiling an account of all
known voyages. The Hakluyt Society have published Galvano’s book in
the original, from a copy, believed to be unique, in the Carter-Brown
Library, at Providence R. I. It is accompanied by an English version,
by an unknown translator, long in the possession of Hakluyt, corrected
and published by him, as the title says, in 1601.[50] Hakluyt never
could get sight of a copy of the original edition. On comparing the
texts, several omissions and additions are noticed by the modern
editor. The former are supposed to be due to the inadvertence of
the translator, the latter to Hakluyt, who supplied what he thought
important from other sources; and to him are probably due the marginal
references. The following is the English version of Galvano’s
account[51] of Cabot’s discovery, some omissions having been supplied
by the modern editor:—

 “In the year 1496 there was a Venetian in England called John Cabota,
 who having knowledge of such a new discovery as this was [viz. the
 discovery by Columbus], and perceiving by the globe that the islands
 before spoken of stood almost in the same latitude with his country,
 and much nearer to England than to Portugal, or to Castile, he
 acquainted King Henry the Seventh, then King of England, with the
 same, wherewith the said king was greatly pleased, and furnished him
 out with two ships and three hundred men; which departed and set sail
 in the spring of the year, and they sailed westward till they came in
 sight of land in 45 degrees of latitude towards the north, and then
 went straight northwards till they came into 60 degrees of latitude,
 where the day is eighteen hours long, and the night is very clear
 and bright. There they found the air cold, and great islands of ice,
 but no ground in seventy, eighty, an hundred fathoms sounding, but
 found much ice, which alarmed them; and so from thence putting about,
 finding the land to turn eastwards, they trended along by it on the
 other tack, discovering all the bay and river[52] named Deseado, to
 see if it passed on the other side; then they sailed back again,
 diminishing the latitude, till they came to 38 degrees toward the
 equinoctial line, and from thence returned into England. There be
 others which say that he went as far as the Cape of Florida, which
 standeth in 25 degrees.”

It will be seen that the greater part of this is taken from Gomara, and
the writer had also read Peter Martyr and Ramusio, and from the latter
takes his year 1496. One statement,—namely, that Cabot came in sight
of land in 45 degrees north,—is original here, which would almost lead
one to suppose that Galvano had seen the _prima vista_ of Cabot’s map.

It will be noticed, near the beginning of the extract from Galvano,
that John Cabot is said to be the discoverer. Thus it stands in the old
English version as published by Hakluyt, but in the original Portuguese
it reads: “No anno de 1496 achandose hum Venezeano por nome Sebastiāo
Gaboto em Inglaterra,” etc. The substitution of John for Sebastian was
no doubt due to Hakluyt, who also made this marginal note: “The great
discovery of John Cabota and the English.”[53]

In this same year (1563) there was published in London an English
version from the French of Jean Ribault, entitled, _The whole and True
discoverie of Terra Florida_ (_englished the Flourishing Lande_), etc.,
giving an account of the attempt to found a colony at Port Royal in
the preceding year. The translation was made by Thomas Hacket, and was
reprinted by Richard Hakluyt in his _Divers Voyages_, in 1582.[54] In
referring to the preceding attempts at discovery and settlement of
those northern shores, he says:—

 “Of the which there was one, a very famous stranger named Sebastian
 Cabota, an excellent pilot, sent thither by King Henry, the year
 1498, and many others, who never could attain to any habitation, nor
 take possession thereof one only foot of ground, nor yet approach or
 enter into these parts and fair rivers into the which God hath brought

This passage from Ribault is cited principally for the date there
given, 1498, as the year of Sebastian Cabot’s visit to the northern
shores. It was not the year of the discovery, but was the year of the
second voyage. Where did Ribault pick up this date? No one of the
notices of Cabot’s voyage hitherto cited contains it. I have already
called attention to Peter Martyr’s language, in 1524, that Sebastian
Cabot discovered the Baccalaos twenty-six years before, from which by a
calculation that date is arrived at.[56]

In 1570 Abraham Ortelius published at Antwerp the first edition of
his celebrated _Theatrum orbis terrarum_, containing fifty-three
copperplate maps, engraved by Hogenberg.[57] In the beginning of
the book is a list of the maps which Ortelius had consulted, and he
mentions among them one by “Sebastianus Cabotus Venetus, Universalem
Tabulam: quam impressam æneis formis vidimus, sed sine nomine loci et
impressoris.” This would seem to describe, so far as it goes, the Cabot
map in the National Library, at Paris, which is a large engraved map of
the world, “without the name of the place or the printer.”

Mr. Biddle was impressed with the belief that Ortelius was largely
influenced in the composition of his map by the map of Cabot. He
contended that Cabot’s landfall was the coast of Labrador, and he found
near that coast, on the map of Ortelius, a small island named St.
John, which he supposed was that discovered by Cabot on St. John’s day
and so named, and was taken by Ortelius from Cabot’s map.[58] But an
examination of the Paris map fails to confirm Biddle’s hypothesis. The
“Y. de s. Juan,” is in the Gulf of St. Lawrence near where the _prima
vista_ is placed. A delineation of what might be called Hudson Bay
appears on the map of Ortelius, and Biddle supposed that Cabot’s map
furnished the authority for it. But no such representation of that bay
appears on Cabot’s map.

In 1574 there appeared at Cologne another edition of Peter Martyr’s
three Decades, published in connection with some writings of the
distinguished Fleming, Damiani A. Goès.[59] The third Decade of Martyr,
as I have already said, contained the earliest notice of Sebastian

       *       *       *       *       *

We have arrived at a period now when the public men of England
began especially to interest themselves in voyages of discovery and
colonization, and successfully to engage the good offices of the
Queen in their behalf. “There hath been two special causes in former
age,” says George Beste in “the Epistle Dedicatory” to his voyages of
Frobisher, published in 1578, “that have greatly hindered the English
nation in their attempts. The one hath been lack of liberality in the
nobility; and the other, want of skill in the cosmography and the art
of navigation,—which kind of knowledge is very necessary for all
our noblemen, for that, we being islanders, our chiefest strength
consisteth by sea. But these two causes are now in this present age
(God be thanked!) very well reformed; for not only her Majesty now,
but all the nobility also, having perfect knowledge in cosmography,
do not only with good words countenance the forward minds of men, but
also with their purses do liberally and bountifully contribute unto the
same; whereby it cometh to pass that navigation, which in the time of
King Henry VII. was very raw, and took (as it were) but beginning (and
ever since hath had by little and little continual increase), is now in
her Majesty’s reign grown to his highest perfection.”[60]

Frobisher sailed on his first voyage in June, 1576. The tract of Sir
Humphrey Gilbert, entitled, _A Discourse of Discovery for a new Passage
to Cataia_, principally written ten years before, was published before
Frobisher left the Thames. The reference in this tract to Sebastian
Cabot—who “by his personal experience and travel hath set forth and
described this passage [that is, the Straits of Anian] in his charts,
which are yet to be seen in the Queen’s Majesty’s Privy Gallery at
Whitehall, who was sent to make this discovery by King Henry VII.,
and entered the same fret,” etc.—has led Mr. Biddle to suppose that
Frobisher had the benefit of Cabot’s experience, and that his maps or
charts hanging in the gallery at Whitehall had delineated on them the
strait or passage through to the Pacific, which Cabot entered, and
would have passed on to Cathay, if he had not been prevented by the
mutiny of the master and mariners.[61]

One would naturally infer that Gilbert wrote this passage after
inspecting the map in Whitehall, but the full passage of which we have
here given an extract is taken from Cabot’s letter in Ramusio,[62] to
which work Gilbert refers in the margin of his tract thus: “Written
in the Discourses of Navigation.”[63] I may add that in the following
year, 1577, Richard Willes published a new edition of Eden,[64]
containing all the references to Cabot in the genuine edition, and also
a paper on Frobisher’s first voyage, with some speculations, added to
those of Gilbert, as to the northwest passage. In this paper, addressed
to the Countess of Warwick, he makes frequent reference to Cabot’s
card or table, in possession of the countess’s father “at Cheynies,”
as proving by Cabot’s experience the existence of such a strait as had
been spoken of by Gilbert, and of which Frobisher in his first voyage
was in search. He says: “Cabota was not only a skilful seaman but a
long traveller, and such a one as entered personally that strait, sent
by King Henry VII. to make this aforesaid discovery, as in his own
discourse of navigation you may read in his card drawn with his own
hand; the mouth of the northwest strait lieth near the 318 meridian,
betwixt 61 and 64 degrees in elevation, continuing the same breadth
about 10 degrees west, where it openeth southerly more and more.”[65]

If the Countess of Warwick’s father, the Earl of Bedford, had a map
by Cabot, with a northwestern strait delineated on it in degrees of
latitude and longitude as described by Willes, it could not be a
copy of the recently recovered Paris map. In the latter the coast to
the north of Labrador from latitude 58 to 65 runs in a northeasterly
direction, when it suddenly trends in a northwesterly direction, its
delineation ceasing at latitude 68, where is this inscription, “Costa
del hues norueste” (coast west-northwest). Dr. Kohl is of opinion that
Cabot is here delineating, from his own experience, Cumberland Island
in Davis’s Strait; but Mr. Biddle thinks that Cabot’s highest northern
latitude was reached in Fox’s Channel on the shores of Melville
Peninsula. All these speculations seem to me to be based on very
uncertain data.[66]

One is impressed with the ambiguous language of Willes when he speaks
of Cabot’s “own discourse of navigation [which] you may read in his
card drawn by his own hand.” The phrase “discourse of navigation”
sounds so much like Gilbert’s reference in the margin of his tract to
Ramusio, that I am disposed to refer it to that source.

Clement Adams, as we shall see farther on, made a copy of Cabot’s map
or a copy of some reputed map of Cabot, in 1549 (if the supposition as
to the date is correct), which in Hakluyt’s time hung in the gallery at
Whitehall, and of which copies were also to be seen in many merchants’
houses; yet it is difficult to understand how different copies of a
genuine map of Cabot could contain such variations. Certainly they are
all unsatisfactory, and throw but little light on the voyage of the

The indefatigable compiler and translator Belleforest issued in
1576,[67] in Paris, his _Cosmographie Universelle_, on the basis of
the work of Sebastian Munster; and he says[68] that Sebastian Cabot
attempted, at the expense of Henry VII. of England, to find the way
to Cathay by the north; that he discovered the point of Baccalaos,
which the Breton and Norman sailors now call the Coast of Codfish, and
proceeding yet farther reached the latitude of 67 degrees towards the
Arctic pole. Substantially the same passage may be found in Chauveton’s
_Histoire Nouvelle du Nouveau Monde_, p. 141, published at Geneva, in
1579, being a translation of Benzoni, and of other writers.

In connection with Frobisher’s voyage there was published in London,
in 1578, _A Prayse and Report of Maister Martyne Frobisher’s Voyage to
Meta Incognita_, by Thomas Churchyard, a miscellaneous and voluminous
writer, who says: “I find that Cabota was the first in King Henry
VII.’s days that diserned this frozen land or seas from 67 towards the
north, from thence toward the south along the coast to 36 degrees.”[69]

The work of George Beste, the writer of the account of Frobisher’s
three voyages, before mentioned, published in London in 1578, speaks of
Sebastian Cabot as having discovered sundry parts of new-found-land,
and attempted the passage to Cathay, and as being an Englishman, born
in Bristowe. And a yet further reference is made to him, with the
singular additional statement that the date of his discovery was 1508.
This date may be a clerical or typographical error.

These brief notices of Sebastian Cabot are cited as showing how a
tradition is kept alive by one author or compiler quoting another,
neither of which is of the slightest authority in itself.

In 1582 there appeared at Paris a work entitled _Les Trois Mondes_,
etc. by L. V. Popellinière. It is a mere compilation, and embraces
translations from various authors relating to the discoveries of the
different maritime nations of Europe in various parts of the world. His
third world is Australia, called by the Spaniards, he says, Terra del
Fuego, which is here represented on a map as a large continent.[70] On
fol. 25 it is said that Cabot was the first to conduct the English to
the Baccalaos, which was better known to him than to any other; that
he armed two ships at the charge and with the consent of Henry VII. of
England to go there, and took out with him three hundred Englishmen,
and sailed along 48½ degrees in a strait, but was so baffled by the
extremity of the cold which he found there in July, that, although the
days were long, and the nights were clear, he did not dare to pass
beyond with his men to the island to which he wished to conduct them.

This is substantially a resumé of the account in Gomara, with a
discrepancy in stating the latitude reached.

Following a long resumé in French of the conversation in the first
volume of Ramusio, this writer remarks: “This then was that Gabote
which first discovered Florida for the King of England, so that the
Englishmen have more right thereunto than the Spaniards; if to have
right unto a country, it sufficeth to have first seen and discovered
the same.”[71]

In 1580 was published the first edition of Stow’s _Chronicle_ (or
_Annals_) _of England_, etc., which contains, under the year 1498, the
alleged passage from Fabian, which Mr. Biddle[72] charges Hakluyt with
perverting, by prefixing in his larger work the name of John Cabot to
the “Venitian” as it appeared in the _Divers Voyages_ of 1582. The
passage in Stow begins thus: “This year one Sebastian Gabato, a Genoa’s
son, born in Bristow,” etc. Reference will be made to this document
farther on.

In 1582 Richard Hakluyt published his _Divers Voyages_, his first book,
which contains many curious and important documents. It is dedicated to
Master Philip Sidney, Esquire, who, with other statesmen and public men
of England, was then deeply interested in American Colonization, being
largely inspired by political considerations. The dedication contains
an interesting summary of what had been done by other nations, and the
reasons why England should now enter upon this work. Reasons are also
given for believing that “there is a strait and short way open into
the west even unto Cathay,” which they had so long desired to find.
And finally the claim of England to the large unsettled territory in
America is set forth, “from Florida to sixty-seven degrees northward,
by the letters patent granted to John Gabote and his three sons, Lewis,
Sebastian, and Santius, with Sebastian’s own certificate to Baptista
Ramusius of his discovery of America, and the testimony of Fabian our
own chronicler.”

We begin now to approach for the first time a document which is of
the highest authenticity and value. I mean the letters patent, which
Hakluyt here prints,[73] under which the discovery of North America
was made by authority of England. John Cabot, the father, now emerges
from obscurity, for we find the grant is to him and to his three sons,
of whom Sebastian is the second. The patent gave them permission to
sail with five ships, at their own costs and charges, under the royal
banners and ensigns, to all countries and seas of the east, of the
west, and of the north, and to seek out and discover whatsoever isles,
countries, and provinces of the heathen and infidels, whatsoever they
be, which before this time had been unknown to Christians. They also
had license to set up the royal banners in the countries found by them,
and to conquer and possess them as the king’s vassals and lieutenants.
This document is dated 5 March, 1495 (that is 1496, new style). Hakluyt
also prints an extract from Fabian’s chronicle, furnished him by John
Stow, and supposed to have been in manuscript, as it is not contained
in any printed edition of Fabian. In the heading which Hakluyt gives
to the paper as printed, he says it is “a note of Sebastian Gabote’s
voyage of discovery.” The document reads: “This year the King (by means
of a Venetian which made himself very expert and cunning in knowledge
of the circuit of the world and islands of the same, ...) caused to man
and victual a ship at Bristowe to search for an island which, he said
he knew well, was rich and replenished with rich commodities,—which
ship thus manned and victualed at the King’s cost, divers merchants
of London ventured in her small stocks, being in her as chief patron
the said Venetian. And in the company of the said ship sailed also out
of Bristowe three or four small ships fraught with slight and gross
merchandizes; ... and so departed from Bristowe in the beginning of
May, of whom in this Mayor’s time returned no tidings.” This of course
refers to the voyage of 1498.

In the margin against this paper Hakluyt has this note: “In the 13
year of King Henry the VII., 1498,” and also “William Purchas, Mayor
of London,” whose time expired the last of October, 1498. Stow, as
has been seen, had already printed this paper, two years before, in
his _Annals_; and it is reprinted in later editions of that work.
What precise shape the original paper was in, which was used by Stow
and Hakluyt, we do not know. If they had but one original it was not
followed in all its details by both. Dr. E. E. Hale printed in the
_Proceedings_ of the American Antiquarian Society for October, 1865, a
paper from the Cotton manuscripts in the British Museum, Vitellius, A.
xvi, which he thought was the original paper used by each, and to which
Hakluyt’s copy conforms more nearly than does that of Stow. The Cotton
manuscript gives no name to the navigator, but calls him a stranger
“Venetian,” as does Hakluyt. Stow, who probably rarely heard of the
name of John Cabot, and was very familiar with that of Sebastian, calls
him “Sebastian Gaboto, a Genoa’s son.”[74]

Hakluyt also prints in this precious little volume the substance of
Sebastian Cabot’s letter to Ramusio, printed in the beginning of his
third volume, in which he mentions the degree of latitude, 67½° N.,
which Cabot reached in his voyage in search of a way to Cathay.

He also prints for the first time the two well-known letters of Robert
Thorne, in the latter of which, addressed to Dr. Ley, the English
ambassador to Spain, the writer says that his father and another
merchant of Bristol, Hugh Eliot, were the discoverers of the new-found
lands. Some have conjectured that these merchants went out with the
Cabots, and others that they were in some later expedition not well
defined. Hakluyt also prints here an English version of “Verarzanus,”
and Hacket’s “Ribault.” The volume also contains two maps, one of
which, prepared by Michael Locke, was made, he says, “according to
Verarzanus’s plat,” an “old excellent map, which he gave to King Henry
VIII., and is yet in the custody of Master Locke.” The map of Locke was
probably made only in its general features according to the original
model, and contained some more modern additions by its compiler. It has
one interesting inscription upon it,—namely, on the delineation of C.
Breton we read, “J. Gabot, 1497.” This is the first time I have seen
this date assigned as the date of the discovery.[75]

Hakluyt’s little volume expressed the interest felt in England on the
subject of North American colonization, and furnished the ground on
which England based her title to the country. He also announced in
this book that Sebastian Cabot’s maps and discourses were then in the
custody of one of Cabot’s old associates, William Worthington, who was
willing to have them seen and published.

       *       *       *       *       *

The interest in the contemplated voyage of Sir Humphrey Gilbert, who
made the first serious attempt in that century at colonization for
England, culminated next year, when he sailed and never returned. Among
the reports of that voyage was one written by Mr. Edward Haies in 1583,
in which he says: “The first discovery of these coasts (never heard of
before) was well begun by John Cabot the father, and Sebastian the son,
an Englishman born, who were the first finders out of all that great
tract of land stretching from the Cape of Florida unto those islands
which we now call the Newfoundland; all which they brought and annexed
unto the crown of England.”[76]

Sir George Peckham, a large adventurer with Gilbert, also wrote in 1583
on the same theme, and he makes mention of the title of England in the
following language: “In the time of the Queen’s grandfather of worthy
memory, King Henry VII., letters patent were by his Majesty granted to
John Cabota, an Italian, to Lewis, Sebastian, and Sancius, his three
sons, to discover remote, barbarous, and heathen countries, which
discovery was afterwards executed to the use of the Crown of England in
the said King’s time by Sebastian and Sancius, his sons, who were born
here in England.”[77] It seems to have been thought that the title of
England would be strengthened by the statement that the discoverers,
or some of them, were native subjects of the Crown of England. This
seems to have been one reason why it has always been insisted on that
Sebastian Cabot, so long supposed to be the discoverer, was born in

[Illustration: LOK’S MAP, 1582.—REDUCED.]

I have already spoken of an edition of Peter Martyr’s _Decades_ in the
original Latin, _De Orbe Novo_, published at Paris in 1587, under
the editorship of Richard Hakluyt, who was then residing in that
city in connection with the British Embassy. It was dedicated to Sir
Walter Raleigh, for whom, three years before, Hakluyt had written the
_Discourse on Westerne Planting_. It was the first time the _Decades_
had been printed entire since the first edition of them appeared at
Alcala in Spain in 1530. It has been suggested by Mr. Brevoort that the
Spanish Government did not favor their circulation, or encourage their
republication. In Hakluyt’s edition there was inserted an excellent
map of North and South America, of small size, six and a half by seven
and a half inches, and dedicated to him by the maker, “F. G.” On the
delineation of the coast of Labrador, there is inscribed just north
of the River St. Lawrence, “Baccalaos Ab Anglis, 1496.” This date was
without doubt supplied by Hakluyt himself, who, in his _Discourse on
Westerne Planting_, insisted on that erroneous date as the true year of
discovery,—citing the conversation in the first volume of Ramusio for
his authority, as we have seen.

In tracing down the notices in print of John or Sebastian Cabot, we
come now to a book of considerable interest, published in Venice in
1588, some years after the death of its author, Livio Sanuto. It was
entitled _Geographica Distincta_, etc., and related in part to matters
connected with naval science. The author was deeply interested in the
subject of the variation of the needle, and having heard that Sebastian
Cabot had publicly explained this subject to the King of England
(supposed to be Edward VI., on Cabot’s return to England), he applied
to the Venetian ambassador there resident to ascertain from Cabot
himself where he had fixed the point of no variation. The information
was accordingly procured and published by Sanuto. In the course of
his investigations the author made use of a map composed by Cabot
himself, in which the position of this meridian was seen to be one
hundred and ten miles to the west of the island of Flores, one of the
Azores. Mr. Biddle,[79] who dwells at some length on this volume, calls
attention to the fact “that the First Meridian on the maps of Mercator,
running through the most western point of the Azores, was adopted with
reference to the supposed coincidence in that quarter of the true and
magnetic poles.” Sanuto makes frequent reference to the map of Cabot
in his book, and also makes mention of Cabot’s observations relating
to the variation of the compass at the equator. I have already called
attention to one of the legends on Cabot’s map of 1544, no. 17, which
relates in part to the variation of the needle. In _Prima Parte_, lib.
ii. fol. 17, Sanuto gives a brief account of Cabot’s voyage, which
Mr. Biddle[80] says corresponds minutely with that which Sir Humphrey
Gilbert derived from the map hung up in Queen Elizabeth’s gallery.
Sanuto, however, evidently copied from Cabot’s letter in the preface of
the third volume of Ramusio, from which also the language in Gilbert is

In 1589 Hakluyt published his first folio of 825 pages entitled, _The
Principal Navigations, Voyages, and Discoveries of the English Nation_,
a monument of his industry as a collector. In this first folio Hakluyt
included several pieces from his little quarto tract of 1582, and he
collected and put into English other most important evidence relating
to the discovery of North America by the Cabots. He gave the passage
in Peter Martyr, the conversation in Ramusio, the extract from Gomara,
added to those documents reprinted from the quarto tract, all of which
have been here noticed in the order in which they appeared in print.
It may be added that in the passage from Fabian Hakluyt introduced
the name of John Cabot as the Venetian, though he allowed the name of
Sebastian to stand in the heading, probably through inadvertence. He
also brought the marginal date into the text.


[This sketch-map is taken from the fac-simile in Stevens’s _Historical
and Geographical Notes_, and needs the following key:—

  1. Groenlandia.
  2. Islandia.
  3. Frislandia.
  4. Meta incognita ab Anglis inventa An. 1576.
  5. Demonum ins.
  6. S. Brandon.
  7. Baccalaos ab Anglis, 1496.
  8. Hochelaga.
  9. Nova Albion inventa An. 1580, ab Anglis.
  10. Nova Francia.
  11. Virginia, 1584.
  12. Bermuda.
  13. Azores.
  14. Florida.
  15. Nueva Mexico.
  16. Nova Hispania.
  17. Caribana.
  18. Brasilia.
  19. Fretum Magellani.
  20. Peru.

This map is so rare that the copies in some of the choicest collections
lack it, such as the Huth (p. 920,) Brinley (no. 42), and Carter-Brown
(no. 370). Rich priced a copy in 1832 with the map at £4 4s., which
would to-day be a small sum for the book without the map; while a copy
with the map is now worth £20. Quaritch, Cat. 331, no. 1. The Boston
Athenæum copy has the map. See Norton’s _Lit. Gazette_, new series, i.
272. _Bull. Soc. Géog._, Oct. 1858, p. 271.—ED.]]

He also produced here from the Rolls Office a memorandum of a license
granted by the King to John Cabot alone, to take five English ships of
two hundred tons or under, with necessary furniture, and mariners and
subjects of the King as would willingly go with him,—dated the 3d day
of February in the thirteenth year of his reign (1497/8).

The full copy of this license Hakluyt probably never saw, and the
significance of this brief memorandum was never known until, two
hundred and forty years afterwards, the entire document was found and
published by Mr. Richard Biddle in his _Memoir of Sebastian Cabot_.[81]
It was therefore often interpreted, in connection with the letters
patent previously issued, as a grant to take up ships for the first
voyage, which, as was supposed, did not take place till 1498.

The original grant of this license, of which Hakluyt publishes a brief
memorandum, is found to be a permit to enlist ships and mariners, etc.,
“and them convey and lead _to the land and isles of late found by the
said John in our name and by our commandment_. Paying for them and
every of them as and if we should in or for our own cause pay, and none

The part I have italicized is most significant, and shows that a
previous voyage had been made by John Cabot under the authority of the

Hakluyt also reprinted for the first time, in Latin, with an English
version, an extract from Sebastian Cabot’s map, being no. 8 of the
Legends inscribed upon it, relating to the discovery of North America,
already recited on p. 21. And in saying that it was taken from
Sebastian Cabot’s map, I should explain that Hakluyt says it was “an
extract taken out of the map of Sebastian Cabot, cut by Clement Adams,
... which is to be seen in her Majesty’s Privy Gallery at Westminster,
and in many other ancient merchants’ houses.” This language is a little
equivocal, and some have supposed that Hakluyt intended to say that
the extract simply was cut by Adams, and not that the whole map was
copied by him. Clement Adams was a schoolmaster and a learned man, and
probably was not an engraver. But Hakluyt is elsewhere more explicit.
In his _Westerne Planting_,[82] he says: “His [Cabot’s] own map is in
the Queen’s Privy Gallery at Westminster, the copy whereof was set out
by Mr. Clement Adams, and is in many merchants’ houses in London.”
It was probably reproduced under the inspection of Adams. We do not
know the year in which Adams’s copy was made, unless an equivocal date
in the margin of Purchas[83] may be regarded as expressing the year,
namely “1549.” Purchas has fallen into great confusion in attempting to
describe Cabot’s map and his picture as they hung in Whitehall in his

All these documents relative to the Cabot voyages were reprinted by
Hakluyt in the third volume of his larger work—bearing a similar
general title to that of 1589—published in 1600.[85] In the extract
from Cabot’s map, cut by Clement Adams, there reproduced, he changed
the date of the year of the discovery from 1494 to 1497. This latter
is no doubt the true date, but on what authority did Hakluyt make the
change? M. D’Avezac, who contended that 1494 was the true date of the
discovery, that being the date on Cabot’s map, believed that the change
was the result of a typographical error.[86] That it was deliberate
and that the change was not made by an error of the printer, is shown
by the fact that the altered date appears both in the Latin extract
and the English version of it; and that the index or general catalogue
at the beginning of the third volume, in noticing the authorities for
Sebastian Cabot’s voyage, gives “1497” as the year. Again, a copy of
Emeric Molyneaux’s map, prepared about this time, and inserted in some
copies of this volume of Hakluyt, has on the delineation of Labrador,
which some suppose to have been the _prima vista_ of Cabot, the
following inscription: “This land was discovered by John and Sebastian
Cabot for King Henry VII., 1497.”[87] I have already referred to the
earliest use of this date as the year of the discovery, inscribed on a
map of Locke in Hakluyt’s _Divers Voyages_ of 1582. But the true source
of the date is not here revealed.[88]

Clement Adams’s map is yet a mystery. I have already called attention
to two editions of Cabot’s map, one of which is in the National Library
at Paris, and another from which the legends in Chytræus were copied.
The extract from Adams’s edition, first made by Hakluyt in 1589,[89]
was in Latin, but from a text quite different from that of Chytræus,
or from the Paris map. It is Legend No. 8 of the inscriptions, and was
the “Chapiter of Gabot’s mapp _De terra nova_,” as set out by Adams,
which Hakluyt tells us of in his _Discourse_.[90] This heading is the
same as that in Chytræus. Here we have two different translations from
a Spanish original. Did Adams transcribe from another copy of Cabot’s
map yet to be discovered—for we can hardly suppose he would make a new
Latin version of the legends, with one already before him—or did he
translate from a map with the Spanish legends only?—neither of which
precious documents is to be found in our bureaus of cartography, and
they are yet to be added to Dr. Kohl’s list of lost maps!

Following Hakluyt’s extract from Adams’s map is an English version by
him, beginning thus:—

 “In the year of our Lord 1494, John Cabot, a Venetian, and his son
 Sebastian (with an English fleet set out from Bristol), discovered
 that land which no man before that time had attempted, on the 24th of
 June, about five of o’clock early in the morning. This land he called
 Prima vista, that is to say, First seen, because, as _I suppose_, it
 was that part whereof they had the first sight from sea. That island
 which lyeth out before the land he called the Island of S. John, upon
 this occasion, as _I think_, because it was discovered upon the day of
 St. John the Baptist.”

It is scarcely necessary to say that the passage in parenthesis is not
in the original, but is introduced by Hakluyt. But the words which I
have italicized are represented in the extract by “credo” and “opinor,”
and are not authorized by the language of the Paris map, nor by the
same legend in Chytræus. In the concluding part of this extract, not
here quoted, Hakluyt speaks of a certain kind of fish seen by the
Cabots, “which the _Savages_ call Baccalaos.” The Latin of Adams’s map
and of the Paris map is _vulgus_, which may mean the common people of
Europe, or the fishermen. In the Spanish of the Paris map, it is said
that the fish are called Baccalaos, but it does not say by whom. The
“white bears” of the Spanish crept into the Latin of Adams, and of
course into Hakluyt’s English, as “white lions.”

An interesting discussion as to the authenticity of this map of Cabot
in the Paris Library, in connection with the genuineness of the date
1494, as expressing the true year of the discovery of North America,
may be seen in the letter of M. D’Avezac to President Woods, already
referred to. M. D’Avezac accepts the map and the date as genuine and
authentic, while Dr. Kohl rejects both. Mr. Richard Henry Major, in
his paper on “The True Date of the English Discovery,” etc., ably
reviews the whole question discussed by those distinguished _savans_,
and adopts a somewhat modified view. He believes that Sebastian Cabot
originally drew a map with _legends_ or inscriptions upon it in Spanish
only, but that he had no hand in publishing it, or in correcting it
for the press, and that the errors in the engraved map arose from
the ignorance or inadvertence of transcribers; that the date of the
discovery, 1497, was expressed in Roman numerals in the manuscript;
that the letter V. in the numerals VII. was carelessly drawn, and not
well joined at the base, so that a reader might well take it for a
II.; and that such an error might more easily occur in a manuscript,
especially on parchment, than on an engraved map on paper. As evidence
that the Paris map, which Dr. Kohl thinks was made in Germany or
Belgium, was copied from a Spanish manuscript, Mr. Major cites the
instance of the name Laguna de Nicaragua being rendered into “Laguna
de Nicaxagoe.” The Spanish manuscript _r_ being in the form of our
northern x, the transcriber showed his ignorance by substituting the
one letter for the other. So also as regards the copy made by Clement
Adams from the Spanish original. He made an independent translation of
the inscriptions into Latin, which accounts for the two Latin versions,
and also made the same error for the same reason, in giving the date
1494, instead of 1497.

Mr. Major believes that Hakluyt had good reason for making the
change of date from 1494 to 1497 as the true date of discovery, as
in the same volume in which the change was made he introduced the
remarkable map of Molyneaux, referred to above, on which that date
was inscribed as the year of the discovery; and furthermore that he
may have consulted the papers of Cabot in the possession of William

       *       *       *       *       *

To return again from this long digression to the volumes of Hakluyt
in which he has brought together his various authorities relating
to the voyages of the Cabots, one is impressed with a feeling of
disappointment that he makes no attempt to reconcile their apparent
glaring discrepancies,—that is to say, as to the different dates given
in them to the voyage of discovery, and the variation in the different
degrees of latitude reached; while no opinion is expressed as to the
comparative agency of John or Sebastian Cabot, or the question as to
whether there was more than one voyage,—I mean a second immediately
following the first which was of discovery. In the general catalogue
prefixed in 1600 to the third volume of his larger work, he refers to
these several “testimonies” as proving a voyage of discovery in 1497,
while in reality no one of them proves that date, bearing in mind that
the date in the extract from Adams’s map was in this later reprint
inserted by him on some evidence not found in his volumes,—the truth
being that all these testimonies, taken as a whole, refer probably to
two if not three voyages, as we have already seen.[92]

I do not forget that these volumes of Hakluyt contain other interesting
documents relating to Cabot,—namely, the record of the pension granted
by Edward VI., dated Jan. 6, 1548-49, of £165 13_s._ 6_d._, to date
from the preceding Michaelmas Day (September 29); the Ordinances and
Instructions compiled by Cabot for the intended voyage for Cathay, May
9, 1553; his appointment in the charter of the Muscovy Company, Feb.
6, 1555-56, as its governor; the story of his presence on board the
“Serchthrift” at Gravesend on the 13th of April, 1556, about to sail
on a voyage of discovery to the northeast, where the venerable man
“entered into the dance himself.”[93]

I have already referred to a volume of Chytræus, containing the
Latin legends on Sebastian Cabot’s map, which was published about
this time,—the first edition in 1594, a second in 1599, and a third
edition in 1606. We can hardly suppose that Hakluyt ever saw this book,
at least in the earlier editions, as he could hardly have failed to
incorporate the inscriptions into his larger work. The date 1494 given
in the 8th Legend as the year of the discovery of the new lands, and
the same date incorporated in Hakluyt’s folio of 1589 from Adams’s
map, gave currency to its use to a limited extent.[94] But Hakluyt’s
larger work of 1598-1600 quite superseded in use his previous books,
and Chytræus was probably rarely seen or consulted; yet Mr. Biddle, who
never could have seen Chytræus or Hakluyt’s folio of 1589, could never
understand why later writers, like Harris and Pinkerton, adopted that

I did not propose, in presenting this sketch of authorities relating to
the Cabots, in chronological order, to pursue the inquiry much beyond
the period to which I have arrived. Neither do I flatter myself that
I have, in the field already traversed, embraced everything in printed
form that should have been noticed, and something of value may have
escaped me. In proceeding, therefore, to notice two or three important
works relating to my theme published about the period now reached, I
shall conclude this chapter by introducing some important material
which has come to light at a later time, from the slumbering archives
of foreign States, and much of it within a few years.[95]

One of the most important books relating to the history of America
was published at Madrid, 1601-15, by Herrera,—_Historia General_. It
contains nothing relating to the first voyages of the Cabots, except
the passage from Gomara already cited; but it gives other interesting
facts respecting Sebastian Cabot’s residence in Spain, drawn from
official documents. In citing passages from this work below, I have
also made use of the more recently published works of Navarrete, and
even of other writers, where they relate to the same subject. In the
“deceptive conversation” given in the first volume of Ramusio, Cabot
is made to say that the troubles in England induced him, that is,
on his return from his voyage of discovery, to seek employment in
Spain. But Peter Martyr informs us that Cabot did not leave England
until after the death of Henry VII., which took place in 1509.[96]
Herrera[97] mentions the circumstances under which the invitation from
Ferdinand was given and accepted, and Cabot arrived in Spain, Sep. 13,

He was taken into service as “capitan,” with pay of fifty thousand
maravedis by a royal grant made at Lagroño, Oct. 20, 1512.[98]
Eden,[99] in a translation of Peter Martyr, makes that author say
that Cabot had been, at the time at which Martyr was writing, 1515,
appointed a member of the Council of the Indies, but it is believed
that the original language of Martyr, “concurialis noster,” will not
bear that interpretation.[100] In 1515 he was appointed “Cosmographo
de la Casa de la Contratacion,” an office which involved the care of
revising maps and charts.[101] And in that same year, Peter Martyr
tells us, there was projected a voyage under the command of Cabot, to
search for that “hid secret of Nature” in the northwest, to sail in
the following year, 1516. But the death of King Ferdinand, on the 23d
of January of that year, put an end to the expedition. In November,
1515, Cabot and Juan Vespucius gave an opinion (_parecer_) concerning
the demarcation line in Brazil.[102] I have already spoken of the
alleged voyage of Cabot and Sir Thomas Pert from England, of 1516-17,
concerning which serious doubts have been expressed. Herrera makes
no mention of Cabot’s leaving Spain at this time; and De Barcia,
not perhaps the highest authority, in the preface to his _Ensayo
Chronologico_, etc., Madrid, 1723, says that Cabot was residing quietly
in Spain from 1512 to 1526, and that “he never intended or proposed to
prosecute the proposed discovery.” On Feb. 5, 1518, he was appointed
“Piloto Mayor y Examinador de Pilotos,” succeeding Juan de Solis, who
had been killed on the La Plata River in 1516, with the same pay in
addition to that of capitano.[103] In 1520 this appointment is again
confirmed, with orders that no pilot should pass to the Indies without
being first examined and approved by him.[104] On April 14, 1524, the
celebrated Congress at Badajos was held, which was attended by Cabot,
not as a member but as an expert; and he and several others delivered
an opinion on the questions submitted, April 15, the second day of the
session.[105] Immediately after the decision of the Congress, which
was pronounced practically in favor of the Spanish interest, a company
was formed at Seville to prosecute the trade to the Moluccas, through
the Straits of Magellan, and Cabot was invited to take the command;
and in September of this year he received the sanction of the Council
of the Indies to engage in the enterprise, and the agreement with
the Emperor was executed at Madrid on March 4, 1525, and the title
of Captain-General was conferred upon him. It was intended that the
expedition should depart in August, but it was delayed by the intrigues
of the Portuguese, and did not sail till April 3, 1526.[106] Cabot’s
expedition to the La Plata, it having been diverted on the coast from
its original destination, will be considered in another volume. On Oct.
25, 1525, his wife, Catalina Medrano, was directed by a royal order to
receive fifty thousand maravedis as a “gratificacion.”[107]

Cabot returned from South America to Seville with two ships at the end
of July or the beginning of August, 1530, and laid his final report
before the Emperor, of which an abstract may be found in Herrera.
Private complaints were laid against him, and at the suit of the
families of some of his companions who had perished in the expedition
he was arrested and imprisoned, but liberated on bail. Public charges
were preferred against him for misconduct in the affairs of the La
Plata, and the Council of the Indies by an order dated from Medina del
Campo, Feb. 1, 1532, condemned him to a banishment of two years to
Oran, in Africa. But the sentence was not carried into execution. Under
the date of 1531, Herrera speaks of his wife and children.[108]

During Cabot’s absence, that is to say, on April 4, 1528, Alonzo de
Chaves was appointed “Piloto Mayor,” with Ribero;[109] but the office
was resumed by him not long after his return. Navarrete quotes from
the Archivo de Indias a declaration made in 1574, by Juan Fernandez
de Ladrillos, of Moguer, a great pilot, over seventy years old, who
had sailed to America for twenty-eight years, that he was examined by
Sebastian Cabot in 1535.[110] This office Cabot retained till he left
Spain and returned to England.

I may as well introduce here as elsewhere a few passages from that
part of the history of Oviedo recently published at Madrid, for the
first time, by the Academy of History. Oviedo is very severe on Cabot
for his want of knowledge and skill in his operations on the La Plata.
But my citations are for another purpose. “Another great pilot (piloto
mayor), Sebastian Cabot, Venetian by origin, educated in England, who
at present is Piloto Mayor and Cosmographer of their Royal Majesties,
etc.... I will not defend from passions ... and negligence Sebastian
Cabot in the affairs of this expedition, since he is a good person and
skilful in his office of cosmography, and making a map of the whole
world in plane or in a spherical form; but it is not the same thing to
command and govern people as to point a quadrant or an astrolabe.”[111]

Several interesting episodes in the life of Cabot during his residence
in Spain have been recently made public from the Venetian archives.
They may be related here.

The story of Cabot’s intrigue with the authorities of Venice is told
in a remarkable and interesting letter of Gasparin Contarini, the
Venetian ambassador to Charles V., dated Valladolid, Dec. 31, 1522.
Cabot was at this time holding a high office under the Emperor, and
was drawing large pay. It appears that he had made secret proposals
to the Council of Ten through a friend of his, a certain friar, named
Hieronimo de Marin, a native of Ragusa, to enter into the service of
Venice, and disclose the strait or passage which he claimed to have
discovered, whereby she would derive a great commercial benefit. He
proposed to visit Venice and lay the whole plan before the Council.
The Council of Ten, though they had but little confidence in the
scheme, made all this known to their ambassador by letter, in which
they enclosed a letter also for Cabot, which they had instructed the
friar to write to him. Contarini sent for Cabot, who happened then
to be residing at the court, and gave him his letter, which he there
read with manifest embarrassment. After his fears had been quieted he
told Contarini that he had previously, in England, out of the love he
bore his country, spoken to the ambassadors of Venice on the subject
of the newly discovered countries, through which he had the means of
benefiting Venice, and that the letter had reference to that subject;
but he besought the ambassador to keep the thing a secret, as it would
cost him his life. Contarini told him that he was thoroughly acquainted
with the whole affair, but they would talk further on the subject in
the evening. At the hour appointed, when they were closeted alone in
the ambassador’s chamber, Cabot said:—

 “My Lord Ambassador, to tell you the whole truth, I was born in
 Venice, but was brought up in England (Io naqui a Venetia, ma sum
 nutrito in Engelterra), and then entered the service of their Catholic
 Majesties of Spain, and King Ferdinand made me a captain, with a
 salary of 50,000 maravedis. Subsequently his present Majesty gave
 me the office of Pilot Major, with an additional salary of 50,000
 maravedis, and 25,000 maravedis besides, as a gratuity; forming a
 total of 125,000 maravedis, equal to about 300 ducats.”

He then proceeded to say that being in England some three years
before, Cardinal Wolsey offered him high terms if he would sail with
an armada of his on a voyage of discovery, for which preparations were
making; but he declined unless the Emperor would give his consent,
in which case he would accept the offer. But meeting with a Venetian
who reproached him for not serving his own country instead of being
engaged altogether for foreigners, his heart smote him, and he wrote
the Emperor to recall him, which he did. And on his return to Seville,
and contracting an intimate friendship with this Ragusan friar, he
unbosomed himself to him; and, as the friar was going to Venice,
charged him with the aforesaid message to the Council of the Ten, and
to no one else; and the Ragusan “swore to me a sacred oath to this
effect.” Cabot then said he would go to Venice, and lay the matter
before the Council, after getting the Emperor’s consent to go, “on the
plea of recovering his mother’s dowry.” The ambassador approved of
this, but made some serious objections to the feasibility of the scheme
which Cabot proposed for the benefit of Venice. Cabot answered his
objections. In the course of the conversation he told Contarini that he
had a method for ascertaining by the needle the distance between two
places from east to west, which had never been previously discovered
by any one. The interview was concluded by his promising to go to
Venice at his own expense, and return in like manner if his plan was
disapproved by the Council. He then urged Contarini to keep the matter

On the following 7th of March the ambassador again wrote to the Chiefs
of the Ten, saying that Cabot had been several times to see him, and
that he was disposed to come to Venice to carry his purpose into
effect, but that he did not then dare ask leave for fear he might be
suspected of going to England, and he must wait three months longer;
and that Cabot desired the Council to write him a letter urging him to
come to Venice for the dispatch of his affairs (meaning his private
business). On the 28th of April the Council, in the name of the Ragusan
friar, wrote to Cabot what had been done to discover where his property
was; that there was good hope of recovering the dower of his mother
and aunt, and that had he been present no doubt the object would have
been attained before. He is therefore urged to come at once, “for your
aunt is very old.” The Council say they have caused this letter to be
written “touching his private affairs, in order that it may appear
necessary for him to quit Spain.” On the 26th of July, Contarini again
writes that Cabot, who had been residing at Seville, had come to
Valladolid on his way to Venice, and was endeavoring to get leave of
the Imperial Councillors to go, and that the Signory would be informed
of the result of the application. Probably he never went. The next
mention of him in the Venetian correspondence, during his residence in
Spain, is under the date of September 21, 1525,—that Sebastian Cabot
is captain of the fleet preparing for the Indies.[112]

Cabot still kept up his intrigues with Venice, even after his return
to England. On the 12th of September, 1551, the Council of Ten write
to their ambassador in England, telling him to assure Cabot that they
are gratified by his offer, and that they will do all they can about
the recovery of his property there, but that it is necessary that he
should come personally to Venice, as no one there knows him; that the
matters concerned are over fifty years old, and by the death of men,
decay of houses, and perishing of writings, as well as by his own
absence, no assured knowledge can be arrived at. He should therefore
come at once. Ramusio, the Secretary of the Council, had been put in
trust by Cabot of all such evidences as should come to hand regarding
Cabot’s business, and he would use all diligence towards establishing
his rights. In the mean time the ambassador is to learn from him all he
can about this navigation.

Whether this talk about Cabot’s property in Venice, the dowry from his
mother and his aged aunt, was all fictitious, perhaps never can be
known. That these alleged facts were used as a pretext or “blind” in
this correspondence, was on both sides avowed.[113]

It has been already mentioned, that, after Cabot’s return to England,
and his entry into the service of Edward VI.,—a warrant for his
transportation hither from Spain having passed the Privy Council on the
9th of Oct. 1547,—the King, on the 6th of January, 1548/9, granted him
a pension for life of £166 13_s._ 4_d._, “in consideration of good and
acceptable service done and to be done by him.” But in the following
year a little _contretemps_ occurred between Cabot and the Emperor
Charles V. Through the Spanish ambassador, Jan. 19, 1549/50, Charles
had demanded the return of Cabot to Spain, saying that he was the
“Grand Pilot of the Emperor’s Indies, ... a very necessary man for the
Emperor, whose servant he was, and had a pension of him.” The Council
replied that Cabot was not detained by them, but that he had refused
to go, saying that being the King’s subject there was no reason why he
should be compelled to go. The ambassador insisted that Cabot should
declare his mind to him personally; and an interview was held, at which
Cabot made a declaration to the same import, but said he was willing
to write to the Emperor, having good-will towards him, concerning some
matters important for the Emperor to know. He was then asked if he
would return to Spain if the King of England and the Council should
demand of him to go; to which Cabot made an equivocal answer, but which
the Council, to whom a report of the conversation was made by a third
person present, interpreted to mean that he would not go, as he had
divers times before declared to them.[114]

In March, 1551, Sebastian Cabot received from the King a special reward
of £200. On the 9th of September, 1553, soon after the accession of
Philip and Mary, the Emperor, Charles V., again made an earnest request
that Cabot should return to Spain. But he declined to go. On the 27th
of November, 1555, Cabot’s pension was renewed to him. Edward VI.
having died two years previous, the former grant had probably expired
with him. On the 27th of May, 1557, Cabot resigned his pension, and
on the 29th a new grant was made to him and to William Worthington,
jointly, of the same amount, so that Cabot was bereft of half his
pay.[115] Cabot died not long afterwards, the precise date, however,
not being known.

Mr. Biddle was strongly impressed with the belief that Cabot suffered
great neglect and injustice in his last days from Philip, through the
jealousy of Spain of the growing commerce and maritime enterprise
of England, stimulated by one who had left his father’s service and
refused to return, and “who was now imparting to others the benefit
of his vast experience and accumulated stores of knowledge.” And he
believed that William Worthington, who was associated with Cabot in the
last grant to him of his pension, was a creature of Spain, who finally
got possession of Cabot’s papers, and confiscated them beyond the reach
of the students and statesmen of England.

I will now call attention to some documents recently made public,
principally derived from the archives of Venice and of Spain, which
reveal John Cabot again to our view and show him to have been the real
discoverer of North America.[116]

John Cabot, or in the Venetian dialect, Zuan Caboto, was probably born
in Genoa or its neighborhood, and came to Venice as early as 1461. He
there married a daughter of the country, by whom he had three sons. On
the 28th of March, 1476, by the unanimous consent of the Senate, he
obtained his naturalization as a citizen of Venice,[117] “within and
without,” having resided there fifteen years.[118] He engaged in the
study of cosmography and the practice of navigation, and at one time
visited Mecca, where the caravans brought in the spices from distant
lands. He subsequently left Venice with his family for England and
took up his residence in Bristol, then one of the principal maritime
cities of that country. Sebastian is reported as saying that his father
went to England to follow the trade of merchandise. When this removal
took place is uncertain. Peter Martyr says that Sebastian, the second
son, at the time was a little child (_pene infans_), while Sebastian
himself says, if correctly reported, that he was very young (_che egli
era assai giouare_), yet that he had some knowledge of the _humanities_
and of the sphere. He therefore must have arrived at some maturity of
years.[119] Eden[120] says that Sebastian told him that he was born
in Bristol, and was taken to Venice when he was four years old, and
brought back again after certain years. He told Contarini, at a most
solemn interview, that he was born in Venice and bred (_nutrito_) in
England, which is probably true. It is reasonable to suppose that the
three sons were of age when the letters patent were granted to them and
their father in March, 1496, in which case Sebastian, being the second
son, must have been born as early as 1473, or three years before his
father took out his papers of naturalization in Venice.[121]

In a letter from Ferdinand and Isabella to Doctor de Puebla, in London,
dated March 28, 1496, they say, after acknowledging his letter of
the 21st of January: “You write that a person like Columbus has come
to England for the purpose of persuading the King to enter into an
undertaking similar to that of the Indies, without prejudice to Spain
and Portugal. He is quite at liberty.” But Puebla is further charged to
see that the King of England, who they think has had this temptation
laid before him by the King of France, is not deceived in this matter,
for that these undertakings cannot be executed without prejudice to
Spain and Portugal.[122]

A reasonable inference from this would be, that John Cabot had arrived
in England not long before the date of Puebla’s letter to their
Majesties, to lay his proposals before Henry VII., as Columbus had done
some years before through his brother, and not that he had been a long
resident in the country. The letters patent had already been issued,
that is to say, on the 5th of March.[123] This letter from Spain may
have caused some delay in the sailing of the expedition, which did not
depart till the following year. But some time was necessary to beat
up recruits for the voyage, and to enlist the aid of the substantial
citizens of Bristol in the undertaking. John Cabot, accompanied perhaps
by his son Sebastian, finally sailed in the early part of May, 1497,
with one small vessel and eighteen persons, “almost all Englishmen
and from Bristol,” says Raimondo; who adds, “The chief men of the
enterprise are of Bristol, great sailors.” A few foreigners were
included in the company, as we learn from the same authority that a
Burgundian and a Genoese accompanied them. The name of the vessel is
said to have been the “Matthew.” Mr. Barrett[124] says: “In the year
1497, June 24th, on St. John’s day, as it is in a manuscript in my
possession, ‘was Newfoundland found by Bristol men in a ship called
the Matthew.’” How much of this paragraph was in the manuscript is not
clear. The first part of it was evidently taken from Hakluyt. And we
are not told whether the manuscript was ancient or modern. It cannot
now be found.[125]

John Cabot returned in the early part of August. The following
well-known memorandum, from the Privy Purse Expenses of Henry VII.,
“August 10, 1497: To him who found the New Isle, 10_l._,” is supposed
to refer to him.[126]

Additional evidence concerning the voyage will now be given. The
following is a letter from Lorenzo Pasqualigo, a merchant residing in
London, to his brothers in Venice, dated August 23d, 1497, which I have
somewhat abridged:—

 “The Venetian, our countryman, who went with a ship from Bristol, is
 returned, and says that 700 leagues hence he discovered land in the
 territory of the Grand Cham. He coasted 300 leagues and landed, saw
 no human beings, but brought to the king certain snares set to catch
 game, and a needle for making nets. Was three months on the voyage.
 The king has promised that in the spring our countryman shall have ten
 ships. The king has also given him money wherewith to amuse himself
 till then, and he is now in Bristol with his wife, who is also a
 Venetian, and with his sons. His name is Zuan Cabot, and he is styled
 the great Admiral. Vast honor is paid him. The discoverer planted on
 his new-found land a large cross, with one flag of England and one of
 St. Mark, by reason of his being a Venetian.... London, 23d of August,

On the following day, August 24, 1497, Raimondo de Soncino, envoy of
the Duke of Milan to Henry VII., wrote the following passage in a long
dispatch to his Government:

 “Also, some months ago, his Majesty sent out a Venetian who is a very
 good mariner, and has good skill in discovering new islands, and he
 has returned safe, and has found two very large and fertile new
 islands, having likewise discovered The Seven Cities, four hundred
 leagues from England in the western passage. This next spring his
 Majesty means to send him with fifteen or twenty ships.”[128]

In the following December, Raimondo de Soncino wrote another letter
from London, making more particular mention of John Cabot’s discovery,
and of the intention of the King to authorize another expedition. This
letter, from the State Archives of Milan, was first published in the
_Annuario Scientifico_, in 1865,[129] and is now published in English
for the first time. There is some obscurity in the letter in a few
places, in naming the direction in which the vessel sailed, as the
east when the west was evidently intended. Whether this was a clerical
error, or whether by the term “the east” was meant “the land of the
spices” to which the expedition was bound, and which in the language
of the day lay to the east, is uncertain. Neither is the geographical
object named as “Tanais” recognized. This letter throws no light on
the Landfall. I am indebted to Professor Bennet H. Nash, of Harvard
College, for revising the translation of this letter.


 Perhaps among your Excellency’s many occupations, it may not
 displease you to learn how his Majesty here has won a part of Asia
 without a stroke of the sword. There is in this kingdom a Venetian
 fellow, Master John Caboto by name, of a fine mind, greatly skilled
 in navigation, who seeing that those most serene kings, first he of
 Portugal, and then the one of Spain, have occupied unknown islands,
 determined to make a like acquisition for his Majesty aforesaid.
 And having obtained royal grants that he should have the usufruct
 of all that he should discover, provided that the ownership of the
 same is reserved to the crown, with a small ship and eighteen persons
 he committed himself to fortune; and having set out from Bristol,
 a western port of this kingdom, and passed the western limits of
 Hibernia, and then standing to the northward he began to steer
 eastward, leaving (after a few days) the North Star on his right
 hand; and, having wandered about considerably, at last he fell in
 with _terra firma_, where, having planted the royal banner and taken
 possession on behalf of this King, and taken certain tokens, he has
 returned thence. The said Master John, as being foreign-born and poor,
 would not be believed if his comrades, who are almost all Englishmen
 and from Bristol, did not testify that what he says is true. This
 Master John has the description of the world in a chart, and also in
 a solid globe which he has made, and he [or the chart and the globe]
 shows where he landed, and that going toward the east he passed
 considerably beyond the country of the Tanais. And they say that it
 is a very good and temperate country, and they think that Brazil-wood
 and silks grow there; and they affirm that that sea is covered with
 fishes, which are caught not only with the net but with baskets, a
 stone being tied to them in order that the baskets may sink in the
 water. And this I heard the said Master John relate, and the aforesaid
 Englishmen, his comrades, say that they will bring so many fishes that
 this kingdom will no longer have need of Iceland, from which country
 there comes a very great store of fish which are called stock-fish.
 But Master John has set his mind on something greater; for he expects
 to go farther on toward the East (Levant,) from that place already
 occupied, constantly hugging the shore, until he shall be over against
 [or “on the other side of”] an island, by him called Cipango, situated
 in the equinoctial region, where he thinks all the spices of the
 world, and also the precious stones, originate; and he says that in
 former times he was at Mecca, whither spices are brought by caravans
 from distant countries, and that those who brought them, on being
 asked where the said spices grow, answered that they do not know,
 but that other caravans come to their homes with this merchandise
 from distant countries, and these [caravans] again say that they are
 brought to them from other remote regions. And he argues thus,—that
 if the Orientals affirmed to the Southerners that these things come
 from a distance from them, and so from hand to hand, presupposing
 the rotundity of the earth, it must be that the last ones get them
 at the North toward the West; and he said it in such a way, that,
 having nothing to gain or lose by it, I too believe it: and what is
 more, the King here, who is wise and not lavish, likewise puts some
 faith in him; for (ever) since his return he has made good provision
 for him, as the same Master John tells me. And it is said that, in
 the spring, his Majesty afore-named will fit out some ships, and will
 besides give him all the convicts, and they will go to that country
 to make a colony, by means of which they hope to establish in London
 a greater storehouse of spices than there is in Alexandria; and the
 chief men of the enterprise are of Bristol, great sailors, who, now
 that they know where to go, say that it is not a voyage of more than
 fifteen days, nor do they ever have storms after they get away from
 Hibernia. I have also talked with a Burgundian, a comrade of Master
 John’s, who confirms everything, and wishes to return thither because
 the Admiral (for so Master John already entitles himself) has given
 him an island; and he has given another one to a barber of his from
 Castiglione-of-Genoa, and both of them regard themselves as Counts,
 nor does my Lord the Admiral esteem himself anything less than a
 Prince. I think that with this expedition there will go several poor
 Italian monks, who have all been promised bishoprics. And, as I have
 become a friend of the Admiral’s, if I wished to go thither I should
 get an archbishopric. But I have thought that the benefices which
 your Excellency has in store for me are a surer thing; and therefore
 I beg that if these should fall vacant in my absence, you will cause
 possession to be given to me, taking measures to do this rather
 [especially] where it is needed, in order that they be not taken from
 me by others, who because they are present can be more diligent than
 I, who in this country have been brought to the pass of eating ten or
 twelve dishes at every meal, and sitting at table three hours at a
 time twice a day, for the sake of your Excellency, to whom I humbly
 commend myself.

  Your Excellency’s
  Very humble servant,


  LONDON, Dec. 18, 1497.

These letters are sufficient to show that North America was discovered
by John Cabot, the name of Sebastian being nowhere mentioned in them,
and that the discovery was made in 1497. The place which he first
sighted is given on the map of 1544 as the north part of Cape Breton
Island, on which is inscribed “prima tierra vista,” which was reached,
according to the Legend, on the 24th of June. Pasqualigo, the only one
who mentions it, says he coasted three hundred leagues. Mr. Brevoort,
who accepts the statement, thinks he made the _periplus_ of the Gulf
of St. Lawrence, passing out at the straits of Belle Isle, and thence
home.[130] He saw no human beings, so that the story of men dressed in
bear-skins and otherwise described in the Legend must have been seen by
Sebastian Cabot on a later voyage. The extensive sailing up and down
the coast described by chroniclers from conversations with Sebastian
Cabot many years afterwards, though apparently told as occurring on
the voyage of discovery,—as only one voyage is ever mentioned,—must
have taken place on a later voyage. There was no time between the 24th
of June and the 1st of August for any very extensive explorations.
Indeed, John Cabot intimated to Raimondo that he intended on the next
voyage to start from the place he had already found, and run down the
coast towards the equinoctial regions, where he expected to find the
island of Cipango and the country of jewels and spices. No doubt he
was anxious to return and report his discovery thus far, and provide
“for greater things.” The plea of a shortness of provisions may have
covered another motive. The great abundance of fish reported might have
supplied any immediate want.

[Illustration: PORTUGUESE PORTOLANO. 1514-1520.

[This map, at no. 5, places the Breton discovery at the Cabot landfall.
The original is dated by Kohl (_Discovery of Maine_, 179) in 1520; and
by Kunstmann in 1514. Stevens, _Hist. and Geog. Notes_, pl. v., copies
Kunstmann. The points and inscriptions on it are as follows:—

1. Do Lavrador (Labrador). Terram istam portugalenses viderunt atamen
non intraverunt. (The Portuguese saw this country, but did not enter

2. Bacaluaos (east coast of Newfoundland).

3. (Straits of Belle Isle.)

4. (South entrance to Gulf of St. Lawrence.)

5. Tera que foij descuberta por bertomas. (Land discovered by the

6. Teram istam gaspar Corte Regalis portugalemsis primo invenit, etc.
(Nova Scotia. Gaspar Cortereal first discovered this country, and he
took away wild men and white bears; and many animals, birds and fish
are in it. The next year he was shipwrecked and did not return, and
so was his brother Michael the following year.) The voyages of the
Cortereals will be described in Vol. IV.—ED.]]

John Cabot was now in high favor with the King, who supplied him with
money, by which he was able to make a fine appearance. Indeed, the King
granted him under the great seal, during the royal pleasure, a pension
of twenty pounds sterling per annum, having the purchasing value of
two hundred pounds at the present time; to date from the preceding
25th of March. The grant was a charge upon the customs of the port of
Bristol. The document authorizing this grant we are able to present
here for the first time in print. The order from the King is dated the
13th of December, 1497, and it passed the seals the 28th of January,

 “Memorandum quod xxviii. die Januarii anno subscripto istæ litteræ
 liberatæ fuerunt domino Cancellario Angliæ apud Westmonasterium

 “Henry, by the Grace of God King of England and of France and Lord of
 Ireland, to the most reverend father in God, John Cardinal Archbishop
 of Canterbury, primate of all England and of the apostolic see legate,
 our Chancellor, greeting:—

 “We let you wit that we for certain considerations, us specially
 moving, have given and granted unto our well-beloved John Calbot,
 of the parts of Venice, an annuity or annual rent of twenty pounds
 sterling to be had and yearly paid from the feast of the Annunciation
 of Our Lady last past, during our pleasure, of our customs and
 subsidies coming and growing in our port of Bristowe by the hands of
 our customs there for the time being at Michaelmas and Easter, by even
 portions. Wherefore we will and charge you that under our great seal
 ye do make hereupon our letters patents in good and effectual form.
 Given under our privy seal, at our palace of Westminster, the xiiith
 day of December, the xiiith year of our reign.”

Preparations were now made for a second voyage, and a license to John
Cabot alone, as we have already seen, was issued by the King, for leave
to take up six ships and to enlist as many of the King’s subjects
as were willing to go. This was evidently a scheme of colonization.
Peter Martyr says, if this is the voyage which he is describing, that
Sebastian Cabot—for he never speaks of John—furnished two ships
at his own charge, and Sebastian Cabot, in Ramusio, says that the
King furnished them, and the Bristol merchants are supposed to have
furnished three others; and they took out three hundred men.[132] The
Fabian manuscript quoted by Hakluyt says they sailed in the beginning
of May; and De Ayala says they were expected back by September. There
is no doubt that Sebastian Cabot accompanied his father on this voyage.
From the documents already cited from Peter Martyr and Ramusio there is
some reason to believe that the expedition coasted some distance to the
north, and then returning ran down the coast as far as to the 36° N.
without accomplishing the purpose for which they went. That this latter
course was pursued receives some confirmation from the declarations
of John Cabot on his return from the first voyage, that he believed
it practicable to reach in that direction the Island of Cipango and
the land of the spices. But the prospects were discouraging and their
provisions failed. Gomara, in noticing this voyage, says that on their
return from the north they stopped at Baccalaos for refreshment. But
all the accounts relied on for this voyage are vague and, as we have
already seen, unsatisfying.

The following letter from the Prothonotary, Don Pedro de Ayala,
residing in London, to Ferdinand and Isabella, dated July 25, 1498,
relates to the sailing of this expedition:

 “I think your Majesties have already heard that the King of England
 has equipped a fleet in order to discover certain islands and
 continents which he was informed some people from Bristol, who manned
 a few ships for the same purpose last year, had found. I have seen
 the map which the discoverer has made, who is another Genoese like
 Columbus, and who has been in Seville and in Lisbon asking assistance
 for his discoveries. The people of Bristol have, for the last seven
 years, sent out every year two, three, or four light ships in search
 of the Island of Brazil and the Seven Cities, according to the fancy
 of this Genoese. The King determined to send out ships, because the
 year before they brought certain news that they had found land. His
 fleet consisted of five vessels, which carried provisions for one
 year. It is said that one of them, in which Friar Buel went, has
 returned to Ireland in great distress, the ship being much damaged.
 The Genoese has continued his voyage. I have seen on a chart the
 direction which they took and the distance they sailed; and I think
 that what they have found, or what they are in search of, is what
 your Highnesses already possess. It is expected that they will be
 back in the month of September.... I think it is not further distant
 than 400 leagues.... I do not now send the chart, or _mapa mundi_,
 which that man has made, and which, according to my opinion, is false,
 since it makes it appear as if the land in question was not the said

We see by this letter that this “Genoese,” who had discovered land the
year before, had again sailed on the expedition here described. If so
important a person as John Cabot now was to the King had died before
its departure, the fact would have been known at court, and De Ayala
would surely have mentioned it, as the Spaniards were very jealous of
all these proceedings. The statement that the King had equipped the
fleet may only mean that the expedition was fitted and sent out under
his countenance and protection. De Ayala says it was expected back
in September, but it had not returned by the last of October. No one
knows when the expedition returned, and no one knows what became of
John Cabot. When the domestic calendars of the reign of Henry VII. are
published, some clew to him may turn up. In the mean time we must wait

The enterprise was regarded as a failure, and no doubt the Bristol and
London adventurers suffered a pecuniary loss. All schemes of Western
discovery and colonization were for years substantially abandoned by
England. Some feeble attempts in this direction appear to have been
made in 1501 and 1502, when patents for discovery were granted by
Henry in favor of some merchants of Bristol, with whom were associated
several Portuguese, but it is not certain that anything was done under
their authority.[134]

[Illustration: Autograph Charles Deane]

       *       *       *       *       *

NOTE.—Henri Harrisse’s _Jean et Sébastien Cabot, leur origine et leurs
voyages_, has been published since this chapter was completed.




_Massachusetts Historical Society._

THE English voyagers had no mind to content themselves with adventure
in those more rugged regions to which the Cabots had introduced them.
Whether in peace or war, their relations with Spain were growing closer
and closer all through the sixteenth century. Sebastian Cabot, in fact,
soon passed into the service of the Spanish Crown. Indeed, if we had no
other memorial of the intimacy between English and Spanish navigators,
we could still trace it in our language, which has derived many of its
maritime words from Spanish originals. The seamen of England found
their way everywhere, and soon acquainted themselves with the coasts
of the West India Islands and the Spanish main. There exists, indeed,
in the English archives a letter written as early as 1518 by the
Treasurer-General of the West Indies to Queen Katherine, the unhappy
wife of Henry VIII., in which he describes to her the peculiarities
of his island home. He sends to her a cloak of feathers such as were
worn by native princesses. From that time forward, allusions to the new
discoveries appear in English literature and in the history of English
trade.[135] Still, it would be fair to say, that, for thirty years
after the discovery of America, that continent attracted as little
attention in England as the discovery of the Antarctic continent, forty
years ago, has attracted in America up to this time.

It belongs to another chapter to trace the gradual steps by which
the English fisheries developed England’s knowledge of America. The
instincts of trade led men farther south, in a series of voyages which
will be briefly traced in this chapter. One of the earliest of them,
which may be taken as typical, is that of William Hawkins, of Plymouth.
Not content with the short voyages commonly made to the known coasts of
Europe, Hawkins “armed out a tall and goodly ship of his own,” in which
he made three voyages to Brazil, and skirted, after the fashion of the
time, the African coast. He carried thither negroes whom he had taken
on the coast of Guinea. He deserves the credit, therefore, such as it
is, of beginning that African slave-trade in which England was engaged
for nearly three centuries.

The second of these voyages seems to have been made as early as 1530.
He brought to England, from the coast of Brazil, a savage king, whose
ornaments, apparel, behavior, and gestures were very strange to the
English king and his nobility. These three voyages were so successful,
that a number of Southampton merchants followed them up, at least as
late as 1540.

It was, however, William Hawkins’s son John who was knighted by Queen
Elizabeth for his success in the slave-trade, and in acknowledgment of
the wealth which his voyages brought into England. Engaging several
of his friends, some of whom were noblemen, in the adventure, John
Hawkins sailed with a fleet of three ships and one hundred men for the
coast of Guinea, in October, 1562. He took—partly by the sword, and
partly by other means—three hundred or more negroes, whom he carried
to San Domingo, then called Hispaniola, and sold profitably. In his own
ships he brought home hides, ginger, sugar, and some pearls. He sent
two other ships with hides and other commodities to Spain. These were
seized by the Spanish Government, and it is curious that Hawkins should
not have known that they would be. His ignorance seems to show that his
adventure was substantially a novelty in that time. He himself arrived
in England again in September, 1563. Notwithstanding the loss of half
his profits in Spain, the voyage brought much gain to himself and the
other adventurers.

Thus encouraged, Hawkins sailed again, the next year, with four ships,
of which the largest was the “Jesus,” of Lubec, of seven hundred tons;
the smallest was the “Swallow,” of only thirty tons. He had a hundred
and seventy men; and, as in all such voyages, the ships were armed.
Passing down the coast of Guinea, they spent December and January in
picking up their wretched freight, and lost by sickness and in fights
with the negroes many of their men. On the 29th of January, 1565, they
had taken in their living cargo, and then they crossed to the West
Indies. On the voyage they were becalmed for twenty-one days. But they
arrived at the Island of Dominica, then in possession of savages, on
the 9th of March. From that period till the 31st of May, they were
trading on the Spanish coasts, and then returned to England, touching
at various points in the West Indies. They passed along the whole coast
of Florida, and they are the first Englishmen who give us in detail any
account of Florida.[136]

It was Hawkins’s great good fortune to come to the relief of the
struggling colony of Laudonnière, then in the second year of its
wretched history. From his narrative we learn that the settlers had
made twenty hogsheads of wine in a single summer from the native
grapes, which is perhaps more than has been done there since in the
same period of time.[137] The wretched colonists owed everything to
the kindness of Hawkins. He left them a vessel in which to return to
France; and they had made all their preparations so to do, when they
were relieved—for their ultimate destruction, as it proved—by the
arrival of a squadron under Ribault.[138] Hawkins returned to England
after a voyage sufficiently prosperous, which had lasted eleven months.
He had lost twenty persons in all; but he had brought home gold,
silver, pearls, and other jewels in great store.

[Illustration: John Hawkins

[This cut follows a photograph of the bas-relief which is given in the
Hakluyt Society’s edition of the _Hawkins Voyages_. Another engraving
of it is given in _Harper’s Magazine_, January, 1883, p. 221.—ED.]]

His account of Florida is much more careful than what he gives of any
of the West India Islands. From his own words it is clear that he
thought it might be of use to England, and that he wanted to draw
attention to it as a place open to colonization. Like so many other
explorers, from Ponce de Leon down to our own times, he was surprised
that a country, which is so attractive to the eye, should be left so
nearly without inhabitants. It seems to have been more densely peopled
when Ponce de Leon landed there in 1513 than it was at the beginning of
this century. To such interest or enthusiasm of Hawkins do we owe an
account of Florida, in its native condition, more full than we have of
any other of our States, excepting New Mexico, at a period so early in
our history.

Besides tobacco, he specifies the abundance of sorrel,—which grew as
abundantly as grass,—of maize, of mill, and of grapes, which “taste
much like our English grapes.” He describes the community building
of the southern tribes, as made “like a great barne, in strength not
inferiour to ours,” with stanchions and rafters of whole trees, and
covered with palmetto leaves. There was one small room for the king and
queen, but no other subdivisions. In the midst of the great hall a fire
was kept all night. The houses, indeed, were only used at night.

In a country of such a climate and soil, with “marvellous store of
deer and divers other beasts, and fowl and fish sufficient,” Hawkins
naturally thought that “a man might live,” as he says quaintly. Maize,
he says, “maketh good savory bread, and cakes as fine as flower.”
The first account to be found in English literature of the “hasty
pudding” of the American larder, the “mush” of the Pennsylvanians,[139]
is in Hawkins’s narrative. “It maketh good meal, beaten, and sodden
with water, and eateth like pap wherewith we feed children.” The
Frenchmen, fond by nature of soup, had made another use of it, not
wholly forgotten at this day. “It maketh also good beverage, sodden
in water and nourishable; which the Frenchmen did use to drink of in
the morning, and it assuaged their thirst so that they had no need to
drink all the day after.” It was, he says, because the French had been
too lazy to plant maize for themselves that their colony came to such
wretched destitution. To obtain maize, they had made war against the
so-called savages who had raised it, and this aggression had naturally
reacted against them.

It is interesting to observe that in all these early narratives of
the slave-trade there is no intimation that it involved cruelty or
any form of wrong. Hawkins sailed in the ship “Jesus,” with faith as
sincere as if he had sailed on a crusade. His sailing orders to his
four ships close with words which remind one of Cromwell: “Serve God
daily; love one another; preserve your victuals; beware of fire; and
keep good company.” By “serve God,” it is meant that the ship’s company
shall join in religious services morning and evening; and this these
slave-traders regularly did. In one of their incursions on the Guinea
coast they were almost destroyed by the native negroes, as they well
deserved to be. Hawkins narrates the adventure with this comment: “God,
who worketh all things for the best, would not have it so, and by him
we escaped without danger. His name be praised for it!” And again, when
they were nearly starved, becalmed in mid-ocean: “Almighty God, who
never suffereth his elect to perish, sent us the ordinary breeze.”[140]

The success of the second voyage was such that a coat-of-arms was
granted to Hawkins. Translated from the jargon of heraldry, the grant
means that he might bear on his black shield a golden lion walking over
the waves. Above the lion were three golden coins. For a crest he was
to have a figure of half a Moor, “bound, and a captive,” with golden
amulets on his arms and ears. No disgrace attached to the capturing of
Africans and selling them for money. That the Heralds’ Office might
give to the transaction the sanctions of Christianity, it directed
Hawkins, five years after, to add in one corner of the shield the
pilgrim’s scallop-shell in gold, between two palmer’s staves, as if to
intimate that the African slave-trade was the true crusade of the reign
of Elizabeth.

So successful was this expedition, that Hawkins started on a third,
with five ships, in October, 1567. He commanded his old ship, the
“Jesus,” and Francis Drake, afterward so celebrated, commanded the
“Judith,” a little vessel of fifty tons. They took four or five hundred
negroes, and crossed to Dominica again, but were more than seven
weeks on the passage. As before, they passed along the Spanish main,
where they found the Spaniards had been cautioned against them. They
absolutely stormed the town of Rio de la Hacha before they could obtain
permission to trade. In all cases, although the Spanish officers had
been instructed to oppose their trade, they found that negroes were
so much in demand that the planters dealt with them eagerly. After a
repulse at Cartagena, they crossed the Gulf of Mexico towards Florida,
but were finally compelled, by two severe tempests, to run to San
Juan d’ Ulua, the port of Mexico, for repairs and supplies. Here they
claimed the privileges of allies of King Philip, and were at first
well enough received. Hawkins takes to himself credit that he did not
seize twelve ships which he found there, with, £200,000 of silver on
board. The local officers sent to the City of Mexico, about two hundred
miles inland, for instructions. The next day a fleet from Spain, of
twelve ships, arrived in the offing. Hawkins, fearing the anger of his
Queen, he says, let them come into harbor, having made a compact with
the Government that neither side should make war against the other.
The fleet entered, and for three days all was amity and courtesy. But
on the fourth day, from the shore and from the ships, the five English
vessels were attacked furiously, and in that little harbor a naval
action ensued, of which the result was the flight of the “Minion” and
the “Judith” alone, and the capture or destruction of the other English
vessels. So crowded was the “Minion,” that a hundred of the fugitives
preferred to land, rather than to tempt the perils of the sea in her.
They fell into the hands of the Inquisition, and their sufferings were
horrible. The others, after a long and stormy passage, arrived in
England on the 25th of January, 1568/69.

It is a real misfortune for our early history that no reliance can be
placed on the fragmentary stories of the few survivors who were left
by Hawkins on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. One or two there were
who, after years of captivity, told their wretched story at home. But
it is so disfigured by every form of lie, that the most ingenious
reconstructer of history fails to distil from it even a drop of the
truth. The routes which they pursued cannot be traced, the etymology
of geography gains nothing from their nomenclature, and, in a word,
the whole story has to be consigned to the realm of fable.[141] Such a
narrative as these men might have told would be our best guide for what
has been well called by Mr. Haven “the mythical century” of American

In this voyage of Hawkins the Earls of Pembroke and of Leicester were
among the adventurers.

If Hawkins’s account of the perfidy of the Spaniards at San Juan d’Ulua
be true,—and it has never been contradicted,—the Spanish Crown that
day brought down a storm of misery and rapine from which it never
fairly recovered. The accursed doctrine of the Inquisition, that no
faith was to be kept with heretics, proved a dangerous doctrine for
Spain when the heretics were such men as Hawkins, Cavendish, and Drake.
On that day Francis Drake learned his lesson of Spanish treachery; and
he learned it so well that he determined on his revenge. That revenge
he took so thoroughly, that for more than a hundred years he is spoken
of in all Spanish annals as “The Dragon.”[142]

Hawkins gives no account of Drake’s special service in the
“Judith,”—the smallest vessel in the unfortunate squadron, and one of
the two which returned to England; nor has Drake himself left any which
has been discovered; nor have his biographers. Clearly his ill-fortune
did not check his eagerness for attack; and from that time forward
Spain had at least one determined enemy in England.


He had made two voyages to the West Indies in 1570 and in 1571, of
which little is known. For a fifth voyage, which he calls the third of
importance, he fitted out a little squadron of only two vessels, the
“Pasha” and the “Swan,” and sailed in 1572, with no pretence of trade,
simply to attack and ravage the Spanish main. He specially assigns
as his motive for this enterprise his desire to inflict vengeance
for injuries done him at Rio de Hacha in 1565 and in 1566, and, in
particular, that he might retaliate on Henriques, Viceroy of Mexico,
for his treachery at San Juan d’ Ulua. It seems that he had vainly
sought amends at the Court of Spain, and that the Queen’s diplomacy
had been equally ineffective. The little squadron, enlarged by a third
vessel which joined them after sailing, attacked Nombre de Dios, then
the granary of the West Indies, but with small success. They then
insulted the port of Cartagena, and afterward, having made an alliance
with the Cimaronnes, since and now known as Maroons,—a tribe of
savages and self-freed Africans,—they marched across the isthmus,
and Drake obtained his first sight of that Pacific Ocean which he was
afterward to explore. “Vehemently transported with desire to navigate
that sea, he fell upon his knees and implored the divine assistance
that he might at some time sail thither and make a perfect discovery of
the same.” The place from which Drake saw it was probably near the spot
where Balboa “thanked God for that great discovery,” and that he had
been first of Christian men to behold that sea. His discovery was made
in 1513, sixty years before Drake renewed it.[143]

The narrative which we cite is in the words of the historian Camden.
Camden tells us also that Drake had “gotten together a pretty sum of
money” in this expedition, and, satisfied for the moment, he remained
in England. He engaged himself in assisting, at sea, in the reduction
of Ireland. But he had by no means done with the Spaniards, and at the
end of 1577, sailing on the 15th of November, he left Plymouth on the
celebrated voyage in which he was to sail round the world. The squadron
consisted of the “Pelican,” of one hundred tons, the “Elizabeth,” of
eighty, the “Swan,” of fifty, and the “Marigold” and “Christopher,”
of thirty and of fifteen tons. Of these vessels the “Pelican” was the
only one which completed the great adventure. Her armament was twenty
guns of brass and iron. She had others in her hold. So well had Drake
profited by earlier expeditions, that his equipment was complete, and
even luxurious. He carried pinnaces in parts, to be put together when
needed. He had “expert musicians, rich furniture, all the vessels for
the table, yea, many even of the cook-room, being of pure silver.”
In every detail he was prepared to show the magnificence and the
civilization of his own country.

The crew were shipped and the expedition sailed, with the pretence
of a voyage to Egypt. This was to blind the Spanish envoys, in
concealment of the real object of the expedition, as similar
expeditions since have been veiled. But it is clear enough that the
partners in the enterprise and the men they shipped knew very well
whither they were faring.

After one rebuff, the fleet finally left England on the 13th of
December, 1577, and, with occasional pauses to refit at the Cape de
Verde and at different points not frequented by the Portuguese or
Spaniards on the Brazilian coast and the coast south of Brazil, they
arrived at Port St. Julian on the 19th of June, in the beginning of the
southern winter. Here they spent two months, not sailing again until
the 17th of August, when they essayed the passage of the Straits of
Magellan. While at Port St. Julian Drake found, or professed to find,
evidences of the treachery of Doughty, one of the gentlemen in whom at
first he had most confided. Doughty was tried before a jury of twelve,
found guilty, and beheaded. They all remembered that Magellan had had a
similar experience in the same harbor fifty-seven years before. Indeed
they found the gibbet on which, as they supposed, John of Cartagena had
been hanged by Magellan, with his mouldering bones below. The Spaniards
said that Drake himself acted as Doughty’s executioner. Fletcher says,
“he who acted in the room of provost marshal.” It is hard to see how
the Spaniards should know.

After a series of stormy adventures, they found themselves safe in the
Pacific on the 28th of October. After really passing the straits, they
had been driven far south by tempests, and on the extreme point of
Tierra del Fuego Drake had landed. On a grassy point he fell upon the
ground at length, and extended his arms as widely as possible, as if
to grasp the southern end of the hemisphere,—in memory, perhaps, of
Cæsar’s taking possession of England. The “Pelican” was the only vessel
now under his command. The others had either been lost or had deserted
him; and though he sought for his consorts all the way on his voyage
northward, he sought in vain.

From Drake’s own pen we have no narrative of this remarkable voyage.
His chaplain, Fletcher,[144] gives a good account of Patagonia and
of the natives, from the observations made in Port St. Julian and in
their after experiences as they passed the straits. The Englishmen
corrected at once the Spanish fable regarding the marvellous height
of these men. They corrected errors which they supposed the Spaniards
had intentionally published in the charts. It is supposed that Drake
sighted the Falkland Islands, which had been discovered by Davis a
few years before. Drake gave the name of Elizabeth Islands, or the
Elizabethides, to the whole group of Tierra del Fuego and its neighbors.

In their voyage north they touched for supplies at a great island,
which the Spaniards called Mucho; and afterward at Valparaiso, where
they plundered a great ship called the “Captain of the South,” which
they found at anchor there. Fletcher describes all such plunder with a
clumsy raillery, as if a Spaniard’s plunder were always fair game. To
Drake it was indeed repayment for San Juan d’ Ulua. Farther north, they
entered the bay of “Cyppo;” and in another bay, still farther north,
they set up the pinnace which they had in parts on board their vessel.
In this pinnace Drake sailed south a day to look for his consorts; but
he was driven back by adverse winds. After a stay of a month here,
which added nothing to our knowledge of the geography of the country,
they sailed again. “Cyppo” is probably the Copiapo of to-day.

[Illustration: ZALTIERI’S MAP, 1566.

This sketch follows a drawing by Kohl in his manuscript in the American
Antiquarian Society’s Library. This is the key:—

  1. Mare Septentrionale.
  2. Terra incognita.
  3. Quivira prov.
  4. C. Nevada.
  5. Tigna fl.
  6. R. Tontonteac.
  7. Y. delle Perle.
  8. Y. di Cedri.
  9. Giapan.
  10. Mare di Mangi.
  11. Chinan Golfo.
  12. Parte di Asia.]

Pausing for plunder, or for water, or fresh provisions, from time
to time, they ran in, on the 7th of February, to the port of Arica,
where they spoiled the vessels they found, generally confining their
plunder to silver, gold, and jewels, and such stores as they needed
for immediate use. At Callao they found no news of their comrades; but
they did find news from Europe,—the death of the kings of Portugal,
of France, of Morocco, and of Fez, and of the Pope of Rome. From one
vessel they took fifteen hundred bars of silver, and learning that a
treasure-ship had sailed a fortnight before, went rapidly in pursuit of

They overtook her on the 1st of March, and captured her. As part of
her cargo, she had on board “a certain quantity of jewels and precious
stones,” thirteen chests of silver reals, eighty pounds weight of
gold, twenty-six tons of uncoined silver, two very fair gilt silver
drinking-bowls, “and the like trifles,—valued in all about three
hundred and sixty thousand pezoes,”—as Fletcher says in his clumsy
pleasantry. The ships lay together six days, then Drake “gave the
master a little linen and the like for his commodities,” and let him
and his ship go. Her name, long remembered, was the “Cacafuego.” The
Spanish Government estimated the loss at a million and a half of
ducats. A ducat was about two dollars.

Drake now determined to give up the risk of returning by the way he
came, and to go home by the north or by crossing the Pacific. He
abandoned the hope of joining his consorts, who had, though he did not
know it, no thought of joining him. On the 16th of March he touched
at the Island of Caines, where he experienced a terrible earthquake;
on the 15th of March at Guatulco, in Mexico, where he took some fresh
provisions; and sailing the next day, struck northward on the voyage in
which he discovered the coast of Oregon and of that part of California
which now belongs to the United States.

[Illustration: MAP OF PAULO DE FURLANO, 1574.

Furlano is said to have received this map from a Spaniard, Don Diego
Hermano de Toledo, in 1574. The sketch is made from the drawing in
Kohl’s manuscript in the American Antiquarian Society’s Library. The
key is as follows:—

  1. Mare incognito.
  2. Stretto di Anian.
  3. Quivir.
  4. Golfo di Anian.
  5. Anian regnum.
  6. Quisau.
  7. Mangi Prov.
  8. Mare de Mangi.
  9. Isola di Giapan.
  10. Y. di Cedri.]

A certain doubt hangs over the original discovery of the eastern
coast of this nation. There is no doubt that the coast of Oregon was
discovered to Europe by the greatest seaman of Queen Elizabeth’s

Taking as plunder a potful of silver reals,—the pot, says Fletcher,
“as big as a bushel,”—and some other booty, Drake sailed west, then
northwest and north, “fourteen hundred leagues in all.” This, according
to the account of Fletcher, his chaplain, brought them to the 3d of
June,[146] when they were in north latitude 42°. On the night of that
day, the weather (which had been very hot) became bitterly cold; the
ropes of the ship were stiff with ice, and sleet fell instead of rain.
This cold weather continued for days. On the fifth they ran in to a
shore which they then first descried, and anchored in a bad bay, which
was the best roadstead they could find. But the moment the gale lulled,
“thick stinking fogs” settled down on them; they could not abide there;
and from this place[147] they turned south, and ran along the coast.
They found it “low and reasonable plain.” Every hill was covered with
snow, though it was in June.

In the latitude of 38° 30′, they came to a “convenient and fit
harbour.” Another narrator says, “It pleased God to send us into a
fair and good bay, with a good wind to enter the same.” They entered,
and remained in it till the 23d of July. During all this time they
were visited with the “like nipping colds.” They would have been glad
to keep their beds, and if they were not at work, would have worn
their winter clothes. For a fortnight together they could take no
observations of sun or star. When they met the natives, they found them
shivering even under their furs; and the “ground was without greenness”
and the trees without leaves in June and July.

The day after they entered this harbor an Indian came out to them in a
canoe. He made tokens of respect and submission. He threw into the ship
a little basket made of rushes containing an herb called _tobàh_.[148]
Drake wished to recompense him, but he would take nothing but a hat,
which was thrown into the water. The company of the “Pelican” supposed
then and always that the natives considered and reverenced them as
gods. In preparation for repairing the ship, Drake landed his stores.
A large company of Indians approached as he landed, and friendly
relations were maintained between them and the Englishmen during the
whole of their stay. Drake received them cautiously but kindly. He set
up tents, and built a fort for his defence. The natives, watching the
English with amazement, still regarded them as gods. One is tempted to
connect this superstition with the direct claim which Alarcon had made
of a divine origin, in presence of these tribes, a generation before,
though at a point five hundred miles away. Fletcher’s description of
their houses is precisely like the Spaniard’s account of the winter
houses of the tribes he met. “Those houses are digged round within the
earth, and have from the uppermost brimmes of the circle clefts of wood
set up, and joined close together at the top like our spires on the
steeple of a church; which, being covered with earth, suffer no water
to enter, and are very warm; the door in the most part of them performs
the office also of a chimney to let out the smoke; it’s made in bigness
and fashion like to an ordinary scuttle in a ship, and standing

At the end of two days an immense assembly, called together from all
parts of the country, gathered to see the strangers. They brought with
them feathers and bags of _tobàh_ for presents or for sacrifices.
Arrived at the top of the hill, their chief made a long address,
wearying his English hearers and himself. When he had concluded, the
rest, bowing their bodies in a dreamy manner “and long producing of the
same,” cried “Oh!” giving their consent to all that had been spoken.
This reminds one of the “hu” of the Indians of the Tizon. The women,
meanwhile, tore their cheeks with their nails, and flung themselves
on the ground, as if for a personal bloody sacrifice. Drake met this
worship, not as Alarcon had done, but by calling his company to prayer.
The men lifted their eyes and hands to heaven to signify that God was
above, and besought God “to open their blinded eyes to the knowledge of
him and of Jesus Christ the salvation of the Gentiles.” Through these
prayers, the singing of psalms, and reading certain chapters of the
Bible, Fletcher, who was the chaplain, says they sat very attentively.
They observed every pause, and cried “Oh!” with one voice, greatly
enjoying our exercises. They thus showed a more catholic spirit than
the whites had shown, who were wearied by the length of the address of
the savages. Drake made them presents, which at the departure of the
English they returned, saying that they were sufficiently rewarded by
their visit.

The fame of this visit extended so far, that at the end of three days
more, on the 26th of June, a larger company assembled. This time the
king himself, with a body-guard of one hundred warriors, was with them.
They called him their _Hióh_. He approached the English, preceded by a
mace-bearer, who carried two feather crowns, with three chains of bone
of marvellous length, often doubled. Such chains were of the highest
estimation, and only a few persons were permitted to wear them. The
number of chains, indeed, marked the rank of the highest nobility, some
of whom wore as many as twenty. Next to the mace-bearer came the king
himself. On his head was a knit crown somewhat like those which were
borne before him. He wore a coat of the skins of conies coming to his
waist. His guards wore similar coats, and some of them wore cauls upon
their heads, covered with a certain vegetable down, almost sacred, and
used only by the highest ranks. The common people followed, naked, but
with feathers,[150] every one pleasing himself with his own device. The
last part of the company were women and children. Each woman brought a
well-made basket of rushes. Some of these were so tight that they would
hold water. They were adorned with pearl shells and with bits of the
bone chains. In the baskets they had bags of _tobàh_ and roots called
_petáh_, which they ate cooked or raw. Drake meanwhile held his men in
military array.

The mace-bearer then pronounced aloud a long speech, which was dictated
to him in a low voice by another. All parties, except the children,
approached the fort, and the mace-bearer began a song, with a dance
to the time, in which all the men joined. The women danced without
singing. Drake saw that they were peaceable, and permitted them to
enter his palisade. The women showed signs of the wounds which they had
made before coming, by way of preparing for the solemnity.

At the request of the chief, Drake then sat down. The king and others
made to him several orations, or, “indeed, supplications, that he would
take province and kingdom into his hand, and become their king and
patron.” With one consent they sang a song, placed one of the crowns
upon his head, hung their chains upon his neck, and honored him as
their _Hióh_.

Drake did not think he should refuse this gift. “In the name and to
the use of Queen Elizabeth, he took the sceptre, crown, and dignity of
the country into his hand.” He only wished, says the historian, that
he could as easily transport the riches and treasures wherewith in the
upland it abounds, to the enriching of her kingdom at home. Had Drake
had any real knowledge of the golden gravel over which the streams of
the upland flowed, it may well be that the history of California would
have been changed.

From this time, through several weeks while Drake remained there, the
multitude also remained. At first they brought offerings every three
days as sacrifices, until they learned that this displeased their
English king. Like other sovereigns who have had much to do with this
race, he found that he had to feed his red retainers. But he had
mussels, seals, “and such like,” in quantity sufficient for their

Drake made a journey into the country. He saw “infinite company” of fat
deer, in a herd of thousands. He found a multitude of strange “conies”
in large numbers, with long tails, and with a bag under the chin in
which to carry food either for future supply or for their children.

Drake erected on the shore a post, on which he placed a plate of brass.
Here he engraved the Queen’s name, the date of his landing, the gift of
the country by the people, and left her Majesty’s portrait and arms.
The last were not designed by his artists, as some historians have
carelessly supposed, but were on a silver piece, of sixpence, “showing
through a hole made of purpose in the plate.”

When the people saw that Drake could not remain, they could not
conceal their grief. At last they stole on the English unawares with
a sacrifice which “they set on fire,” thus burning a chain and bunch
of feathers. The English could not dissuade them till they fell to
prayers and singing of psalms, when the sad natives let their fire go
out, and left the sacrifice unconsumed. On the 23d of July the friends
parted, the English for the shores of Asia, the savages to the hills,
where they built fires as long as the “Pelican” was in sight. Thus did
England take possession of the region which, after near three hundred
years, proved to be the richest gold-bearing country in the world.
Drake gave to the country the name of New Albion, and it bore that name
on the maps for centuries. He called it so “for two causes: in respect
of the white banks and cliffs which lie towards the sea; and the
other because it might have some affinity with our country in name.”
Curiously enough, the original narrative says, “There is no part of
earth here to be taken up wherein there is not some speciall likelihood
of gold or silver.”[151]

From the time when the Government’s ships crept along the coast to Cape
Mendocino, and then turned, unwilling, to their long voyage to Asia,
observations on that coast were doubtless repeated by navigators. The
line of coast took different courses and different names accordingly.
But it is well-nigh certain that from the time of Drake until 1770 the
California now a part of the United States had no European inhabitants.
The part of California which is in Mexico was first settled by Jesuit
missions, whose first successes date from the year 1697.

Drake returned to England by way of the Cape of Good Hope, and arrived
at Plymouth in triumph on the 26th of September, 1580. He had given the
name NOVA ALBION to the western coast of North America thus discovered;
he had taken possession for his sovereign, Elizabeth, with better color
of right than most discoverers could urge. But under this title the
Queen never claimed, nor her successors indeed, until, after three
centuries, Drake’s voyage may have been sometimes cited as a vague or
shadowy introduction to any rights by which England claimed the mouth
of the Columbia River and the region northward.[152]

The name NOVA ALBION was generally applied on the maps to the more
northerly region, the Oregon of our geography. But the name CALIFORNIA
held its place for the whole region known to us as the State of
California, as well as for the peninsula and the gulf. The distinction
between Upper and Lower California is still observed.

Drake’s reception at home was an enthusiastic one, by a populace always
anxious for a hero. It was tempered somewhat by the cautious feelings
of some, who regarded with no favorable eye the policy of private
reprisals upon another nation in time of peace. The Queen had no such
compunctions. She received him with undisguised favor, dined with him
on board his ship, and made him a knight. She directed that the vessel
which had borne her authority about the world should be carefully
preserved; and when the ship was finally broken up, John Davis, the
Arctic navigator, caused a chair to be made of the timbers, which is
now one of the relics of interest in the Bodleian Library, and within
whose seat Abraham Cowley wrote one of his well-known poems.

At length, in 1585, Queen Elizabeth determined on open hostility, and
giving Drake his first royal commission, and an ample fleet and land
force, he started on his successful expedition to the Spanish main,
when town after town fell into his hands, and the Spanish settlements
experienced most poignantly ravages similar to those which they had so
abundantly for nearly a century inflicted upon the natives of those
regions. Of his subsequent exploits in European waters this is no place
for the recital; but in 1595 he prevailed upon Elizabeth to put him,
in connection with his old patron and companion, Sir John Hawkins,
once more in command of another expedition to Spanish America. They
sailed from Plymouth in August, with the purpose of seizing Nombre de
Dios, and then of marching his twenty-five hundred troops to Panama
to capture the treasure which took that route from Peru on its way to
Spain. The expedition was a melancholy failure. The Spaniards were
forewarned. Porto Rico successfully resisted the English in the first
place, and the attack on Panama was abortive.

Hawkins died, overcome by the reverses; and Drake, struck with a fever
of mortification, sank beneath the fatal influences of the climate,
and died on board his ship early in the following year. His remains
were placed in a leaden casket and sunk off Puerto Cabello, and there
was no failure of suspicions that he had been the victim of foul play.
There are those in the English nation who indulge the hope that the
casket may yet be recovered, and that the remains of the great English
“Dragon” may yet rest beneath the pavement of Westminster Abbey.


THE question where was the “convenient and fit harbor,” the “fair and
good bay,” which Drake entered on the Pacific coast, and where he
careened and repaired the “Pelican,” is still undecided, after much
discussion by the Californian geographers, who have now their capital
in the city of San Francisco,—on that matchless land-locked harbor
which is entered by the narrow passage known as the “Golden Gate.” The
authorities are not many, and are not quite in accord.

The narrative of Fletcher, which has been followed in the text, gives
the latitude of this bay as 38° 30′ north. But the briefer narrative
in Hakluyt[153] says: “We came within thirty-eight degrees towardes
the line; in which height it pleased God to send us into a faire and
good bay, with a good wind to enter the same.” Here is a difference of
half a degree. But the text in Hakluyt is supported by a manuscript
marginal note on what seems to be the original drawing of Dudley’s
map, and which is preserved in Munich, where the language (Italian)
is: “This map begins with the port of New Albion, in longitude 237°
and latitude 38°, discovered by the Englishman Drake in 1579 or
thereabout, as above,—a convenient place to water and to collect
other refreshment.” The manuscript has a note, which the engraving has
not, “Porto bonissimo.” But on the coast farther north, where the same
author speaks of the cold, he says: “Drake returned to 38½ degrees, and
the weather was temperate, and he called it New Albion.” The _Arcano
del Mare_, in which these maps are printed, was not published till
1646. But Dudley, the author, was active in maritime affairs in England
in all the last ten years of the sixteenth century. He was the son of
Elizabeth’s Earl of Leicester; he was brother-in-law of Cavendish,
administered on his estate, and must have seen his chart.[154] Hakluyt
had wished to publish his narrative of Drake in his edition of 1589;
but this account by Pretty was not regularly embodied by Hakluyt in
his great work till 1600.[155] The _World Encompassed_ was not printed
until 1628, but is from Fletcher’s contemporary notes. Dudley himself
prepared an expedition to the South Seas. He may be spoken of as a
valuable contemporary authority. The English Government did not publish
such discoveries. But Cavendish would have had Drake’s charts.

[Illustration: MODERN MAP.

This sketch will indicate the relative positions of the several bays.]

Now the opening of the Golden Gate is in latitude 37° 46′: it exactly
corresponds with “within 38° N.” of one account, but it lacks 44′ of
the 38° 30′ of the other two. The discrepancy is not so important
when we find that in 38° 30′ there is no harbor and no bay, good or
bad. The voyager must come down the coast as far as 38° 15′ to find
Bodega Bay, which has, accordingly, been assigned by some conjectures
as Sir Francis’ resting-place. Just south of this, near the line of
38°, is an open roadstead which has some advocates in this discussion.
Between this bay and the Golden Gate, the point of Los Reyes runs out
southwest. East of this, and northwest of the Golden Gate, is another
open roadstead, facing the south, which for many years, long before the
discovery of Californian gold, had been known as Jack’s Bay, or Sir
Francis Drake’s Bay. One of these four bays is chosen by one or another
geographer as the fair and good harbor into which a special providence
drove Drake by a favorable wind.

[Illustration: VISCAINO’S MAP.

Sketch from _Carta de los reconocimentos hechos en 1602 por el Capitan
Sebastian Vizcaino formada por los Planos que hizo el misno durante su
comision_, in an atlas in the State Department at Washington.]

In this discussion, the map of Dudley, whose information was nearly
at first-hand, plays an important part. His representation of Drake’s
bay—a sort of bottle-shaped harbor—so far resembles the double bay of
San Francisco, that it would probably decide the question, but that,
unfortunately, he gives two such bays. His two maps, also, do not very
closely resemble each other. It becomes necessary to suppose that one
of his bays was that which we know as Bodega Bay, or that both are
drawn from the imagination. The map of Hondius gives a chart of Drake’s
bay,[156] which has, unfortunately, no representation to any bay on the
coast, and is purely imaginary.

The discussion is complicated from the fact, that, if Drake entered
San Francisco Bay, the English Government kept its secret so well that
they forgot it themselves. What is curious is, that for two centuries
the Spaniards were seeking at intervals for “Port St. Francisco,” and
did not find it. In 1603, Viscaino put into a bay which he called Port
St. Francisco; but it is urged[157] that Viscaino really entered the
Bay of Monterey. The Spaniards by this time were eagerly seeking a bay
of refuge for their Asiatic squadrons.[158] They knew that Drake had
repaired a vessel somewhere. Viscaino passed “Port St. Francisco” in
a gale, and returned into it, according to the narrative. It was not
until 1769 that a land party of Franciscan monks finally discovered to
Spain the magnificent Bay of San Francisco. One theory is that no one
ever discovered it before; but a contemporary manuscript account of the
discovery, preserved in the British Museum, says distinctly that this
famous port, according to the signs given by history, is called San
Francisco. It is distant from St. Diego two hundred leagues, and is to
be found in 38½°. “They say it is the best bay they have discovered;
and while it might shelter all the navies in Europe, it is entered by a
straight of three leagues, and surrounded with mountains which make the
waters tranquil.”


The reader must understand that all the maps had a port of Sir Francis,
or a Puerto San Francisco, or some similar name. One English map
bravely says,[159] “Port Sr. Francis Drake, _not_ St. Francisco,” for
the bay discovered in 1770.

[Illustration: JEFFERYS’ SKETCH.]

So soon as this discovery was known in England, Captain Burney claimed
it as Drake’s bay; in America, Davidson, in the _Coast Pilot_, and Mr.
Greenhow give the same decision.

Probably the early maps must be taken as the best and decisive

The reader has before him Dudley’s two maps. Of these, Dudley says
that California was drawn by an English pilot. In his text describing
the shore, he goes no further than Cape St. Lucas, and then crosses
to California, which suggests that he is following Cavendish, who
took this course, and who was Dudley’s near kinsman. On the margin in
the manuscript of Dudley’s map at Munich, he calls Drake’s bay “Porto
bonissimo,” “the best of harbors,”—an expression which certainly does
not belong to Jack’s Bay. In both maps, also, it is represented as
the southern of the two deep bays, of which the northern appears to
correspond to Bodega Bay, and the southern to San Francisco Bay. On the
larger of the two maps Drake’s bay is placed in the same relation to
Monterey as is held by San Francisco.

[Illustration: DUDLEY’S CARTA PRIMA.

[This is a section from a marginal map on the “Carta Prima” of Dudley’s
_Arcano del Mare_, vol. i. lib. 2, p.19. Key:—

  1. C. Arboledo.
  2. Ensa Larga.
  3. P^o. di Don Gasper.
  4. R. Salado.
  5. P^o. dell Nuovo Albion scoperto dal Drago C^{no}. Inglese.
  6. Enseada
  7. P^o. di Anonaebo.
  8. P^o. di Moneerei.
  9. C. S. Barbera.
  10. C. S. Agostino.
  11. Quivira R^o.
  12. Nuova Albione.—ED.

In the curious “new map” mentioned by Shakespeare in “Twelfth
Night,”[160] the spot where Drake landed is indicated. The names, as
one reads southward from the parallel of 40°, are C. Roxo, Sierra de
los Pescadores,—Tierra de Paxaros R. GRANDE, which seems to be Drake’s
harbor,—Rio Hermoso, C. Frio, Sierra Nevada, C. Blanco, Cicuic, Playa,
Tiguer. Cicuic and Tiguer are evidently borrowed from Ciceyé and Tiguex
of Coronado’s narrative. The same position is given to Tiguex in
Hondius’s map. Of this the scale is so small that Drake’s Bay could
not be determined from it, were it not for the issuing of the dotted
line showing his homeward track.

The Spanish geographers are at work on this subject, with full
understanding of the points involved in the problem. It will not be
long, probably, before the question is decided. This writer does not
hesitate to say that he believes it will prove that Drake repaired
his ship in San Francisco Bay, and that this bay took its name not
indirectly from Francis of Assisi, but from the bold English explorer
who had struck terror to all the western coast of New Spain.[161]

[Illustration: Autograph Edward E Hale]



FOR the authoritative accounts of William Hawkins’s Brazilian voyages,
we must go to Hakluyt’s third volume, as published in 1600. In it
likewise we shall find the account of the West Indian voyages of
Sir John Hawkins in 1562, 1564, and 1567-68. We may also read them
in the usual compilations drawn from Hakluyt, among the latest of
which is _The Elizabethan Seamen_ of Payne, who remarks that “nothing
which Englishmen had done in connection with America previous to
those voyages had any result worth recording.” Lowndes, in his
_Bibliographer’s Manual_, gives an edition, in 1569 (London), of John
Hawkins’s _True Declaration of the Troublesome Voyages to the Partes of
Guynea and the West Indies_; but Sabin (_Dictionary_, viii. 157) thinks
it was only printed in Hakluyt.


A sketch of a part of Hondius’s map of the world, on which Drake’s
route is marked; it is taken from a fac-simile in the Hakluyt Society’s
edition of The World Encompassed.


  1. Nova Albion, sic a Francisco Draco, 1579, dicta qui bis ab incolis
     eodem die diademate redimitus, eandem Reginæ Angliæ consecravit.
  2. Hic præ ingenti frigore in Austrum reverti coactus est lat. 42 die
     5 Junii.
  3. Cozones.
  4. [Drake’s Bay].
  5. Tigues.
  6. I. de passao.
  7. California.
  8. San Miguel.
  9. Damantes.
  10. Mare Vermeo.
  11. S. Thomas.]

Fox Browne, in his _English Merchants_, chap. viii., shows the
relations which Hawkins in his day established with British commerce.

_The Observations of Sir Richard Hawkins, Knight, in his Vojage jnto
the South Sea, Anno Domini 1593_, was printed in London in 1622,[162]
and was reprinted in 1847 by the Hakluyt Society, under the editing of
Captain C. R. D. Bethune. The book gives us some useful notes upon the
aborigines of Florida and the regions farther south.

The most convenient embodiment, however, of the ancient records and
of modern criticisms upon all the exploits of the Hawkinses is in the
volume of the Hakluyt Society for 1878,—_The Hawkins’ Voyages during
the Reigns of Henry VIII., Queen Elizabeth, and James I._, edited, with
an Introduction, by the careful hand of Clements R. Markham. Here we
have not only what Hakluyt has preserved for us, but the _Observations_
of 1622, and other journals and narratives.


This is an outline sketch of the map of Drake’s Bay given in the margin
of Hondius’s map, but which is omitted in the reproduction of that map
in the Hakluyt Society’s edition of _The World Encompassed_. The map is
rare, and our sketch follows another belonging to Mr. Charles Deane.

  Key:—1. A group of Indian houses.
        2. Place of the ship.
        3. Portus Novæ Albionis.
        4. A group of the English conferring with the natives.

A fac-simile of the original engraving is given in Gay’s _Popular
History of the United States_, ii. 577. It has a Latin legend beneath
it, which reads: “The inhabitants of Nova Albion lament the departure
of Drake, now twice crowned, and by frequent sacrifices lacerate
themselves.” A curious picture representing the crowning of Drake is in
the 1671 edition of Montanus, p. 213.

A writer in the _San Francisco Evening Bulletin_, Oct. 5, 1878, says
that the island in the sketch is misplaced, if Bodega Bay is intended,
being below the peninsula; but that, viewed from the position assigned
to Drake’s ship, it seems to be outside, as drawn. He maintains that
this bay answers all the other conditions of Fletcher’s description,
and that Hondius’s sketch is confirmed by Dudley’s map.]

For Drake the material is more abundant. Regarding his famous voyage
round the world in 1577-80, the earliest statement in print is one
said to be by Francis Pretty, and called _The famous Voyage of Sir
Francis Drake into the South Sea ... begun in the yeare of our Lord
1577_.[163] Hakluyt had this, and says in effect, in the Introduction
of his 1589 edition, that the friends of Drake who did not wish their
publications forestalled, had wished him to omit it. Hakluyt, however,
seems to have privately printed it, in six pages, and these, without
pagination, are found in some, if not all, copies of the 1589 volume,
inserted after page 643.[164] It finally publicly appeared in his third
volume of the 1598-1600 edition. A more authoritative publication,
however, was _The World Encompassed by Sir Francis Drake, carefully
Collected out of the notes of Master Francis Fletcher, Preacher in this
imployment, and divers others his followers_, London, 1628.[165] It was
reprinted in 1635,[166] and made part of _Sir Francis Drake revived_ in
1653.[167] It was again reprinted by the Hakluyt Society in 1855, with
an Introduction by W. S. W. Vaux. This and other accounts of the voyage
have also found a place in the general collections of Hakluyt, Harris,
and the Oxford Voyages.[168]

The report of Da Silva mentions that Drake captured some sea-charts
from the Spaniards during this voyage; and Kohl (_Catalogue of Maps in
Hakluyt_, p. 82) supposes that Drake had with him the maps of Mercator
and Ortelius. After Drake’s return, Hondius made a map of the world, in
which he tracked both the routes of Drake and Cavendish; and of that
portion showing New Albion, as well as of his little plan of Drake’s
Bay, sketches are given herewith. Kohl thinks (page 84) that Hondius
may have used Drake’s own charts in this little marginal sketch, while
the main map has “little to do with Drake’s own charts.” Hondius,
however, is thought to have been living in England at this time.
Molineaux is known to have used Drake’s reports and perhaps his map, in
making his mappemonde of 1600, of which an outline sketch of a part of
the Pacific coast is annexed. This is the map mentioned by Mr. Hale as
supposed to be referred to by Shakespeare.

[Illustration: FROM MOLINEAUX’S MAP, 1600.

The Key:—

  1. Nova Albion.
  2. Cabo Mendocino. “It appeareth by the discoverie of Francis Gaulle,
     a Spaniard, in the year 1584, that the sea betweene the west part
     of America and the east of Asia (which hath bene ordinarily set out
     as a straight, and named in most maps the Streight of Anian) is
     above 1,200 leagues wide at the latitude of 38°, and that the
     distance betweene Cape Mendocino and Cape California, which many
     maps and sea-charts make to be 1,200 or 1,300 leagues, is scarce so
     much as 600.” [This legend is in the right-hand upper corner of the
     map. Gali (or Gaulle), in returning from China in 1583, had struck
     the California coast at 37° 30´. His account appeared in
     Linschoten, and so was rendered in the English translation of
     Linschoten, 1598, and is given in Hakluyt, vol. iii. (1600) p. 442.]
  3. R. Grande.
  4. C. San Francisco.
  5. Rio Grande.
  6. C. Blanco.
  7. C. Blanco.
  8. B. Hermosa.
  9. B. San Lorenzo.
  10. California.
  11. R. Grande.
  12. S. Francisco.
  13. New Mexico.
  14. Cibola.]

For Drake’s expedition of 1585-86, we have the original account in
Latin, printed at Leyden in 1588,—_Expeditio Francisci Draki_,—which
should be accompanied by four large folding maps; namely, of Cartagena,
St. Augustine, San Domingo, and S. Jacques (Guinea).[169] An English
translation by Thomas Cates appeared in London the next year (1589)
as _A Summarie and true Discourse of Sir Francis Drake’s West Indian
Voyage, wherein were taken the towns of St. Jago, Sancto Domingo,
Cartagena, and Saint Augustine._[170] This first edition seems to have
been without maps; but a second edition of the same year is sometimes
found with copies of the Leyden maps, besides a fifth, a mappemonde,
showing “The famous West Indian Voyadge,” which did not appear in the
Leyden edition.[171] The _Huth Catalogue_, ii. 442, notes a third
edition for the same year.[172]

In 1855, Louis Lacour edited at Paris a French manuscript upon this
1585-86 expedition, which is preserved in the National Library at

The expedition in 1587, by Drake and Norris, against the Spaniards in
Europe, does not fall within our present scheme.[174]

Of Drake’s last voyage in 1595-96 we have his log-book, printed for the
first time in Kunstmann’s _Entdeckung Amerikas_ in 1859. A manuscript
account, by Thomas Maynarde, is preserved in the British Museum, which,
with a Spanish account, “Francis Draque y Juan Acquines,”[175] was
printed by the Hakluyt Society in 1849, under the editing of W. D.

Henry Savile’s _Libell of Spanish Lies_, giving the earliest English
account in print, was issued in London in 1596 (_Carter-Brown
Catalogue_, vol. i. no. 508), and was also included in Hakluyt’s third
volume in 1600.[176]

Tiele—_Mémoire bibliographique_ (1867), p. 300—says that Hakluyt
lent his account, two years before he published it, to the Dutch
historian Van Meteren, who printed a Dutch version of it at Amsterdam
in 1598.[177]

[Illustration: SIR FRANCIS DRAKE.

A fac-simile of a copperplate engraving in H. Holland’s _Heroologia_,
Arnheim, 1620, p. 105,—a book now rare. There is a copy in Harvard
College Library. Cf. also _Magazine of American History_, March, 1883.
There is another head by Houbraken in his series of heads, London,
1813, p. 47.

A library, which is said to have been begun by Drake and kept up by
his descendants at Nutwell Court, Lympstone, Devon, was recently sold
in London. Cf. _London Times_, March 16, 1883. There were books in
the sale pertaining to America, which were published early enough to
have been collected by Drake himself; but the rarest of the Americana,
of interest to the students of this period, must rather have been
the accumulation of the younger Francis Drake, the chronicler of his
uncle’s exploits. Some of the rare books mentioned in other chapters of
this history are noted as bringing the following prices: Rich’s _Newes
from Virginia_, £93; Whitaker’s _Good Newes from Virginia_, £90, later
priced by Quaritch at £105; Hariot’s _New found land of Virginia_,
£300, later advertised by Quaritch for £335; Rosier’s _True Relation_,
£301, later marked by Ouaritch at £335; _Declaration of the State of
the Colonie and Affairs in Virginia_, £46; De la Warre’s _Relation_,
£26 11_s._; _Good Speed to Virginia_, £30; Hamor’s _True Discourse_,
£69; _New Life of Virginia_, £18 5_s._, later priced by Ouaritch at
£25; _True Declaration of the Estat of the Colonie of Virginia_, £80,
later priced by Quaritch at £96.]

A kinsman of Drake published at London, in 1626, _Sir Francis Drake
revived: calling upon this dull or effeminate age to follow his noble
steps for gold and silver, by this memorable relation of the rare
occurrences (never yet declared to the world) in a third Voyage made
by him to the West Indies in the yeares ‘72 and ‘73, faithfully taken
out of the reporte of Christofer Ceely, Ellis Hixon, and others;
reviewed by Sir Fr. Drake himself, and set forth by Sir Fr. Drake,
his nephew_.[178] This edition was reissued in 1628, with the errata
corrected.[179] It was again reissued in 1653, in the first collected
edition of Drake’s voyages, under the title, _Sir Francis Drake
revived: four several voyages ... collected out of the notes of the
said Sir Francis Drake, Master Philip Nichols, Master Francis Fletcher,
... carefully compared together_.[180]

[Illustration: CAVENDISH.

Follows a copperplate engraving in H. Holland’s _Heroologia_, Arnheim,
1620, p. 89.]

In 1595 a _Life of Drake_ by C. FitzGeffrey was published in
London.[181] Fuller, in his _Holy and Prophane State_ (1642), gives a
characteristic seventeenth-century estimate of Drake, and he knew some
of Drake’s kin.

Samuel Clarke’s _Life and Death of Drake_ was published in London
in 1671.[182] Robert Burton’s _English Hero_, long a popular book,
and passing through many editions, was first published in 1687 and
1695, and was translated into German and other foreign tongues.
Dr. Johnson’s _Life of Drake_ has his peculiar flavor. Of the later
biographies, Barrow’s seems to unite best the various details of
Drake’s career.[183]

The voyages of Candish, or Cavendish, can be followed in the Latin and
German of De Bry’s eighth part of his _Great Voyages_ (1599), and in an
abridged form in Hulsius’ part vi. There is no separate English edition
of the account of the 1586-88 voyage, written by Francis Pretty, who
took part in it; but besides the text in Hakluyt’s third volume (it had
been briefly given in the 1589 edition), it can be found in the later
collections of Callender (1766), Harris (vol. i.), and Kerr (vol. x.);
cf. S. Colliber’s _Columna Rostrata, or a Critical History of English
Sea Affairs_, London, 1727. It was later reprinted in Dutch, Amsterdam,
1598, and in 1617.[184]

[Illustration: SIR FRANCIS DRAKE.

This portrait, said to follow the three-quarters likeness in Vaughan’s
print (of which there is a copy in the Lenox Library), is a fac-simile
of a cut in the title of _Sir Francis Drake revived_, issued in London
in 1626, by his nephew, Sir Francis Drake, Baronet; cf. _Carter-Brown
Catalogue_, ii. 133. Another likeness of a little later date will
be observed in the fac-simile of the Virginia Farrar map, given in
connection with Professor Keen’s paper on “Plowden’s Grant,” in the
present volume. There are other portraits on the title of De Bry, parts
viii. (1599) and xi. (1619), and in Hulsius, part vi. (1603), and on
the folding map in part xvi. (1619); cf. also _Le Voyage Curieux_,
Paris, 1641.

Some new light has been thrown upon Drake by a namesake, Dr. Drake,
in the _Archæological Journal_, 1873; and Mr. Walter Herries Pollock
says the latest word in the _National Review_, May, 1883. Two other
testimonies to the alleged change of the name of San Francisco Bay
(see p. 77) may be found among the contributions of the middle of the
last century to the history of the Pacific coast geography. The map
published by the Imperial Academy of St. Petersburg in 1754 and 1773
says, “Port de Francois Drake, fausement appellé de St. Francois.”
J. Green, in his _Remarks in support of the new Chart of North and
South America_, London, 1753, says, “The French geographers within
this century have converted Port Sir Francois Drake into Port San




_Treasurer of the Massachusetts Historical Society._

THE fresh spirit of maritime adventure which marked the last decade of
the fifteenth century and the first quarter of the sixteenth century,
owed its origin to mistaken theories as to the distance between the
west of Europe and the east of Asia. Columbus believed that the
land which he first discovered was an island on the coast of Japan;
and he seems never to have relinquished this idea. The contemporary
geographers all cherished the same mistake; and the early maps give a
much better representation of the coast-line of Asia than they do of
the shores of North America.[185] It is a curious fact that the true
position and form of South America were familiar to cartographers
long before there was any exact knowledge of the northern half of the
continent. North America was regarded as an island or a collection
of islands, through which it would not be difficult to find a short
passage to Zipangu and Cathay,—the modern Japan and China.[186]
Gradually these mistakes yielded to more correct views; but it was
still believed that a feasible passage existed around the northern
shore of the new continent. This belief was the inspiring motive of
all the early northwestern explorations, and it lingered almost to
our own time, long after every one knew that such a passage would be
of no practical use. At length the problem has been solved; but the
introduction of new methods of ocean and land trade and travel has
deprived it of all but a purely scientific and geographical interest.
Meanwhile the search for a northwest passage has developed an heroic
endurance and a perseverance in surmounting obstacles scarcely
paralleled anywhere else, and has added largely to the stores of human

At the head of the long list of explorers for a northwest passage stand
the names of the Cabots; but the intricate questions as to the measure
of just fame to be assigned to father and son have been fully treated
in another chapter of this work,[187] and neither John nor Sebastian
penetrated the more northern waters with which our inquiry is mainly
concerned. It is enough now to recall their names as the leaders in an
enterprise in which for nearly three centuries England took a foremost
part, and that so early as 1497 John Cabot set sail in the hope of
this great discovery. Within the next half century he was followed by
his son Sebastian, the Cortereals, Cartier, and Hore, not one of whom
sought to reach a high northern latitude. It was not until Frobisher
sailed on his first voyage that the real northwest explorations can
be said fairly to have begun. Since that time more than one hundred
voyages and land journeys have been undertaken in this vain quest.

In two of the northwestern voyages of Martin Frobisher the discovery
of a short way to the South Sea was only a secondary object. The
adventurers at whose cost they were undertaken looked mainly to
the profit from a successful search for gold, though they were not
unmindful of the advantages to be gained by shortening the distance to
the Spice Islands of the East. In the bitter quarrel between Frobisher
and Michael Lok, after the third voyage, it was charged that Frobisher
had neglected this part of the undertaking. But it was natural that
Lok, who had no doubt lost heavily by the voyages, should be angry
with Frobisher, and endeavor to make the most of any failure on his
part to carry out the whole plan; and there is no reason to believe
that Frobisher wilfully neglected the interests or the wishes of his
employers, however much they may have been disappointed. The whole
amount subscribed for the three voyages was upward of twenty thousand
pounds, and of this sum Lok subscribed, for himself and his children,
nearly one fourth. Among the subscribers were Queen Elizabeth, who
invested four thousand pounds, Lord Burleigh, the Earl and Countess of
Warwick, the Earl of Leicester, the Earl and Countess of Pembroke, Sir
Philip Sidney, Sir Thomas Gresham, Sir Francis Walsingham, and others
scarcely less conspicuous in that generation.

Frobisher’s first expedition consisted of two small vessels, the
“Gabriel” and the “Michael,” one of twenty-five tons and the other of
twenty tons, and a pinnace of ten tons. They set sail from Blackwall
on the 15th of June, 1576, but it was not until the 1st of July that
they were clear of the coast of England. Not long after coming in sight
of Friesland, Frobisher parted company with the pinnace, in which
were four men, who were never seen again; and about the same time the
“Michael” slipped away without any warning, and returned to England.
Nevertheless, Frobisher pressed on, and on the 21st he entered the
opening now known as Frobisher’s Strait or Bay, “having upon eyther
hande a great mayne or continent; and that land uppon hys right hande
as hee sayled westward, he judged to be the continente of Asia, and
there to bee devided from the firme of America, which lyeth uppon
the lefte hande over against the same.”[188] Into this bay, as it is
now known to be, he sailed about sixty leagues, capturing one of the
natives, whom he carried to England. The land, Meta Incognita, he
took possession of in the name of the Queen of England, commanding his
company, “if by anye possible meanes they could get ashore, to bring
him whatsoever thing they could first find, whether it were living or
dead, stocke or stone, in token of Christian possession.”[189] Some
of the men returned to him with flowers, some with green grass, “and
one brought a peece of black stone, much lyke to a seacole in coloure,
which by the waight seemed to be some kinde of mettall or mynerall.”
Frobisher reached England on his return in the following October, and
on his arrival presented the stone to one of his friends, an adventurer
in the voyage. The wife of this gentleman accidentally threw it into
the fire, where it remained for some time, when it was taken out and
quenched in vinegar. It then appeared of a bright gold color, and on
being submitted to a goldfinder in London, was said to be rich in gold;
and large profits were promised if the ore was sufficiently abundant.


This cut follows the engraving in the Hakluyt Society’s edition of
_Frobisher’s Voyages_.]

With this report, there was little difficulty in providing means for
a second voyage. The new expedition consisted of a “tall ship of her
Majesty’s,” named the “Ayde,” of two hundred tons, and of two smaller
vessels, with the same names as those in the former voyage, but now
said to be of thirty tons each. They were manned in all by one hundred
and twenty men, to which number Frobisher was limited by his orders.
After some delay, he sailed from Harwich on the 31st of May, 1577. By
his orders he was directed to proceed at once to the place where the
mineral was found, and set the miners at work. There he was to leave
the “Ayde,” and then to sail to another place visited on his first
voyage, where a further attempt at mining was to be made, and where one
of the small barks was to be left. With the remaining bark he was to
sail fifty or a hundred leagues farther west, to make “certayne that
you are entred into the South Sea; and in yo^r passage to learne all
that you can, and not to tarye so longe from the ‘Ayde’ and worckmen
but that you bee able to retorne homewards w^{th} the shippes in due
tyme.” If the mines should prove less productive than it was hoped
they would be, he was to “proceade towards the discovering of Cathaya
w^{th} the two barcks, and returne the ‘Ayde’ for England agayne.”[190]
Frobisher had his first sight of Friesland on the 4th of July; and he
reached Milford Haven, in Wales, on his return voyage, about the 23d
of September. During this period of a little more than two months, his
energies were mainly devoted to procuring ore, of which, in twenty
days, he obtained nearly two hundred tons; but he also made as careful
an examination as was practicable of the region previously visited by
him, and added something to the stock of geographical knowledge. Two of
the natives were captured, and were carried to England to be educated
as interpreters.

Frobisher’s third voyage was planned on a much larger scale than any
other which hitherto had been sent to the Arctic regions, and he
was placed in command of fifteen vessels. They were all collected
at Harwich by the 27th of May, 1578; and after receiving their
instructions from Frobisher, they sailed together on the 31st. On
the 2d of July they reached the mouth of Frobisher’s Bay; but after
entering it a short distance, they found it so choked with ice that
it was impossible to proceed. One of the vessels was soon sunk by the
ice, and all suffered more or less. After beating about for several
days, they entered a strait, supposed at first to lead to their desired
goal, but which was, in fact, what is now known as Hudson’s Strait, the
entrance to the great bay which bears his name, “havyng alwayes a fayre
continente uppon their starreboorde syde, and a continuance still of an
open sea before them.” According to Best, one of the captains, and an
historian of the expedition, Frobisher was probably one of the first
to discover the mistake, though he persuaded his followers that they
were in the right course and the known straits. “Howbeit,” he adds,
“I suppose he rather dissembled his opinion therein than otherwyse,
meaning by that policie (being hymself ledde with an honorable desire
of further discoverie) to enduce y^e fleete to follow him, to see a
further proofe of that place. And, as some of the company reported,
he hath since confessed, that, if it had not bin for the charge and
care he had of y^e fleete and fraughted shippes, he both would and
could have gone through to the South Sea, called Mare del Sur, and
dissolved the long doubt of the passage which we seeke to find to the
rich countrey of Cataya.”[191] Toward the latter part of July it was
determined not to proceed any farther, and after many difficulties and
dangers they returned to Meta Incognita. It had been their intention
to erect a house here, and to leave a considerable party to spend the
winter. But after a full consideration it was decided that this plan
was impracticable, and it was relinquished. A house of lime and stone
was, however, built on the Countess of Warwick’s Island, in which
numerous articles were deposited. On the last day of August the fleet,
having completed their loading with more than thirteen hundred tons of
ore, sailed for England, where they arrived at various times about the
1st of October, and with the loss of not more than forty men in all.
The ore proved to be of very little value, and the adventurers lost a
large part of what they had subscribed.[192]

Of the voyages of Sir Humphrey Gilbert, who is often included among the
northwest explorers, little need be said here; for though he wrote an
elaborate _Discourse of a Discovery for a new Passage to Cataia_, to
stimulate the search for a northwest passage, the voyage in which he
lost his life was not extended beyond the coasts of Newfoundland.[193]


[Illustration: FROM THE MOLINEAUX GLOBE, 1592.

[This globe is now in the Middle Temple. (See Editorial Note E, at the
end of Dr. De Costa’s chapter.) This is thought to have been made,
in part at least, from Davis’s charts, which are now lost. Kohl’s
_Catalogue of Maps in Hakluyt_, p. 23. The sketch is to be interpreted

   1. Grocland.
   2. Hope Sanderson.
   3. London cost.
   4. Marchant Yle.
   5. Davies island.
   6. Challer’s Cape.
   7. Gilbert’s Sound.
   8. Easter Point.
   9. Regin. Eli. forland.
  10. Fretum Davis.
  11. Mare Conglelatum.
  12. C. Bedford.
  13. Sandrson’s tour.
  14. Mont Ralegh.
  15. E. Cumberland isles.
  16. E. Warwicke’s forland.
  17. L. Lumley’s inlet.
  18. A furious overfall.
  19. Terre de Labrador.
  20. Dorgeo.
  21. I. de Arel.(?)


Next in importance to the three voyages of Frobisher are the three
voyages of Captain John Davis, who has been immortalized by the
magnificent strait which bears his name, and which was discovered
on his first voyage. On this voyage he sailed from Dartmouth on the
7th of June, 1585, with two vessels,—the “Sunshine,” of fifty tons,
manned by twenty-three persons, and the “Moonshine,” of thirty-five
tons, with seventeen men. But it was not until three weeks later that
he was able to take his final departure from the Scilly Islands; and
he arrived at Dartmouth, on his return, on the 30th of September.
In this brief period he made some important discoveries, and sailed
as far north as 66° 66′, and westward farther than any one had yet
penetrated, “finding no hindrance.” He naturally concluded that he
had already discovered the desired passage, and that it was only
necessary to press forward in order to insure entire success. But he
was compelled by stress of weather to put back, and he reached England
shortly afterward. On his second voyage his little fleet was increased
by the addition of the “Mermaid,” of one hundred tons, and the “North
Star,” a pinnace of ten tons. He sailed from Dartmouth on the 7th of
May, 1586, and for a time everything promised well; but at the end of
July the crew of his largest vessel became discontented, and returned
with her to England. Meanwhile, the “Sunshine” and the pinnace had been
sent to make discoveries to the eastward of Greenland. But, in nowise
disheartened by these circumstances, Davis determined to prosecute his
enterprise in the “Moonshine.” He reached, however, not quite so far
north as in his previous voyage, and apparently about as far west, and
arrived home early in October,—“not having done so much as he did in
his first voyage,” is the judgment of one of his successors in Arctic

On his third voyage he sailed from Dartmouth, on the 19th of May,
1587, with three vessels,—the “Elizabeth,” the “Sunshine,” and a
smaller vessel, the “Helen,”—and arrived at the same port, on his
return, on the 15th of September. His course was in the track which
he had previously followed; but he added little to the knowledge he
had already gained, and having been inadequately provided for a long
voyage, was obliged to sail for home when he thought “the passage is
most probable, the execution easie.”[195]

[Illustration: FROM MOLINEAUX’S MAP, 1600.

[It is claimed that Davis, who was in England, June, 1600, to February,
1601, probably furnished the plot, and there is manifest an endeavor
in it to reconcile the old Zeno map. Davis’s discoveries are correctly
placed, but Frobisher’s are on the wrong side of the Straits. It needs
the following key:—

   1. A furious overfall.
   2. Warwick’s forelande.
   3. E. Cumberland Inlet.
   4. Estotiland.
   5. M. Rawghley.
   6. Saunderson’s towe.
   7. C. Bedford.
   8. Fretum Davis.
   9. Desolation.
  10. Warwick’s Forlande (_repeated_).
  11. Meta incognita.
  12. Mr. Forbusher’s straights.
  13. Reg. E. Foreland.
  14. Freyland.
  15. Gronlande.

See Editorial Note F, at the end of Dr. De Costa’s chapter.—Ed.]]


It is a matter for surprise, in view of the sanguine expectations of
Davis, that an interval of nearly fifteen years elapsed between his
return from his third voyage and the sailing of the next expedition.
This was sent out at the cost of the East India Company, and consisted
of two small vessels,—the “Discovery,” under the command of Captain
George Waymouth, and the “Godspeed,” under John Drew. Waymouth sailed
from the Thames on the 2d of May, 1602, under a contract which provided
that he should sail directly toward the coast of Greenland and the sea
described as Fretum Davis, and that thence he should proceed by those
seas, “or as he shall find the passadge best to lye towards the parts
or kingdom of Cataya or China, or the backe side of America, w^{th}out
geveng ouer the proceedinge on his course soe longe as he shall finde
those seas or any ṗte thereof navigable, and any possibilitie to
make way or passadge through them.”[196] In spite of these specific
directions, the voyage was not productive of any important results,
though it is probable that he sighted land to the north of Hudson’s
Strait; and Luke Fox appears to have been right when he says that
Waymouth “neither discovered nor named any thing more than Davis, nor
had any sight of Groenland, nor was so farre north; nor can I conceive
he hath added anything more to this designe. Yet these two, Davis and
he, did (I conceive), light Hudson into his straights.”[197] Waymouth
himself ascribed his failure to a mutiny which occurred in the latter
part of July, and which compelled him to return to Dartmouth, where he
arrived on the 5th of August. An inquiry into the causes of the failure
was begun shortly afterward, but no evidence has been found to show how
it terminated.

Three voyages were undertaken not long afterward by the Danes, in which
James Hall was the chief pilot; and one by the English, under the
command of John Knight, in a pinnace of forty tons, sent out by the
East India and Muscovy companies. But each of these voyages had for
its chief object the discovery of gold and silver mines, and though
they all seem to have followed in the track of Frobisher, they added
little or nothing to the knowledge of Arctic geography, and contributed
nothing toward the solution of the problem of a northwest passage.
The first of these expeditions, in which both Hall and Knight were
employed, consisted of two small ships and a pinnace, and sailed from
Copenhagen on the 2d of May, 1605. After coasting along the western
shore of Davis Strait as far north as 69°, the ships reached Elsinore
on their return early in August. The next year a fleet of four ships
and a pinnace was sent out, with Hall as pilot-major. They sailed from
Elsinore on the 29th of May, but were prevented by the ice and stormy
weather from reaching as far north as before, and after much delay they
returned to Copenhagen on the 4th of October. In 1607 Hall accompanied
a third expedition, consisting of two vessels, which was equally
unproductive of results. When they had reached no farther than Cape
Farewell, on the southern coast of Greenland, they were compelled to
return, from causes which are variously stated, but which were probably
complicated by a mutinous spirit in the crew.

In the same year with Hall’s second voyage, Knight sailed from
Gravesend, on the 18th of April. Two months afterward he made land on
the coast of Labrador; and the captain and five men went on shore to
find a convenient place for repairing their vessel. Leaving two men
with their boat, the captain and three men went to the highest part
of the island. They did not return that day, and on the following day
the state of the ice was such that it was impossible to reach them,
and they were never heard from afterward. The pinnace then went to
Newfoundland to repair; and after encountering many perils, reached
Dartmouth on the 24th of December. Hall made a fourth voyage, in
1612, in two small vessels fitted out by some merchant-adventurers in
London. In this voyage he was mortally wounded in an encounter with the
Esquimaux on the coast of Labrador. His death destroyed all hope of a
successful prosecution of the enterprise, and shortly afterward the
vessels returned to England.

Henry Hudson had already acquired a considerable reputation as a
bold and skilful navigator, and had made three noteworthy voyages of
discovery when he embarked on his voyage for northwest exploration. On
the 17th of April, 1610, he sailed from Gravesend in the “Discovery,”
a vessel of only fifty-five tons, provisioned for six months; and on
the 9th of June he arrived off Frobisher’s Strait. He then sailed
southwesterly, and entering the strait which bears his name, passed
through its entire length, naming numerous islands and headlands,
and finally, on the 3d of August, saw before him the open waters of
Hudson’s Bay. Three months were spent in examining its shores, and on
the 10th of November his vessel was frozen in. She was not released
until the 18th of June in the following year, and six days afterward
a mutiny occurred. Hudson and his son, with six of the crew who were
either sick or unfit for work, were forced into a shallop, where they
were voluntarily joined by the carpenter; and then the frail boat
was cut loose, and the mutineers set sail for home, leaving their
late master and his companions to the mercy of the waves or death
by starvation. They were never seen or heard of again; but after
encountering great perils and privations, the mutineers finally made
land in Galway Bay, on the coast of Ireland. Hudson’s own account of
the voyage terminates with his entrance into the bay discovered by
him. For the later explorations and for the tragic end of the great
navigator’s brilliant career, we are forced to trust to the narrative
of one of his men, Abacuk Pricket. If we may believe the story told by
him, he had no part in the mutiny; but no one can read his narrative
without sharing the suspicion of Fox: “Well, Pricket, I am in great
doubt of thy fidelity to Master Hudson.”[198]

Two years after Hudson sailed on his last voyage, a new expedition
was sent to the northwest under the command of Sir Thomas Button. It
consisted of two ships, the “Resolution” and the “Discovery,” and
was provisioned for eighteen months. “Concerning this voyage,” says
Luke Fox, “there cannot bee much expected from me, seing that I have
met with none of the Journalls thereof. It appeareth that they have
been concealed, for what reasons I know not.”[199] Button sailed from
England in the beginning of May, and entering Hudson’s Strait, crossed
the Bay to the southern point of Southampton Island, which he named
Carey’s Swan’s Nest. He then kept on toward the western side of the
Bay, to which he gave the significant name “Hope’s Check,” and coasting
along the shore he discovered the important river which he called Port
Nelson, and which is now known as Nelson’s River. Here he wintered,
“and kept three fires all the Winter, but lost many men, and yet was
supplied with great store of white Partridges and other Fowle,” says
Fox.[200] On the breaking up of the ice he made a thorough exploration
of the bay and of Southampton Island, and finally returned to England
in the autumn, having accomplished enough to give him a foremost rank
among Arctic navigators.

A little less than a year and a half after Button’s return, Robert
Bylot and William Baffin embarked on the first of the two voyages
commonly associated with their names.


They sailed from the Scilly Islands on Good Friday, April 7, 1615, in
the “Discovery,” a ship of about fifty-five tons, in which Bylot had
already made three voyages to the northwest. Following a course already
familiar to him, they passed through Hudson’s Strait, and ascended what
is now known as Fox Channel. Here and at the western end of Hudson’s
Strait they spent about three weeks, and then sailed for home, where
they arrived in the early part of September.

[Illustration: SIR THOMAS SMITH.

Passe’s engraving is very rare. It is also reproduced by Markham, in
whose Introduction are accounts of Smith, Sir Dudley Digges, Sir John
Wolstenholme, and other eminent patrons of Arctic exploration in that
day. See Belknap’s _American Biography_, ii. 9.]

Their next voyage was one of far greater interest and importance, and
ranks among the most famous of the Arctic voyages. They sailed again
in the “Discovery,” leaving Gravesend on the 26th of March, 1616, with
a company numbering in all seventeen persons; and coasting along the
western shore of Greenland and through Davis Strait, they visited and
explored both shores of the great sea which has ever since borne the
name of Baffin’s Bay. Here they discovered and named the important
channels known as Lancaster Sound and Jones Sound, beside numerous
smaller bodies of water and numerous islands since become familiar to
Arctic voyagers. All this was accomplished in a short season, and on
the 30th of August they cast anchor at Dover on their return.

Fifteen years elapsed, during which no important attempt was made
toward the discovery of a northwest passage; but in 1631 two voyages
were undertaken, to one of which we owe the quaint, gossippy narrative
entitled _Northwest Fox, or Fox from the Northwest Passage_. Luke Fox,
its author, was a Yorkshireman, of keen sense and great perseverance,
as well as a skilful navigator. He had long been interested in
northwest explorations; and, according to his own account, he wished to
go as mate with Knight twenty-five years before. At length he succeeded
in interesting a number of London merchants and other persons in the
enterprise, and on the 5th of May, 1631, he set sail from Deptford
in the “Charles,” a pinnace of seventy tons, victualled for eighteen
months. He searched the western part of Hudson’s Bay, discovered the
strait and shore known as Sir Thomas Roe’s Welcome, sailed up Fox
Channel to a point within the Arctic Circle, and satisfied himself, by
a careful observation of the tides, of the existence of the long-sought
passage, but failed to discover it. On his return he cast anchor in
the Downs on the 31st of October, “not having lost one Man, nor Boy,
nor Soule, nor any manner of Tackling, having beene forth neere six
moneths. All glory be to God!”[201]

On the same day on which Fox began his voyage, Captain Thomas James
sailed from the Severn in a new vessel of seventy tons, named the
“Maria,” manned by twenty-two persons, and, like Fox’s vessel,
victualled for eighteen months. On his outward voyage he encountered
many perils, and on more than one occasion his vessel barely escaped
shipwreck. His explorations were confined to the waters of Hudson’s
Bay, and more particularly to its southeastern part, where he wintered
on Charlton Island. Here he built a house in which the ship’s company
lived from December until June, enduring as best they might all the
horrors of an Arctic winter on an island only a little north of the
latitude of London. On the 2d of July they again set sail, but were so
hampered by ice that their progress was very slow, and in the latter
part of August James, with the unanimous concurrence of his officers,
determined to return home. He arrived at Bristol on the 22d of October,
1632, having added almost nothing to the knowledge gained by Fox in a
third of the time.

[Illustration: A PART OF JAMES’S MAP.

[This is the southwest corner of a folding map, 16 × 12 inches,
entitled “The Platt of Sayling for the discoverye of a passage into
the South Sea, 1631,1632,” which belongs to James’s _Strange and
Dangerous Voyage_, London, 1633. Mr. Charles Deane has two copies, both
with photographic fac-similes of the map made from the copy now in
the Barlow Library, New York. The Harvard College copy is defective.
The map has a portrait of James, “ætatis suæ, 40.” (Cf. Sabin’s
_Dictionary_, ix. 35,711; _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, ii. no. 400.
Quaritch priced it in 1872, £36.) The narrative was reprinted in 1740,
and is in the Collections of Churchill and Harris.—ED.]]

Both voyages were substantially failures, and their want of success
nearly put an end to northwestern explorations. It was more than a
hundred years before the matter was again taken up in any deliberate
and efficient manner. But in the long list of Arctic navigators there
are no greater names than those of Frobisher, Davis, Hudson, and
Baffin. With means utterly disproportioned, as it now seems, to the
task which they undertook, these men accomplished results which have
called forth the admiration of more than one of their successors. They
did not find the new and more direct way to Cathay which they sought
for; but they dispelled many geographical illusions, and every fresh
advance in our knowledge of the Arctic regions has only confirmed the
accuracy of their statements. The story of these later explorations
belongs to another part of this History; and we shall there see an
energy and perseverance and an heroic endurance of hardship for the
solution of great geographical problems not unworthy of the men whose
voyages have been here narrated.


A COMPLETE bibliography of the northwest explorations is apart from
our present purpose.[202] The principal works used in the preparation
of the preceding narrative were almost all of them written by the men
who were the chief actors in the scenes and incidents described, or are
based on the original journals of those men. Their general accuracy and
trustworthiness have never been challenged, and with some unimportant
exceptions the statements of the early navigators have been confirmed
by their successors. The men who first encountered the perils of
those unknown seas were men of plain, straightforward character, who
told in simple and unpretentious words what they saw and did. Some
rectifications of their opinions and descriptions have, it is true,
become necessary; in part through the imperfections of the early
astronomical instruments, and in part through the difficulty, often
very great, of deciding what was land and what water, even from the
most careful observation. As a general rule, the early latitudes are
given too high from the first of these causes; but the longitudes are
substantially correct.

Of the works which are mainly compilations, the undisputed pre-eminence
belongs to Hakluyt’s _Voyages_ and Purchas’s _Pilgrimes_. Hakluyt
was an enthusiast with regard to western discoveries, and he spared
neither time nor labor to obtain trustworthy information with regard
to the voyages in which he took so deep an interest. His narratives
of the early voyages, so far as we have the means of verifying them,
follow with almost entire accuracy the original documents, though
in a few instances he has abbreviated his originals, apparently
from motives of economy and the want of space. In these instances,
however, the republication of the narratives by the Hakluyt Society,
with the learned annotations of their thoroughly competent editors,
places before the reader an exact copy of the originals. Purchas is
an authority of less importance than Hakluyt, but a similar remark
will apply to his accounts of the early voyages, though they are
more abridged than Hakluyt’s. Luke Fox prefixed to his quaint and
fascinating narrative of his own voyage an account of what had been
done by his predecessors, and this must be classed among the best
authorities. Of the later compilations the _Chronological History_[203]
of Sir John Barrow, so far as it covers the earlier period, should
not be overlooked by any one who wishes for a full summary of what was
accomplished. He was scarcely less of an enthusiast than was Hakluyt;
and his statements of fact are apparently indisputable. But he was a
man of strong and often of unreasonable prejudices, and his opinions,
particularly regarding events near his own time, cannot always be
accepted without a careful investigation of their grounds. The
_Narratives_,[204] edited by Mr. Rundall for the Hakluyt Society, must
also be classed with the compilations useful in this study.

[Illustration: BAFFIN’S BAY—CAPT LUKE FOX 1635.]

As an attempt to find a practicable passage between the Atlantic and
the Pacific, either through or around North America, every voyage
early and late was a failure. The theories in accordance with which
northwestern explorations were first undertaken were unsound, and
the objects by which they were inspired found realization long ago
in quite other ways. But not the less did those theories and those
objects animate men with a zeal and self-sacrifice worthy of the
Crusades, and produce results of great importance. No easier route to
China and Japan was discovered to enrich the fortunate adventurers; no
valuable territories were added to the realm of England; and it was an
utterly barren sovereignty which Frobisher and his successors claimed.
But for the disappointment of these expectations there was an ample
compensation in the whaling grounds to which they pointed the way,
and which have proved the fruitful source of large accessions to the
wealth of nations;[205] and it was something to learn, almost from the
first, that the gold mines from which so much was expected were only a
delusion and a snare.

We subjoin a specific mention of some of the more important separate
sources. For Frobisher the student may refer to Admiral Collinson’s
excellent gathering for the Hakluyt Society, as embodying the earliest
monographic literature upon the Northwest search.[206] Of John
Davis of Sandridge, whose exploits we are concerned with, there has
sometimes been confusion with a namesake and contemporary, John Davis
of Limehouse, and Mr. Froude has confounded them in his _Forgotten
Worthies_; but a note in the Hakluyt Society’s edition of _Davis’s
Voyages_, p. lxxviii, makes clear the distinction, and is not the least
of the excellences of that book, which contains the best grouping of
all that is to be learned of Davis.[207]

Referring to the general collections, for the intervening voyages we
come to Hudson’s explorations, and must still trust chiefly to the work
of the Hakluyt Society,[208] to which must also be credited the best
summary of the voyages conducted by Baffin.[209]

For Fox’s quaint and somewhat capriciously rambling narrative, the
present reader may possibly chance upon an original copy,[210] but
he can follow it at all events in modern collections. The author
accompanied it with a circumpolar map, which is only to be found,
according to Markham, in one or two copies; and a fac-simile of
Markham’s excerpt of the parts interesting in our inquiry is herewith



Friesland indicates the influence which the Zeno map, then for hardly a
score of years before the geographers of Europe, was having upon their
notions regarding the North Atlantic.

[Illustration: THE ZENO CHART, _circa_ 1400.]

Of this map and its curious history a full account is given in Vol.
I. of the present History. It had been brought to light in Italy in
1558, and Frobisher is said to have taken it with him on his voyage.
Its errors in latitude deceived that navigator. When he fell in
with the Greenland shore, in 61°, he supposed himself to be at the
southern limit of Friesland, that being Zeno’s latitude for that point
(the southern point of his Greenland being in 66°); and thus that
unaccountable insular region of the Zeno chart was put anew into the
maps of the North Atlantic, and remained there for some time. Again,
when Davis fell in with land in 61°, he thought it neither Friesland
nor Zeno’s Greenland, but a new country, which he had found and which
he named “Desolation;” and so it appears in Molineaux’s map and globe,
and in Hudson’s map (given in fac-simile in Asher’s _Henry Hudson_),
as an island south of Greenland, with a misplaced Frobisher’s Straits
(still misplaced as late as the time of Hondius) separating it from
Greenland. Our Zeno chart must be interpreted by the following key:—

  1. Engronelant (Greenland).
  2. Grolandia.
  3. Islanda (Iceland).
  4. Norvegia (Norway).
  5. Estland (Shetland Islands?).
  6. Icaria.
  7. Frisland (Faroe Islands?).
  8. Estotiland (Labrador?).
  9. Drogeo (Newfoundland or New England?).
  10. Podalida.
  11. Scocia (Scotland).
  12. Mare et terre incognite.

Its influence can be further traced, twenty years later, in the map of
the world which Wolfe, in 1598, added to his English translation of
Linschoten. We annex a sketch-map of the Arctic portion, which needs to
be interpreted by the key below the cut.

[Illustration: FROM WOLFE’S LINSCHOTEN, 1598.

  1. Terra Septemtrionalis.
  2. Grocland.
  3. Groenland.
  4. Island (Iceland).
  5. Friesland.
  6. Drogeo.
  7. Estotiland.
  8. R. Nevado.
  9. C. Marco.
  10. Gol di S. Lorenzo.
  11. Saguenay flu.
  12. Canada.
  13. Nova Francia.
  14. Norōbega.
  15. Terra de Baccalaos.
  16. Do Bretan.
  17. Juan.
  18. R. de Tomēta.
  19. S. Brādam.
  20. Brasil.]

Considering the doubt attached to the Zeno chart, it would seem that
the earliest undoubted delineation of American parts of the Arctic
land is the representation of Greenland which appears in the Ptolemy
of 1482. This position of Greenland was reproduced, about ten years
before Frobisher’s voyage, in Olaus Magnus’s Latin _Historia_, Basil,
1567, who puts on the peninsula this legend: “Hic habitant Pygmei
vulgo Screlinger dicti.” There had been an earlier Latin edition of
the _Historia_ at Rome in 1555, and one in Italian at Venice in 1565:
there was no English edition till 1658. (_Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p.
269.) Ziegler’s _Schondia_ had in Frobisher’s time been for forty years
or more a source of information regarding the most northern regions.
(_Carter-Brown Catalogue_, pp. 103, 120, for editions of 1532 and 1536.)

The cartographical ideas of the North from the earliest conceptions
may be traced in the following maps, which for this purpose may be
deemed typical: In 1510-12, in the Lenox Globe, which is drawn in Dr.
De Costa’s chapter; the map in Sylvanus’s _Ptolemy_, 1511, represents
Greenland as protruding from the northwest of Europe; the globe of
Orontius Fine, 1531, is resolvable into a similar condition, as shown
on page 11 of the present volume; Mercator’s great map of 1569,
blundering, mixes the Zeno geography with the later developments;
Gilbert’s map, 1576, gives an insular Greenland of a reversed trend
of coast; the Lok map of 1582 may be seen on page 40, and the
Hakluyt-Martyr map on page 42. The map of America showing the Arctic
Sea which appears in Boterus’s _Welt-beschreibung_, 1596, and Acosta’s
map (1598) of Greenland and adjacent parts, can be compared with
Wolfe’s, in Linschoten, already given in this note. Finally, we may
take the Hondius maps of 1611 and 1619, in which Hondius places at 80°
north this legend: “Glacis ab Hudsono detecta.”

=B.= FROBISHER’S VOYAGES.—George Beste’s _True Discourse of Discoverie
by the North Weast_, 1578, covers the three voyages, and contains two
maps,—one a mappemonde, the most significant since Mercator’s, and of
which in part a fac-simile is here given. The other is of Frobisher’s
Straits alone. Kohl, _Catalogue of Maps mentioned in Hakluyt_, p. 18,
traces the authorship of these charts to James Beare, Frobisher’s
principal surveyor. Compare it with Lok’s map, page 40, of the present

[Illustration: PART OF MAP IN BESTE’S “FROBISHER,” 1578.]

Beste’s book is very rare, and copies are in the Lenox and Carter-Brown
libraries. It is reprinted by Hakluyt.

Beste’s general account may be supplemented by these special

_First Voyage._ A State-paper given by Collinson, “apparently by M.
Lok.” The narrative by Christopher Hall, the master, in Hakluyt. See an
examination of its results in _Contemporary Review_ (1873), xxi. 529,
or _Eclectic Review_, iii. 243.

_Second Voyage._ Dionysius Settle’s account, published separately in
1577. _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, no. 206, with fac-simile of title.
It was reprinted by Mr. Carter-Brown (50 copies) in 1869. See notice
by J. R. Bartlett in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1869, p. 363.
This narrative is given in Hakluyt, vol. iii.; Pinkerton, vol. xii.;
Brydge’s _Restituta_, 1814, vol. ii. Chippin’s French version of
Settle, _La Navigation du Cap. Martin Forbisher_, was printed in 1578.
It is in the Lenox and Carter-Brown libraries. It has reappeared at
various dates, 1720, 1731, etc. From this French version of Settle was
made the Latin, _De Martini Forbisseri Angli navigatione in regiones
occidentis et septentrionis, narratio historica ex Gallico sermone
in Latinum translata per D. Joan Tho. Freigium_, Norbergæ, 1580, 44
leaves. This is also in the Lenox, Carter-Brown, and Sparks (Cornell
University) Collections. Cf. _Sunderland Catalogue_, ii. 4,650. Its
value is from $10 to $30. It was reprinted with notes at Hamburg
in 1675. Stevens, _Hist. Coll._, i. 33. Brinley, no. 28. Sabin,
_Dictionary_, vii. 25,994. This edition is usually priced at $12 or
$15. There are also German (1580, 1679, etc.) and Dutch (1599, 1663,
1678; in Aa’s Collection, 1706) editions. In the 1580 German edition is
a woodcut of the natives brought to England. _Huth Catalogue_, ii. 556.

_Third Voyage._ Thomas Ellis’s narrative, given by Hakluyt and
Collinson. Edward Sellman’s account is also given by Collinson.

Collinson’s life of Frobisher, prefixed to his volume, is brief; his
authorities, other than those in the body of his book, are Fuller’s
_Worthies of England_, and such modern treatises as Campbell’s _Lives
of the Admirals_, Barrow’s _Naval Worthies_, Muller’s _History of
Doncaster_, etc. S. G. Drake furnished a memoir, with a good engraving
of the usual portrait, in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, vol. iii.;
and there is a _Life_ by F. Jones, London, 1878. Biddle, in his
_Cabot_, chap. 12, epitomizes the voyages, and they can be cursorily
followed in Fox Bourne’s _English Seamen_, and Payne’s _Elizabethan
Seamen_. Commander Becher, in his paper in the _Journal_ of the Royal
Geographical Society, xii. 1, gives a useful map of the Straits, a part
of which is reproduced in the accompanying cut. In the same volume of
the _Journal_ its editor enumerates the various manuscript sources,
most of which have been printed, and have been referred to above.

[Illustration: FROBISHER’S STRAIT.]

=C.= HUDSON’S VOYAGES.—The sources of our information on this
navigator’s four voyages to the North are these:—

_First voyage_ in 1607, under the auspices of the Muscovy Company, to
the Northeast. A log-book, in which Hudson may have had a hand, or
to which he may have supplied facts; and a few fragments of his own
journal. Purchas’s _Pilgrims_, vol. iii.; Asher’s _Henry Hudson_, pp. i
and 145.

_Second voyage_, 1608, under the auspices of the Muscovy Company, to
the Northeast. A log-book by Hudson himself. Purchas’s _Pilgrims_, iii.
574; _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, i. 81; Asher’s _Hudson_, p. 23.

A map by Hondius illustrating the first and second voyage, and given by
Asher in fac-simile, was originally published in Pontanus’s _History of
Amsterdam_, Latin ed. 1611, and Dutch ed. 1614.

_Third voyage_, 1609, under the auspices of the East India Company, to
the Northeast, where, foiled by the ice, he turned and sailed to make
explorations between the coast of Maine and Delaware Bay. The journal
of Juet, his companion. Purchas’s _Pilgrims_, vol. iii.; Asher’s
_Hudson_, p. 45. See further in Mr. Fernow’s chapter in Vol. IV. of
this History.

_Fourth voyage_, 1610, to the Northwest, discovering Hudson’s Strait
and Hudson’s Bay. Purchas, _Pilgrims_, vol. iii., got his account
from Sir Dudley Digges. He also gives an abstract of Hudson’s journal
(Asher, p. 93); a discourse by Pricket, one of the crew, whom Purchas
discredits, which is largely an apology for the mutiny which set Hudson
adrift in an open boat in the bay now bearing his name (Asher, p. 98);
a letter from Iceland, May 30, 1610, perhaps by Hudson himself, and an
account of Juet’s trial (Asher, p. 136). Purchas added some new facts
in his _Pilgrimage_, reprinted in Asher, p. 139.

H. Gerritsz seized the opportunity, occasioned by the interest in
Hudson’s voyage and his fate, to promulgate his views of the greater
chance of finding a northwest passage to India, rather than a northeast
one; and in the little collection of tracts edited by him, produced
first in the Dutch edition of 1612, he gives but a very brief narrative
of Hudson’s voyage, which is printed on the reverse of the map showing
his discoveries,—the maps, which he gives, both of the world and of
the north parts of America being the chief arguments of his book,
the latter map being also reproduced by Asher. The original Dutch
edition is extremely scarce, but four or five copies being known. A
reproduction of it in 1878 by Kroon, through the photo-lithographic
process, consists of 200 copies, and contains also, under the general
title of _Detectio freti Hudsoni_, a reproduction of the Latin edition
of 1613, with an English version by F. J. Millard, and an Introductory
Essay on the origin and design of this collection, which, besides
Gerritsz’s tract, includes others by Massa and De Quir. Sabin’s
_Dictionary_, viii. 33,489; Asher’s _Hudson_, p. 267.

In the enlarged Latin translation, ordinarily quoted as the _Detectio
freti Hudsoni_ of 1612, Gerritsz inverted the order of the several
tracts, giving more prominence to Hudson, as May’s expedition to the
northeast had in the mean time returned unsuccessful. _Huth Catalogue_,
ii. 744, shows better than _Brunet_, iii. 358, the difference between
this 1612 and the 1613 editions. H. C. Murphy’s _Henry Hudson in
Holland_. The _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, ii. 131, gives this little
quarto the following title: _Descriptio ac delineatio Geographica
detectionis freti sive, Transitus ad Occasum, suprà terras Americanas
in Chinam atq: Iaponem ducturi, Recens investigati ab M. Henrico
Hudsono Anglo_, etc., and cites the world in two hemispheres as among
the three maps which it contains. A copy in Mr. Henry C. Murphy’s
collection has a second title, which shows that Vitellus and not
Gerritsz made the Latin translation. This other title reads: _Exemplar
Libelli ... super Detectione quintæ Orbis terrarum partiscui Australiæ
Incognitæ nomen est: item Relatio super Freto per M. Hudsonum Anglum
quæsito, ac in parte dedecte supra Provincias Terræ Novæ, novæque
Hispaniæ, Chinam, et Cathaiam versus ducturo ... Latine versa ab
R. Vitellio, Amstelodami ex officina Hessilii Gerardi. Anno 1612_.
Speaking of this little tract and the share which Gerritsz had in it,
Asher, in his _Henry Hudson the Navigator_, says, “Around it grew in a
very remarkable manner the most interesting of the many collections of
voyages and travels printed in the early part of the sixteenth century.”

In a second Latin edition, 1613, Gerritsz again remodelled his
additions, and gave a further account of May’s voyage. _Huth
Catalogue_, ii. 744; _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, ii. 152; Tièle, _Mémoire
bibliographique_, 1867, no. 153; Muller’s _Essai d’une bibliographie
néerlando-russe_, 1859, p. 71.

To some copies of this second edition Gerritsz added a short appendix
of two leaves, Sig. G, which is reprinted in the Kroon reproduction,
and serves to make some bibliographers reckon a third Latin edition.
There are in the Lenox Library six copies of the original, representing
the different varieties of the Dutch and Latin texts. One of the
copies in Harvard College Library has these two additional leaves,
which are also in the copy in the Carter-Brown Library, whose
_Catalogue_, ii. 152, says that the fac-simile reprint by Muller must
have been made from a copy with different cuts and ornamental capitals
and tail-pieces, as these are totally different from those of the
Carter-Brown copy. The map of the world was repeated in this edition.

The original Dutch text has been reprinted in several later collections
of voyages, published in Holland. The English translation in Purchas is
incomplete and incorrect; and that of Millard, as well as the English
generally in the Kroon reprint, could have been much bettered by a
competent native proof-reader.

German versions appeared in De Bry and in Megiser’s _Septentrio
novantiquus_, p. 438, both in 1613; and in 1614 in Hulsius, part xii.

There is a French translation in the _Receuil d’Arrests_ of 1720.




_Third Vice-President of the Virginia Historical Society._

HISTORY has recorded the lives of few men more renowned than Walter
Ralegh,—the soldier, the sailor, the statesman, the courtier, the
poet, the historian, and the philosopher. The age in which he lived,
the versatility of his genius, his conspicuous services, and “the deep
damnation of his taking off,” all conspired to exalt his memory among
men, and to render it immortal. Success often crowned his efforts in
the service of his country, and the impress of his genius is clearly
traced upon her history; but his greatest service to England and
to the world was his pioneer effort to colonize America, in which
he experienced the most mortifying defeat. Baffled in his endeavor
to plant the English race upon this continent, he yet called into
existence a spirit of enterprise which first gave Virginia, and then
North America, to that race, and which led Great Britain, from this
beginning, to dot the map of the world with her colonies, and through
them to become the greatest power of the earth.


Walter Ralegh[211] was born, in 1552, in the parish of Budleigh, in
Devonshire. His father was Walter Ralegh, of Fardel, and his mother was
Catherine, daughter of Sir Philip Champernown, of Modbury, and widow of
Otho Gilbert, of Compton, in Devonshire. On his mother’s side he was
brother to Sir John, Sir Humphrey, and Sir Adrian Gilbert,—all eminent
men. He studied at Oxford with great success, but he left his books in
1569 to volunteer with his cousin, Henry Champernown, in aid of the
French Protestants in their desperate struggle for religious liberty
under the Prince of Condé and Admiral Coligny. He reached France in
time to be present at the battle of Moncontour, and remained six years,
during which time the massacre of St. Bartholomew occurred. Afterward
he served in the Netherlands with Sir John Norris under William of
Orange in his struggle with the Spaniards.

In these wars he became not only an accomplished soldier, but a
determined foe to Roman Catholicism and to the Spanish people. His
contest with Spain, thus early begun, ended only with his life. It
was indeed a war to the death on both sides. Elizabeth, his great
sovereign, with all the courage of a hero in the bosom of a woman,
sustained him in the conflict, and had the supreme satisfaction of
seeing him administer a death-blow to Spanish power at Cadiz; while her
pusillanimous successor rendered himself forever infamous by putting
such a conqueror to death at the mandate of the Spanish King.


The claim of Spain to the New World, based upon its discovery by
Columbus, fortified by a grant from Pope Alexander VI. and further
strengthened by continued exploration and by settlements, was disputed,
at least as regards the northern continent, by England on the strength
of the Cabot voyages, of which an account has been given in the opening
chapter of this volume. The English claimed that they were entitled
to North America by the right of Cabot’s discovery of its mainland
preceding that of Columbus, who had not then touched the mainland at
the south. No serious effort was made, however, to follow up this claim
by a settlement till 1578, when Elizabeth granted to Sir Humphrey
Gilbert a charter looking to a permanent occupation of the country.
Sir Humphrey sailed in November, 1578, with seven ships and three
hundred and fifty men. One of the fleet, the “Falcon,” was commanded by
Ralegh, who had already learned to be a sailor as well as a soldier.
His presence with the expedition was not alone due to his attachment to
his distinguished brother. He had already discovered that the power of
Spain was due to the wealth she derived from her American possessions,
and he earnestly desired to secure for England the same source of
power. His attention had been attracted to the coast of Florida by
Coligny, whose colony of Huguenots there had been brutally murdered by
the Spaniards under Menendez in 1565.

The voyage of Gilbert met with disaster. In a short time all the ships
except Ralegh’s were forced to return. Ralegh determined to sail for
the West Indies, but when he had gone as far as the Islands of Cape
de Verde, upon the coast of Africa, he was forced by a scarcity of
provisions to return. He arrived at Plymouth in May, 1579, after having
experienced many dangerous adventures in storms and sea-fights.

Sir Humphrey had returned before him, and was busy preparing for a
renewal of the voyage; but an Order from the Privy Council, April 26,
prohibited their departure. The conflicts at sea seem to have been with
Spanish vessels, and complaints had been made to the Council concerning

Ralegh spent but little time in vain regrets, but at once took service
in Ireland, where he commanded a company of English soldiers employed
to suppress the insurrection headed by the Earl of Desmond, who led a
mongrel force of Spaniards, Italians, and Irishmen. His service began
under the Lord Justice Pelham, and was continued under his successor,
Lord Grey. His genius and courage soon attracted public notice, and
won for him the favor of the Queen. Upon his return in 1582 he made
his appearance at court, and at once became that monarch’s favorite.
No one could have been better fitted to play the _rôle_ of courtier
to this clever, passionate, and capricious woman. Ralegh is described
by a contemporary as having “a good presence in a handsome and
well-compacted person; a strong natural wit, and a better judgment;
with a bold and plausible tongue, whereby he could set out his parts
to the best advantage.” He had the culture of a scholar and the fancy
of a poet, as well as the chivalry of a soldier; and he superadded to
these that which was equally as attractive to his mistress,—unrivalled
splendor in dress and equipage.

The Queen’s favor soon developed into magnificent gifts of riches
and honor. He was given the monopolies of granting license for the
export of broadcloths, and for the making of wines and regulating
their prices. He was endowed with the fine estates in five counties
forfeited to the Crown by the attainder of Anthony Babington, who
plotted the murder of Elizabeth in the interest of Mary of Scotland;
and with twelve thousand acres in Ireland, part of the land forfeited
by the Earl of Desmond and his followers. He was made Lord Warden of
the Stannaries, Lieutenant of the County of Cornwall, Vice-Admiral of
Cornwall and Devon, and Captain of the Queen’s Guard.

One of his Irish estates was near the home of Edmund Spenser, secretary
to Lord Grey during the Irish rebellion, and a visit which led to
a renewal of their friendship led also to the publication, at the
instance of Ralegh, of the _Faerie Queene_, in which Elizabeth is
represented as Belphœbe.

No sooner did Ralegh find that his fortune was made, than he determined
to accomplish the object of his passionate desire,—the English
colonization of America. He furnished one of the little fleet of
five ships with which Sir Humphrey Gilbert sailed June 11, 1583,
upon his last and most disastrous voyage to America, and was only
prevented from going with him by the peremptory order of the Queen,
who was unwilling that her favorite should incur the risk of any
“dangerous sea-fights.” The gallant Sir Humphrey, after taking formal
possession of Newfoundland, sailed southward, but, experiencing a
series of disasters, went down with his ship in a storm on his return

Ralegh obtained a new charter, March 25, 1584, drawn more carefully
with a design to foster colonization. Not only was he empowered to
plant colonies upon “such remote heathen and barbarous lands, not
actually possessed by any Christian prince nor inhabited by Christian
people,” as he might discover, but the soil of such lands was to be
enjoyed by the colonies forever, and the colonies planted were to “have
all the privileges of free denizens and persons native of England,
in such ample manner as if they were born and personally resident in
our said realm of England, any law, etc., notwithstanding,” and they
were to be governed “according to such statutes as shall be by him or
them established; so that the said statutes or laws conform as near
as conveniently may be with those of England, and do not oppugn the
Christian faith, or any way withdraw the people of those lands from our

These guarantees of political rights, which first appeared in the
charter to Sir Humphrey Gilbert, were renewed in the subsequent charter
of 1606, under which the English colonies were planted in America, and
constituted one of the impregnable grounds upon which they afterwards
maintained the struggle which ended in a complete separation from the
mother country. It is doubtless to Ralegh that we are indebted for
these provisions, which justified the Virginia burgesses in declaring
in 1765,—

 “That the first adventurers and settlers of this his Majesty’s colony
 and dominion brought with them, and transmitted to their posterity
 and all other his Majesty’s subjects since inhabiting in this his
 Majesty’s said colony, all the privileges, franchises, and immunities
 that have at any time been held, enjoyed, and possessed by the people
 of Great Britain.”

Ralegh’s knowledge of the voyages of the Spaniards satisfied him that
they had not explored the Atlantic coast north of what is now known
as Florida, and he determined to plant a colony in this unexplored
region.[214] Two ships were immediately made ready, and they sailed
April 27, 1584, under the command of Captains Philip Amadas and Arthur
Barlowe, for the purpose of discovery, with a view to a permanent

On the 10th of May they reached the Canaries, on the 10th of June the
West Indies, and on the 4th of July the American coast. They sailed
northward one hundred and twenty miles before they found “any entrance
or river issuing into the sea.” They entered the first which they
discovered, probably that now known as New Inlet, and sailing a short
distance into the haven they cast anchor, and returned thanks to God
for their safe arrival. Manning their boats, they were soon on the
nearest land, and took possession of it in the name “of the Queen’s
most excellent Majestie, as rightful Queene and Princesse of the
same,” and afterwards “delivered the same over to Sir Walter Ralegh’s
use, according to her Majestie’s grant and letters patents under her
Highnesse great seale.” They found the land to be about twenty miles
long and six miles wide, and, in the language of the report to Sir

 “very sandie and low towards the water’s side, but so ful of grapes,
 as the very beating and surge of the sea overflowed them, of which we
 found such plentie, as well there as in all places else, both on the
 sand and on the greene soile on the hils as in the plaines, as well on
 every little shrubbe, as also climing towards the tops of high cedars,
 that I thinke in all the world the like abundance is not to be found;
 and myselfe having seene those parts of Europe that most abound, find
 such difference as were incredible to be written.”

The report continues:—

 “This Island had many goodly Woodes full of Deere, Conies, Hares,
 and Fowle, even in the middest of Summer, in incredible abondance.
 The Woodes are not such as you finde in Bohemia, Moscovia, Hercynia,
 barren and fruitles, but the highest and reddest Cedars of the world,
 farre bettering the Cedars of the Azores, of the Indies, or Lybanus;
 Pynes, Cypres, Sassaphras, the Lentisk, or the tree that beareth the
 Masticke, the tree that beareth the rind of blacke Sinamon.”

On the third day a boat with three natives approached the island, and
friendly intercourse was at once established. On the next there came
several boats, and in one of them Granganimeo, the king’s brother,
“accompanied with fortie or fiftie men, very handsome and goodly
people, and in their behavior as mannerly and civill as any of Europe.”
When the English asked the name of the country, one of the savages,
who did not understand the question, replied, “Win-gan-da-coa,” which
meant, “You wear fine clothes.” The English on their part, mistaking
his meaning, reported that to be the name of the country.

The King was named Wingina, and he was then suffering from a wound
received in battle. After two or three days Granganimeo brought his
wife and daughter and two or three children to the ships.

 “His wife was very well favoured, of meane stature, and very bashfull;
 shee had on her backe a long cloake of leather, with the furre side
 next to her body, and before her a piece of the same; about her
 forehead shee hade a band of white corall, and so had her husband many
 times; in her eares shee had bracelets of pearles hanging doune to
 her middle, and these were of the bignes of good pease. The rest of
 her women of the better sort had pendants of copper hanging in either
 eare; he himself had upon his head a broad plate of golde or copper,
 for being unpolished we knew not what mettal it should be, neither
 would he by any meanes suffer us to take it off his head, but feeling
 it, it would bow very easily. His apparell was as his wives, onely the
 women wear their haire long on both sides, and the men but on one.
 They are of colour yellowish, and their haire black for the most part,
 and yet we saw children that had very fine auburne and chesnut-colored

The phenomenon of auburn and chestnut-colored hair may be accounted for
by the fact, related by the natives, that some years before a ship,
manned by whites, had been wrecked on the coast; and that some of the
people had been saved, and had lived with them for several weeks before
leaving in their boats, in which, however, they were lost. It was the
descendants of these men, doubtless, who were found by the English.

After the natives had visited the ships several times, Captain Barlowe
with seven men went in a boat twenty miles to an island called Roanoke
(probably a corruption of the Indian name Ohanoak), at the north end of
which “was a village of nine houses built of cedar and fortified round
about with sharp trees to keep out their enemies, and the entrance
into it made like a turnpike, very artificially.” There they found the
wife of Granganimeo, who, with her attendants, in the absence of her
husband, entertained them “with all loue and kindness, and with as much
bounty (after their manner) as they could possibly devise.”

They did not attempt to explore the mainland, but returned to England,
arriving about the middle of September, and carrying with them two of
the natives, Manteo and Manchese. They were enthusiastic concerning
all they had seen, describing the soil as “the most plentiful, sweet,
fruitful, and wholesome of all the world,” and “the people most gentle,
loving, and faithful, void of all guile and treason, and such as live
after the manner of the Golden Age.”

The Queen, not less delighted than Ralegh, named the newly-discovered
country VIRGINIA, in commemoration of her maiden life, and conferred
upon Ralegh the honor of knighthood. He now had a new seal of his arms
cut, with the legend, _Propria insignia Walteri Ralegh, militis, Domini
et Gubernatoris Virginiæ_. He was soon honored also with a seat in
Parliament by his native shire of Devon, and rose to eminence in that


Upon the return of his expedition Ralegh began to fit out a colony
to be planted in Virginia. Everything was made ready by the next
spring, and on the 9th of April, 1585, he sent from Plymouth a fleet
of seven ships in command of his cousin, Sir Richard Grenville, “with
one hundred householders, and many things necessary to begin a new
state.” The colony itself was put in the immediate charge of Ralph
Lane, who was afterwards knighted by the King. He had seen considerable
service, and was on duty in Ireland when invited by Ralegh to take
command of the colony. The Queen ordered a substitute to be appointed
in his government of Kerry and Clanmorris, “in consideration of his
ready undertaking the voyage to Virginia for Sir Walter Ralegh at her
Majesty’s command.” His residence in Ireland and Ralegh’s interest
there account for a number of Irish names which appear among the
colonists. Captain Philip Amadas was associated with Lane as his
deputy, and among those who accompanied him were two who were men of
distinction. One, Thomas Cavendish, afterwards became celebrated as a
navigator by sailing round the world; and another, Thomas Hariot, was a
mathematician of great distinction, who materially advanced the science
of algebra, and was honored by Descartes, who imposed some of Hariot’s
work upon the French as his own.

On the voyage the conduct of Sir Richard Grenville gave great offence
to Lane and the leading men of the colony, and Lane became convinced
that Grenville desired his death. On the 26th of June they came to
anchor at Wocokon, now known as Ocracoke Inlet. On the 11th of July
Grenville crossed the southern portion of Pamlico Sound, and discovered
three Indian towns,—Pomeiok, Aquascogoc, and Secotan. At Aquascogoc a
silver cup was stolen from one of his men, and failing to recover it,
they “burned and spoiled their corn, all the people being fled.” This
act of harsh retribution made enemies of the inhabitants of this part
of the country, and was unfortunate in its consequences.

Grenville landed the colony at Roanoke Island, and leaving Lane in
charge of one hundred and seven men, he sailed for England August 25,
promising to return with supplies by the next Easter. Lane at once
erected a fort on the island, and then began to explore the coast and
rivers of the country. The exploration southward extended about eighty
miles, to the present county of Carteret; northward, about one hundred
and thirty miles, to the vicinity of Elizabeth River; northwest, about
the same distance, to a point just below the junction of the Meherrin
and Nottoway rivers; and westward, up the Roanoke River to the vicinity
of Halifax.

Lane was a man of decided ability and executive capacity. He informed
himself regarding the country and its inhabitants, and protected
his men from the many dangers which surrounded them. He soon became
convinced that a mistake had been made in attempting a settlement on
Roanoke Island, because of the dangerous coast and wretched harbor.
He learned on his voyage up the Chowan, from an Indian king named
Monatonon, that on going three days’ journey in a canoe up the river
and four days’ journey over land to the northeast, he would come to a
king’s country which lay upon the sea, whose place of greatest strength
was an island in a deep bay. This information evidently pointed to
Craney Island in Chesapeake Bay. Lane thereupon resolved, as soon as
the promised supply arrived from England, to send ships up the coast
to discover the bay, and to send men overland to establish posts, and
if he found the bay to be as described, to transfer the colony to its

The two natives who had been carried to England had returned with Lane.
Manteo was a firm friend to the English, while Manchese became their
implacable enemy. Granganimeo, the brother, and Ensenore, the father,
of Wingina, were also friendly, but both died within a few months after
the arrival of the colony, and the king, who had changed his name to
Pemisapan, did all in his power to destroy it. When Lane ascended the
Roanoke, he found that the tribes along its banks, with whom he had
previously entered into terms of friendship, had been informed by
Pemisapan that the English designed to kill them. They had retired
into the interior with their families and provisions, and Lane, whose
supplies were running short, found great difficulty in subsisting his

The exploration of this river, called by the Indians Moratoc, was
deemed of the greatest importance, as the natives reported it as
flowing with a bold stream out of a rock upon the coast of the Western
Ocean, and running through a land rich in minerals. During the voyage
they were reduced to great straits for subsistence, but the men
insisted on going farther and feeding on the flesh of dogs, rather than
to give up the search. Finally they were attacked by the natives, and
being without food they returned from their search for the mines and
the South-Sea passage. The scarcity of provisions at Roanoke Island
had now become a matter of serious concern, as the time had passed
for Sir Richard Grenville to return with supplies, and Pemisapan was
endeavoring to starve them out. In order to get subsistence Lane was
forced to divide his men into three parties. One of these he sent to
the Island of Croatoan, and another to Hatorask. Learning from Skyco, a
son of King Monatonon, held as a hostage, that Pemisapan had informed
him of a plot to murder the English, Lane saved his men by striking the
first blow, and putting to death Pemisapan and seven or eight of his
chief men.

Within a few days afterwards Sir Francis Drake, with a fleet of
twenty-three sail, returning from sacking St. Domingo, Carthagina,
and St. Augustine, came in sight of the Island of Croatoan, and on
the 10th of June came to anchor near Roanoke Island. Drake acted in
the most generous manner towards the colonists. He proposed to carry
them back to England if they desired it, or to leave them sufficient
shipping and provisions to enable them to make further discovery.
Lane and his men, being desirous to stay, accepted the last offer,
promising when they had searched the coast for a better harbor to
return to England in the coming August. They had despaired of the
return of Sir Richard Grenville, and they believed that Ralegh had
been prevented from looking after them by the condition of public
affairs in England. Sir Francis at once placed one of his ships at the
disposal of Lane, and began to put provisions aboard. Before this was
accomplished a storm arose, which lasted three days and threatened
to destroy the whole fleet. To save themselves several of the ships
put to sea, and among them the “Francis,” selected for the use of the
colony, with the provisions aboard. After the storm had abated Drake
offered another ship of much greater burden, it being the only one he
could then spare; but it being too heavy for the harbor and not suited
for their purposes, Lane with the chief men determined to ask for a
passage to England for the colony, which was granted them by Drake, and
they arrived at Plymouth on the 27th of July, 1586, having lost but
four of their number. Thomas Hariot carried with him, on the return
of the colony, a carefully prepared description of the country,—its
inhabitants, productions, animals, birds, and fish,—and John White,
the artist of the expedition, carried illustrations in water-colors.
Specimens of the productions of the country were also carried by the
colonists; and of these two, though not previously unknown in Europe,
through the exertions of Ralegh were brought into general use, and have
long been of the greatest importance. One was the plant called by the
natives _uppowoc_, but named by the Spaniards tobacco; the other, the
root known as the potato, which was introduced into Ireland by being
planted on the estate of Ralegh. In Hariot’s description of the grain
called by the Indians _pagatour_, we easily recognize our Indian corn.

Soon after the departure of the colony a ship arrived with supplies
sent by Ralegh, with a direction to assure them of further aid. Finding
no one on the island, this vessel returned to England. Fifteen days
after its departure Sir Richard Grenville arrived with three ships well
provisioned, but finding the island desolate, and searching in vain for
the colony or any information concerning it, he also returned, leaving,
however, fifteen men with provisions for two years. This was done to
retain possession of the country, and in ignorance of the hostility
of the natives and of the purpose of Lane to abandon that locality as
a settlement. Though seemingly wise and proper, it proved to be the
source of further misfortune.

Sir Walter Ralegh, upon receiving the report of Lane, determined to
make no further effort to settle Roanoke Island, but at once began to
prepare for a settlement upon Chesapeake Bay. He granted a charter of
incorporation to thirty-two persons, nineteen of whom were merchants of
London who contributed their money, and thirteen, styled “the Governor
and Assistants of the city of Ralegh in Virginia,” who adventured
their persons in the enterprise. Of the nineteen styled merchants, ten
were afterwards subscribers to the Virginia Company of London which
settled Jamestown. Among them were Sir Thomas Smith, for years the
chief officer of that company, and one of the two Richard Hakluyts.
John White was selected as the governor, and with him were sent one
hundred and fifty persons, including seventeen women. They were carried
in three ships in charge of Simon Ferdinando, with directions to
visit Roanoke Island and take away the men left there by Sir Richard
Grenville, and then to steer for Chesapeake Bay. On July 22, 1587, they
arrived at Hatorask, and White, taking with him forty of his best men,
started in the pinnace to Roanoke Island.

Ferdinando, who was a Spaniard by birth, was either acting in the
interest of Spain or was angered by his difficulties with White. He
had purposely separated from one of the ships during the voyage, and
instead of carrying the colony to Chesapeake Bay, as he had agreed,
he no sooner saw White and his men aboard the pinnace for Roanoke
Island, than he directed the sailors to bring none of the men back,
on the pretext that the summer was too far spent to be looking for
another place. The colony was thus forced to remain upon the island.
They found evidence of the massacre by the savages of the men left
by Grenville, and they soon experienced the hostility of the Indians
toward themselves.

Manteo, who had gone to England with Lane, returned with White,
and was of the greatest service to the colony. By the direction of
Ralegh he “was christened in Roanoke, and called lord thereof, and of
Dasamonguepeuk, in reward of his faithful service.” On the 18th of
August Eleanor, daughter of the governor and wife of Ananias Dare one
of the assistants, gave birth to a daughter, “and because this child
was the first Christian born in Virginia, she was named Virginia.”

The little vessel, from which Ferdinando had parted company, arrived
safely with the rest of the colony aboard in a few days, and the men
who landed on the island, all told, were one hundred and twenty souls.

When the time came for the ships to return to England it was determined
by the unanimous voice of the colony to send White back to represent
their condition and to obtain relief. He at first refused to go, but at
last yielded to their solicitation, and on the 5th of November arrived
in England.

When White landed he found the kingdom alarmed by the threatened
Spanish invasion. Ralegh, Grenville, and Lane were all members of the
council of war, and were bending every energy toward the protection
of England from the Spanish Armada. Ralegh’s genius shone forth
conspicuously in this crisis, and his policy of defending England on
the water by a well-equipped fleet was not only adopted, but has been
steadily pursued since, and has resulted in her becoming the great
naval power of the world.

Ralegh did not forget his colony, however, and by the spring he had
fitted out for its relief a small fleet, which he placed under the
command of Sir Richard Grenville. Before it sailed every ship was
impressed by the Government, and Sir Richard was required to attend
Sir Walter, who was training troops in Cornwall. Governor White, with
Ralegh’s aid, succeeded in sailing for Virginia with two vessels,
April 22, 1588, but encountering some Spanish ships and being worsted
in a sea-fight, he was forced to return to England, and the voyage
was abandoned for the time. White was not able to renew his effort
to relieve the colony during the year 1589, but during the next
year, finding that three ships ready to sail for the West Indies at
the charges of John Wattes, a London merchant, had been detained by
the order prohibiting any vessel from leaving England, he applied
to Ralegh to obtain permission for them to sail, on condition that
they should take him and some others with supplies to Roanoke Island.
After obtaining permission to sail on this condition, the owner and
commanders of the ships refused to take any one aboard except White;
and as they were in the act of sailing, and White had no time to lodge
complaint against them, he went aboard, determined alone to prosecute
his search. On the 15th of August they came to anchor at Hatorask.
When White left the colony they had determined to remove fifty miles
into the interior, and it had been agreed that they should carve on
the trees or posts of the doors the name of the place where they were
seated, and if they were in distress a cross was to be carved above
the name. White found no one on the island, but the houses he had
left had been taken down and a fort erected, which had been so long
deserted that grass was growing in it. The bark had been cut from one
of the largest trees near the entrance, and five feet from the ground,
in fair capital letters, was cut the word CROATOAN, without any sign
of distress. Further search developed the fact that five chests,
buried near the fort, had been dug up and their contents destroyed.
White recognized among the fragments of the articles some of his own
books, maps, and pictures. He concluded that the colony had removed
to Croatoan, the island from which Manteo came, whose inhabitants
had been friendly to the English. White at once begged the captain
of the ship to carry him to Croatoan, which the captain promised to
do; but a violent storm preventing, he finally determined to sail for
England, where they arrived on the 24th of October. This was White’s
fifth and last voyage, as he states in his letter to Hakluyt in 1593.
His disappointment produced despondency, and he abandoned all hope of
relieving the colony, with whom he had left his daughter and grandchild.

Ralegh had already spent forty thousand pounds in his several efforts
to colonize Virginia, and he found himself unable to follow up his
design from his own purse alone. He thereupon leased his patent to a
company of merchants, hoping thus to achieve his object. But in this
he was disappointed. He did not abandon all hope of final success,
however, but continued to send out ships to look for his lost colony.
In 1602 he made his fifth effort to afford them help by sending Captain
Samuel Mace, a mariner of experience, with instructions to search for
them. Mace returned without executing his orders, and Ralegh wrote to
Sir Robert Cecil on the 21st August that he would send Mace back, and
expressed his faith in the colonization of Virginia in these words,
“I shall yet live to see it an Englishe nation.” He lived, indeed, to
see his prediction verified, but not until he was immured in the Tower
of London. During the last years of Elizabeth’s reign he continually
pressed the Secretary and Privy Council for facilities to resume his
schemes, but without success; and he finally abandoned all hope of
finding the colony left at Roanoke Island.

What became of this colony was long a question of anxious inquiry, only
to be solved by the information obtained from the Indians after the
English settled at Jamestown. It was then ascertained that they had
intermixed with the natives, and, after living with them till about
the time of the arrival of the colony at Jamestown, had been cruelly
massacred at the instigation of Powhatan, acting under the persuasions
of his priests.[215] Only seven of them—four men, two boys, and a
young maid—had been preserved from slaughter by a friendly chief. From
these was descended a tribe of Indians found in the vicinity of Roanoke
Island in the beginning of the eighteenth century, and known as the
Hatteras Indians. They had gray eyes, which were found among no other
tribes, and claimed to have white people as their ancestors.

The failure of Ralegh’s efforts to colonize Virginia may be ascribed
to the inherent difficulties of the enterprise, increased by the
inexperience of those sent out; to the unfortunate selection of the
place of settlement; and, above all, to the war with Spain, which
prevented Ralegh from taking proper care of the infant colony until it
could become self-sustaining.

But although the colonies he sent to Virginia perished, to Ralegh must
be awarded the honor of securing the possession of North America to the
English. It was through his enterprise that the advantages of its soil
and climate were made known in England, and that the Chesapeake Bay was
fixed upon as the proper place of settlement; and it was his genius
that created the spirit of colonization which led to the successful
settlement upon that bay.

Ralegh incurred the displeasure of the Queen in 1592 by his marriage
with Elizabeth Throgmorton, her beautiful maid of honor. He was more
than compensated, however, by the acquisition of a faithful and loving
wife, who was in every way worthy of him. The jealous Queen sent them
both to the Tower. After a few months’ imprisonment Sir Walter was
released, that he might superintend the division of the rich spoil
taken in the Spanish ship “Madre de Dios,” on her return from the West
Indies, by a privateering fleet which he had sent out. The Queen was
personally interested in this enterprise, and got the lion’s share of
the profits. Afterward he was permitted to retire with his wife to his
estate, and there he matured his plans for a voyage to Guiana, which he
had been long considering. His colony had found no mines in Virginia,
and he longed to make England the rival of Spain in mineral wealth.

Spanish travellers had reported that the natives told of a city of gold
called “El Dorado,” which was situated in the unexplored region of the
northeastern portion of South America, known as the “Empire of Guiana.”
Between the years 1530 and 1560 a number of expeditions had been sent
by the Spaniards to this unknown land. They had proved unsuccessful,
and been attended with great loss of life and money. Ralegh was seized
with a desire to visit this region and secure its riches. In 1594
he sent out Jacob Whiddon, with instructions to examine the coast
contiguous to the River Orinoco, and to explore that river and its
tributaries. Whiddon met at the Island of Trinidad with Antonio de
Berreo, the Spanish governor, who was himself planning an exploration
of the region along the Orinoco, and who opposed every obstacle to
the success of Whiddon’s mission. Ralegh’s agent returned to England
towards the close of the year with but little trustworthy information.
Sir Walter continued his preparations, however, and on February 9,
1595, with a squadron of five ships, he sailed from Plymouth for
Trinidad, having aboard one hundred officers, soldiers, and gentlemen
adventurers. Before the end of March he arrived at Trinidad. He
captured the town of St. Joseph, and took Berreo prisoner. Treating his
captive with kindness, Ralegh soon learned from him what he knew of
Guiana. He was informed by Berreo that the empire of Guiana had more
gold than Peru; that the imperial city called by the Spaniards “El
Dorado” was called by the Indians “Manoa,” and was situated on a lake
of salt water two hundred leagues long, and that it was the largest
and richest city in the world. Berreo showed Sir Walter a copy of a
narrative by Juan Martinez of his journey to Manoa, which had induced
Berreo to send a special messenger to Spain to get up an expedition for
the conquest of El Dorado, or, as it was then called, “Laguna de la
Gran Manoa.”

This narrative appeared to confirm the marvellous tales concerning El
Dorado which had so long obtained credence. Ralegh did not rely on
Berreo, however, but sought out the oldest among the Indians on the
island, and inquired of them concerning the country, its streams and
inhabitants. He then started upon his perilous voyage up the Orinoco,
with four boats and provisions for a month. He entered by the most
northern of the divisions through which that remarkable river flows
into the sea, and after struggling against its rapid, various, and
dangerous currents for more than a month, and reaching the mouth of the
Caroni, and ascending that stream some forty miles to the vicinity of
its falls, he was forced by the rising of the river to return,—finding
that his farther progress was not only prevented thereby, but his
return made dangerous. He supposed he had gone four hundred miles by
the windings of the river, and he was still more than two hundred
miles from the country of which Manoa was the capital, according to
the reckoning of Berreo. Ralegh did not find the rich deposits of gold
he had hoped for, but saw, as he supposed, many indications of that
metal, and secured specimens of ores and precious stones. He found that
the Spaniards had previously traversed the country contiguous to the
river, and been cruel in their treatment of the natives. He informed
them that his Queen, whose portrait he showed them, was the enemy of
the Spaniards, and that he came to deliver them from their tyranny.
He soon made them his fast friends by his kindness, and an old chief,
Topiawari, promised to unite the several tribes along the river in a
league against the Spaniards by the time Sir Walter should return. This
chief gave his son to Ralegh as a pledge of his fidelity, and received
in return two Englishmen, who were instructed to learn what they could
of the country, and, if possible, to go to the city of Manoa.

Ralegh arrived in England in the latter part of the summer of 1595,
after laying under contribution several Spanish settlements on the way.
He published a glowing account of his voyage, in which he related not
only the wonderful things he had seen, but the more wonderful things
which had been told him by the Spaniards and natives. He was firmly
persuaded of the existence of El Dorado, and also that there lived in
Guiana the Amazons, a race of women who allowed no man to remain among
them; and the Ewaipanoma, a tribe who had their eyes in their shoulders
and their mouths in the middle of their breasts. The publication was
eagerly read, and increased his already great reputation. But it was
severely criticised at the time, as it has been since by Hume and other
historians. During the present century two distinguished men—Humboldt
and Schomburgk—have explored the Orinoco and the countries drained by
it and its almost innumerable tributaries. They found that what Ralegh
stated of the country, as coming under his own observation, was true,
while many of the tales told him by others were the merest fiction.

In January, 1596, Ralegh sent Captain Laurence Keymis, a companion
of his first voyage, with two ships, to renew the exploration of the
Orinoco, with a view to planting a colony. He returned in June, and
his report confirmed Ralegh in his belief in the mineral wealth of the
country. He brought intelligence, however, of a Spanish settlement made
by Berreo near the mouth of the Caroni, with the men sent out to him
from Spain.

When Keymis landed in England he found that Ralegh had been partially
restored to the favor of the Queen, and united with Essex and Howard
in command of the force sent to attack Cadiz. The operations before
that city were directed by Ralegh’s genius, and he led the van of the
naval attack which resulted in the destruction of the Spanish fleet
and the capture of the city. From the effects of this blow Spain never
recovered, and the 21st of June, 1596, the day of the battle, marks the
date of her decline as one of the great powers. During the next year he
struck her another blow by the capture of Fayal.

In the year 1596 Ralegh despatched one of the smaller ships which had
fought at Cadiz, to Guiana, under the command of Captain Leonard Berry,
but with no important results. In 1598 he attempted to get together
a fleet of thirteen ships, to be commanded by Sir John Gilbert, with
which to convey a colony to the fertile valley of the Orinoco, but from
some cause, not known, he failed.

His frequent failures did not dampen his ardor in the cause of
colonization, but he found that it “required a prince’s purse to
have it thoroughly followed out,” and he therefore endeavored to
interest the Ministry in his schemes. But the end of the great Queen
was approaching, and instead of aiming at the enlargement of her
kingdom, her ministers were scheming for their own advancement with her

The accession of James to the throne of England changed the fortunes of
Ralegh. When he met the King he found the royal mind already prejudiced
against him. He was displaced from the Captaincy of the Guard, and
shortly afterwards was arrested on a charge of treason, in plotting
with the Count of Arenburg, an ambassador of the Archduke Albert, to
place Lady Arabella Stuart upon the throne, and to obtain aid from the
King of Spain for the purpose. The mockery of a trial which followed
drew from one of his judges the statement, which succeeding ages have
pronounced true, that “never before was English justice so injured or
so degraded.” The brutal conduct of Sir Edward Coke who prosecuted,
and of Chief-Justice Popham who presided, at the trial, and denied the
request of Ralegh to be confronted with the witnesses against him, has
consigned their memory to lasting infamy. That Ralegh, after spending
his life in war with Spain, should plot with her to overthrow his King
and put another in his place is not credible, and that the Government
that prosecuted him did not believe the charge is conclusively shown by
the fact, that the Count of Arenburg retained the favor of King James,
and further, that some of the men prominent in the prosecution were at
the time in the paid service of Spain.

James did not proceed to execute the sentence of death which his
corrupt court had pronounced against Ralegh, but kept him a prisoner in
the Tower for thirteen years. In prison he devoted himself to the study
of chemistry and to literary composition; and the great wrong done in
depriving him of his liberty resulted in that literary treasure, the
_History of the World_.

As prison life became more and more irksome to Ralegh, he attempted to
relieve himself from it by obtaining employment in Virginia or Guiana,
promising the King rich returns if he would but permit him to visit
either country. Finally, by bribing those who had the ear of the King,
he was released January 30, 1616, to prepare for a voyage to Guiana. He
had been assured by Keymis that a rich mine existed near the mouth of
the Caroni, and he pledged himself to find it or else to bear all the
expenses of the expedition. Keymis was to go along with him, and also a
sufficient force “to defend him against the Spaniards inhabiting upon
the Orenocke, if they offered to assaile him,—not that it is meant
to offend the Spaniards there, or to beginne any quarrell with them,
except themselves shall beginne the warre.” It was said in London at
the time that Ralegh wanted to obtain a pardon under the Great Seal,
but it required a further expenditure of money which he needed in his
expedition, and he was advised by Bacon that the King’s commission
under which he sailed was equivalent to a pardon. The release of Ralegh
enabled him to see Pocahontas, who was in England in 1616, and we can
well conceive with what interest he beheld her who had so much aided in
realizing his hope of seeing Virginia an English nation.

King James had fallen under the influence of Count Gondomar, the
Spanish ambassador, to whom Ralegh was particularly obnoxious on
account of his lifelong enmity to Spain. The Count attempted to prevent
the sailing of the expedition, but failing in that, he obtained from
the King Ralegh’s plans, and at once transmitted them to Madrid, where
steps were immediately taken to thwart them. In June, 1617, Ralegh
sailed with eleven vessels from Plymouth, having with him his son,
young Walter Ralegh, Captain Keymis, and four hundred and thirty-one
men. He arrived at Trinidad in December, suffering from the effects
of a violent fever. He was too feeble to attempt the ascent of the
Orinoco, but sent forward his son and Keymis. When they approached
St. Thomas, settled since his first voyage, they were attacked by the
Spaniards. The conflict ended in the taking of the town, but at the
cost of young Walter Ralegh’s life. Keymis continued the search for
the mine, and with a part of his men reached the vicinity of the place
at which he had located it on his previous voyage. The hostility of
the Spaniards reduced his numbers so that he felt forced to return to
St. Thomas for reinforcements. After returning to that point he became
despondent, and finally burnt the town and returned to Trinidad, taking
along with him documents found at St. Thomas, which showed that the
plans of Ralegh, communicated to the King, had been betrayed to the
Court of Madrid. When Keymis met Ralegh and saw how he was affected by
the failure of the expedition and the loss of his son, and heard his
reproaches, he was seized with remorse at the thought that upon him
rested the responsibility for the failure, and committed suicide.

Ralegh, utterly dispirited and broken-hearted, now turned his face
homeward, and arrived at Plymouth early in July, 1618. He was arrested
upon his arrival, by order of the King, on the charge of breaking the
peace with Spain. No trial was had upon this charge, which could not
have been sustained; but as the King of Spain demanded that he should
be put to death James sought for a legal cover for compliance, and upon
the advice of Bacon determined to issue a warrant for his execution
upon the conviction of 1603. Ralegh was brought before the Court of
King’s Bench on the 28th of October, and asked what he had to allege
in further stay of execution. He pleaded his commission from the King,
giving him command of the expedition to Guiana, as working a pardon,
but was told that “Treason must be pardoned by express words, not
by implication.” Nothing remained but to execute the death-warrant,
already drawn by Bacon and signed by the King. He was beheaded on the
next day, meeting death with the greatest fortitude. His execution
excited the horror and indignation of the Protestant world, and King
James was at once arraigned at the bar of public opinion. He called to
his defence the genius of his Lord Chancellor, and Bacon attempted to
justify him by publishing a disgraceful attack upon Ralegh’s fame. But
the effort was in vain. The world acquitted Ralegh of the charges which
had been made the pretext of his judicial murder, and adjudged King
James to be the real criminal.


THE life of Sir Walter Ralegh, reprehensible in some of its parts, but
admirable in most and brilliant in all, has been variously portrayed.
Lord Bacon in 1618 published in quarto _A Declaration of the Demeanor
and Carrige of Sir Walter Ralegh, as well in his Voyage as in and since
his Return_, etc., intending it as a justification of the conduct of
King James in beheading him; but it grossly misrepresented him. He
began with the statement that “Kings are not bound to give account of
their actions to any but God alone;” but the whole apology is framed
upon the theory that King James was forced by the popular voice to give
an account of this base action. It appears from a letter of Bacon to
the Marquis of Buckingham, dated Nov. 22, 1618,[216] that the King made
very material additions to the manuscript after Bacon had prepared it.


The first Life of Ralegh was published with his works not long after
his death. The name of the author is not given, and it is not a full
narrative, but was written during his life or soon after his death.

The next publication was under the style of _The Life of the Valiant
and Learned Sir Walter Ralegh, Knight, with his Tryal at Winchester_,
London: printed by J. D. for Benj. Shirley and Richard Tonsin, 1677.
This has sometimes been attributed to James Shirley, the dramatist, who
was a contemporary of Ralegh. The narrative, however, was little more
than what was already known from books familiar to the public.

In 1701 the Rev. John Prince, a fellow-Devonian, published in his
_Worthies of Devon_ a short memoir of Ralegh, which was the best
account of its subject that had then appeared. He was able to throw
light upon some of the obscurer portions of his life by his local
knowledge, and his book is still worthy of perusal.

No other Life of Ralegh of value appeared until 1733, when William
Oldys published his work, which showed great industry in collecting
and judgment in arranging his material. For near a century it was
the standard _Life of Ralegh_, and was the source from which writers
derived their materials. Notwithstanding the criticism of Gibbon, that
“it is a servile panegyric or flat apology,” this work is of great
value. It contains all that was accessible, when it was published, from
printed records, and much information derived from the descendants of
Ralegh and from his contemporaries.[217]

Dr. Thomas Birch published three several Lives of Ralegh,[218]—the
first in 1734, in the _General Dictionary, Historical and Critical_.
This author corresponded with the descendants of Ralegh, and collected
various anecdotes of him, but he made no additions of real value to the
work of Oldys.

The next work worthy of mention was by Arthur Cayley in 1805, although
a dozen Lives perhaps appeared between Birch’s and this. Cayley made
valuable additions to the knowledge concerning Ralegh which Oldys had
gathered. He brought to light several new and valuable documents, which
threw additional light upon his subject.[219]

In 1830 Mrs. A. T. Thompson published a _Life of Ralegh_ in London,
which was republished in Philadelphia in 1846, containing fifteen
original letters then first printed from the collection in the
State-Paper Office, throwing light on the share he took in the
political transactions of his times. It was of but little additional
value so far as its other materials were concerned.

In 1833 Patrick Fraser Tytler published a _Life of Ralegh_, “with a
Vindication of his Character from the Attacks of Hume[220] and other
writers.” This writer added several original documents to the material
previously used, but his publication is more justly entitled to the
criticism of Gibbon on the work of Oldys than was that book. He first
carefully traced out the conspiracy which brought Ralegh to the

In 1837 there appeared in Lardner’s _Cabinet of Biography_, among the
Lives of the British Admirals, an excellent life of Ralegh by Robert
Southey, the poet. The author’s only addition to the knowledge afforded
by previous writers was in reference to the Guiana expeditions, the
additional information being drawn from Spanish sources.

In 1847 the Hakluyt Society published Ralegh’s accounts of his voyages
to Guiana, with notes and a biographical memoir by Sir Robert H.
Schomburgk. This memoir is an admirable summary of what was then known
of Ralegh, and the publication is a complete vindication of Ralegh’s
statements and conduct in reference to Guiana. The notes of the author
are of the greatest value. He was a British Commissioner to survey the
boundaries of Guiana in 1841, and traversed the country visited by
Ralegh and those sent out by him. He also had the benefit of Humboldt’s
previous exploration of the country. This writer published for the
first time two valuable manuscripts in the British Museum, both from
the pen of Ralegh. One was written about the year 1596, and entitled
“Of the Voyage for Guiana,” and the other was the journal of his last
voyage to that country.

In 1868 there was published in London the most valuable of all the
biographies of Ralegh. It was written by Edward Edwards, and is
“based on contemporary documents preserved in the Rolls House, the
Privy Council Office, Hatfield House, the British Museum, and other
manuscript repositories, British and foreign, together with his
letters now first collected.” The author also had the advantage of the
correspondence of the French ambassador at London during the latter
part of Ralegh’s life. He has cleared up some of the obscure parts
of Ralegh’s career, and has, not only by the very full collection of
his letters, but by the admirable treatment of his subject, rendered
invaluable service to his memory.[221]

Another Life of Ralegh, published in the same year (1868) by St. John,
is also the embodiment of the latest information, and is better adapted
to the general reader than that of Edwards, and elucidates some points
more fully.

The voyage of Amadas and Barlow to Roanoke Island in 1584 was related
by the latter in a Report addressed to Sir Walter Ralegh. The voyage
of Sir Richard Grenville in 1585, conveying Ralph Lane and the colony
under his command, was related by one of the persons who accompanied
Grenville, and the account of what happened after their arrival was
written by one of the colonists, probably Lane himself.[222] An account
of the country, its inhabitants and productions, was written by Thomas
Hariot (_b._ 1560; _d._ 1621), one of the colony.[223] There are also
accounts of the voyages of John White to Virginia written by himself.

These several publications are found together in Hakluyt, and are of
the highest authority. They have been republished by Francis L. Hawks,
D.D., LL.D., with valuable notes, in the first volume of his _History
of North Carolina_, published in 1857. Dr. Hawks was a native of North
Carolina, and personally familiar with its coast, and thus enabled
to fix the localities mentioned in the early voyages. His book is
accompanied with valuable maps. He defends Lane with much ability from
the attacks of Bancroft and others.[224]

The letters of Ralph Lane constitute a very valuable addition to the
history of Lane’s colony, and show that the disputes between Lane and
Grenville had in all probability much to do with Lane’s abandonment of
the enterprise.


[Illustration: PART OF DE LAET’S MAP, 1630.]

The voyages to Guiana are related by Ralegh himself.[225] The journal
of the second voyage is given by Schomburgk from the original
manuscript in the British Museum. The collections of the works of
Ralegh show his several other writings concerning Guiana, among
which are an “Apology for the Voyage to Guiana,” written in 1618, on
his way from Plymouth to London as a prisoner; to gain time for the
preparation of which he feigned sickness at Salisbury. Expecting to be
put to death, he was determined before he died fully and elaborately
to justify to the world his last expedition, which had been grossly
misrepresented. It was not published till 1650.

In Force’s _Historical Tracts_, vol. iii., there is published a letter,
written Nov. 17, 1617, “from the River Aliana, on the coast of Guiana,”
by a gentleman of the fleet, who signs his initials “R. M.” It is
entitled _Newes of Sir Walter Rawleigh_, and gives the orders he issued
to the commanders of his fleet, and some account of the incidents of
the expedition.[226]

In Sir Walter Ralegh’s _History of the World_ he often illustrates his
subject by the incidents of his own life, and thus we have in the book
much of an autobiography.


       *       *       *       *       *

NOTE.—At the charge of an American subscription a Ralegh window has
been placed in St. Margaret’s Church, Westminster, London; and a
sermon, _Sir Walter Raleigh and America_, was preached by the Rev.
Canon Farrar, at the unveiling, May 14, 1882.


VIRGINIA, 1606-1689.


_Corresponding Secretary of the Virginia Historical Society._

ON the petition of Hakluyt (then prebendary of Westminster), Sir
Thomas Gates, Sir George Somers, and other “firm and hearty lovers
of colonization,” James I., by patent dated the 10th of April, 1606,
chartered two companies (the London and the Plymouth), and bestowed on
them in equal proportions the vast territory (then known as Virginia)
lying between the thirty-fourth and forty-fifth degrees of north
latitude, together with the islands within one hundred miles of the
coast stretching from Cape Fear to Halifax.


The code of laws provided for the government of the proposed colonies
was complicated, inexpedient, and characteristic of the mind of the
first Stuart. For each colony separate councils appointed by the King
were instituted in England, and these were in turn to name resident
councillors in the colonies, with power to choose their own president
and to fill vacancies. Capital offences were to be tried by a jury, but
all other cases were left to the decision of the council. This body
was, however, to govern itself according to the prescribed mandates
of the King. The religion of the Church of England was established,
and the oath of obedience was a prerequisite to residence in the
colony. Lands were to descend as at common law, and a community of
labor and property was to continue for five years. The Adventurers,
as the members of the Company were termed, were authorized to mine
for gold, silver, and copper, to coin money, and to collect a revenue
for twenty-one years from all vessels trading to their ports. Certain
articles of necessity, imported for the use of the colonists, were
exempted from duty for seven years. Sir Thomas Smith, an eminent
merchant of London, who had been the chief of the assignees of Sir
Walter Raleigh and ambassador to Russia, was appointed treasurer of the

But the body of the men who composed the expedition had little care
for forms of government. A wilder chimera than the impractical devices
of the selfish and pedantic monarch possessed them. “I tell thee,”
says Seagull, in the play of _Eastward Ho!_ which was popular for
years, “golde is more plentifull there than copper is with us; and for
as much redde copper as I can bring I’ll have thrise the weight in
gold. Why, man, all their dripping-pans ... are pure gould; and all
the chaines with which they chaine up their streets are massie gold;
and for rubies and diamonds, they goe forth in Holydayes and gather
‘hem by the seashore, to hang on their children’s coates and sticke
in their children’s caps, as commonly as our children weare saffron
gilt brooches and groates with holes in ‘hem.” A life of ease and
luxury is pictured by Seagull, and, as the climax of allurement, with
“no more law than conscience, and not too much of eyther.”[227] The
expedition left Blackwall on the 19th of December, but was detained
by “unprosperous winds” in the Downs until the 1st of January,
1606-7. It consisted of three vessels,—the “Susan Constant,” of one
hundred tons, with seventy-one persons, in charge of the experienced
navigator Captain Christopher Newport (the commander of the fleet);
the “God-Speed,” of forty tons, Captain Bartholomew Gosnold, carrying
fifty-two persons; and the “Discovery,” of twenty tons, Captain John
Ratcliffe, carrying twenty persons. The crews of the ships must have
constituted thirty-nine of the total of these, as the number of the
first planters was one hundred and five. In the lists of their names,
more than half are classed as “gentlemen,” and the remainder as
laborers, tradesmen, and mechanics. Two “chirurgeons,” Thomas Wotton,
or Wootton, and Wil. Wilkinson, are included; the service of the first
of them in a professional capacity is afterwards noted. Sailing by the
old route of the West Indies, the Virginia coast was reached on the
26th of April, and in Chesapeake Bay on that night the instructions
from the King were examined. These, with a mystery well calculated
to promote mischief, had been confided to Newport, in a sealed box,
with the injunction that it should not be opened until he reached
his destination. The councillors found to be designated were Edward
Maria Wingfield, Bartholomew Gosnold, John Smith, Christopher Newport,
John Ratcliffe, John Martin, and John Kendall. Wingfield, a man of
honorable birth and a strict disciplinarian, who had been a companion
of Ferdinando Gorges in the European wars, was chosen president; and
Thomas Studley, cape-merchant, or treasurer.

On the 29th of the month a cross was planted at Cape Henry, which
was so named in honor of the Prince of Wales, the eldest son of King
James; the name of his second son, then Duke of York, afterwards
Charles I., being perpetuated in the opposite cape. The point at which
the ships anchored the next day was designated, in thankful spirit,
Point Comfort. On the 13th of May, 1607, the colonists landed at a
peninsula on the northern bank of the river known to the natives as
Powhatan, after their king, but to which the English gave the name
James River. Upon this spot, about fifty miles from its mouth, they
resolved to build their first town, to which they also gave the name
of the English monarch. The selection of this site is said to have
been urged by Smith and objected to by Gosnold. The better judgment
of the latter was vindicated in the sequel. Smith—at this time not
yet twenty-eight years of age, a man the most remarkably endowed among
those nominated for the council, and whose administrative capacity was
to be so prominently evidenced—was at first excluded from his seat
because, says Purchas, he had been “suspected of a supposed mutinie”
on the voyage over.[228] This proscription in all probability had no
more warrant than in the jealousy which the recent adventurous career
and the confident bearing of Smith may be supposed to have excited,
since he was admitted to office on the 10th of June following. The
colonists at once set about building fortifications and establishing
the settlement. Newport, Smith, and twenty-three others in the mean
time ascended the river in a shallop on a tour of exploration. At an
Indian village below the falls was found a lad of about ten years
of age with yellow hair and whitish skin, who, it has been assumed,
was the offspring of some representative of the ill-fated Roanoke
Colony left by White, of which it is narrated that seven persons
were preserved from slaughter by an Indian chief.[229] On the 26th
of May, the day before the return of the explorers to Jamestown, the
unfinished fort (not completed until the 15th of June) was attacked by
the savages, who were repulsed by the colonists under the command of
Wingfield. The colonists had one boy killed and eleven men wounded,
one of whom died. Communion was administered by the chaplain, the Rev.
Robert Hunt, on Sunday, the 21st of June, and on the next day Newport
sailed for England in the “Susan Constant,” laden with specimens of the
forest and with mineral productions. A bark or pinnace, with provisions
sufficient to sustain the colonists for three months, was left with
them. The prospect of the men thus cast upon their own resources, was
not promising. Disturbed by the fatuous hope of discovering gold,
divided by faction, unused to the labor and hardships to which they
were now subjected, and in daily peril from the hostility of the
savages, the difficulties of success were enhanced by the insalubrity
of their ill-chosen settlement. By September fifty of them, including
the intrepid Gosnold, had died, and the store of damaged provisions
upon which they mainly depended was nearly exhausted. Violent
dissension ensued, which resulted, on the 10th of the month, in the
displacement of Wingfield by Ratcliffe in the office of president,
and the deposing, imprisonment, and finally the execution of Kendall;
by which the Council, never more than seven in number (including
Newport), and in which no vacancies had been filled, was reduced to
three only,—Ratcliffe, Smith, and Martin. Reprehensible as the conduct
of the colonists at this period may have been, they yet held religious
observances in regard. Their piety and reverence are instanced both
by Smith and Wingfield. In Bagnall’s narrative in the _Historie_ of
the first, it is noted that “order was daily to haue Prayer, with a
Psalme;”[230] and Wingfield states that when their store of liquors was
reduced to two gallons each of “sack” and “aqua-vitæ,” the first was
“reserued for the communion table.”[231]

[Illustration: JAMESTOWN.

This cut follows a sketch made about 1857 by a travelling Englishwoman,
Miss Catherine C. Hopley, and shows the condition of the ruined church
at that time.]

Differences among the colonists being somewhat allayed, labor was
resumed, habitations were provided, a church was built, and, through
the courage and energy of Smith, supplies of corn were obtained from
the Indians. Leaving the settlement on the 10th of December, Smith
again ascended the Chickahominy to get provisions from the savages, but
incurring their hostility, two of his companions, Emry and Robinson,
were killed, and Smith himself was taken captive. Being released after
a few weeks, on the promise of a ransom of “two great guns and a
grindstone,” he returned to Jamestown. On his arrival there he found
the number of the colonists reduced to forty, and that Captain Gabriel
Archer had been admitted to the Council during his absence. Archer
caused him to be arrested and indicted, under the Levitical law, for
allowing the death of his two men; but in the evening of the same day,
Jan. 8, 1607-8, Newport returned from England with additional settlers
(a portion of the first supply), and at once released both Smith and
Wingfield from custody. Within five or six days the fort and many of
the houses at Jamestown were destroyed by an accidental fire. Newport,
accompanied by Matthew Scrivener (newly arrived and admitted to the
Council), with Smith as interpreter and thirty or forty others, now
visited Powhatan at his abode of Werowocomico. This was at Timberneck
Bay, on the north side of York River. On the east bank of the bay still
stands a quaint stone chimney,[232] subsequently built for Powhatan by
German workmen among the colonists. Hostages were exchanged; Namontack,
an Indian who was taken to England by Newport, being received from
Powhatan for Thomas Savage, a youth aged thirteen, who for many years
afterwards rendered important service to the colonists as interpreter.
With supplies of food obtained from Powhatan and Opecancanough, the
chief of the Pamunkey tribe, the party returned to Jamestown.

The ship being loaded with iron ore, sassafras, cedar posts, and
walnut boards, Newport, with Archer[233] and Wingfield as passengers,
sailed on the 10th of April from Jamestown, and on the 20th of May,
1608, arrived in England. The diet of the colonists was soon reduced
to meal and water, and through hunger and exposure death diminished
them one half. While they were engaged in re-building Jamestown and
in planting, to their great joy Captain Nelson, who had left England
with Newport, but from whom he had been separated by storm and detained
in the West Indies, arrived in the ship “Phœnix,” with provisions
and seventy settlers, being the remainder of the first supply of one
hundred and twenty. He departed for England on the 2d of June with a
cargo of cedar-wood, carrying Martin of the Council. Smith, in an open
boat, with fourteen others,—seven gentlemen (including Dr. Walter
Russell of the last arrival), and seven soldiers,—accompanied the
“Phœnix” down the river, and parted from her at Cape Henry, with the
bold purpose of exploring Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, and
establishing intercourse with the natives along their borders. To
the islands lying off Cape Charles, Smith gave his own name. After a
satisfactory cruise, having crossed the bay, visited its eastern shore,
and explored the Potomac River some thirty miles, the party returned
late in July to Jamestown for provisions. Smith again embarked on the
24th of July to complete his explorations, with a crew of twelve,
similarly constituted as before, but with Anthony Bagnall as surgeon.
At the head of Chesapeake Bay they were hospitably entertained by a
tribe of Indians, supposed by Stith[234] to have been of the Iroquois,
or Five Nations, and also by the Susquehannas, at a village on the
Tockwogh (now Sassafras) River. The highest mountain to the northward
observed by them was named Peregrine’s Mount, and Willoughby River
was so called after the native town of Smith. The Indian tribes
on the Patuxent, and the Moraughtacunds and the Wighcomoes on the
Rappahannock, were visited. Richard Featherstone, a “gentleman” of the
party, dying, was buried on the banks of the last-named river, which
was explored to the falls, near where Fredericksburg now is. Here
a skirmish took place with the Rappahannock tribe. The Pianketank,
Elizabeth, and Nansemond rivers were in turn examined for a few miles.
From the results of these discoveries Smith composed his Map of
Virginia, a work so singularly exact that it has formed the basis of
all like delineations since, and was adduced as authority as late as
1873 towards the settlement of the boundary dispute between the States
of Virginia and Maryland. The drawing was sent to England by Newport
before the close of the year, and in 1612 was published in the _Oxford
Tract_. Returning to Jamestown, Sept. 7, 1608, Smith was elected
President of the Council over Ratcliffe (who suffered from a wounded
hand and was enfeebled by sickness), and now, for the first time, he
had the “letters patent” of office placed in his hands.[235] Ever
firm, courageous, and persevering, he at once instituted vigorous and
salutary measures adapted to the wants and conducive to the discipline
of the colonists. The church was repaired, the storehouse covered,
and magazines erected. Soon after, Newport arrived for the third time
from England, with the second supply of settlers, seventy in number.
Among them were Captains Peter Wynne and Richard Waldo, Francis West
(the brother of Lord Delaware), Raleigh Crashaw, Daniel Tucker, some
German and Polish artisans for the manufacture of glass and other
articles, Mrs. Thomas Forest, and her maid, Ann Burras. The last named
of these—the first Englishwomen in the colony—became, before the
close of the year, the wife of John Laydon. This was the first marriage
celebrated in Virginia. Newport had left England under the silly
pledge not to return without a lump of gold, or without tidings of the
discovery of a passage to the North Sea, or without the rescue of one
of the settlers of the lost company of Sir Walter Raleigh. The Company
added the equally impossible condition that he should bring a freight
in his vessel of equal value to the cost of the expedition, which was
£2,000. In case of failure in these respects, the colonists were to be
abandoned to their own resources. Much valuable time was consumed by
Newport in an idle coronation of Powhatan (for whose household he had
brought costly presents), and in futile efforts for the accomplishment
of the visionary expectations of the Company. At last there was
provided by those of the colonists who remained at their labors a part
of a cargo of pitch, tar, glass, and iron ore, and Newport set sail,
leaving at Jamestown about two hundred settlers. The iron ore which he
carried was smelted in England, and seventeen tons of metal sold to the
East India Company at £4 per ton. In the preservation of the colony
until the next arrival, the genius and energy of Smith were strongly
but successfully taxed,—for Captain Wynne dying, and Scrivener and
Anthony Gosnold, with eight others, having been drowned, he alone of
the Council remained. His measures were sagacious. Corn was planted,
and blockhouses were built and garrisoned at Jamestown for defence,
and an outpost was established at Hog Island, to give signal of the
approach of shipping.

At the last place the hogs, which increased rapidly, were kept. But
being subject to the treachery of the natives, the colonists were in
continual danger of attack, and were too slothful to make due provision
for their wants, so that the tenure of the settlement became like a
brittle thread. The store of provisions having been spoiled by damp or
eaten by vermin, their subsistence now depended precariously on fish,
game, and roots. The prospects of the colony were so discouraging at
the beginning of the year 1609, that, in the hope of improving them,
the Company applied for a new charter with enlarged privileges. This
was granted to them, on the 23d of May, under the corporate name of
“The Treasurer and Company of Adventurers and Planters of the City of
London for the first Colony in Virginia.” The new Association, which
embraced representatives of every rank, trade, and profession, included
twenty-one peers, and its list of names presents an imposing array of
wealth and influence. By this charter Virginia was greatly enlarged,
and made to comprise the coast-line and all islands within one hundred
miles of it,—two hundred miles north and two hundred south of Point
Comfort,—with all the territory within parallel lines thus distant
and extending to the Pacific boundary; the Company was empowered to
choose the Supreme Council in England, and, under the instructions and
regulations of the last, the Governor was invested with absolute civil
and military authority.


With the disastrous experience of the previous unstable system, a
sterner discipline seems, under attending circumstances, to have been
demanded to insure success. Thomas West (Lord Delaware), the descendant
of a long line of noble ancestry, received the appointment of Governor
and Captain-General of Virginia. The first expedition under the second
charter, which was on a grander scale than any preceding it, and which
consisted of nine vessels, sailed from Plymouth on the 1st of June,


Newport, the commander of the fleet, Sir Thomas Gates,
Lieutenant-General, and Sir George Somers, Admiral of Virginia,
were severally authorized, whichever of them might first arrive at
Jamestown, to supersede the existing administration there until the
arrival of Lord Delaware, who was to embark some months later; but
not being able to settle the point of precedency among themselves,
they embarked together in the same vessel, which carried also the
wife and daughters of Gates. Among the five hundred colonists, were
the returning Captains Ratcliffe, Archer, and Martin, divers other
captains and gentlemen, and, by the suggestion of Hakluyt, a number
of old soldiers[236] who had been trained in the Netherlands. On the
23d of July the fleet was caught in a hurricane; a small vessel was
lost, others damaged, and the “Sea Venture,” which carried Gates,
Somers, and Newport, with about one hundred and fifty settlers, was
cast ashore on the Bermudas. Captain Samuel Argall (a relative of Sir
Thomas Smith) arrived at Jamestown in July, with a shipload of wine and
provisions, to trade on private account, contrary to the regulations of
the Company. As the settlers were suffering for food, they seized his
supplies. Many of them at this time had gone to live among the Indians,
and eighty had formed a settlement twenty miles distant from the
fort. Early in August the “Blessing,” Captain Archer, and three other
vessels of the delayed fleet sailed up James River, and soon after the
“Diamond,” Captain Ratcliffe, appeared, without her mainmast, and she
was followed in a few days by the “Swallow,” in like condition.

The Council being all dead save Smith, he, obtaining the sympathy of
the sailors, refused to surrender the government of the colony; and
the newly arrived settlers elected Francis West, the brother of Lord
Delaware, as temporary president. The term of Smith expiring soon
after, George Percy—one of the original settlers, a brother of the
Earl of Northumberland, and a brave and honorable man—was elected
president, and West, Ratcliffe, and Martin were made councillors.

[Illustration: George Percy]

Smith, about Michaelmas (September 29), departed for England or, as
all contemporary accounts other than his own state, was sent thither
“to answer some misdemeanors.”[237] These were doubtless of a venial
character; but the important services of Smith in the sustenance of
the colony appear not to have been as highly esteemed by the Company
as by Smith himself. He complains that his several petitions for
reward were disregarded, and he never returned to Virginia. Modern
investigation has discredited many of the so-long-accepted narratives
in which he records his own achievements and judges so harshly the
motives and conduct of all others of his companions; and the glamour
of romance with which he invested his own exploits has been somewhat
dissipated. But whatever may have been the fervor of his imagination
as a historian, it was more than equalled by his fertility of resource
in vital emergencies, and there is ample evidence that his services in
the preservation of the infant colony were momentous. After his return
to England but little is recorded of him until the year 1614, during
which he made a successful voyage to New England, under the auspices
of the Plymouth Company, which gained for him the title of Admiral of
New England.[238] Whatever may have been the defects of Smith, the
greatness of his deeds has impressed him enduringly on the pages of
history as one of the most prominent figures of his period. At the time
of his departure for England he left at Jamestown three ships, seven
boats, a good stock of provisions, nearly five hundred settlers, twenty
pieces of cannon, three hundred guns, with fishing-nets, working-tools,
horses, cattle, swine, etc.

Jamestown was strongly fortified with palisades, and contained between
fifty and sixty houses. The favorable prospects of the colony were soon
threatened by the renewal of Indian hostilities. Provisions becoming
scarce, West and Ratcliffe embarked in small vessels to procure corn.
The latter, deceived by the treachery of Powhatan, was slain with
thirty of his companions, two only escaping,—one of whom, Henry
Spelman, a young gentleman well descended, was rescued by Pocahontas,
and lived for many years among the Patowomekes. He acquired their
language, and was afterwards highly serviceable to his countrymen as an
interpreter. He was slain by the savages in 1622. No effort by tillage
being made to replenish their provisions, the stock was soon consumed,
and the horrors of famine were added to other calamities. The intense
sufferings of the colonists were long remembered, and this period is
referred to as “the starving time.” In six months their number was
reduced to sixty, and such was the extremity of these that they must
soon have perished but for speedy succor. The passengers of the wrecked
“Sea Venture,” though mourned for as lost, had effected a safe landing
at the Bermudas, where, favored by the tropical productions of the
islands, they, under the direction of Gates and Somers, constructed
for their deliverance two vessels from the materials of the wreck and
cedar-wood, the largest of the vessels being of eighty tons burden.
The Sabbath was duly observed by them under the faithful ministry of
Mr. Bucke. Among the passengers was John Rolfe and wife,[239] to whom
a male child was born on the island, who was christened Bermuda; a
girl also born there was named Bermudas. Six of the company, including
the wife of Sir Thomas Gates, died on the island. The company of
one hundred and forty men and women embarked on the completed
vessels—which were appropriately named the “Patience” and the
“Deliverance”—on the 10th of May, 1610, and on the 23d they landed at
Jamestown. Here the church bell was immediately rung, and such of the
famished colonists as were physically able repaired to the sanctuary,
where “a zealous and sorrowful prayer” was offered by Mr. Bucke. The
new commission being read, Percy, the acting president, surrendered
the former charter and his credentials of office. The fort was in a
dismantled condition, and most of the habitations had been consumed for
fire-wood. So forlorn was the condition of the settlement that Gates
reluctantly resolved to abandon it and to return to England by way of
Newfoundland, where he expected to receive succor from trading-vessels.
Some of the colonists were with difficulty restrained from setting fire
to the town, Gates, with a guard to prevent it, remaining on shore
until all others had embarked. A farewell volley was fired; but the
leave-taking of a spot associated with so much suffering was tearless.

In the mean time, the repeated ill tidings brought by returning ships
to England, and the supposed loss of the “Sea Venture” had so dismayed
the members of the Company in London that many of them withdrew their
subscriptions. Lord Delaware—who is characterized in the “Declaration”
of the Council, in 1610, as “one of approved courage, temper, and
experience”—determined to go in person as Governor and Captain-General
of Virginia (the first of such title and authority), and, disregarding
the comforts of home and noble station, “did bare a grate part upon
his owne charge.” By his example, constancy, and resolution, “that
which was almost lifeless” was revived in the Company. On Feb. 21,
1609-10, William Crashaw, a preacher at the Temple (the father of the
poet eulogized by Cowley), in view of the departure of Lord Delaware,
delivered before the Council and Adventurers in London a stirring
sermon, which was the first preached in England to any embarking for
Virginia in a missionary cause.[240] Distinct and unequivocal testimony
is given by the Company, in the “Declaration” already cited, as to
the reputation of settlers for the colony, none being desired but
those of blameless character. Five weeks later Lord Delaware sailed
with three vessels and one hundred and fifty settlers, and arrived in
Virginia providentially to intercept, off Mulberry Island, Gates and
his disheartened companions as they were descending the river, who
returned at once to Jamestown. The fleet, following, arrived there on
Sunday, the 10th of June. The first act of Lord Delaware upon landing
was to fall devoutly upon his knees and offer up a prayer, after which
he repaired with the company to the church, to listen to a sermon by
Mr. Bucke. Two days later a council was organized, consisting of Sir
Thomas Gates, lieutenant-general, Sir Thomas Somers, admiral, Sir
Ferdinando Wenman, master of ordnance (who soon died), Captain Newport,
vice-admiral, Captain George Percy and William Strachey, secretary and
recorder. Captain John Martin was made master of the steel and iron
works. The restoration of the settlement was prosecuted with vigor, and
the church, a building sixty feet in length by twenty-four in breadth,
was repaired, and services were held regularly twice on Sunday, and
again on Thursday. Two forts were also built on Southampton River, and
called after the King’s sons, Henry and Charles, respectively.

The administration of Delaware, though ludicrously ostentatious for
so insignificant a dominion, was yet highly wholesome, and under
his judicious discipline the settlement was restored to order and
contentment. On the 19th of June Sir George Somers, in his cedar
pinnace, accompanied by Argall in another vessel, re-embarked to seek
for provisions. The vessels separating, Argall on the 27th of August
“came to anchor in nine fathoms, in a very great bay,” called by him
Delaware,[241] and on the ninth of the month reached Cape Charles.
Somers, soon after parting from Argall, reached the Bermudas, where,
dying from the effects of the hardships he had undergone, his body
was embalmed and conveyed to England by his nephew, Captain Matthew
Somers. About Christmas, Captain Argall sailed in the “Discovery” up
the Potomac for supplies of corn, and rescued the captive English boy
Henry Spelman from Jopassus, the brother of Powhatan. In the month of
February following, Argall, aided by a small land force under Captain
Edward Brewster, attacked the chief of the Warraskoyacks for a breach
of contract and burned two of his towns. Sir Thomas Gates, being
despatched to England to report to the Company the condition of the
colony, succeeded by strenuous appeals in inducing it to send a fresh
supply of settlers and provisions. During his absence, the health of
Lord Delaware failing, on the 28th of March, 1611, accompanied by
Dr. Bohune and Captain Argall, he sailed for England by way of the
Isle of Mevis, leaving Percy in authority. On the 17th of March Sir
Thomas Dale, with the appointment of “high marshall,” had sailed with
three vessels for the colony, with settlers (among whom was the Rev.
Alexander Whitaker) and cattle. He reached Point Comfort May the 12th,
and spent several days in provisioning and disciplining that station
and the forts Henry and Charles on the Southampton River, and in
planting corn.

Sir Thomas landed at Jamestown on Sunday the 19th, where, first
repairing to the church, he listened to a sermon from the Rev. Mr.
Poole, after which, his commission being read by Secretary Strachey,
Percy surrendered the government to him. Under an extraordinary code
of “Lawes, Divine, Morall, and Martiall,” compiled by William Strachey
for Sir Thomas Smith, and based upon those observed in the wars in the
Low Countries, Dale inaugurated vigorous measures for the government
and advancement of the colony. The church was repaired, and store,
powder, and block houses severally were built, while pales and posts
were prepared for a new settlement. The site selected for the last
was a peninsula in Varina Neck on James River, known as Farrar’s
Island, which is formed by an extraordinary curve resembling that of a
horseshoe, where the river, after a sweep of seven miles, returns to
a point within a hundred and twenty yards from that of its deviation.
The name of the bend, Dutch Gap,[242] by the events of the late civil
war attained a historic notoriety. The building of the new town was
delayed by insubordination among the colonists, which however, under
the rigors of the martial code in force, was promptly quelled, eight of
the ringleaders being executed. The pernicious system of a community
of property was now to some extent remedied by Dale, in the allotment
to each settler of three acres of land to be worked for his individual
benefit. “Comon gardens for hemp and flaxe, and such other seedes,”
were also laid out.[243]

In June, 1611, Sir Thomas Gates, accompanied by his wife (who died on
the passage) and daughters and the Rev. Mr. Glover (who lived but a
short time after his arrival in the colony), followed Dale with six
ships, three hundred settlers, and one hundred cows, besides other
cattle and an abundant supply of provisions. He arrived at Jamestown
early in August, and thus increased the number of the colonists to
seven hundred persons. Gates established himself at Hampton, deputed
the command of Jamestown to Percy, and sent Dale, early in September,
with three hundred and fifty men, to found the projected town of
Henrico, at which, among the “three streets” of buildings erected,
was a handsome church. The foundation of another, to be of brick, was
laid.[244] In December, the Appomattox Indians having committed some
depredations, Dale captured their town on the south side of the James,
near the mouth of Appomattox River (and about five miles distant from
Henrico), and upon its site established a third town, which he called
Bermuda. Here the pious apostle Alexander Whitaker fixed his residence,
serving as the minister both of Bermuda and Henrico.[245] Several
plantations were laid out near Bermuda,—Upper and Lower Rochdale,
West Shirley, and Digges’ Hundred. In conformity with the code of
martial law, each hundred was subjected to the control of a captain.
In December, also, Newport arrived at London from Jamestown, in the
ship “Star,” with a cargo of “forty fine and large pines for masts,”
and with the daughters of Sir Thomas Gates as passengers. Newport’s
name does not again appear in connection with Virginia.[246] The
reinforcements for the colony for some months were insignificant, the
only ships sent over being the “John and Francis” and the “Sarah,”
with few settlers and less provisions, and the “Treasurer” with fifty
persons, under the bold and unscrupulous Captain Samuel Argall, who,
sailing from England in July, 1612, arrived at Point Comfort, September
17.[247] This year was a marked one in the inauguration by John Rolfe
of the systematic culture of tobacco,—a staple destined to exert
a controlling influence in the future welfare and progress of the
colony, and soon, by the paramount profit yielded by its culture, to
subordinate all other interests, agricultural as well as manufacturing.
This influence permeated the entire social fabric of the colony,
directed its laws, was an element in all its political and religious
disturbances, and became the direct instigation of its curse of African
slavery. It may be added, however, as an indisputable fact, that the
culture of tobacco constituted the basis of the present unrivalled
prosperity of the United States, and that this staple is still one of
the most prolific factors in the revenue of the General Government.

Early in the spring of 1613, the colonists needing food, Argall
determined on a bold stroke, and with the bribe of a copper kettle
induced Jopassus, the king of Potomac, in whose domain Pocahontas was
sojourning, to betray her into his hands. Having sent a messenger to
Powhatan, demanding as a ransom the restoration of all English captives
held by him, and of all arms and tools stolen from the settlement,
Argall returned with his captive to Jamestown. There was a protracted
struggle in the breast of the savage chieftain between avarice and
parental affection.

Some months later Dale, with a command of one hundred and fifty men,
sailed up York River to Werowocomico, the seat of Powhatan, carrying
Pocahontas with him. Meeting with defiance, he landed and destroyed
the settlement, and then returned to Jamestown. The ship “Elizabeth”
arriving in March with thirteen settlers, Sir Thomas Gates departed
in her for England finally, leaving the government to Dale. An event
most auspicious for the future welfare of the colony soon occurred.
A mutual attachment springing up between John Rolfe and Pocahontas,
with the consent of Sir Thomas Dale they were united in marriage by
the Rev. Alexander Whitaker, about the 5th of April, 1614. This was a
politic example, which Dale himself unsuccessfully attempted to follow,
although he had then a wife in England. Sending Ralph Hamor (who had
been secretary of the Council under Lord Delaware) to Powhatan, with
a request for the younger sister of Pocahontas, a girl scarce twelve
years of age, his overtures were disdainfully rejected. The results of
the union of Rolfe and Pocahontas were the good-will of Powhatan during
the remainder of his life, and a treaty of peace with the formidable
Chickahominy tribe, by which the natives agreed ever to be called
Englishmen, and to be true subjects to the British crown. With the
immunity of peace, and under the wholesome discipline of Dale, industry
was stimulated, property accumulated, and famine was no longer feared.
Prosperity being now seemingly assured to the colony, the martial
spirit of Dale sought other modes of manifesting itself. As early as
1605 the French had sent settlers to Acadia, and planted a colony at
Port Royal, which had now attained some prominence.


This is a fac-simile of the engraving used in the publications of the
Company. Cf. _Calendar of Virginia State Papers_, i. p. xxxix; Neill’s
_Virginia Company_, p. 156. An example of this seal with the same
dimensions and devices, but with the differing legend on the reverse
of “COLONIA VIRGINÆ—CONSILIO PRIMA,” is in the collections of the
Virginia Historical Society. It is of red wax between the leaves of a
foolscap sheet of paper, and is affixed to a patent for land issued by
Sir John Harvey, governor, dated March 4, 1638.]

This being deemed by Dale an invasion of the territory of Virginia,
which by charter extended to the forty-fifth degree of latitude,
he sent Argall to dislodge the settlers, which was summarily
accomplished.[248] Stimulated to new conquests, Argall on his return
visited the Dutch settlement near the site of Albany, on the Hudson,
and compelled its governor to capitulate.[249] It was however soon
after reclaimed by the Dutch. Argall now sailed for England, where he
and Gates both arrived in June, 1614. In March, 1612, a third charter
had been granted to the Virginia Company, extending the boundaries of
the colony so as to include all islands lying within three hundred
leagues of the continent,—one object of which was to embrace the
Bermuda or Summer Islands, of the fertility of which extravagant
accounts had been given; but these last were soon after sold by the
Company to one hundred and twenty of its members, who became a distinct
corporation.[250] The privilege of holding lotteries for the benefit
of the Company was also secured. Gates reporting that the colony in
Virginia would perish unless better provided, the Company held for
its relief a grand lottery, by which the sum of £29,000 was secured.
The year 1615 is remarkable in the history of Virginia for the first
establishment of a fixed property in the soil, in the granting by the
Company of fifty acres to every freeman in absolute right.

Good order being established, and the colony prosperous, in April,
1616, Sir Thomas Dale, leaving the government to Captain George
Yeardley as his deputy, accompanied by Rolfe, Pocahontas, and several
Indians of both sexes, sailed for England, where he arrived on the
12th of June. The settlements in Virginia at this time were Henrico,
the seat of the college for the education of the natives (of whom
children of both sexes were already being taught), and of which the
Rev. William Wickham was the minister,—its limits being Bermuda,
Nether Hundred, or Presquile, the residence of the Deputy-Governor
Yeardley and of the Rev. Alexander Whitaker; West and Shirley Hundred,
Captain Isaac Madison, commander; Jamestown, Captain Francis West, Mr.
Mease, minister; Kiquotan; and Dale’s Gift, on the sea-coast near Cape
Charles, Lieutenant Cradock, commander. The total population of the
colony was three hundred and fifty-one.

Pocahontas was the object of much kindly attention in London, where she
was presented at court by Lady Delaware, attended by Lord Delaware,
her husband, and other persons of quality. In March, 1617, John Rolfe
prepared to return to Virginia with Pocahontas and their infant child
Thomas,[251] but on the eve of embarkation Pocahontas was stricken with
the small-pox, of which she died on the 21st instant, aged twenty-two
years, and was buried at Gravesend, in the county of Kent.[252] Tobacco
proving the most salable commodity of the colony, in 1616 Yeardley
directed general attention to its culture, the profit of which speedily
became so alluring that all other occupations were forsaken for it.

Through the influence of the court faction of the Company, in 1617,
Captain Samuel Argall was elected Deputy-Governor of Virginia. He
arrived in the colony on the 15th of May, with one hundred settlers,
accompanied by Ralph Hamor as Vice-Admiral, and John Rolfe as
“Secretary and Recorder-General.” They found “the market-place,
streets, and all other spare places” in Jamestown planted with
tobacco.[253] In a few days thereafter Captain Martin also arrived
in a pinnace, after a passage of five weeks. The whole number of the
colonists was now about four hundred. To reinforce the languishing
colony, the Company, in April, 1618, sent thither Lord Delaware, the
Governor-General, in the ship “Neptune,” with two hundred men, and
supplies. After his departure the ship “George” arrived from Virginia
with such complaints of the malfeasance of Argall, who under martial
law had loaded the colonists with oppressive exactions and robbed them
of their property, that letters were despatched to Lord Delaware to
seize upon all goods and property in Argall’s possession. Lord Delaware
dying on the passage, these letters fell into the hands of Argall,
who, to make the most of his remaining time, grew yet more tyrannical.
For seizing one of the servants of the estate of Lord Delaware, on
the complaint of Edward Brewster, the son of its manager, Argall
was arrested, and on the 15th of October, 1618, tried and sentenced
to death; but the penalty was commuted to perpetual banishment. He
secretly stole away from the colony April the 9th, 1619, leaving
Captain Nathaniel Powell in authority. Upon the intelligence of the
death of Lord Delaware, Captain George Yeardley, who was knighted on
the occasion, was appointed to succeed him. Sir Edwin Sandys also
displaced Sir Thomas Smith as treasurer of the Company.

[Illustration: LORD DELAWARE.

His portrait is preserved at Bourne, the seat of his descendant the
present Earl de la Warr, in Cambridgeshire, England. There is a copy
of it in the Library of the State of Virginia at Richmond, which was
made by William L. Sheppard, an artist of that city in July, 1877. He
is represented as a stout, ruddy-visaged Saxon, with a most benevolent
expression of countenance. King James granted a pension to the widow of
Lord Delaware, who was alive in 1644, and is called Dame Cecily Dowager
de la Warre in the sixth _Report of the Historical Commission_ to
Parliament, in a paper in which the continuance of her pension is asked

Yeardley arrived in the colony April the 19th with a new authority
under the charter, by which the authority of the governor was limited
by a council and an annual general assembly, to be composed of the
Governor and Council, and two burgesses from each plantation, to
be freely elected by the inhabitants thereof. John Rolfe, who was
succeeded in the office of Secretary of the Colony by John Pory, a
graduate of Cambridge, a great traveller and a writer, was, with
Captain Francis West, Captain Nathaniel Powell, William Wickham,
and Samuel Macock, added to the Council. On Friday, July 30, 1619,
in accordance with the summons of Governor Yeardley in June, the
first representative legislative assembly ever held in America was
convened in the chancel of the church at James City or Jamestown, and
was composed of twenty-two burgesses from the eleven several towns,
plantations, and hundreds, styled boroughs. The proceedings were
opened with prayer by the Rev. Mr. Bucke, and each burgess took the
oath of supremacy. John Pory was elected speaker, and sat in front
of Governor Yeardley, and next was John Twine, the clerk, and at the
bar stood Thomas Pierse, sergeant-at-arms. The delegates from Captain
John Martin’s plantation were excluded, because by his patent, granted
according to the unequal privilege of the manors of England, he was
released from obeying any order of the colony except in time of war
and the Company was prayed that the clause in the charter guaranteeing
equal immunities and liberties might not be violated, so as to “divert
out of the true course the free and public current of justice.” The
education and religious instruction of the children of the natives
was enjoined upon each settlement. Among the enactments, tobacco was
authorized as a currency, and the treasurer of the colony (Abraham
Percy) was directed to receive it at the valuation of three shillings
per pound for the best, and eighteen-pence for the second quality.
The government of ministers was prescribed according to the Church
of England, and a tax of tobacco laid for their support. It was also
enacted that “all persons whatsoever upon the Sabbath days shall
frequent divine service and sermons, both forenoon and afternoon.” To
compensate the officers of the Assembly, a tax of a pound of tobacco
was laid upon every male above sixteen years of age.

The introduction of negro slavery into the colony is thus noted by
John Rolfe: “About the last of August [1619] came in a Dutch man of
warre, that sold us twenty Negars.”[254] During this year there were
sent to the colony more than twelve hundred settlers, and one hundred
“disorderly persons” or convicts, by order of the King, to be employed
as servants. Boys and girls picked up in the streets of London were
also sent, and were bound as apprentices[255] to the planters until
the age of majority. In June twenty thousand pounds of tobacco, the
crop of the preceding year, was shipped to England. In November the
London Company adopted a coat-of-arms, and ordered a seal to be
engraved.[256] The Company appears ever to have held in due regard the
importance of education as intimately connected with the preservation
and dissemination of Christianity in the colony. Under an order from
the King, nearly £1,500 were collected by the bishops of the realm to
build the college at Henrico, and fifteen thousand acres of land were
appropriated for its support.[257] To cultivate it during the years
1619 and 1620 one hundred laborers were sent over under the charge of
Mr. George Thorpe (a kinsman of Sir Thomas Dale) and Captain Thomas
Newce as agents. At a meeting of the Company held June 28, 1620,
the Earl of Southampton was elected to succeed Sir Edwin Sandys as

The population of the colony in July was estimated at four thousand,
and during the year forty thousand pounds of tobacco were shipped to
England. The freedom of trade which the Company had enjoyed for a brief
interval with the Low Countries, where they sold their tobacco, was in
October, 1621, prohibited in Council, and thenceforward England claimed
a monopoly of the trade of her plantations. The planters at length
were absolved from service to the Company, and enjoyed the blessings
of property in the soil and of domestic felicity. In the autumn of
1621 the practice was begun by the Company of shipping to the colony
young women of respectability as wives for the colonists, who were
chargeable with the cost of transportation. This charge was at first
one hundred and twenty, afterwards one hundred and fifty, pounds of
tobacco. A windmill, the first in America, was about this time erected
by Sir George Yeardley, and iron-works (the primal inauguration of this
essential manufacture in this country) were established at Falling
Creek on James River, under the management of Mr. John Berkeley.[258]

Upon the request of Sir George Yeardley to be relieved of the cares
of office, Sir Francis Wyatt was appointed to succeed him upon the
expiration of his term of government on the 18th of November, 1621. Sir
Francis, with a fleet of nine sail, arrived in October, accompanied by
his brother, the Rev. Haut Wyatt, Dr John Pott as physician, William
Claiborne (destined to later prominence in the colony) as surveyor of
the Company’s lands, and George Sandys[259] as treasurer, who during
his stay translated the _Metamorphoses_ of Ovid and the First Book
of Virgil’s _Æneid_. This first Anglo-American poetical production
was published in 1626. Sir Francis Wyatt brought with him a new
constitution for the colony, granted July 24, by which all former
immunities and franchises were confirmed, trial by jury was secured,
and the Assembly was to meet annually upon the call of the Governor,
who was vested with the right of veto. No act of this body was to be
valid unless ratified by the Company; but, on the other hand, no order
of the Company was to be obligatory without the concurrence of the
Assembly. This famous ordinance furnished the model of every subsequent
provincial form of government in the Anglo-American colonies.[260] In
November Daniel Gookin arrived from Ireland with fifty settlers under
his control and thirty-six passengers, and planted himself in Elizabeth
City County, at Mary’s Mount, just above Newport News.[261] There
arrived during the year twenty-one vessels, bringing over thirteen
hundred men, women, and children. The aggregate number of settlers
arriving during the years 1619, 1620, and 1621 was thirty-five hundred
and seventy.

Deluded by long peace, on the 22d of March, 1622, the unsuspecting
colonists fell easy victims to a frightful Indian massacre of men,
women, and children, to the number of three hundred and forty-seven.
Among the slain were Mr. George Thorpe, the agent for the college at
Henrico, and Mr. John Berkeley, master of the iron-works at Falling
Creek.[262] Their death and the destruction of their charges terminated
the prosecution of these material measures for the good of the colony.
The future policy with the savages was aggressive until the peace
of 1632. At an Assembly held in March, 1623, monthly courts to be
appointed by the Governor were authorized. The Virginia Company, in
their opposition to the King in the nomination of their officers, had
already incurred his ill-will, which was increased by the freedom with
which they discussed public measures so as to invoke his denunciation
of them as “but a seminary to a seditious parliament.” Violent factions
divided them, and the massacre came at a juncture to fan discontent.
Commissioners were sent to Virginia by the King to gather materials
for the ruin of the Company. The result was the annulling of its
charter by the King’s Bench on the 16th of June, 1624. Sir Francis
Wyatt was continued as governor by commission from King James, dated
Aug. 26, 1624, and again in May, 1625, by the young monarch, Charles
I., who appointed as councillors for the colony, during his pleasure,
Francis West, Sir George Yeardley, George Sandys, Roger Smith, Ralph
Hamor, John Martin, John Harvey, Samuel Matthews, Abraham Percy,
Isaac Madison, and William Claiborne. He omitted all mention of an
assembly, and there is no preserved record of the meeting of this body
again until 1629. The administration of Wyatt was wise and pacific.
The death of his father, Sir George Wyatt, calling him to Ireland, he
was succeeded, in May, 1626, by Sir George Yeardley, who dying Nov.
14, 1627, the Council elected as his successor, on the following day,
Francis West, a younger brother of Lord Delaware. West, departing for
England on the 5th of March, 1628, was succeeded by Dr. John Pott. The
export of tobacco in 1628 was five hundred thousand pounds. Charles,
desiring a monopoly of the trade, directed an assembly to be called
to grant it. That body, replying the 26th of March, demanded a higher
price and more favorable terms than his Majesty was disposed to yield.
The colony rapidly increased in strength and prosperity, the population
in 1629 being five thousand. Pott was superseded as governor in March,
1630, by Sir John Harvey, who had been one of the commissioners sent
in 1623 to procure evidence to be used against the Virginia Company.
Between him and the colonists there was but little good-will, and his
arbitrary rule soon rendered him odious.


In July, by a strange mutation of fortune, Pott, the late governor,
was tried for cattle-stealing, and convicted. This was the first trial
by jury in the colony. It was in 1630 that George Calvert, with his
followers, arrived in the colonies; but the details of his experience
here and of the disputes about jurisdiction arising out of the grant
of the present territory of Maryland, made to him and confirmed to his
son in 1632, are given in another chapter.[263] It was under successive
grants from the governors in 1627, 1628, and 1629, and from Charles
I. in 1631, that William Claiborne had established his trading-posts
in the disputed territory, from which he was driven with bloodshed,
and by the final decree of the King in 1639 despoiled of £6,000 of
property. Harvey—actuated, it has been charged, by motives of private
interest—sided with Maryland in the disputes, and rendered himself so
obnoxious that an assembly was called for the 7th of May, 1635, to hear
complaints against him. Before it met, however, he consented to go to
England to answer the charges, and was “thrust out of his government”
by the Council on the 28th of April, and Captain John West, a brother
of Lord Delaware, was authorized to act as his successor until the
King’s pleasure might be known. In 1634 the colony was divided into
eight shires,[264] subject, as in England, to the government of a
lieutenant.[265] The election of sheriffs, sergeants, and bailiffs was
similarly provided for. The King, intolerant of opposition, reinstated
the hated Harvey as governor, by commission dated April 2, 1636.[266]
During his rule of three years thereafter, no assembly was held.
Charles gradually relaxed his policy, and in November, 1639, displaced
Harvey with Sir Francis Wyatt, who in turn was succeeded by Sir
William Berkeley as governor in February, 1642. During the year three
Congregational ministers came from Boston to Virginia to disseminate
their doctrines.


Their stay, however, was but short; for by an enactment of the Assembly
all ministers other than those of the Church of England were compelled
to leave the colony. It will be shown that their success was limited.
On the 18th of April, 1644, a second Indian massacre occurred. The
number of victims has been differently stated as three and five
hundred. During a visit by Berkeley to England, from June, 1644, to
June, 1645, his place was filled by Richard Kemp. In 1642 the ship
of Richard Ingle, from London, had been seized by Governor Brent,
of Maryland, acting under a commission from Charles I., and an oath
against Parliament tendered the crew. Ingle escaped, and, securing a
commission from Parliament to cruise in the waters of the Chesapeake
against Malignants, as the friends of the King were called, reappeared
in February, 1645, in the ship “Reformation,” near St. Inigo Creek,
where there was a popular uprising, and with the aid of the insurgents
and forces from Virginia expelled Leonard Calvert and installed Colonel
Edward Hill as governor. Calvert regained authority in August, 1646.
The colony of Virginia continued to prosper. In 1648 the population
consisted of fifteen thousand whites and three hundred negro slaves.
Domestic animals were abundant; corn, wheat, rice, hemp, flax, and many
vegetables were cultivated; there were fifteen varieties of fruit, and
excellent wine was made. The average export of tobacco for several
years had been 1,500,000 pounds. Besides the “old field schools,” there
was a free school endowed by Benjamin Symmes with two hundred acres of
land, a good house, forty milch cows, and other appurtenances.

The Dissenters, who had increased in number to one hundred and
eighteen, now encountered the rigors of colonial authority in
imprisonment and banishment, and all opposition to the Established
Church was decisively quelled.[267]

With the beheading of Charles I. on the 30th of January, 1649, the
Commonwealth of England was inaugurated; but Virginia still continued
its allegiance to his son, the exiled prince, and offered an asylum to
his fugitive adherents. Three hundred and thirty of these, including
Colonel Henry Norwood and Majors Francis Morrison and Richard Fox,
arrived near the close of 1649 in the “Virginia Merchant.”

Norwood was sent the following year by Berkeley to Holland to invite
the fugitive King to Virginia as its ruler, and returned from Breda
with a new commission for Berkeley as governor, dated June 3, and
another for himself as treasurer of the colony, in approbation of the
loyalty manifested. Charles II. was crowned by the Scotch at Scone in
1651, and, invading England with his followers, was utterly overthrown
and defeated at Worcester, September 3. In the same month the Council
of State issued instructions to Captain Robert Dennis, Richard Bennet,
Thomas Steg,[268] and William Claiborne, as commissioners for the
reduction of Virginia to the authority of the Commonwealth. Captain
Dennis arrived at Jamestown in March, 1652, and the capitulation
of the colony was ratified on the 12th instant upon liberal terms,
which confirmed the existing privileges of the colonists and granted
indemnity for all offences against Parliament. The commissioners Bennet
and Claiborne soon after effected the reduction of Maryland, but with
singular moderation allowed its Governor and Council to retain their
offices upon the simple condition of issuing all writs in the name of
the Commonwealth. A provisional government was organized in Virginia,
on the 30th of April, by the election by the House of Burgesses of
Richard Bennet as governor and William Claiborne as secretary of state,
and a council of twelve, whose powers were to be defined by the Grand
Assembly, of which they were ex-officio members.

A remarkable instance of individual enterprise was given in the early
part of 1654 by Francis Yeardley,[269] who effected discoveries
in North Carolina, and at the cost of £300 purchased from the
natives “three great rivers and all such others as they should like
southerly,” and took possession of the country in the name of the
Commonwealth.[270] In March, 1655, Richard Bennet was appointed the
agent of the colony at London, and was succeeded as governor by Edward
Digges. In 1656 Colonel Edward Hill the elder, in endeavoring with
one hundred men to dislodge seven hundred Ricahecrian Indians who had
seated themselves at the Falls of James River, was utterly routed.
Bloody Run, near Richmond, significantly derives its name from this
encounter. On the 13th of March, 1657, Edward Digges was sent to London
as the agent of the colony, and was succeeded as governor by Samuel
Matthews. The government of the colony under the Commonwealth was
beneficent, and the people were prosperous.

Upon the reception of the intelligence of the death of Oliver and
of the accession of Richard Cromwell as Protector, obedience was
acknowledged by the Assembly on the 9th of March, 1658. Richard
Cromwell resigned on the 22d of April, 1659, and Matthews had died
in January previously. England was for a time without a monarch, and
Virginia without a governor. The Virginia Assembly, convening on the
23d of March, 1660, elected Sir William Berkeley as governor, and
declared that all writs should be issued in the name of the Grand
Assembly. On the 8th of May Charles II. was proclaimed as King in
England, and on the 31st of July following he transmitted a new
commission to his faithful adherent, Sir William Berkeley. In March,
1661, 44,000 pounds of tobacco were appropriated by the Assembly to
defray the cost of an address to the King, praying him to pardon the
inhabitants of Virginia for having yielded during the Commonwealth
to a force they could not resist. And in contrition for their tacit
submission to the “execrable power that so bloodily massacred the
late King Charles the First of blessed and glorious memory,” it was
enacted that “the 30th of January, the day the said King was beheaded,
be annually solemnized with fasting and prayer, that our sorrows may
expiate our crime, and our tears wash away our guilt.”[271] A little
later, the 29th of May, the date of the restoration of Charles II., was
decreed to be celebrated annually as a “holy day.”[272]

Berkeley being sent on the 30th of April, 1661, by the colony to
England to protest against the enforcement of the Navigation Act,
Colonel Francis Morrison was elected in his stead. Berkeley returned
in the fall of 1662 with advantageous patents for himself, but
without relief for the colony. Colonel William Claiborne, secretary
of state, was displaced by Thomas Ludwell, commissioned by the
King. Colonel Francis Morrison and Henry Randolph, clerk of the
Assembly, were appointed to revise the laws, and it was ordered that
all acts which “might keep in memory our forced deviation from his
Majesty’s obedience” should be “expunged.” A satisfactory account of
the condition of the colony in 1670 is afforded in a report made by
Governor Berkeley to the Lords Commissioners of Foreign Plantations.
The executive consisted of the Governor and sixteen councillors
commissioned by the King, who determined all causes above £15; causes
of less amount were tried by the county courts, of which there were
twenty. The Assembly, composed of two burgesses from each county, met
annually; it levied the taxes, and appeals lay to it. The legislative
and executive powers rested in the Governor, Council, Assembly, and
subordinate officers. The Acts of the Assembly were sent by the
secretary of the colony to the Lord Chancellor. All freemen were bound
to muster monthly in their own counties. The force of the colony
numbered upwards of eight thousand horsemen. There were five forts,
mounted with thirty cannon.

The whole population was forty thousand, of which two thousand were
negro slaves, and six thousand white servants. Eighty vessels arrived
yearly from England and Ireland for tobacco; a few small coasters
came from New England. The annual exportation of tobacco was 15,000
hogsheads (about 12,000,000 pounds), upon which a duty of two shillings
a hogshead was levied. Out of this revenue the Governor received as
salary £1,200. The King had no revenue from the colony except the
quit-rents.[273] There were forty-eight parishes, the ministers of
which were well paid. Under the monopoly of the Navigation Act the
price of tobacco was greatly depressed, the cost of imported goods
enhanced, and the trade of the colony almost extinguished; yet the
profligate King oppressed the colonists still further, and by a grant
of the whole territory of Virginia to Lords Arlington and Culpeper they
found themselves deprived of the very titles to the lands they owned.
The privilege of franchise was even virtually withheld, for there had
been no election of burgesses since the Restoration in 1660, the same
legislature having continued to hold its sessions by prorogation.
The colonists grew so impatient under their accumulated grievances
that a revolt was near bursting forth in 1674. It was quieted for a
time by some pacific concessions; but the fires only slumbered, and
an immediate grievance and a popular leader were alone required to
produce revolutionary measures. The severity of the policy against the
Indians incensed them to hostility, and the lives of the colonists were
in constant jeopardy. They petitioned the Governor for protection,
and on the meeting of the Assembly in March, 1676, war was declared
against the Indians, and a force of five hundred men raised and put
under the command of Sir Henry Chicheley to subdue them; but when he
was about to march he was suddenly and without apparent cause ordered
by Berkeley to disband his forces. The Indians continued their murders
until sixty lives had been sacrificed. The alarmed colonists, having
in vain petitioned the Governor for protection, rose tumultuously in
self-defence, including quite all the civil and military officers of
the colony, and chose Nathaniel Bacon, Jr., as their leader. Bacon,
who was of the distinguished English family of that name, had been
but a short time in the colony; but he was a member of the Council,
brave, rich, eloquent, and popular. He had an immediate stimulant,
too, in the murder at his plantation, near the site of Richmond, of
his overseer and a favorite servant.[274] Bacon, fruitlessly applying
for a commission, marched at the head of five hundred men against the
savages; and in the mean time Berkeley proclaimed them as traitors
and ineffectually pursued them with an armed force. Bacon replied in
a declaration denouncing the Governor as a tyrant and traitor to his
King and the country. During Berkeley’s absence the planters in the
lower counties rose, and, the revolt becoming general, he was forced to
return, when he endeavored to quiet the storm. Writs for a new Assembly
were issued, to which Bacon was elected. He, having punished the
savages, while on his way to the Assembly was arrested in James River
by an armed vessel, but was soon released on parole. When the Assembly
met on the 5th of June, he read at the bar a written confession and
apology for his conduct, and was thereupon pardoned and readmitted to
his seat in the Council. He was also promised a commission to proceed
against the Indians; but, being secretly informed of a plot by the
Governor against his life, he fled, returning however to Jamestown in
a few days with a large force, when, appealing to the Assembly, they
declared him their general, vindicated his course, and sent a letter
to England approving it. They also passed salutary laws of reform.
Berkeley resisted, dissolved them, and in turn addressed the King.
Bacon, all-powerful, having extorted a commission from the Governor,
marched against the Indians. Berkeley once more proclaimed him as a
traitor. Bacon, on hearing it, in the midst of a successful campaign
returned; and Berkeley, deserted by his troops, fled to Accomac. Bacon,
now supreme, called together, by an invitation signed by himself and
four of the Council, a convention of the principal gentlemen of the
colony, at the Middle Plantation, to consult for defence against the
savages and protection against the tyranny of Berkeley. He also issued
a reply to the proclamation of Berkeley, in which he vindicates himself
in lofty strains.[275] He now again marched against the Indians;
but in his absence a fleet which he had sent to capture Berkeley was
betrayed, and the Governor returned to Jamestown at the head of the
forces sent to capture him. Bacon now returned, and Berkeley, deserted
by his men, fleeing again to Accomac, Bacon triumphantly entered
Jamestown and burned the State House. He died shortly afterwards
from disease contracted by exposure, and his followers, left without
a leader, dispersed, and Berkeley was finally dominant. On the 29th
of February, 1677, a fleet with a regiment of soldiers, commanded by
Colonels Herbert Jeffreys and Francis Morrison, arrived in the colony
to quell the rebellion. Jeffreys, Morrison, and Berkeley sat as a
commission to try the insurgents. They were vindictively punished:
the jails were filled, estates confiscated, and twenty-three persons
executed. At length the Assembly, in an address to the Governor,
deprecated any further sanguinary punishments, and he was prevailed
upon, reluctantly, to desist. All the acts of the Assembly of June,
1676, called Bacon’s Laws, were repealed, though many of them were
afterwards re-enacted. Berkeley, being recalled by the King, sailed for
England on the 27th of April, 1677, and was succeeded by Sir Herbert
Jeffreys as governor. Jeffreys effected a treaty with the Indians,
but dying in December, 1678, was succeeded by Sir Henry Chicheley,
who in turn gave place, on the 10th of May, 1680, to Lord Culpeper,
who had been appointed in July, 1675, governor of Virginia for life.
Virginia was now tranquil. The resources of the country continued
to be developed. The production and export of tobacco—the chief
staple—steadily increased, and with it the prosperity of the colony.
The ease with which wealth was acquired fostered the habits of personal
indulgence and ostentatious expenditure into which the Virginia planter
was led by hereditary characteristics.

Undue stress has been laid by many historians upon the transportation
of “convicts” to the colony. Such formed but a small proportion of the
population, and it is believed that the offence of a majority of them
was of a political nature. Be it as it may, all dangerous or debasing
effect of their presence was effectually guarded against by rigorous
enactments. The vile among them met the fate of the vicious, while
the simply unfortunate who were industrious throve and became good
citizens. It is clearly indicated that the aristocratic element of the
colony preponderated.

The under stratum of society, formed by the “survival of the fittest”
of the “indentured servant” and the “convict” classes, as they improved
in worldly circumstances, rose to the surface and took their places
socially and politically among the more favored class. The Virginia
planter was essentially a transplanted Englishman in tastes and
convictions, and emulated the social amenities and the culture of the
mother country.[276] Thus in time was formed a society distinguished
for its refinement, executive ability, and a generous hospitality, for
which the Ancient Dominion is proverbial.


THERE is abundant evidence, as instanced by Mr. Deane in a paper in the
_Boston Daily Advertiser_, July 31, 1877, that the name of Virginia
commemorates Elizabeth, the virgin queen of England. Mr. Deane’s paper
was in answer to a fanciful belief, expressed by Mr. C. W. Tuttle in
_Notes and Queries_, 1877, that the Indian name Wingina, mentioned by
Hakluyt, may have suggested the appellation.[277] The early patents are
given in Purchas (abstract of the first), iv. 1683-84; Stith; Hazard’s
_Historical Collections_, i. 50, 58, 72; _Popham Memorial_ (the first),
App. A; and Poor’s _Gorges_, App.

See a paper by L. W. Tazewell, on the “Limits of Virginia under
the Charters,” in Maxwell’s _Virginia Historical Register_, i. 12.
These bounds were relied on for Virginia’s claims at a later day to
the Northwest Territory. Cf. H. B. Adams’s _Maryland’s Influence in
Founding a National Commonwealth_, or Maryland Historical Society
Publication Fund, no. 11. See also Lucas’s _Charters of the Old English
Colonies_, London, 1850. Ridpath’s _United States_, p. 86, gives a
convenient map of the grants by the English crown from 1606 to 1732.
Mr. Deane has discussed the matter of forms used in issuing letters
patent in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ xi. 166.

The earliest printed account of the settlement at Jamestown, covering
the interval April 26, 1607-June 2, 1608, is entitled: _A True Relation
of such occurrences and accidents of noate as hath hapned in Virginia
since the first planting of that Collony which is now resident in the
South part thereof, till the last returne from thence. Written by
Captaine Smith, Coronell of the said Collony, to a worshipfull friend
of his in England_. Small quarto, black letter, London, 1608.[278]

The second contemporary account appears in _Purchas His Pilgrimes_, iv.
1685-1690, published in 1625, and is entitled, “Obseruations gathered
out of a Discourse of the Plantations of the Southerne Colonie in
Virginia by the English, 1606, written by that Honorable Gentleman
Master George Percy.”[279] The narrative gives in minute detail the
incidents of the first voyage and of the movements of the colonists
after their arrival at Cape Henry until their landing, on the 14th of
May, at Jamestown. It is to be regretted that a meagre abridgment only
of so valuable a narrative should have been preserved by Purchas, who
assigns as a reason for the omissions he made in it, that “the rest is
more fully set down in Cap. Smith’s Relations.”

The third account of the period, “Newport’s Discoveries in Virginia,”
was published for the first time in 1860 in _Archæologia Americana_,
iv. 40-65. It consists of three papers, the most extended of which is
entitled: “A Relatyon of the Discovery of our river from James Forte
into the Maine; made by Captain Christopher Newport, and sincerely
written and observed by a Gentleman of the Colony.” This “Relatyon”
is principally confined to an account of the voyage from Jamestown
up the river to the “Falls,” at which Richmond is now situated, and
back again to Jamestown, beginning May 21 and ending June 21, the day
before Newport sailed for England. The second paper, of four pages, is
entitled: “The Description of the new-discovered river and country of
Virginia, with the liklyhood of ensuing riches, by England’s ayd and
industry.” The remaining paper, of only a little more than two pages,
is: “A brief description of the People.” These papers were printed from
copies made under the direction of the Hon. George Bancroft, LL.D.,
from the originals in the English State Paper Office, and were edited
by the Rev. Edward Everett Hale.[280]

The next account to be noted, “A Discourse of Virginia,” by Edward
Maria Wingfield, the first President of the colony, was also printed
for the first time in _Archæologia Americana_, iv. 67-163, from a
copy of the original manuscript in the Lambeth Library, edited by
Charles Deane, LL.D., who also printed it separately. The narrative
begins with the sailing of Newport for England, June 22, 1607, and
ends May 21, 1608, on the author’s arrival in England. The final six
pages are devoted by Wingfield to a defence of himself from charges
of unfaithfulness in duty, on which he had been deposed from the
Presidency and excluded from the Council. The narrative was cited for
the first time by Purchas in the margin of the second edition of his
_Pilgrimage_, 1614, pp. 757-768. He also refers to what is probably
another writing, “M. Wingfield’s notes,” in the margin of p. 1706, of
vol. iv. of his _Pilgrimes_. Mr. Deane reasonably conjectures that the
narrative of Wingfield as originally written was more comprehensive,
and that a portion of it has been lost.[281] Chapter I. of Neill’s
_English Colonization in America_ is devoted to Wingfield.

Another narrative of the period:—

_A Relation of Virginia_, written by Henry Spelman, “the third son
of the Antiquary,” who came to the colony in 1609, was privately
printed in 1872 at London for James Frothingham Hunnewell, Esq., of
Charlestown, Mass., from the original manuscript.[282] Spelman, who
was a boy when he first came to Virginia, lived for some time with
the Indians, became afterwards an interpreter for the Colony, and was
killed by the savages in 1622 or 1623.

In 1609 there were four tracts printed in London, illustrative of the
progress of the new colony:—

1. _Saules Prohibition staid, a reproof to those that traduce Virginia._

2. William Symondes’ _Sermon_ before the London Company, April 25,

3. _Nova Britannia: offeringe most excellent Fruites by Planting in

4. _A Good Speed to Virginia._ The dedicator is R. G., who “neither in
person nor purse” is able to be a “partaker in the business.”[285]

In 1610, appeared the following:—

1. W. Crashaw’s _Sermon_ before Lord Delaware on his leaving for
Virginia, Feb. 21, 1609.

2. _A true and sincere declaration of the purpose and ends of the
plantation begun in Virginia._[286]

3. A true declaration of the estate of the Colonie in Virginia.[287]

4. The mishaps of the first voyage and the wreck at Bermuda were
celebrated in a little poem by R. Rich, one of the Company, called
_Newes from Virginia_, which was printed in London in 1610.[288]

William Strachey was not an actual observer of events in the colony
earlier than May 23, 1610, when he first reached Jamestown. The
incidents of his letter, July 15, 1610, giving an account of the wreck
at Bermuda and subsequent events _(Purchas_, iv. 1734), must, so far as
antecedent Virginia events go, have been derived from others.[289]




In 1612 Strachey edited a collection of _Lawes Divine_ of the

There are two MS. copies of his _Historie of Travaile into Virginia
Britannia; expressing the Cosmographie and Comodities of the Country,
together with the Manners and Customes of the People_,—one preserved
in the British Museum among the Sloane Collection, and the other is
among the Ashmolean MSS. at Oxford. They vary in no important respect.
The former was the copy used by R. H. Major in editing it for the
Hakluyt Society in 1849. This copy was dedicated to Sir Francis Bacon.

In 1611 Lord Delaware’s little _Relation_ appeared in London.[291] In
1612 the Virginia Company, to thwart the evil intentions of the enemies
of the colony, printed by authority a second part of _Nova Britannia_,
called _The New Life of Virginia_. Its authorship is assigned to Robert

In 1612 the little quarto volume commonly referred to as the _Oxford
Tract_ was printed, with the following title: _A Map of Virginia. With
a Description of the Country, the Commodities, People, Government,
and Religion, Written by Captaine Smith, sometimes Governour of the
Country. Whereunto is annexed the proceedings of those Colonies since
their first departure from England, with the discoveries, Orations,
and relations of the Salvages, and the accidents that befell them in
all their Iournies and discoveries. Taken faithfully as they were
written out of the writings of Doctor Rvssell, Tho. Stvdley, Anas
Todkill, Ieffra Abot, Richard Wiffin, Will. Phettiplace, Nathaniel
Powell, Richard Potts. And the relations of divers other intelligent
observers there present then, and now many of them in England, by W.
S. At Oxford, Printed by Joseph Barnes_, 1612. As the title indicates,
the tract consists of two parts. The first, written as Smith says,
in the _Generall Historie_, “with his owne hand,” is a topographical
description of the country, embracing climate, soil, and productions,
with a full account of the native inhabitants, and has only occasional
reference to the proceedings of the colony at Jamestown. The second
part of the _Oxford Tract_ has a separate titlepage as follows: “The
proceedings of the English Colonie in Virginia since their first
beginning from England in the year 1606, till this present 1612, with
all their accidents that befell them in their iournies and Discoveries.
Also the Salvages’ discourses, orations, and relations of the Bordering
Neighbours, and how they became subject to the English. Vnfolding even
the fundamentall causes from whence haue sprang so many miseries to the
vndertakers, and scandals to the businesse; taken faithfully as they
were written out of the writings of Thomas Studley, the first provant
maister, Anas Todkill, Walter Russell, Doctor of Phisicke, Nathaniel
Powell, William Phettiface, Richard Wyffin, Thomas Abbay, Tho. Hops,
Rich. Potts, and the labours of divers other diligent observers, that
were residents in Virginia. And pervsed and confirmed by diverse now
resident in England that were actors in this busines. By W. S. At
Oxford, Printed by Joseph Barnes. 1612.”[293]

Alexander Whitaker’s _Good Newes from Virginia_ was printed in 1613.
He was minister of Henrico Parish, and had been in the country two
years. The preface is by W. Crawshawe, the divine.[294] Ralph Hamor the
younger, “late secretary of that colony,” printed in London in 1615
his _True Discourse of the present state of Virginia_, bringing the
story down to June 18, 1614. It contains an account of the christening
of Pocahontas and her marriage to Rolfe. It was reprinted in 1860
at Albany (200 copies) for Charles Gorham Barney, of Richmond.[295]
Rolfe’s _Relation of Virginia_, a MS. now in the British Museum,
was abbreviated in the 1617 edition of Purchas’s _Pilgrimage_, and
printed at length in the _Southern Literary Messenger_, 1839, and
in the _Virginia Historical Register_, i. 102. (See also Neill’s
_Virginia Company_, ch. vi.) There are various other early printed
tracts, besides those already mentioned, reprinted by Force, which are
necessary to a careful study of Virginian history.[296]

Fortunately a copy of the records of the Company[297] from April
28, 1619, to June 7, 1624, is preserved. This copy was made from
the originals, which are not now known to exist, at a time when the
King gave sign of annulling their charter. Nicholas Ferrar (see the
_Memoir of Nicholas Ferrar_ by Peter Peckard, London, 1790, a volume
throwing much light on early Virginian history, and compare Palfrey’s
_New England_, i. 192), with the aid of Collingwood the secretary,
seems to have procured the transcription at the house of Sir John
Danvers, in Chelsea, an old mansion associated with Sir Thomas More’s
memory. Collingwood compared each folio, signed it,—the work being
completed only three days before judgment was pronounced against the
Company,—and gave the whole into the hands of the Earl of Southampton
for safe keeping, from whom the records passed to his son Thomas, Lord
High Treasurer, after whose death, in 1667, William Byrd, of Virginia,
bought them for sixty guineas, and it was from the Byrd family, at
Westover, that Stith obtained them, to make use of in his _History_.
By some means Stith’s brother-in-law, Peyton Randolph, got them, and
at his death in 1775 his library was sold, when Jefferson bought it,
and found these records among the books. Jefferson’s library afterwards
becoming the property of the United States, these records in two
volumes (pp. 354 and 387 respectively) passed into the Library of
Congress, where they now are.

In May, 1868, Mr. Neill, who had used these records while working on
his _Terra Mariæ_, memorialized Congress, explaining their value, and
offering, without compensation, to edit the MS., under the direction
of the Librarian of Congress.[298] The question of their publication
had already been raised by Mr. J. Wingate Thornton ten years earlier,
in a paper in the _Historical Magazine_, February, 1858, p. 33, and
in a pamphlet, _The First Records of Anglo-American Colonization_,
Boston, 1859. In these the history of their transmission varies a
little from the one given above, which follows Neill’s statements.[299]
Being thwarted in his original purpose, Mr. Neill made the records
the basis of a _History of the Virginia Company of London_, Albany,
1869, which, somewhat changed, appeared in an English edition as
_English Colonization in America in the Seventeenth Century_.[300] Of
considerable importance among the papers transmitted to our time is
the collection which had in large part belonged to Chalmers, and been
used by him in his _Political Annals_; when passing to Colonel William
Aspinwall,[301] they were by him printed in the _Mass. Hist. Coll._ 4th
series, vols. ix. and x., with numerous notes, particularly concerning
the earlier ones, beginning in 1617, in which the careers of Gates,
Pory,[302] and Argall are followed.

Mr. Deane, _True Relation_, p. 14, quotes as in Mr. Bancroft’s hands a
copy from a paper in the English State-Paper Office entitled “A Briefe
Declaration of the Plantation of Virginia during the first twelve
years when S^r Thomas Smyth was Governer of the Companie [1606-1619],
and downe to the present tyme [1624], by the Ancient Planters now
remaining alive in Virginia.” Mr. Noël Sainsbury, in his _Calendar of
State Papers, Colonial Series_, London, 1860, etc., has opened new
stores of early Virginian as well as of general Anglo-American history,
between 1574 and 1660. The work of the Public Record Office has been
well supplemented by the _Reports of the Historical Commission_, which
has examined the stores of historical documents contained in private
depositaries in Great Britain. Their third Report of 1872 and the
appendix of their eighth Report are particularly rich in Virginian
early history, covering documents belonging to the Duke of Manchester.
The _Index_ to the Catalogue of MSS. in the British Museum discloses

In 1860 the State of Virginia sent Colonel Angus W. McDonald to London
to search for papers and maps elucidating the question of the Virginia
bounds with Maryland, Tennessee, and North Carolina, which resulted
in the accumulation of much documentary material, and a report to the
Governor in March, 1861, Document 39 (1861), which was printed. See
_Hist. Mag._ ix. 13.

Matter of historical interest will be found in other of the documents
of this boundary contest: Document 40, Jan. 9, 1860; Senate Document,
Report of Commissioners, Jan. 17, 1872, with eleven maps, including
Smith’s; Final Report, 1874; Senate Document No. 21, being reprints
in 1874 of Reports of Jan. 9, 1860, and March 9, 1861; House Document
No. 6, Communication of the Governor, Jan. 9, 1877. There were also
publications by the State of Maryland relating to the contest.[303]

In 1874 there was published, as a State Senate Document, _Colonial
Records of Virginia_, quarto, which contains the proceedings of the
first Assembly, convened in 1619 at Jamestown,[304] with other early
papers, and an Introduction and Notes by the late Hon. Thomas H.
Wynne. Attention was first called in America to these proceedings by
Conway Robinson, Esq. (who had inspected the original manuscript in
the State-Paper Office, London), in a Report made as chairman of its
Executive Committee, at an annual meeting of the Virginia Historical
Society, held at Richmond, Dec. 15, 1853, and published in the
_Virginia Historical Reporter_, i. 7. They were first published in
the _Collections_ of the New York Historical Society, 1857, with an
Introduction by George Bancroft.[305]

Abstracts from the English State-Paper Office have been furnished the
State Library of Virginia by W. Noël Sainsbury, to Dec. 30, 1730.

There are various papers on the _personnel_ of the colony in the lists
of passengers for Virginia of 1635, which Mr. H. G. Somerby printed in
the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._ ii. 111, 211, 268; iii. 184, 388;
iv. 61, 189, 261; v. 61, 343; and xv. 142; and in the collection of
such documents, mostly before published, which are conveniently grouped
in Hotten’s _Original Lists_ (1600-1700), London, 1874 and 1881; and in
S. G. Drake’s _Researches among the British Archives_, 1860.

The Virginia Company published three lists of the venturers and
emigrants in 1619, and in 1620 a similar enumeration in a _Declaration
of the State of the Colonie_.[306] This was dated June 24; another
brief _Declaration_ bears date Sept. 20, 1620. A list of ships arriving
in Jamestown 1607-1624 is given by Neill in the _N. E. Hist. and
Geneal. Reg._, 1876, p. 415.

Neill has published various studies of the census of 1624 in the _N. E.
Hist. and Geneal. Reg._ for 1877, pp. 147, 265, 393.[307]

The most trustworthy source of information as to those who became
permanent planters and founders of families is afforded by the Virginia
records of land patents, which are continuous from 1620, and are no
less valuable for topographical than for genealogical reference.[308]

The manuscript materials of the history of Virginia have been ever
subject to casualty in the varied dangerous and destructive forms of
removal, fire, and war. The first capital, Jamestown, was several
times the scene of violence and conflagration. The colonial archives
were exposed to accident when the seat of government was removed to
Williamsburg; and finally when, in 1779, the latter was abandoned for
the growing town of Richmond, and when, upon the apprehended advance
of the British forces during the Revolution, they were again disturbed
and removed hastily to the last place. It is probable that at the
destruction by fire of the buildings of William and Mary College,
in 1705, many valuable manuscripts were lost which had been left in
them when the royal governors ceased to hold sessions of the Council
within her walls, and when other government functionaries no longer
performed their duties there. Many doubtless suffered the consequences
of Arnold’s invasion in 1781, upon whose approach the contents of the
public offices at Richmond were hastily tumbled into wagons and hurried
off to distant counties. The crowning and fell period of universal
destruction to archives and private papers was, however, that of our
late unhappy war, when seats of justice, sanctuaries, and private
dwellings alike were subjected to fire and pillage. The most serious
loss sustained was at the burning of the State Court House at Richmond,
incidental on the evacuation fire of April 3, 1865, when were consumed
almost the entire records of the old General Court from the year 1619
or thereabout, together with those of many of the county courts (which
had been brought thither to guard against the accidents of the war) and
the greater part of the records of the State Court of Appeals.

Of the records of the General Court, a fragment of a volume covering
the period April 4, 1670-March 16, 1676, is in the _Collections_
of the Virginia Historical Society, and another fragment—Feb. 21,
1678-October, 1692—is in the archives of Henrico County Court at
Richmond. In the State Library are preserved the journals of the
General Assembly from 1697 to 1744, with occasional interruptions.

Of the records of the several counties, the great majority of those of
an early period, it is certain, have been destroyed. Information as
to the preservation of the following has been received by the writer:
Northampton (old Accomac), continuous from 1634; Northumberland,
from 1652; Lancaster, from 1652; Surrey, a volume beginning in 1652;
Rappahannock, from 1656; Essex, from 1692; Charles City, a single
volume, from Jan. 4, 1650, to Feb. 3, 1655, inclusive; Henrico, a
deed book, 1697-1704, and, with interruptions, the same records to
1774,—all classes of records, unbroken, from October, 1781.

In elucidation of the social life and commerce of the period,—the
three decades of the seventeenth century,—the following may be named:
Letters of Colonel William Fitzhugh, of Stafford County, a lawyer
and planter, May 15, 1679-April 29, 1699; Letters of Colonel William
Byrd, of the “Falls,” James River, planter and Receiver-General of
the colony, January, 1683-Aug. 3, 1691,—in the _Collections_ of the
Virginia Historical Society.

The following parish records preserved in the library of the
Theological Seminary near Alexandria, Va., are valuable sources of
early genealogical information; Registers of Charles River Parish, York
County,—births 1648-1800, deaths 1665-1787;[309] Vestry Books (some
with partial registers) of Christ Church Parish, Middlesex County,
1663-1767; Petsoe Parish, Gloucester County, from June 14, 1677;
Kingston Parish, Matthews County, from 1679; St. Peter’s Parish, New
Kent County, from 1686.

Of such of the early papers in the State archives at Richmond as
escaped the casualties of the war, the Commonwealth intrusted the
editing to William P. Palmer; and vol. i., covering 1652-1781 (with a
very few, however, before 1689), was published in 1875 as _Calendar
of State Papers and other Manuscripts preserved in the Capitol at

On the life of Captain John Smith in general, some notes are made
in another chapter of this volume.[311] It will be remembered that
Fuller—in the earliest printed biography of Smith, contained in his
_Worthies of England_—says of him, “It soundeth much to the diminution
of his deeds, that he alone is the herald to publish and proclaim them.”

Mr. Deane first pointed out (1860), in a note to his edition of
Wingfield’s _Discourse_, that the story of Pocahontas’s saving Smith’s
life from the infuriated Powhatan, which Smith interpolates in his
_Generall Historie_, was at variance with Smith’s earlier recitals in
the tracts of which that book was composed when they had been issued
contemporaneous with the events of which he was treating some years
earlier, and that the inference was that Smith’s natural propensity
for embellishment, as well as a desire to feed the interest which had
been incited in Pocahontas when she visited England, was the real
source of the story. Mr. Deane still farther enlarged upon this view
in a note to his edition (p. 38) of Smith’s _Relation_ in 1866.[312]
It has an important bearing on the question that Hamor, who says so
much of Pocahontas, makes no allusion to such a striking service. The
substantial correctness of Smith’s later story is contended for by W.
Robertson in the _Hist. Mag._, October, 1860; by William Wirt Henry,
in _Potter’s American Monthly_, 1875; and a general protest is vaguely
rendered by Stevens in his _Historical Collections_, p. 102.

The file of the _Richmond Dispatch_ for 1877 contains various
contributions on the early governors of the colony of Virginia by E.
D. Neill, William Wirt Henry, and R. A. Brock, in which the claims
of Smith’s narrative to consideration are discussed. Charles Dudley
Warner, in _A Study of the Life and Writings of John Smith_, 1881,
treats the subject humorously and with sceptical levity. Smith finds
his latest champion, a second time, in William Wirt Henry, in an
address, _The Early Settlement at Jamestown, with Particular Reference
to the late Attacks upon Captain John Smith, Pocahontas, and John
Rolfe_, delivered before the annual meeting of the Virginia Historical
Society, held Feb. 24, 1882, and published with the _Proceedings_ of
the Society. Mr. Deane’s views are, however, supported by Henry Adams
(_North American Review_, January, 1867, and _Chapter of Erie, and
other Essays_, p. 192) and by Henry Cabot Lodge (_English Colonies in
America_, p. 6). Mr. Bancroft allowed for a while the original story
to stand, with a bare reference to Mr. Deane’s note (_History of the
United States_, 1864, i. 132); but in his Centenary Edition (1879,
vol. i. p. 102) he abandoned the former assertion, without expressing
judgment. The most recent recitals of the story of Pocahontas under the
color of these later investigations have been by Gay, in the _Popular
History of the United States_, i. 283, and by Charles D. Warner in his
_Captain John Smith_, before named,—the latter carefully going over
all the evidence.

Alexander Brown has contributed several articles, published in the
_Richmond Dispatch_ in April and May, 1882, in which he controverts
the views of Mr. Henry, not only as to the truth of the story of the
rescue, but as to the general veracity of Smith as a historian, taking
a more absolute position in this respect than any previous writer has

Pocahontas is thought to have died at Gravesend just as she was about
re-embarking for America, March 21, 1617; and the entry on the records
of St. George’s Church in that place—which speaks of a “lady Virginia
born,” and has been supposed to refer to her—puts her burial March 21.

For the tracing of Pocahontas’s descendants through the
Bollings,—Robert Bolling having married Jane Rolfe, the daughter of
Thomas Rolfe, the son of Powhatan’s daughter,—see _The Descendants
of Pocahontas_, by Wyndham Robertson, 1855, and Wynne’s Historical
Documents, vol. iv., entitled _A Memoir of a Portion of the Bolling
Family_, Richmond, 1868 (fifty copies printed), which contains
photographs of portraits of the Bollings.[314]

There is an engraving of Pocahontas by Simon Pass, which perhaps
belongs to, but is seldom found in, Smith’s _Generall Historie_.[315]
The original painting is said to have belonged to Henry Rolfe, of
Narford,—a brother of John, the husband of Pocahontas,—and from him
passed to Anthony Rolfe, of Tuttington, and from him again, probably
by a marriage, to the Elwes of Tuttington, and it is mentioned in a
catalogue of a sale of their effects in the last century. It has not
since been traced.[316]

Richard Randolph, of Virginia, is said to have procured from England
two portraits,—one of Rolfe, and the other of Pocahontas,—and they
were hung in his house at Turkey Island. After his death, in 1784, they
are said to have been bought by Thomas Bolling, of Cobbs, Va., and the
inventory showing them is, or was, in the County Court of Henrico. In
1830 they were in the possession of Dr. Thomas Robinson, of Petersburg,
when he wrote of the portrait of Pocahontas that “it is crumbling so
rapidly that it may be considered as having already passed out of
existence.” A letter of the late H. B. Grigsby to Mr. Charles Deane
states that he had heard it was on panel let into the wainscot. In
1843, while still owned by Mr. Robinson, R. M. Sully made a copy of it,
which seems to have proved acceptable, as appears from the attestations
printed in M’Kinney and Hall’s _Indian Tribes of North America_, 1844,
vol. iii., where at p. 64 is a reproduction in colors of Sully’s
painting. Mr. Grigsby says that the original was finally destroyed in
a contest which grew out of a dispute when the house was sold, whether
the panel went with it or could be reserved.[317]

Of the massacre at Falling Creek, March 22, 1621-22, the Virginia
Company printed, in Edward Waterhouse’s _Declaration of the State of
the Colony and Affairs in Virginia_, a contemporary account.[318] Mr.
Neill has made the transaction the subject of special consideration in
the _Magazine of American History_, i. 222, and in his _Letter to N. G.
Taylor_ in 1868, and has printed a considerable part of Waterhouse’s
account in his _Virginia Company_, p. 317 _et seq._

The massacre is also incidentally mentioned by the present writer
in a paper, “Early Iron Manufacture in Virginia, 1619-1776,” in
the _Richmond Standard_, Feb. 8, 1879, and by James M. Swank, in
“Statistics of the Iron and Steel Production of the United States,”
compiled for the Tenth Census, which may also be referred to for
information as to that industry in the Colony of Virginia.

An examination of the story of Claiborne’s rebellion is made in the
Maryland chapter in the present volume.

Respecting Bacon’s rebellion, the fullest of the contemporary accounts
is that of T. M. on “The beginning, progress, and conclusion of Bacon’s
Rebellion,” which is printed in Force’s _Tracts_, vol. i. no. 8.[319]
Equally important is a MS. “Narrative of the Indian and Civil Wars in
Virginia,” now somewhat defective, which was found among the papers of
Captain Nathaniel Burwell, and lent to the Massachusetts Historical
Society and printed carelessly in their _Collections_ in 1814, vol.
xi., and copied thence by Force in his _Tracts_, vol. i. no. 11, in
1836. The MS. was again collated in 1866, and reprinted accurately in
the Society’s _Proceedings_, ix. 299, when the original was surrendered
to the Virginia Historical Society (_Proceedings_, ix. 244, 298; x.
135). Tyler, _American Literature_, i. 80, assigns its authorship to
one Cotton, of Aquia Creek, whose wife is said to be the writer of “An
Account of our late troubles in Virginia,” which was first printed in
the _Richmond Enquirer_, Sept. 12, 1804, and again in Force’s _Tracts_,
vol. i. no. 9. The popular spreading of the news in England of the
downfall of the rebellion was helped by a little tract, _Strange news
from Virginia_, of which there is a copy in Harvard College Library.
There is in the British Museum Sir William Berkeley’s list of those
executed under that governor’s retaliatory measures, which has been
printed in Force’s _Tracts_, vol. i. no. 10.

Other original documents may be found in Hening’s _Statutes at Large_,
vol. ii.; in the appendix of Burk’s _Virginia_; and in the _Aspinwall
Papers_, i. 162, 189, published in the _Mass. Hist. Coll._ _An
Historical Account of some Memorable Actions, particularly in Virginia,
etc._, by “Sir Thomas Grantham, Knight” (London, 1716), was reprinted
in fac-simile with an Introduction by the present writer (Carlton
McCarthy & Co., Richmond, 1882).[320] The fragment of the records
of the General Court of Virginia, cited as being in the Collections
of the Virginia Historical Society, contains details of the trial
of the participants in the “rebellion” not included in Hening, and
the abstracts from the English State-Paper Office, furnished by Mr.
Sainsbury to the State Library of Virginia, give unpublished details.
Extracts from the same source are in the library of the present writer.
There are various papers in the early volumes of the _Hist. Mag._; see
April, 1867, for a contemporary letter. Massachusetts Bay proclaimed
the insurgents rebels.[321]

       *       *       *       *       *

The earliest _History of Virginia_ after John Smith’s was an anonymous
one published in London in 1705, with De Bry’s pictures reduced by
Gribelin. When it was translated into French, and published two
years later (1707) both at Amsterdam and Orleans (Paris), the former
issue assigned the authorship to D. S., which has been interpreted
D. Stevens, and so it remained in other editions, some only title
editions, printed at Amsterdam in 1712, 1716, and 1718, though the
later date may be doubtful. (Sabin, ii. 5112.) The true author, a
native of Virginia and a Colonial official, had meanwhile died there in
1716. This was Robert Beverley.[322] The book is concisely written,
and is not without raciness and crispness; but its merits are perhaps
a little overestimated in Tyler’s _American Literature_, ii. 264. His
considerate judgment of the Indians is not, however, less striking
than praiseworthy. For the period following the Restoration he may be
considered the most useful, though he is not independent of a partisan

Sir William Keith’s _History of Virginia_ was undertaken, at the
instance of the Society for the Encouragement of Learning, as the
beginning of a series of books on the English plantations; but no
others followed. It was published in 1738 with two maps,—one of
America, the other of Virginia,—and he depended almost entirely on
Beverley, and brings the story down to 1723.[323] Forty years after
Beverley the early history of the colony was again told, but only down
to 1624, by the Rev. William Stith, then rector of Henrico Parish;
being, however, at the time of his death (1755), the president of
William and Mary College. He seems to have been discouraged from
continuing his narrative because the “generous and public-spirited”
gentlemen of Virginia were unwilling to pay the increased cost of
putting into his Appendix the early documents which give a chief value
to his book to-day. He had the use of the Collingwood transcript
of the records of the Virginia Company. His book, _History of the
First Discovery and Settlement of Virginia_, was published at
Williamsburg in 1747, and there are variations in copies to puzzle the
bibliographer.[324] Stith’s diffuseness and lack of literary skill
have not prevented his becoming a high authority with later writers,
notwithstanding that he implicitly trusts and even praises the honesty
of Smith.[325]

The somewhat inexact _History of Virginia_ by John Burk has some of the
traits of expansive utterance which might be expected of an expatriated
Irishman who had been implicated in political hazards, and who was
yet to fall in a duel in 1808.[326] This book, which was published in
three volumes at Petersburg (1804-5), was dedicated to Jefferson. A
fourth volume, by Skelton Jones and Louis Hue Girardin, was added in
1816; but as the edition was in large part destroyed by a fire, it
is rarely found with the other three.[327] Burk used the copy of the
Virginia Company records which had belonged to John Randolph, as well
as some collections made by Hickman (which Randolph had had made when
it was his intention to write on Virginian history), and Colonel Byrd’s

The name of Campbell is twice associated with the history of Virginia.
J. W. Campbell published in 1813 at Petersburg a meagre and unimportant
_History of Virginia_, coming down to 1781. The best known, however,
is the work of Charles Campbell, his son, who in 1847, at Richmond,
published a well-written _Introduction to the History of Virginia_,
and in 1860, at Philadelphia, a completed _History of the Colony and
Ancient Dominion of Virginia_, coming down to 1783,—a book written
before John Smith was called a romancer. The book, however defective
in arrangement and execution, is thought to be the best general

The most comprehensive _History of Virginia_ is that of Robert R.
Howison, vol. i. coming down to 1763, being published at Philadelphia
in 1846, and vol. ii., ending in 1847, being published at Richmond the
next year. He is a pleasing writer, but sacrifices fact to rhetoric,
though he makes an imposing display of references.

To these may be added, in passing, William H. Brockenbrough’s _Outline
of History of Virginia to 1754_; Martin’s _Gazetteer_, 1835, and Howe’s
_Historical Collections of Virginia_, printed in Charleston, 1856.

       *       *       *       *       *

Respecting the religious history of the colony, besides the general
historians, there have been several special treatments. Mr. Neill has
written upon the Puritan affinities in _Hours at Home_, November,
1867, and on Thomas Harrison and the Virginia Puritans in his _English
Colonization_, where is also a chapter on the planting of the Church of

Patrick Copland’s sermon, _Virginia’s God be thanked_, was preached
before the Company in London, April 18, 1622; a copy of which is in
Harvard College Library. Cf. Mr. Neill’s _Memoir of Rev. Patrick
Copland_, New York, 1871, p. 52, and his _English Colonization_, p. 104.

Further, see Hawkes’s _Contributions to the Ecclesiastical History
of the United States_, “Virginia,” 1836; Hening’s Statutes; _Papers
relating to the History of the Church in Virginia_, 1650-1770, by W.
S. Perry, 1870; Hammond’s _Leah and Rachel_, 1656; Bishop Meade’s _Old
Churches, etc._, 1855; “Notes on the Virginia Colonial Clergy” in the
_Episcopal Recorder_, and reprinted separately by E. D. Neill, 1877;
Savage’s Winthrop’s _History of New England_, and Anderson’s _Church of
England in the Colonies_, 1856.

The writer has also in his possession the Records of the Monthly
Meeting of Henrico County, June 10, 1699-1797, which he designs to
use in a history of the Society of Friends in Virginia. He has also
earlier isolated records, and a partial registry of births, marriages,
and deaths of those of the faith of the Society in Henrico and Hanover
counties in the eighteenth century.

For an account of early manufactures in Virginia, see Bishop’s _History
of American Manufactures_, 1866. For a view of the early agriculture,
see a paper by the present writer on the _History of Tobacco in
Virginia from its Settlement to 1790_; _Statistics, Agriculture, and
Commerce_, prepared for the Tenth Census; _History of Agriculture in
Virginia_, by N. F. Cabell, 1857; the _Farmers’ Register_, 1833-42;
_Transactions of the State Agricultural Society of Virginia_, 1855; and
“Virginia Colonial Money and Tobacco’s Part therein,” by W. L. Royall,
in _Virginia Law Journal_, August, 1877.

For a view of slavery in the colony, see Bancroft, ch. v.;
O’Callaghan’s _Voyages of the Slavers_; Wilson’s _Rise and Fall of the
Slave Power_; Cobb’s _Inquiry_; and the works of Cabell, Fitzhugh,
Fletcher, Hammond, Ross, Stringfellow, and general histories.

It is evident that no single author has yet given an adequate history
of Virginia; and while it is true that much precious material therefor
has perished, it is believed that the original record is yet not
wanting for such a representation of the past of the State as would be
at once more intelligible as to the motives which occasioned events,
and more convincingly just in the recital of them.




=A.= MAPS OF VIRGINIA OR THE CHESAPEAKE.—There seem to have been
visits of the Spaniards to the Chesapeake at an early day (1566-1573),
and they may have made a temporary settlement (1570) on the
Rappahannock. (Robert Greenhow in C. Robinson’s _Discoveries in the
West_, p. 487, basing on Barcia’s _Ensayo Chronologico_; _Historical
Magazine_, iii. 268, 318; J. G. Shea in Beach’s _Indian Miscellany_.)
In the map which De Bry gave with the several editions of Hariot in
1590, the bay appears as “Chesepiooc Sinus;” but in the more general
maps, shortly after, the name Chesipooc, or some form of it, is applied
rather wildly to some bay on the coast, as by Wytfliet’s in 1597, or
earlier still by Thomas Hood, 1592, where the “B. de S. Maria” of the
Spaniards, if intended for the Chesapeake, is given an outline as vague
as the rest of the neighboring coast, where it appears as shown in the
sketch in chapter vi. between the Figs. 1 and 2. It may be, as Stevens
contends (_Historical and Geographical Notes_), that not before Smith
were the entangling Asian coast-lines thoroughly eliminated from this
region; but certainly there was no wholly recognizable delineation
of the bay till Smith recorded the results of the explorations which
he describes in his _Generall Historie_, chs. v. and vi. Smith
indicates by crosses on the affluents of the bay the limits of his own
observations. Strachey’s _Historie of Travaile_, p. 42.

In Smith’s _Map of Virginia, with a Description of the Country_, etc.,
Oxford, 1612, W. S., or William Strachey, eked out the little tract
with an appendix of others’ contributions. Strachey afterwards adopted
a considerable part in his _Historie of Travaile_. Mr. Deane, in his
edition of the _True Relation_, p. xxi, has given a full account of
this tract. Smith reprinted it in his _Generall Historie_ with some
changes and additions and small omissions. Purchas reprinted it in his
_Pilgrimes_, but not without changes and omissions of small extent,
and with some additions, which he credits on the margin to Smith; and
he had earlier given an abstract of it in his _Pilgrimage_. There
is a copy of the original in the Lenox Library. Tyler, _American
Literature_, i. 30, notices it.

The map accompanying this tract, engraved by W. Hole, appeared in three
impressions (Stevens’s _Bibliotheca Historica_, 1870, no. 1,903). It
was altered somewhat, and the words, “Page 41, Smith,” were put in
the lower right-hand corner, when it was next used in the _Generall
Historie_, 1624 and later; and in 1625 it was again inserted at pp.
1836-37 of Purchas’s _Pilgrimes_, vol. iv. De Bry next re-engraved
it in part xiii. of his _Great Voyages_, printed in German, 1627,
and in Latin 1634; and in part xiv. in German in 1630 (_Carter-Brown
Catalogue_, i. 370-71). It was also re-engraved for Gottfriedt’s _Newe
Welt_, published at Frankfort, and marked “Erforshet und beschriben
durch Capitain Iohan Schmidt.” The compiler of this last book was J.
Ph. Abelin, who had been one of De Bry’s co-workers, and he made this
work in some sort an abridgment of De Bry’s, use being made of his
plates, often inserting them in the text, the book being first issued
in 1631, and again in 1655. (Muller’s _Books on America_, 1872, no.
636, and (1877) no. 1,269.)

The map was next used in two English editions of Hondy’s _Mercator_,
“Englished by W. S.” 1635, etc., but with some fanciful additions, as
Mr. Deane says (Bohn’s _Lowndes_, p. 1103). The map of the coast in
De Laet, 1633 and 1640, was, it would seem, founded upon it for the
Chesapeake region; cf. also the map of Virginia and Florida called “par
Mercator,” of date 1633, and the maps by Blaeu, of 1655 and 1696.

Once more Smith’s plot adorned, in 1671, Ogilby’s large folio on
_America_, p. 193, as it had also found place in the prototype of
Ogilby, the Amsterdam Montanus of 1671 and 1673. In these two books
(1671-73) also appeared the map “Virginiæ, partis australis et Floridæ,
partis orientalis, nova descriptio,” which shows the coast from the
Chesapeake down to the 30th degree of north latitude.

Smith’s was finally substantially copied as late as 1735, as the best
available source, in _A Short Account of the First Settlement of the
Provinces_, etc., London, 1735,—a contribution to the literature of
the boundary dispute, and was doubtless the basis of the map in Keith’s
_Virginia_ in 1738; but it finally gave place to Fry and Jefferson’s
map of the region in 1750.

A phototype fac-simile, reduced about one quarter, of the earliest
state of the original map in the Harvard College copy of the Oxford
tract of 1612 is given herewith. A similar fac-simile, full size, is
given in Mr. Deane’s reprint of the _True Relation_, though it was not
published in that tract. A lithographic fac-simile, full size, but
without the pictures in the upper corners, is given in the Hakluyt
Society’s edition of Strachey, p. 23. Other reproductions will be
found in Scharf’s _Maryland_, i. 6, Scharf’s _Baltimore City and
County_, 1881, p. 38, and in Cassell’s _United States_, p. 27. That
in the Richmond (1819) reprint of the _Generall Historie_ is well
done, full size, on copper. This copperplate was rescued in 1867 from
the brazier’s pot by the late Thomas H. Wynne, and at the sale of his
library in 1875 was purchased for the State Library of Virginia.

Neill, in his _Virginia Company_, p. 191, mentions “A mapp of Virginia,
discovered to y^e Hills and its latt. from 35 deg. and ½ neer Florida
to 41 deg. bounds of New England. Domina Virginia Ferrar collegit,
1651,” and identifies this compiler of the map as a daughter of John
Ferrar. The map we suppose to be the one engraved by Goddard. This
map is associated with a London publication of 1650, called _Virgo
triumphans, or Virginia richly and truly valued_, which is usually
ascribed to Edward Williams, but is held nevertheless to be in
substance the work of John Ferrar of Geding. There were two editions
of this year (1650): _Brinley Catalogue_ no. 3,816; Quaritch, _General
Catalogue_, no. 12,535, held at £36 John Ferrar’s copy of the first
edition, with his notes, and the original drawing of the map, inserted
by Ferrar to make up a deficiency in the first edition, of which he
complains. Quaritch prices a good copy without such annotations at
£25. The second edition (1650) had additions, as shown in the title,
_Virginia, more especially the South part thereof, second edition,
with addition of the discovery of silkworms, etc._ In this the same
map appeared engraved as above, and the Huth copy of it has it in two
states, one without, and the other with an oval portrait of Sir Francis
Drake. (_Huth Catalogue_, v. 1594.) The Harvard College copy lacks
the map, which is described by Quaritch (no. 12,536, who prices this
edition at £32) in a copy from the Bathurst Library, as a folding sheet
exhibiting New Albion as well as Virginia, with the purpose of showing
an easy northern passage to the Pacific, the text representing the
Mississippi as dividing the two countries, and flowing into the South
Sea; see also _Menzies’ Catalogue_, no. 2,143, and the note in Major’s
edition of Strachey, p. 34, on a map published in 1651 in London. This
second edition was the one which Force followed in reprinting it in his
_Tracts_, vol. iii. no. 11. The _Huth Catalogue_ notes a third edition,
_Virginia in America richly valued_, 1651. The map is given on a later

=B.= THE VIRGINIA HISTORICAL SOCIETY.—From 1818 to 1828 the eleven
volumes of the _Evangelical and Literary Magazine_, edited at Richmond
by John Holt Rice, D.D., had contained some papers on the early
history of the State, but no organized effort was made to work in this
direction before the Virginia Historical and Philosophical Society was
formed, in December, 1831, with Chief Justice Marshall as president,
and under its auspices a small volume of _Collections_ was issued in
1833; but from February, 1838, to 1847 the Society failed to be of
any influence. Meanwhile, from 1834 to 1864 the _Southern Literary
Messenger_ afforded some means for the local antiquaries and historical
students to communicate with one another and the public.

In December, 1847, a revival of interest resulted in a reorganization
of the old Association as the Virginia Historical Society, with the
Hon. William C. Rives as president. Promptly ensuing, Maxwell’s
_Virginia Historical Register_ was started as an organ of the Society,
and was published from 1848 to 1853,—six volumes. The Society laid
a plan of publishing the annals of the State, and, as preliminary,
intrusted to Conway Robinson, Esq., the preparation of a volume which
was published in 1848 as _An Account of the Discoveries in the West
until 1529, and of Voyages to and along the Atlantic Coast of North
America from 1520 to 1573_. This was an admirable summary, and deserves
wider recognition than it has had. It subsequently published, besides
various addresses, _The Virginia Historical Reporter_, 1854-1860, which
contained accounts of the Society’s meetings. The Civil War interrupted
its work, but in 1867 the Society was again resuscitated, and it has
been under active management since. There is a bibliography of its
publications in the _Historical Magazine_, xvii. 340. Its historical
students have contributed to the files of the _Richmond Standard_ since
Sept. 7, 1878, much early reprinted and later original matter relating
to Virginia.

       *       *       *       *       *

NOTE.—Since this chapter was completed has appeared Mr. George W.
Williams’s _Negro Race in America_, which has a chapter on the history
of Slavery in the colony of Virginia; and also Mr. J. A. Doyle’s _The
English in America, Virginia, Maryland, and the Carolinas_, London,




_Formerly Editor of the Magazine of American History._

THE story of Norumbega is invested with the charms of fable and
romance. The name is found in the map of Hieronimus da Verrazano of
1529, as “Aranbega,” being restricted to a definite and apparently
unimportant locality. Suddenly, in 1539, Norumbega appears in the
narrative of the Dieppe Captain as a vast and opulent region, extending
from Cape Breton to the Cape of Florida. About three years later
Allefonsce described the “River of Norumbega,” now identified with
the Penobscot, and treated the capital of the country as an important
market for the trade in fur. Various maps of the period of Allefonsce
confine the name of Norumbega to a distinct spot; but Gastaldi’s map,
published by Ramusio in 1556,—though modelled after Verrazano’s, of
which indeed it is substantially an extract,—applies the name to the
region lying between Cape Breton and the Jersey coast. From this time
until the seventeenth century Norumbega was generally regarded as
embracing all New England, and sometimes portions of Canada, though
occasionally the country was known by other names. Still, in 1582, Lok
seems to have thought that the Penobscot formed the southern boundary
of Norumbega, which he shows on his map[329] as an island; while John
Smith, in 1620, speaks of Norumbega as including New England and the
region as far south as Virginia. On the other hand Champlain, in 1605,
treated Norumbega as lying within the present territory of Maine. He
searched for its capital on the banks of the Penobscot, and as late as
1669 Heylin was dreaming of the fair city of Norumbega.

Grotius, for a time at least, regarded the name as of Old Northern
origin, and connected with “Norbergia.” It was also fancied that
a people resembling the Mexicans once lived upon the banks of the
Penobscot. Those who have labored to find an Indian derivation for
the name say that it means “the place of a fine city.” At one time
the houses of the city were supposed to be very splendid, and to
be supported upon pillars of crystal and silver. Pearls were also
reported as abundant, which at that early period was no doubt the
case. Charlevoix offers the unsupported statement that Francis I. made
Roberval “Lord of Norumbega.” Roberval was certainly the patentee of
the whole territory of Norumbega, though Mark Lescarbot made merry
over the matter, as he could find nothing to indicate any town except
a few miserable huts. It is reasonable to infer, however, that at an
early period an Indian town of some celebrity existed. Like the ancient
Hochelaga, which stood on the present site of Montreal and was visited
and described by Cartier, it eventually passed away. To-day, but for
Cartier, Hochelaga would have had quite as mythical a reputation
as Norumbega, which, however, still forms an appropriate theme for
critical inquiry.[330]

       *       *       *       *       *

The first Englishman whose name has been associated with any portion
of the region known as Norumbega was John Rut. This adventurer
reached Newfoundland during August, 1527, and afterwards, according
to Hakluyt’s report, sailed “towards Cape Breton and the coastes of
Arembec;” but Purchas, who was better informed, says nothing about any
southward voyage. One of the ships, the “Sampson,” was reported as
lost, while the other, the “Mary of Guilford,” returned to England.
There is nothing to prove that Rut even reached Cape Breton; much less
is it probable that he explored the coast southward, along Nova Scotia,
which was called “Arembec.”

The first Englishman certainly known to have reached any portion of
the region here treated as Norumbega was David Ingram, a wandering
sailor. During October, 1568, with about one hundred companions, he was
landed on the shore of the Gulf of Mexico by Captain John Hawkins, who,
on account of the scarcity of provisions, sailed away and left these
messmates behind. With two of his companions Ingram travelled afoot
along the Indian trails, passing through the territory of Massachusetts
and Maine to the St. John’s River, where he embarked in a French
ship, the “Gargarine,” commanded by Captain Champagne, and sailed
for France. The narrative of his journey is profusely embellished
by his imagination, it may be,—as is generally held; but that he
accomplished the long march has never been doubted. At that period the
minds of explorers were dazzled by dreams of rich and splendid cities
in America, and Ingram simply sought to meet the popular taste by his
reference to houses with pillars of crystal and silver.[331] He also
says that he saw the city of Norumbega, called Bega, which was three
fourths of a mile long and abounded with peltry. There is no doubt of
his having passed through some large Indian village, and possibly his
Bega may have been the Aranbega of Verrazano.

At the close of 1578 Sir Humphrey Gilbert made a voyage to North
America, but may not have visited Norumbega. The earliest mention of
his expedition is that found in Dee’s _Diary_, under date of Aug. 5,
1578, where he says: “Mr. Raynolds, of Bridewell, tok his leave of me
as he passed towards Dartmouth to go with Sir Umfry Gilbert towards

The first known English expedition to Norumbega was made in a “little
ffrigate” by Simon Ferdinando, who was in the service of Walsingham.
Ferdinando sailed from Dartmouth in 1579, and was absent only three
months. The brief account does not state what part of Norumbega
was visited; but the circumstances point to the northern part, and
presumably to the Penobscot region of Maine. It would also appear that
the voyage was more or less of the nature of a reconnoissance.

The first Englishman known to have conducted an expedition to
Norumbega was John Walker, who, the year following the voyage of
Ferdinando, sailed to the river of Norumbega, in the service of
Sir Humphrey Gilbert. He reached the Penobscot, of which he gave a
rough description, finding the region rich in furs, as described
by Allefonsce and Ingram. He discovered a silver mine where modern
enterprise is now every year opening new veins of silver and gold.
This voyage, like that of his predecessor, proved a short one,—the
return trip being made direct to France, where the “hides” which he had
secured were sold for forty shillings apiece.

In 1583 Sir Humphrey Gilbert took possession of Newfoundland; and
afterwards sailed for Norumbega, whither his “man” Walker had gone
three years before. In latitude 44° north, near Sable Island, he lost
his great ship, the “Admiral,” with most of his supplies; when, under
stress of the autumnal gales, the brave knight reluctantly abandoned
the expedition and shaped his course for home, sailing in a “little
ffrigate,”—possibly the “barck” of Ferdinando. Off the Azores, in the
midst of a furious storm, the frigate went down, carrying Sir Humphrey
with her; just as, shortly before, Parmenius—a learned Hungarian
who had joined the enterprise expressly to sing the praise of fair
Norumbega in Latin verse—had gone down in the “Admiral.”

In 1584, while Sir Humphrey Gilbert lay sleeping in his ocean grave,
Raleigh was active in Virginia, where the work of colonization was
pushed forward during a period of six years.[333] Meanwhile the
services of Simon Ferdinando as pilot were employed in this direction
in the pay of Granville, and Norumbega for a space was unsearched, so
far as we know, by the exploring English. There seems, however, ground
for supposing that the fisheries or trade in peltries may have allured
an occasional trafficking vessel, and contraband voyages may have been
carried on without the knowledge of the patentee, the furs being sold
in France. The elder Hakluyt appears to have had a very fair idea of
the region, and he knew of the copper mines off the eastern coast of
Maine, at the Bay of Menan, which was laid down on the map of Molyneux.
Nevertheless, the only voyager that we can now point to is Richard
Strong, of Apsham, who, in 1593, sailed to Cape Breton, and afterwards
cruised some time “up and down the coast of Arembec to the west and
southwest of Cape Breton.” He doubtless searched for seal in the waters
of Maine, and made himself familiar with its shores. It is said that
he saw men, whom he “judged to be Christians,” sailing in boats to the
southwest of Cape Breton.

The opening of the seventeenth century witnessed a revival of English
colonial enterprise; and Sir Walter Raleigh, though busy with schemes
for privateering, nevertheless found time to think of Virginia, of
which, both north and south, he was now the patentee. Accordingly he
sent out a vessel to Virginia under Mace, evidently with reference to
the lost colonists.[334] Upon the return of Mace, Sir Walter went to
Weymouth to confer with him, when, to his surprise, he learned that,
without authority, another expedition had visited that portion of his
grant which was still often called Norumbega. This was the expedition
of Gosnold, who sailed from Falmouth, March 26, 1602, in a small
bark belonging to Dartmouth, and called the “Concord.” The company
numbered thirty-two persons, eleven of whom intended to remain and
plant a colony, apparently quite forgetful of the fact that they were
intruders and liable to be proceeded against by the patentee. In this
voyage Gosnold took the direct route, sailing between the high and low
latitudes, and making a saving of nearly a thousand miles. In this
respect he has been regarded as an innovator, though probably Walker
pursued the same course. If there is no earlier instance, Verrazano, as
we now know, in 1524 set navigators the example of the direct course,
thereby avoiding the West Indies and the Spaniards. It is reasonable to
suppose that Gosnold took the idea direct from Verrazano, as he left
Falmouth with the Florentine’s letter in his hand, referring directly
to it in his own letter to his father; while Brereton and Archer
made abundant use of it in their accounts of the voyage. On May 14
Gosnold sighted the coast of Maine near Casco Bay, calling the place
Northland; twelve leagues southwest of which he visited Savage Rock,
or Cape Neddock, where the Indians came out in a Basque shallop, and
with a piece of chalk drew for him sketches of the coast. Next Gosnold
sailed southward sixteen leagues to Boon Island, and thence, at three
o’clock in the afternoon, he steered out “into the sea,” holding his
course still southward until morning, when the “Concord” was embayed
by a “mighty headland.” Their last point of departure could not have
been nearer the “mighty headland,” which was Cape Cod, than indicated
by the sailing time. If the starting-point had been Cape Ann, they
would have sighted Cape Cod before sunset. Archer says, when at Savage
Rock, that they were short of their “purposed voyage.” They had, then,
a definite plan. Evidently they were sailing to the place, south of
Cape Cod, described in the letter of Verrazano. Gosnold may have seen
this island in the great Verrazano map described by Hakluyt. At all
events Cape Cod was rounded, and the expedition reached that island of
the Elizabeth group now known as Cuttyhunk, where, upon an islet in a
small lake, they spent three weeks in building a fortified house, which
they roofed with rushes. All this work they kept a secret from the
Indians, while they intended, according to the narrative, to establish
a permanent abode. Indeed, this appears to have been the particular
region for which Sir Humphrey was sailing in 1583, as we know by
Hakluyt’s annotation on the margin of his translation of Verrazano
which Gosnold used.

From Cuttyhunk the members of the expedition made excursions to the
mainland, and they also loaded their vessel with sassafras and cedar.
When, however, the time fixed for the ship’s departure came, those who
were to remain as colonists fell to wrangling about the division of
the supplies; and, as signs of a “revolt” appeared, the prospects of
a settlement began to fade, if indeed the idea of permanence had ever
been seriously entertained. Soon “all was given over;” and June 17
the whole company abandoned their beautiful isle, with the “house and
little fort,” and set sail, desiring nothing so much as the sight of
their native land. Gliding past the gorgeous cliffs of Gay Head, the
demoralized company had no relish for the scene, but sailed moodily on
to No-Man’s Land, where they caught some wild fowl and anchored for
the night. The next day the “Concord,” freighted we fear with discord,
resumed the voyage, and took her tedious course over the solitary sea.

Gosnold reached South Hampton on the 23d of July, having “not one cake
of bread” and only a “little vinegar left;” yet even here his troubles
did not end, for in the streets of Weymouth he soon encountered Sir
Walter Raleigh, who confiscated his cargo of sassafras and cedar
boards, on the ground that the voyage was made without his consent, and
therefore contraband. Gosnold nevertheless protected his own interests
by ingratiating himself with Raleigh, leaving the loss to fall the
more heavily on his associates. Thus was Raleigh made, upon the whole,
well pleased with the results of the voyage, and he resolved to send
out both ships again. Speaking with reference to the unsettled region
covered by his patent, he says, “I shall yet live to see it an Englishe

The year 1603 was signalized by the death of Elizabeth and the
accession of James, while at nearly the same time Raleigh’s public
career came to an end. Before the cloud settled upon his life, two
expeditions were sent out. The “Elizabeth” went to Virginia, under
the command of Gilbert, who lost his life there; while Martin Pring
sailed with two small vessels for New England. Pring commanded the
“Speedwell,” and Edmund Jones, his subordinate, was master of the
“Discoverer.” This expedition had express authority from Raleigh
“to entermeddle and deale in that action.” It was set on foot by
Hakluyt and the chief merchants of Bristol. Leaving England April 10,
Pring sighted the islands of Maine on the 2d of June, and, coasting
southward, entered one of the rivers. He finally reached Savage Rock,
where he failed to find sassafras, the chief object of his voyage,
and accordingly “bore into that great Gulfe which Captaine Gosnold
overshot.” This gulf was Massachusetts Bay, the northern side of which
did not answer his expectations; whereupon he crossed to the southern
side, and entered the harbor now called Plymouth, finding as much
sassafras as he desired, and he remained there for about six weeks.
The harbor was named Whitson, in honor of the Mayor of Bristol; and a
neighboring hill, probably Captain’s Hill, was called Mount Aldworth,
after another prominent Bristol merchant. On the shore the adventurers
built a “small baricado to keepe diligent watch and warde in” while
the sassafras was being gathered in the woods. They also planted seed
to test the soil. Hither the Indians came in great numbers, and “did
eat Pease and Beans with our men,” dancing also with great delight to
the “homely musicke” of a “Zitterne,” which a young man in the company
could play. This fellow was rewarded by the savages with tobacco and
pipes, together with “snake skinnes of sixe foote long.” These were
used as belts, and formed a large part of the savage attire, though
upon their breasts they wore plates of “brasse.”

By the end of July Pring had loaded the “Discoverer” with sassafras,
when Jones sailed in her for England, leaving Pring to complete the
cargo of the other ship. Soon the Indians became troublesome, and,
armed with their bows and arrows, surrounded the “baricado,” evidently
intending to make an attack; but when Pring’s mastiff, “greate Foole,”
appeared, holding a half-pike between his jaws, they were alarmed, and
tried to turn their action into a jest. Nevertheless, the day before
Pring sailed for England, they set the forest on fire “for a mile
space.” On August 9 the “Elizabeth” departed from Whitson Bay, and
reached Kingsroad October 2. Thus two years before Champlain explored
Plymouth Harbor, naming it Port of Cape St. Louis, ten years before
the Dutch visited the place, calling it Crane Bay, and seventeen years
before the arrival of the Leyden Pilgrims, Englishmen became familiar
with the whole region, and loaded their ships with fragrant products of
the neighboring woods.

       *       *       *       *       *

We next approach the period when the French came to seek homes on the
coasts of the ancient Norumbega, as, in 1604, De Monts and Champlain
established themselves at St. Croix,—the latter making a voyage to
Mount Desert, where he met the savages, who agreed to guide him to the
Penobscot, or Peimtegoüet, believed to be the river “which many pilots
and historians call Norembegue.” He ascended the stream to the vicinity
of the present Bangor, and met the “Lord” of Norumbega; but the
silver-pillared mansions and towers had disappeared. The next year he
coasted New England to Cape Malabar, but a full account of the French
expeditions is assigned to another volume of the present work.

The voyage of Waymouth, destined to have such an important bearing
upon the future of New England colonization, was begun and ended
before Champlain embarked upon his second expedition from St. Croix,
and the English captain thus avoided a collision with the French.
Waymouth sailed from Dartmouth on Easter Sunday, May 15, 1605 evidently
intending to visit the regions south of Cape Cod described by Brereton
and Verrazano. Upon meeting contrary winds at his landfall in 41°
2´ north, being of an irresolute temper, he bore away for the coast
farther east; and on June 18 he anchored on the north side of the
island of Monhegan. He was highly pleased with the prospect, and hoped
that it would prove the “most fortunate ever discovered.” The next
day was Whitsunday, when he entered the present Booth’s Bay, which he
named Pentecost Harbor. He afterwards explored the Kennebec, planting
a cross at one of its upper reaches; and, sailing for England June 16,
he carried with him five of the Kennebec natives, whom he had taken by
stratagem and force.

In connection with Waymouth’s voyage we have the earliest indications
of English public worship, which evidently was conducted according to
the forms of the Church, in the cabin of the “Archangel,” the savages
being much impressed thereby.[335] The historian of Waymouth’s voyage
declares “a public good, and true zeal of promulgating God’s holy
Church by planting Christianity, to be the sole intent of the honorable
setter forth of this discovery.”


The narrative of Waymouth’s voyage was at once published, and attracted
the attention of Sir John Popham, chief-justice. It also greatly
encouraged Sir Ferdinando Gorges, who, in connection with Sir John,
obtained from King James two patents,—one for the London and the other
for the Plymouth company; the latter including that portion of ancient
Norumbega extending from 38° north to 45° north, thus completely
ignoring the claims of the French. The patentees were entitled to
exercise all those powers which belong to settled and well-ordered
society, being authorized to coin money, impose taxes and duties, and
maintain a general government for twenty-one years.


This was accomplished in 1606, when Sir Ferdinando Gorges sent out a
ship under Captain Challons, which was captured by the Spaniards and
never reached her destination. Before hearing of the loss of this
ship, another was despatched under Thomas Hanam, with Martin Pring as
master. Failing to find Challons, they made a very careful exploration
of the region, which Sir Ferdinando says was the best that ever came
into his hands. In the mean time the five Indians brought home by
Waymouth had been in training for use in connection with colonization
under the supervision of Gorges. Indeed he expressly says that these
Indians were the means, “under God, of putting on foot and giving life
to all our plantations.” Accordingly the plans of a permanent colony
were projected, and on the last day of May, 1607, two ships—the “Gift
of God” and the “Mary and John”—were despatched under the command
of Captain George Popham, brother of the chief-justice, and Captain
Raleigh Gilbert. At the end of twenty-one days the expedition reached
the Azores, where the “Mary and John,” having been left behind by her
consort, barely escaped from the Netherlanders. Finally, leaving the
Azores, Gilbert stood to sea, crossing the ocean alone, and sighted
the hills of Le Have, Nova Scotia, July 30. After visiting the harbor
of Le Have, Gilbert sailed southward, rounding Cape Sable, and entered
the “great deep Bay” of Fundy. Then he passed the Seal Islands,
evidently being well acquainted with the ground, and next shaped his
course for the region of the Penobscot, looking in the mean time for
the Camden Hills, which, on the afternoon of August 5, lifted their
three double peaks above the bright summer sea. As he confidently
stood in towards the land, the Matinicus Islands soon shone white
“like unto Dover clifts;” and afterward the “Mary and John” found
good anchorage close under Monhegan, Waymouth’s fortunate island,
named in honor of England’s patron saint, St. George. Landing upon
the island Gilbert found a sightly cross, which had been set up by
Waymouth or some other navigator. The next morning, as the “Mary and
John” was leaving Monhegan, a sail appeared. It proved to be the “Gift
of God,” of whose voyage no account is now known. In company with his
consort Gilbert returned to the anchorage ground. At midnight he made
a visit to Pemaquid, on the mainland, accompanied by Skidwarres, one
of Waymouth’s Indians, rowing over the placid waters with measured
stroke among many “gallant islands.” They found the village sought
for, and then returned. The next day was Sunday, when the two ships’
companies landed upon Monhegan,—then crowned with primeval forests and
festooned with luxuriant vines,—where their preacher, the Rev. Richard
Seymour, delivered a discourse and offered prayers of thanksgiving. The
following is the entry of the pilot:—

 “Sondaye beinge the 9th of August, in the morninge the most part of
 our holl company of both our shipes landed on this Illand, the wch
 we call St. George’s Illand, whear the crosse standeth; and thear we
 heard a sermon delyvred unto us by our preacher, gguinge God thanks
 for our happy metinge and saffe aryvall into the contry; and so
 retorned abord aggain.”

This, so far as our present information extends, is the first recorded
religious service by any English or Protestant clergyman within
the bounds of New England, which was then consecrated to Christian

On Sunday, August 19, after encountering much danger, both ships
were safely moored in the harbor of Sagadahoc at the mouth of the
Kennebec. The adventurers then proceeded to build a pinnace called the
“Virginia,” the first vessel built in New England. She crossed the
Atlantic several times.

[Illustration: ANCIENT PEMAQUID.

This sketch-map follows one given with Sewall’s paper on “Popham’s
town,” in _Maine Hist. Coll._, vii. See a more extended sketch of the
coast in the Critical Essay.]

The Kennebec was explored by Gilbert, while a fort, a church, a
storehouse, and some dwellings were built upon the peninsula of Sabino,
selected as the site of the colony. The two ships returned to England,
the “Mary and John” bearing a Latin epistle from Captain Popham to
King James. It gave a glowing description of the country, which was
even supposed to produce nutmegs. During the winter Popham died; and
in the spring, when a ship came out with supplies, the colonists were
found to be greatly discouraged, their storehouse having been destroyed
by fire, and the winter having proved extremely cold. Besides, no
indications of precious metals were found, and they now learned that
the chief-justice, like his brother, had passed away. Accordingly the
fort, “mounting twelve guns,” was abandoned, and Strachey says “this
was the end of that northern colony upon the river Sagadehoc.”

After the abandonment of Sabino the English were actively engaged in
traffic upon the coast; as appears from the testimony of Captain John
Smith, who, in describing his visit to Monhegan in 1614, says that
opposite “in the Maine,” called Pemaquid, was a ship of Sir Francis
Popham, whose people had used the port for “many yeares” and had
succeeded in monopolizing the fur-trade. The particulars concerning
these voyages, and the scattered settlers around the famous peninsula
of Pemaquid, are not now accessible.

The next Englishman to be referred to is Henry Hudson, who, with a crew
composed of English and Dutch, visited Maine in 1609,—probably finding
a harbor at Mt. Desert, where he treated the Indians with cruelty and
fired upon them with cannon. Sailing thence he touched at Cape Cod, and
went to seek a passage to the Indies by the way of Hudson River, which
had been visited by Verrazano in 1524, and named by Gomez the following
year in honor of St. Anthony. The voyage of Hudson is not of necessity
connected with English enterprise.[336] The next year Captain Argall,
from Virginia, visited the Penobscot region for supplies, but he does
not appear to have communicated with any of his countrymen.

In 1611 the English showed themselves on the coast with a strong hand.
This fact is learned from a letter of the Jesuit Biard, who, in writing
to his superior at Rome, gives the history of an encounter between the
English and French. From his narrative it appears that early in 1611
a French captain, named Plastrier, undertook to go to the Kennebec,
and was made a prisoner by two ships “that were in an isle called
Emmetenic, eight leagues from the said Kennebec.” He escaped by paying
a ransom and agreeing not to intrude any more. This fact coming to
the knowledge of Biencourt, the commander at Port Royal, the irate
Frenchman proceeded to the Kennebec to find the English and to obtain
satisfaction from them. Upon reaching the site of the Popham colony at
Sabino, Biencourt found the place deserted. On his return he visited
Matinicus (Emmetenic), where he saw the shallops of the English on
the beach, but did not burn them, for the reason that they belonged
to peaceful civilians and not to soldiers. Who then were the English
for whom Biencourt was so considerate? Evidently they were those led
by Captains Harlow and Hobson, who, as stated by Smith, sailed from
Southampton for the purpose of discovering an isle “supposed to be
about Cape Cod.” They visited that cape and Martha’s Vineyard, and,
it would appear, sailed along the coast of Maine, where they showed
Plastrier their papers, indicating that they acted by authority.
Possibly, however, Sir Francis Popham’s agent, Captain Williams, may
have been the commander who expelled the French. At all events there
was no lack of English representation on the coast of New England in
1611. Smith, speaking in a fit of discouragement, says that “for any
plantation there was no more speeches;” but the fact that Sir Francis
annually for many years sent ships to the coast indicates brisk
enterprise, though there may have been no movement in favor of such
a venture as that of the colony of 1607. Many scattered settlers, no
doubt, were living around Pemaquid. Smith may be quoted again as saying
that no Englishman was then living on the coast; but this is something
that he could not know. It is also opposed to recognized facts, and
to the declaration of Biard that the English in Maine desired “to
be masters.” Still we do not at present know the name of a single
Englishman living in New England during the winter of 1611. In 1612
Captain Williams was opposite Monhegan, at Pemaquid, where, no doubt,
his agents lived all the year round, collecting furs. In 1613 the scene
became more animated. At this period the French were boldly inclined,
and Madame de Guercheville had determined to found a Jesuit mission
in what was called Acadia. In 1613, therefore, the Jesuits Biard and
Masse left Port Royal and proceeded to establish themselves on the
border of Somes’s Sound in Mount Desert, where they began to land their
goods and build a fortification, the ship in which they came being
anchored near the shore. Argall, who was fishing in the neighborhood,
learned of their arrival from the Indians, and by a sharp and sudden
attack captured the French ship. He sent a part of the company to Nova
Scotia, and carried others to Virginia. This action was not justified
by the English Government, and some time afterward the French ship was

       *       *       *       *       *

In the year 1614 Captain John Smith, the hero of Virginia, enters upon
the New England scene; yet his coming would appear, in some respects,
to have been without any very careful prevision, since he begins his
narrative by saying, “I chanced to arive in New England, a parte of
Ameryca, at the Ile of Monahiggan.” The object of his expedition was
either to take whales or to try for mines of gold; and, failing in
these, “Fish and Furres was our refuge.” In most respects the voyage
was a failure, yet it nevertheless afforded him the opportunity of
writing his _Description of New England_, whose coast he ranged in
an open boat, from the Penobscot to Cape Cod. His brief description,
so fresh and unconventional, will never lose its value and charm;
and, because so unique, it will maintain a place in the historical
literature of its time. Smith knew that his impressions were more or
less crude, yet the salient features of the coast are well presented.
At the Penobscot he saw none of the people, as they had gone inland
for the summer to fish; and at Massachusetts, by which he meant
the territory around Boston, “the Paradise of all those parts,” he
found the French six weeks in advance of him, they being the first
Europeans known to have visited the place. The River of Massachusetts
was reported by the natives as extending “many daies Iourney into
the entralles of that countrey.” At Cohasset he was attacked by the
natives, and was glad to escape; while at Accomacke, which he named
Plymouth, he found nothing lacking but “an industrious people.”
He was the third explorer to proclaim in print the value of the
situation.[338] One result of his examination was his Map of New
England, which he presented to Prince Charles.[339]

During the year 1614 another expedition was sent out. Gorges says that
while he was considering the best means of reviving his “languishing
hopes” of colonization, Captain Harlow brought to him one of the
Indians whom he had captured in 1611. This savage, named Epenow, had
been exhibited in London as a curiosity, being “a goodly man of brave
aspect.” Epenow was well acquainted with the New England tribes. At the
same time Sir Ferdinando had recovered Assacumet, one of Waymouth’s
Indians, who had been carried to Spain, in 1606, when Challons was
captured by the Spaniards. The possession of these two Indians inspired
the knight with hope, since he was firmly persuaded that in order to
succeed in colonization it would be necessary to have the good-will of
the natives, whose co-operation he hoped to secure through the good
offices of those whom he had taught to appreciate, in some measure,
the advantages of English civilization. In this respect he was wise.
In connection therefore with the Earl of Southampton he fitted out a
ship, which was put in command of Captain Hobson, whom he describes as
“a grave gentleman.” Hobson himself invested a hundred pounds in the
enterprise, one of the main objects of which was to discover mines of
gold. This metal, Epenow said, would be found at Capawicke, or Martha’s
Vineyard. Hobson sailed in June, 1614, and finally reached the place
where Epenow was “to make good his undertaking,” and where the savages
came on board and were entertained in a friendly and hospitable way.
Among the guests were Epenow’s brothers and cousins, who improved the
occasion to arrange for his escape,—it being decided, as it appears
from what followed, that upon their return he should jump overboard
and swim away, while the tribe menaced the English with arrows. They
accordingly appeared in full strength at the appointed time, when
Epenow, though closely watched, and clothed in flowing garments to
render his retention the more certain, succeeded in evading his keepers
and jumped overboard. Hobson’s musketeers immediately opened fire,
foolishly endeavoring to shoot the swimming savage, while Epenow’s
friends bravely shot their arrows and wounded the master of the ship
and many of the crew. In the end Epenow escaped; and Sir Ferdinando
says: “Thus were my hopes of that particular mode void and frustrate;”
adding, that such are “the fruits to be looked for by employing men
more zealous of gain than fraught with experience how to make it.”
Hobson however did not lose so much as was supposed; for, though no
doubt Epenow believed that gold existed at Capawicke, and that if it
should prove necessary he could bring the English to the mine, it is
clear that no precious metal existed. The supposed gold was simply a
sulphate of iron, which the mineralogist finds to-day in the aluminous
clays of Gay Head.

Though both Smith and Hobson had failed essentially in the objects of
their voyage, the former was not in the slightest degree disheartened,
but spoke in such glowing terms of the country and its resources that
the Plymouth Company resolved to take vigorous action, and offered
Smith “the managing of their authority in those parts” for life. The
London Company was also stirred up, and sent out four ships before the
people of Plymouth acted. The Londoners offered Smith the command of
their ships, which he declined, having already made a life-engagement.
Nevertheless the London ships sailed in January, led by Captain Michael
Cooper, and reached Monhegan in March, where they fished until June,
and then sent a ship of three hundred tons to Spain loaded with fish.
This ship was taken by the Turks, while another sailed to Virginia,
leaving the third to return to England with fish and oil. Smith’s
Plymouth friends, however, furnished only two ships. Nevertheless
he sailed with these, Captain Dermer being second in command. His
customary ill fortune still attended him, and not far from port he lost
both his masts, while his consort went on to New England. Sailing a
second time in a small vessel of sixty tons, Smith was next captured
by French pirates; and, while tossing at sea in captivity, wrote his
_Description of New England_. His language has been regarded as very
significant where he speaks of “the dead patent of this unregarded
country;” but this is the language of a depressed prisoner. The patent
was not dead; while, if it had been dead, English enterprise was alive,
of which his own voyage, though cut short by pirates, was a convincing
proof. To show that the patent was not dead, the Plymouth Company, in
1615, sent out Sir Richard Hawkins, who was acting “as President for
that year.” Hawkins sailed October 15. Gorges says that he spent his
time while in New England very usefully in studying the products of the
country; but unfortunately he arrived at the period when the Indian war
was at its height, and many of the principal natives were killed. From
New England he coasted to Virginia, and thence he sailed to Spain, “to
make the best of such commodities as he had got together,” which Sir
Ferdinando loosely says “was all that was done by any of us that year.”
Nevertheless, Smith tells us that Plymouth in 1616 sent out four ships,
and London two; while Purchas states that “eight voluntarie ships” went
to New England to make “further tryall.” Another of two hundred tons,
the “Nachen,” commanded by Edwarde Brawnde, who addressed an account of
the voyage to “his worthye good frend Captayne John Smith, admirall of
New England,” also went out. In his letter reference is made to other
vessels on the coast. The “Nachen,” of London, sailed from Dartmouth
March 8, and reached Monhegan April 20. Afterwards Brawnde went to
Cape Cod in his pinnace to search for pearls, which were also the
first things sought for by the Leyden emigrants, in 1620, when they
reached the harbor of Provincetown. Brawnde also mentions that he had
his boats detained by Sir Richard Hawkins, who thus appears to have
wintered upon the coast and to have sailed to Virginia in the spring.
Notwithstanding various mishaps, Brawnde entertained a favorable
impression of New England, where profitable voyages were to be made in
fish and furs, if not spoiled by too many factors, while he found the
climate good, and the savages “a gentell-natured people,” altogether
friendly to the English.

In 1617 Smith himself made the discovery that the patent of New England
was not dead. At that time he had secured three ships, while his
life-appointment for the new country was reaffirmed. Still misfortune
continued to pursue him, and he did not even succeed in leaving port.
Together with a hundred sail he was wind-bound at Plymouth for three
months. By the terms of the contract he says that he was to be admiral
for life, and “in the renewing of their Letters pattents so to be
nominated.” But for the unfortunate head-winds he would have gone to
New England in 1617 and undertaken a permanent work, as the times were
ripe. He might have begun either at Plymouth or Massachusetts, “the
paradise of all those parts,” and thus have made Boston anything but a
Nonconformist town.

In 1618 the English were still active, and Captain Rocroft went to
Monhegan to meet Captain Dermer, who was expected from Newfoundland.
Dermer, however, failed to appear, while Rocroft improved the occasion
to seize “a small barque of Dieppe,” which he carried to Virginia.
This Frenchman was engaged in the fur-trade at Saco, in disregard of
the claims of the English; but Gorges, with his customary humanity,
condoned the offence, the man “being of our religion,” and kindly made
good his loss. Soon after capturing the French trader, Rocroft came
near being the victim of a conspiracy on the part of certain of his own
men. When the plot was discovered he spared their lives, but set them
ashore at Saco, whence they went to Monhegan and passed the winter,
but succeeded in escaping to England in the spring. About this time
that poorly known character, Sir Richard Vines, passed a winter on the
coast, probably at Saco, sleeping in the cabins of the Indians, and
escaping the great plague, which swept away so many of the Sagamores.
The winter fisheries were commonly pursued, and the presence of
Englishmen on the coast all the year round was no doubt a common thing,
while a trading-post must have been maintained at Pemaquid. Rocroft
finally sailed to Virginia, where he wrecked his vessel, and then lost
his life in a brawl. Thus suddenly this “gallant soldier” dropped out
of New England history.

With the summer of 1619 Dermer finally reached Monhegan, the rendezvous
of English ships, and found that Rocroft had sailed for Virginia. While
his people engaged in fishing, he explored the coast in a pinnace as
far as Plymouth, having Squanto for his guide, and then travelled afoot
westward to Nummastuquyt, or Middleboro’. From this place he sent a
messenger to the border of Narragansett Bay, who brought “two kings” to
confer with him. Here also he redeemed a Frenchman who had been wrecked
at Cape Cod. Dermer adds immediately, that he obtained another at
Mastachusit, or the region about Boston, which he must have visited on
his way back to Monhegan. The account of his exploration is meagre; and
he hints vaguely at a very important island found June 12, which may
have been thought gold-bearing, as he says that he sent home “some of
the earth.” Near by were two other islands, named “King James’s Isles,”
because from thence he had “the first motives to search for that now
probable passage which hereafter may be both honorable and profitable
to his Majesty.” Clearly he refers to a supposed passage leading
through the continent to the Pacific and the Indies. In a letter
to Purchas, not now known, he mentioned the important island first
referred to, and probably described its locality, though its identity
is now left to conjecture. It may have been situated near Boston
Harbor, while the “probable passage” may have been suggested by the
mouths of the Mystic and the Charles, which, according to the report
given by the natives to Smith, penetrated many days’ journey into the

Dermer finally reached Monhegan, and sent his ship home to England.
He afterwards put his surplus supplies on board the “Sampson,” and
despatched her for Virginia. He then embarked once more in his pinnace
to range along the coast. Near Nahant, during a storm, his pinnace was
beached; but getting off with the loss of many stores, and leaving
behind his Indian guide, he sailed around Cape Cod. At a place south of
the cape he was taken prisoner by the natives, but he escaped covered
with wounds. Subsequently he sailed through Long Island Sound, and,
passing through Hell Gate, he found it a “dangerous cataract.” While
here the savages on the shore saluted him with a volley of arrows. In
New York Harbor the natives proved peaceable, and undertook to show
him a strait leading to the west; but, baffled by the wind, he sailed
southward to Virginia, where he made a map of the coast, which he would
not “part with for fear of danger.” This map probably exhibited his
ideas respecting the “westward passage,” which was to be concealed from
the French and Dutch.[340] In Virginia this late but hopeful explorer
of Norumbega died.

Dermer was emphatically an explorer, and even in 1619 was dreaming of a
route through New England to China; but his most important work was the
peace made with the Indians at Plymouth. It is mentioned in his report
to Gorges. This report was quoted in the _Relation_ of the president
and council, and was used by Morton and Bradford. The latter quotes
him as saying, with reference to Plymouth, “I would that the first
plantation might here be seated, if there come to the number of fifty
persons or upward.” This was but the echo of Captain John Smith. Morton
endeavors, in an ungenerous spirit, to cheapen the services of Dermer,
but it would be as just to underrate the work of the English on the
Maine coast; and we should remember that it was their faithful friend
the Pemaquid Chief Samoset who hailed the Leyden colonists, upon their
arrival at Plymouth, with the greeting, “Welcome, Englishmen!”[341]
This was simply the natural result of the policy of peace and good-will
which imparted a gracious charm to the life of Sir Ferdinando Gorges,
who may be well styled the Father of New England Colonization. Here we
leave the English explorers of Norumbega.


DOCUMENTS, whether in our own tongue or in others, which throw light
upon the explorations of the English in Norumbega are by no means
wanting. They embrace formal report and epistolary chronicle in great
variety and of considerable extent. In some cases they are full
and rich in details, but in others they disappoint us from their
meagreness. Such deficiency particularly confronts us when we are
searching for the tracks of their progress in maps or charts of these
early dates.

The English, in reality, were behind the age in maritime
enterprise,[342] and this forms one reason for the delay in colonizing
ancient Norumbega.[343]

The present writer has never found an Indian on the coast of Maine
who could recall the word Norumbega, or any similar word. M. Beauvois
shows, among other facts, that the Icelandic vaga is the genitive
plural of _vagr_, signifying “a bay.” Possibly, however, the word is
Spanish. In this language _b_ and _v_ are interchangeable; and _vagas_
often occurs on the maps, signifying “fields;” while _norum_ may be
simply a corruption of some familiar compound. Perhaps the explanation
of the word does not lie so far away as some suppose, though the study
of the subject must be attended with great care. In this connection
may be consulted such works as Ramusio’s _Navigationi et Viaggi_,
etc., Venice, 1556, iii. 359; the _Ptolemy_ of Pativino, Venice,
1596, p. 281; Wytfliet’s _Descriptionis Ptolemaicæ Augmentum_, etc.,
Douay, 1603, p. 99; Magin’s _Histoire Universelle_, Douay, 1611, p.
96; _Introductio in Universam Geographicam_, by Cluverius, Amsterdam,
1729, p. 673; De Laet’s _Nieuwe Wereldt_, etc.; Leyden, 1625, p.
64, and his _Histoire du nouveau Monde_, etc., Leyden, 1640, p. 58;
Ogilby’s _America_, 1671, p. 138; Montanus’s _De Nieuwe en Onbekende
Wereldt_, Amsterdam, 1671, p. 29; Dapper’s _Die unbekante Neue Welt_,
etc., Amsterdam, 1673, p. 30. The subject of the varying bounds and the
name is also discussed by Dr. Woods in his introduction to Hakluyt’s
_Westerne Planting_, p. lii, and by the following: Sewall, _Ancient
Dominions of Maine_, p. 31; De Costa, _Northmen in Maine_, p. 44;
Murphy, _Verrazano_, p. 37; _Historical Magazine_, ii. 187; _Magazine
of American History_, May, 1881, p. 392.

The voyage of John Rut has been pointed out as the earliest voyage
having a possible connection with any portion of the territory of
Norumbega, which never included Bacalaos, though Bacalaos, an old
name of Newfoundland, sometimes included New England. The extreme
northeastern extension of Norumbega was Cape Breton. It was towards
Cape Breton and the coasts of Arembec, that Rut is said to have sailed
when he left St. John. Hakluyt is the first authority summoned in
connection with a subject which has elicited much curious discussion;
but Hakluyt was poorly informed.[344] He refers to the chronicles
of Hall and Grafton, who said that Henry VIII. sent out two ships,
May 20, 1527; yet he did not know either the name of the commander
or of the ships, one of which was given as the “Dominus vobiscum.”
Purchas, however, gives the names of both ships, and the letter of
Captain Rut to Henry VIII., together with a letter in Latin, written
by Albert de Prato, a canon of St. Paul’s, London, which is addressed
to Cardinal Wolsey.[345] Hakluyt, in his edition of 1589, reads,
“towards the coasts of Norombega,” instead of Arembec, as in the
edition of 1600. The latter appears to be a correction intended to
limit the meaning. Arembec may have been a name given to Nova Scotia.
A similar name was certainly given to one or more islands near the
site of Louisburg.[346] According to Hakluyt, Rut often landed his
men “to search the state of those unknown regions,” after he left the
northerly part of Newfoundland; but the confused account does not
prove that it was on Cape Breton or Arembec that they landed. Rut
says nothing about any such excursion, but simply says that he should
go north in search of his consort, the “Samson,” and then sail with
all diligence “to that island we are commanded;” and Hakluyt says
that it was an expedition intended to sail toward the North Pole.
Nevertheless, it has been fancied that Rut, in the “Mary of Guilford,”
explored all Norumbega, and then went to the West Indies. This notion
is based upon the statement of Herrera, who tells of an English ship
which lost her consort in a storm, and in 1519 came to Porto Rico from
Newfoundland,[347] the pilot, who was a native of Piedmont, having been
killed by the Indians on the Atlantic coast.[348] Herrera’s date has
been regarded as wrong; and it has been corrected, on the authority of
Oviedo, and put at 1527. There is no proof that Rut lost his pilot; but
as he had with him a learned mathematician, Albert de Prato, a priest,
it has been assumed that the priest was both a pilot and an Italian,
and consequently that the vessel seen at Porto Rico was Rut’s. It would
be more reasonable to suppose that this was the missing “Samson,” or
else one of the English traders sent to the West Indies in 1526/7.[349]
The ship described by Herrera was a “great ship,” heavily armed and
full of stores. On the other hand, the “Mary of Guilford” was a small
vessel of one hundred and sixty tons only, prepared for fishing.[350]
Finally, Rut was still at St. John August 10, while Hakluyt states
that the “Mary of Guilford” reached England by the beginning of
October. This, if correct, renders the exploration of Norumbega and
the cruise in the West Indies an impossibility. Nevertheless Rut must
have accomplished something, while it is significant that when Cartier
explored the Gulf of St. Lawrence, in 1534, he found a cape called Cape
Prato, apparently a reminiscence of the canon of St. Paul’s.[351]

David Ingram’s narrative, referred to in the text, was printed by
Hakluyt in 1589,[352] who, however, omitted it in 1600. Ingram suffered
much, and saw many things, no doubt, with a diseased brain. He listened
also to the stories of others, repeating them with additions in
sailor fashion; and, besides, may have been moved by vanity. Purchas,
referring to Hakluyt, says, “It seemeth some incredibilities of his
report caused him to leave him out in the next Impression, the reward
of lying being not to be believed in truths.”[353]

The larger portion however, of the statements in his narrative appears
to be true. He seems to have occupied about eleven months in reaching a
river which he calls Gugida,[354] this being simply the Indian Ouigoudi
of Lescarbot,[355] and the Ouygoudy of Champlain,[356] who, June 24,
1604, explored the river, and named it the St. John.

Concerning Simon Ferdinando there has been much misapprehension. He
was connected with the Virginia voyages in 1584-86. In the latter
year his ship was grounded. This led to his being loaded with abuse
by White.[357] It was re-echoed by Williamson[358] and Hawks.[359]
The latter declared that he was a Spaniard, hired by his nation to
frustrate the English colony, calling him a “treacherous villain” and
a “contemptible mariner;” yet Hawks did not understand the subject.
Subsequently, Ferdinando’s real character came to light; and, in one
of the oldest pieces of English composition produced on the continent
of North America, his skill and faithfulness were applauded by Ralph
Lane.[360] He was one of the numerous Portuguese domiciled in England;
but he had powerful friends like Walsingham, and thus became the leader
of the first-known English expedition to Norumbega. His life was
somewhat eventful, and like most men of his class he occasionally tried
his hand at privateering. At one time he was in prison on a charge
of heresy, and was bailed out by William Herbert, the vice-admiral.
His voyage of 1579 seems hitherto to have escaped notice; but this,
together with his personal history, would form the subject of an
interesting monograph.

It was through the calendars of the state-paper office that the fact of
John Walker’s voyage became known some time since, but not as yet with
detail; and it is only by means of a marginal note, which makes Walker
“Sir Humphrey Gilbert’s man,” that we get any clew to its purpose,
and from which we are led to infer its tentative character, and its
influence upon Gilbert’s subsequent career.[361]

Upon reaching Sir Humphrey Gilbert we discover a man rich in his
intentions respecting Norumbega. He was the patentee,[362] and he
possessed power and resources which would have insured success but for
the untimely termination of his career. The true story of his life yet
remains to be written, and in competent hands it would prove a noble
theme.[363] The State Papers afford many documents throwing light upon
his history, while the pages of Hakluyt supply many facts.[364]

The work of Barlow and others, from 1584 to 1590, does not properly
belong to the story of Norumbega; yet the attempts in Virginia may be
studied for the side-lights which they afford, the narratives being
given by Hakluyt,[365]—who also gives the voyage of the “Marigold”
under Strong, fixing the site of Arembec on the coast southwest of Cape

With the opening of the seventeenth century the literature of our
subject becomes richer. Gosnold’s voyage, now shorn of much of its
former prestige, has only recently come to be understood. It was
somewhat fully chronicled by Brereton and Archer, each of whom wrote
accounts. The original volume of Brereton forms a rare bibliographical
treasure.[367] It has been reprinted by the Massachusetts Historical
Society,[368] but an edition properly edited is much needed. In 1625
Purchas gave Archer’s account, with a letter by Brereton to Raleigh,
and Gosnold’s letter to his father.[369] The voyage is also treated in
the Dutch collection of Van der Aa,[370] which gives an engraving at
variance with the text, in that it represents the savages assisting
Gosnold in building his island fortification, the construction of which
was in fact kept a secret. The voyage of Gosnold has been accepted as
an authorized attempt at colonization, and used to offset the Popham
expedition of 1607; but that part of the titlepage of Brereton which
says that the voyage was made by the permission of Raleigh is now known
to be untrue, and the contraband character of the enterprise stands

It has been said more than once that Drake visited New England, and
gave Gosnold some account thereof; but while he brought home the
Virginia adventurers in 1587, and may then have touched on the coast
of North Virginia, no early account of any such visit is found. It has
also been said that Gosnold went so far in the work of fortification as
to build a platform for six guns. The authority for the statement does
not appear.[372]

The voyage of Martin Pring, as already pointed out, was a legitimate
enterprise, having the sanction of Sir Walter Raleigh, the
patentee.[373] This voyage is also the more noticeable as having had
the active support of Hakluyt. Harris says that a thousand pounds were
raised for the enterprise, and that Raleigh “made over to them all the
Profits which should arise from the Voyage.”[374] Here, therefore, it
may be proper to delay long enough to indicate something of Hakluyt’s
great work in connection with colonization.

       *       *       *       *       *

Richard Hakluyt was born about the year 1553, and was educated at
Westminster School and Christ Church College, Oxford. At an early age
he acquired a taste for history and cosmography. In the preface to his
work of 1589, dedicated to Walsingham, he says:—

 “I do remember that being a youth, and one of her Maiestie’s scholars
 at Westminster, that fruitfull nurserie, it was my happe to visit the
 chamber of Mr. Richard Hakluyt my cosin, a Gentleman of the Middle
 Temple, well known unto you, at a time when I found lying vpen his
 boord certeine bookes of Cosmosgraphie with a vniversal Mappe: he
 seeing me somewhat curious in the view thereof, began to instruct my
 ignorance by showeing me the divisions thereof.”

His cousin also turned to the 107th Psalm, relating to those who go
down into the sea in ships and occupy themselves on the great waters.
Upon which Hakluyt continues:—

 “The words of the Prophet, together with my cousin’s discourse (things
 of high and rare delight to my young nature), tooke so deepe an
 impression that I constantly resolved, if euer I were preferred to
 the Vniversity, where better time and more convenient place might be
 ministered for these studies, I would by God’s assistance prosecute
 that knowledge and kinde of literature, the doores whereof (after a
 sort) were so happily opened before me.”

This interview decided Hakluyt for life, and one of the first fruits
of his zeal was his _Divers Voyages_, published in 1582.[375] In
1589 appeared his _Principal Navigations_.[376] In the year 1600 he
enlarged his work, bringing it out in three volumes. In 1605 Hakluyt
was made a prebend of Westminster; and in 1609 he published _Virginia
Richly Valued_, being the translation of a Portuguese work.[377]
Hakluyt also published other pieces. He died in Herefordshire, in 1616,
finding a burial-place in Westminster Abbey. Still curiously enough,
notwithstanding his great services to American colonization, his name
has never been applied to any portion of our country; though Hudson,
in 1608, named a headland on the coast of Greenland in his honor.
He left behind, among other manuscripts, one entitled _A Discourse
of Planting_, recently published, though much of the essence of the
volume had been produced before in various forms.[378] Among the tracts
appended to Brereton are the _Inducements_ of Hakluyt the Elder, who
appears to have known all about the _Discourse_.[379]

       *       *       *       *       *

In connection with the voyage of Waymouth, 1605, one topic of
discussion relates to the particular river which he explored. This,
indeed, is a subject in connection with which a divergence of opinion
may be pardonable. Did he explore the St. George’s River, or the
Kennebec? Belknap, however, in 1796, in a crude fashion and with poor
data, held that the Penobscot was the river visited.[380] In 1857 a
Maine writer took the ground that Waymouth explored the Kennebec.[381]
Other writers followed with pleas for the St. George’s.[382]


  1. Portsmouth.
  2. York [Gorgiana, 1641].
  3. Agamenticus.
  4. Saco.
  5. Richmond Island.
  6. Casco.
  7. Sabino [Popham’s Colony].
  8. Sagadahoc River.
  9. Damariscotta River.
  10. Sheepscott River.
  11. Pemaquid.
  12. Monhegan Island.
  13. Fox Islands.
  14. Isle au haut.
  15. Castine [Pentagöet, Bagaduce].
  16. Mount Desert.
  17. Kennebec River.
  18. Penobscot River.
  19. George’s River.
  20. St. George’s Islands [?Pentecost harbor].
  21. Boothbay [? Pentecost].
  22. Camden Hills.
  23. Damariscove Islands.
  A. Lygonia, 1630; subsequently part of Gorges and Mason’s grant, 1622,
     and Somersetshire, 1635.
  B. Plymouth grant.
  C. Muscongus, 1630.
  D. Waldo patent.

See for the region about Pemaquid the map in the narrative part of this

Ballard wrote what was, in most respects, a convincing argument in
support of the Kennebec River.[383] In opposition to the advocate
of the Kennebec, it has been said that the high mountains seen by
Waymouth were not the White Mountains,—for the reason that the White
Mountains could not be seen,—but were the Camden hills, towards
which he went from Monhegan; and consequently that he reached the St.
George’s River, which lies in that direction. It has been said, also,
that the White Mountains cannot be seen from that vicinity. This is
simply an assumption. The White Mountains are distinctly visible in
fair weather from the deck of a ship lying inside of Monhegan.[384]
Yet the mountains in question have less to do with the subject than
generally supposed, since a careful examination of the obscure text
shows that it is not necessary to understand Rosier as saying that
in going to the river they sailed directly towards the mountains.
His language shows that they “came along to the other islands more
adjoining the main, and in the road directly with the mountains.”[385]
Here it is not necessary to suppose that it was the course sailed that
was direct, but rather that it was the _road_ that was direct with the
mountains,—the term _road_ signifying a roadstead, or anchorage place
at a distance from the shore, like that of Monhegan. Beyond question
Waymouth saw both the White and the Camden mountains; but they do
not form such an essential element in the discussion as both sides
have fancied. Strachey really settles the question where he says that
Waymouth discovered two rivers,—“that little one of Pamaquid,” and
“the most excellent and beneficyall river of Sachadehoc.”[386] This
river at once became famous, and thither the Popham colonists sailed in
1607. In fact, the St. George’s River was never talked about at that
period, being even at the present time hardly known in geography, while
the importance of the Kennebec is very generally understood.

The testimony of another early writer would alone prove sufficient to
settle the question. In fact, no question would ever have been raised
if New England writers had been acquainted with the works of Champlain
at an earlier period. In July, 1605, Champlain visited the Kennebec,
where the natives informed him that an English ship had been on the
coast, and was then lying at Monhegan; and that the captain had killed
five Indians belonging to their river.[387] These were the five Indians
taken by Waymouth at Pentecost Harbor—the modern Booth’s Bay—who were
supposed to have been killed, though at that time sailing on the voyage
to England unharmed.

The narrative of the expedition of Waymouth was written by James
Rosier, and published in 1605.[388] It was printed by Purchas, with
a few changes, in 1625;[389] and reprinted by the Massachusetts
Historical Society, in 1843.[390] This narrative forms the source of
almost everything that is known about the voyage. It contains some
perplexing passages; but when properly interpreted, it is found that
they are all consistent with other statements, and prove that the river
explored was the Kennebec.

The story of the Popham Colony, of 1607-8, at one time occasioned much
acrimonious discussion, for which there was no real occasion; but of
late the better the subject has been understood, the less reason has
been found for any disagreement between the friends of the Church of
England and the apologists of New England nonconformity.

Prior to the year 1849 the Popham Colony was known only through notices
found in Purchas,[391] the _Brief Relation_,[392] Smith,[393] Sir
William Alexander, Gorges,[394] and others. In the year 1849, however,
the Hakluyt Society published Strachey’s work, entitled _The Historie
of Travaile into Virginia Britannia_, edited by R. H. Major; chapters
viii., ix., and x. of which contained an account of the Popham Colony
found to be much fuller than any that had appeared previously. In 1852
these chapters were reprinted with notes in the _Collections_ of the
Massachusetts Historical Society;[395] and the next year four chapters
of the work were reprinted by the Maine Historical Society.[396]
In 1863 the same society published a _Memorial Volume_, which was
followed by heated discussions, some of which, with a bibliography of
the subject, were published in 1866. Articles of a fugitive character
continued to appear; and, finally, in 1880, there came from the press
the journal of the voyage to the Kennebec in 1607, by one of the
adventurers,[397] which was reprinted in advance from the _Proceedings_
of the Massachusetts Historical Society.[398] It would seem from the
internal evidence furnished by the journal and the express testimony
of Purchas,[399] that this composition was by James Davies, who, in
the organization at the Sagadahoc, held the office of Captain of the
Fort. This journal was found to be the source whence Strachey drew his
account of the colony, large portions of which he copied verbatim,
giving no credit. Since the publication of this journal no new material
has been brought to light.[400]

The Popham Colony formed a part of the work undertaken by Sir
Ferdinando Gorges and his colaborers, who sought so long and so
earnestly to accomplish the colonization of New England.[401] Many
experiments were required to insure final success, and the attempt
at Sagadahoc proved eminently useful, contributing largely to that
disciplinary experience essential under such circumstances. Viewed in
its necessary and logical connection, it need not be regarded as a
useless failure, since it opened the eyes of adventurers more fully,
bringing a clearer apprehension of the general situation and the
special requirements of the work which the North Virginia Company had
in hand.

A paragraph that may have some bearing on the condition of things
in Maine after the year 1608 appeared in 1609, and runs as follows:
“Two goodly Rivers are discovered winding farre into the Maine, the
one in the North part of the Land by our Westerne Colonie, Knights
and Gentlemen of _Excester_, _Plymouth_, and others. The other in the
South part thereof by our Colonie of _London_.”[402] Again a letter
by Mason to Coke, assigned to the year 1632, teaches that the work of
colonization was considered as having been continued from 1607.[403]
This would seem to indicate, that, in the opinion of the writer, the
work was not wholly abandoned; yet, concerning the actual condition of
affairs on the Maine coast for several years after the colonists left
Fort Popham, much remains to be learned. From neglected repositories
in the seaport towns of the south of England, material may yet be
gleaned to show a continuous line of scattered residents living around
Pemaquid during all the years that followed the departure of the Popham
colonists from Sabino[404] in 1608.

The visit of Henry Hudson to New England in 1609 is described in Juet’s

Argall’s visit to New England in 1610 is treated by Purchas, though
it has made no figure in current histories.[406] What appears to
be the most correct account of the voyage of Hobson and Harlow, in
1611, is found in Smith. The student may also consult the _Briefe
Relation_,[407] which, however, appears to confuse the account by
introducing an event of 1614, the capture of Indians by Hunt. Gorges is
also confused here, as in many other places.[408] We are indebted to
the French for the account of the capture and ransom of Plastrier.[409]

In connection with Argall’s descent upon the French at Mount Desert,
it will be necessary to consult the Jesuit Relations,[410] which throw
considerable light upon the transactions of the English at this period;
also the State Papers. These show that Argall’s ship was named the
“Treasurer.”[411] Champlain says that this ship mounted fourteen guns,
while ten more English vessels were at hand.[412] If his statement is
correct, there must have been a large number of Englishmen on the coast
at this period.

Smith, in 1614, as at other times, is his own historian, and his
writings show the growth of the feeling that existed with respect
to colonization, and they at the same time illustrate his adverse

Gorges gives an account of Hobson’s and Harlow’s voyage for 1614.[414]
Hunt’s cruelty, in connection with the Indians whom he enslaved and
sold in Spain, is made known by Smith.[415] Some of these Indians
recovered their liberty, and Bradford speaks of Squanto, the
interpreter to the Plymouth Colony.[416]

Gorges makes us acquainted with Sir Richard Hawkins, who was on the New
England coast at the close of the year 1615. Sir Richard was the son
of the famous John Hawkins, who set David Ingram and his companions
ashore in the Bay of Mexico. Hawkins was born in 1555, and in 1582 he
conducted an expedition to the West Indies. In 1588 he is found in
command of the “Swallow,” and he distinguished himself in the defeat
of the Armada. He next sailed upon an expedition to the Pacific, where
he was captured and carried to Spain.[417] In 1620 he was named in
connection with the Algerine expedition, dying at the end of 1621
or the beginning of 1622. A full account of his transactions in New
England would be very interesting; but the account of Gorges, in
connection with Brawnde’s Letter to Smith, must suffice.[418]

The story of Rocroft is told by Gorges, and Dermer writes of his own
voyage at full length.[419]

       *       *       *       *       *

It remains now to speak of the old cartology, so far as it may afford
any traces of the English explorers of Norumbega. At the outset
the interesting fact may be indicated that the earliest reference
to Norumbega upon any map is that of the Italian Verrazano, 1529;
while the most pronounced, if not the latest, mention during the
seventeenth century is that of the Italian Lucini, who engraved over
his “Nova Anglia” the word “Norambega,” which is executed with many

Passing over the first cartographical indication of English exploration
on the coast of North America, in the map of Juan de la Cosa, which
is figured and described in the chapter on the Cabots; and passing
over the French and the Italians,[421]—adverting but for a moment
to the Dauphin map of 1543, with its novel transformation of the name
Norumbega into Anorobagea,—the next map that needs mention is that of
John Rotz, of 1542. It is of interest, for the reason that the “_booke
of Idrography_,”[422] of which it forms a part, was dedicated by its
author to Henry VIII. Rotz subscribes himself “sarvant to the King’s
mooste excellente Majeste.” The English royal arms are placed at the
beginning, though originally Rotz intended to present the book to
Francis I. Indeed, the outline of the coast is drawn according to the
French idea. Nevertheless, the names on the map are chiefly Spanish.
It shows no English exploration; and, in a general way, indicates an
absence of geographical knowledge on the part of that nation, which,
however, is recognized by the legend placed in the sea opposite the
coast between Newfoundland and the Penobscot. The legend is as follows:
“The new fonde lande quhaz men goeth a-fishing.” The main features of
the coast are delineated. Cape Breton and the Strait of Canseau, with
the Penobscot and Sandy Hook, are defined; but Cape Cod, the “Arecifes”
of Rotz, appears only in name, though in its proper relation to the
Bay of St. John the Baptist, a name given to the mouth of Long Island
Sound, in connection with the Narragansett Waters. The word Norumbega
does not occur, and the nomenclature is hardly satisfactory. It
contains no reference either to Verrazano or Cartier. The so-called map
of Cabot, 1544, does not touch the particular subject under notice.[423]

[Illustration: HENRI II. (DAUPHIN) MAP, 1546.

[The legends are as follows:—

  2. C. des Illes.
  3. Anorobagea.
  4. Arcipel de Estienne Gomez. [This voyage
  of Gomez will be described in
  Vol. IV.]
  5. Baye de St. Jhon Baptiste.
  6. R. de bona mere.
  7. B. de St. Anthoine.
  8. R. de St. Anthoine.
  9. C. de St. Xρofle.
  10. R. de la tournee.
  11. C. de Sablons.—ED.]

Frobisher’s map of 1578 shows a strait at the north leading from the
Atlantic to the Pacific, and bearing his name, but the map throws no
light upon Norumbega.[424]

Dr. John Dee was much interested in American enterprise, and made a
particular study of the northern regions, as well as of the fisheries.
Under date of July 6, 1578, he speaks of “Mr. Hitchcok, who had
travayled in the plat for fishing.”[425] A map bearing the inscription,
“Ioannes Dee, Anno, 1580,” is preserved in the British Museum.[426]
It reminds one of Mercator’s map of 1569, but is not so full. Dee was
frequently invited to the Court of Elizabeth to make known her title to
lands in the New World that had been visited by the English; and he was
deferred to by Hakluyt, Gilbert, Walsingham, and others.

He writes in his diary, under date of July 3, 1582, “A meridie hor
3½ cam Sir George Peckham to me to know the tytle of Norombega, in
respect of Spayn and Portugall parting the whole world’s distilleryes;
he promised me of his gift and of his patient ... of the new
conquest.”[427] Gilbert’s voyage was then being projected, but Dee’s
map has no reference to him or the English adventurers.[428] It shows
the main divisions of the coast of Norumbega, except Cape Cod, from
Sandy Hook to Cape Breton. The Penobscot is well defined, and Norombega
lies around its headwaters.

The map in Hakluyt’s Edition of Peter Martyr, published 1587, shows the
English nomenclature around and north of the waters of the Gulf of St.
Lawrence, but it gives away the territory of Norumbega to the French
as Nova Francia. On the west coast of North America is Nova Albion. In
Nova Francia there is a river apparently bearing the name of Arambe,
which, it has been suggested, was used later in a restricted sense. Not
far from this river, at the south, is the legend, “Virginia, 1580.”[429]

A map made in 1592, by Thomas Hood, does not show any English influence
on the coast, but Norombega is represented north of the Penobscot,
which is called R. des Guamas, intended for “Gamas,” the Stag

The globe of Molyneux[431] shows the explorations of Davis in the
north, and its author calls the northern continent, north of Sandy
Hook, “Carenas.” Confusion reigns to a considerable extent. Norumbega
is confined to the Penobscot, and nothing is indicated with respect to
the English in that quarter.

The map of Molyneux, 1600, is extremely interesting, but it does not
show the operations of the English in New England, though the Bay of
Menan is recognized, this being the place so well known to Hakluyt the
Elder for its deposits of copper.[432] New England, as on Lok’s map, is
shown as an island.[433]

The cartology at this period is very disappointing though the maps
pointed out the main features of the coast. In many respects they were
inferior to some of the earlier maps, and were occupied with a vain
iteration. A little later the map of Lescarbot, of 1609, as might be
supposed, is poor in its outlines and devoted rather to the French

[Illustration: HOOD’S MAP, 1592.

The Legends are as follows:—

   1. Rio de S. Spo.
   2. Rio Salado.
   3. C. de S. Joan.
   4. C. de las arenas.
   5. C. de Pero (arenas).
   6. Santiago.
   7. B. de S. Christoforo.
   8. Monte Viride.
   9. R. de buena madre.
  10. St. John Baptista.
  11. Terrallana.
  12. C. de las Saxas.
  13. Archipelago.
  14. C. S. Maria.
  15. C. de mucas y^{as}.
  16. R. das Guamas.
  17. Aracifes.
  18. R. de Mōtanas.
  19. R. de la Plaia.—ED.

Smith’s well-known map, issued with his _Description of New England_
in 1616, was the earliest to give a configuration of the coast,
approaching accuracy; and he could have found little in Lescarbot’s and
Champlain’s maps to assimilate, even if he had known them. Cape Cod now
for the first time was drawn with its characteristic bend. Smith says
that he had brought with him five or six maps, neither true to each
other nor to the coast.

Smith’s map did not originally contain a single English name,[435]
but the young Prince Charles, to whom it was submitted in accordance
with Smith’s request, changed about thirty “barbarous” Indian names
for others, in order that “posterity” might be able to say that that
royal personage was their “godfather.” A number of Scotch names were
selected, among others, by the grandson of the Queen of Scots. Smith
gave the name of Nusket to Mount Desert, confusing it, perhaps,
with the aboriginal Pemetic, which was changed to Lomond, given as
“Lowmonds” on the map. The prince very naturally desired to give names
recalling the country of his birth; and while Ben Lomond, one of the
noblest Caledonian hills, bears a certain grand resemblance to its
namesake, the breezes of the lake of Mount Desert, like “answering

  “Soothe many a chieftain’s sleep.”

In a similar spirit he named the Blue Hills of Milton the “Cheuyot
hills;” the ancient river of Sagadahoc being the Forth, with what was
intended for “Edenborough” standing near its headwaters. There is
nothing on the map to recall the nonconformists of Nottinghamshire
and Lincolnshire, who afterwards came upon the coast, except Boston
and Hull which stand near the Isles of Shoals, being, in fancy, close
together on the map, as afterwards they were reproduced farther south,
in fact.

The young prince, then a lad of about fifteen, no doubt had suggestions
made to him respecting the names to be selected, as he favored the
southern and southwestern communities like Bristol and Plymouth, which
furnished those expeditions encouraged by churchmen like Popham and
Gilbert. Poynt Suttliff forms a distinct recognition of Dr. Sutliffe,
the Dean of Exeter, who took so much interest in New England.[436]

On this map we find the ancient Norumbega called New England. Rich
says that Smith was the first to apply this name. In reply, Mr. Henry
C. Murphy has referred to its alleged use by a Dutchman in 1612.[437]
Special reference is made to a statement printed upon the back of a
map contained in a book brought out by Hessell Gerritsz at Amsterdam,
giving a description of the country of the Samoieds in Tartary. The
phrase used, however, is not “New England,” nor “Nova Anglia,” but
“Nova Albion,”[438] which was applied to the whole region by Sir
Francis Drake, in his explorations on the Pacific coast.


At that time the continent lying between the Atlantic and the Pacific
was regarded as a narrow strip of land; and as late as 1651 it was
estimated that it was only ten days’ journey on foot from
the headwaters of the James to the Pacific.[439] In 1609 the country
was called Nova Britannia. It would seem, therefore, according to
present indications, that Smith was entitled to the credit given him
by Rich. At all events the importance of Smith’s work in New England
cannot be questioned. Smith himself was not backward in asserting
the value of his services, declaring in one place that he “brought
New England to the Subjection of the Kingdom of Great Britain.”[440]
After the publication of his map, Norumbega well-nigh disappeared from
the pages of travellers,[441] and a new series of observation of the
territory was begun by the authors of works like those which chronicled
the doings of the Leyden Adventurers in New England.


       *       *       *       *       *


the English in all that related to the extension of American discovery
is distinctly apparent in the comparatively few publications from
the London press in the sixteenth century which conduced to spread
intelligence of the New World on the land and incite rivalry on the
ocean. The following list will show this:—

=1509.= When Alexander Barclay put Sebastian Brant’s _Ship of Fools_
into English verse and published it in folio in London, he disclosed
one of the earliest references to the Spanish discoveries which the
English people could have read. This book is very rare; a copy brought
£120 at the Perkins sale in London in 1873,—_Carter-Brown Catalogue_,
p. 245. This edition has of late been reprinted in England, edited by

=1511.=(?) A book _Of the newe Lādes_, printed about this time at
Antwerp, but in English, is thought to have been the earliest original
treatise in the English tongue which makes any mention of America. The
New World is supposed to be meant by “Armenica.” Harrisse, however,
assigns 1522 as its date,—_Bibl. Amer. Vet._ p. 196. There is a copy
in the British Museum.

=1519=, though put by some as early as 1510. _A new Interlude of the
iiij. Elements._ This has been already described in Mr. Deane’s chapter.

=1517.= Wynkyn de Worde printed Watson’s English prose translation of
Brant’s _Ship of Fools_.

A half century and more slipped away without the English press taking
heed, except in such chance notices as these, of what was so closely
engaging the attention of the rest of Europe. But in

=1553= appeared the earliest book produced in England chiefly devoted
to the American discoveries, and this was Richard Eden’s _Treatyse of
the newe India_, which he had translated from the Latin of the fifth
book of Sebastian Munster’s _Cosmographia_, pp. 1099 to 1113. See
_Carter-Brown Cat._ p. 171, and further in the chapter on the Cabots.

Munster was one of the most popular cosmographers of his day. He had
begun his work in 1532 by supplying a map by Apianus to Gyrnæus’s
_Novus Orbis_ of that date, which was not very creditable, being much
behind the times; and he made amends by trying to give the latest
information in an issue of Ptolemy, which he edited in 1540, to which
he supplied a woodcut map that did service in a variety of publications
for nearly all the rest of the century. It was one of the earliest
maps, in which interstices were left in the block for the insertion
of type for the names, and in this way it was made to accompany both
German and Latin texts. It was also used in Sylvanus’s Ptolemy, the
names being in red. Kohl, _Disc. of Maine_, p. 296; _Harvard Coll. Lib.
Bull._ i. 270.

Munster’s _Cosmographia_, to which he transferred this map, was first
published in German, according to Harrisse, _Bibl. Amer. Vet._, no.
258, quoting the _Labanoff Catalogue_, in 1541, and again in 1544, with
a new map. After this there were two German (1545 and 1550) and one
Latin (1550) edition, each published at Basle, and a French edition
(1552), all of which are generally noted, besides Eden’s version of
1552 (owned by Mr. Brevoort); cf. _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, 1865, p.
27, and an earlier one (1543), cited in Poggendorff’s _Biog.-lit.
Handwörterbuch_, ii. 234, which is not so generally recognized, if
indeed it exists at all. The statement is, however, enough to indicate
that Eden thus made a popular book the medium of his first presentation
to the English public.


The cut is taken from the _Carter-Brown Catalogue_. The Colophon reads:
“Thus endeth this fyfth boke of Sebastian Munster, of the lādes of Asia
the greater, and of the newefounde landes, and Ilandes. 1553.”]

=1555.= Richard Eden, who to his book-learning added the results
of converse with sailors, next published his _Decades of the Newe
Worlde, or West India_, derived in large part, as shown in Mr. Deane’s
chapter, from the Latin of Peter Martyr. This made to the English
public the first really collective presentation of the results of the
maritime enterprise of that time. (H. Stevens, _Bibl. Hist._ 1870,
no. 632; Field, _Indian Bibliog._ no. 484; _Carter-Brown Catalogue_,
p. 184, with fac-simile of title.) Among the supplemental matters was
a “Description of the two Viages made out of England into Guinea,”
in 1553-54, which were the earliest English voyages ever printed.
This 1555 edition, which fifty years ago was worth in good copies six
guineas (Rich’s _Catalogue_, 1832, no. 30), will now bring about £25.
The Editor has used the Harvard College and Mr. Charles Deane’s copies.
There was sold in the Brinley sale, no. 40, the 1533 edition of Peter
Martyr, which was the copy used by Eden in making this translation,
and it is enriched with his little marginal maps and annotations. See
Sabin’s _Dictionary_, i. 201, where it is said Bellero’s map, measuring
5 × 6½ inches, is found in some copies. The Lenox copy has a larger
map, 10½ × 7 inches, with a similar title.

=1559.= “A perticular Description of suche partes of America as are
by travaile founde out,” made the last chapter of a heavy folio, _The
Cosmographicalle Glasse_, which appeared in London, the work of a young
man, William Cunningham, twenty-eight years old, a doctor in physics
and astronomy. See _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p. 214, where a fac-simile
of the author’s portrait as it appeared in the book is given.

=1563.= _The whole and true discouerie of Terra Florida_, as set forth
in English, following Ribault’s narrative, was published in London on
the 30th of May. The book is so scarce that the Lenox and Carter-Brown
Libraries have been content with manuscript copies from the volume in
the British Museum. This may possibly indicate that the destruction of
the edition followed upon much reading and thumbing.

=1568.= _The New found Worlde, or Antarctike ... travailed and written
in the French tong by that excellent learned man, Master Andrewe
Thevet, and now newly translated into English. Imprinted at London
for Thomas Hacket._ This is a translation of Thevet’s well-known but
untrustworthy book. See _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p. 241; there is also
a copy in H. C. Murphy’s collection.

[Illustration: MUNSTER, 1532.]

[Illustration: MUNSTER, 1540.

This sketch-map needs the following key:—

  1. India Superior.
  2. Archipelagus 7448 Insularum.
  3. Francisca.
  4. C. Britonum.
  5. Terra Florida.
  6. Cortereali.
  7. Hispaniola.
  8. Cuba.
  9. Iucatan.
  10. Jamica.
  11. Antillæ.
  12. Dominica.
  13. Zipangri.
  14. Paria.
  15. Regio Gigantum.
  16. Fretum Magalini.
  17. Insulæ Inforunatæ.
  18. Oceanus Occidentalis.
  19. Insulæ Hesperidum.
  20. Insula Atlantica quam vocant Basilij et Americam.]

=1570.= Another English edition of Barclay’s version of the _Ship of
Fools_. The _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p. 243, gives the title and
portrait of Brant in fac-simile.

=1572.= Eden’s version of Munster again appeared under the title of _A
briefe Collection and Compendious Extract of Straunge and Memorable
Thinges, gathered out of the Cosmographeye of Sebastian Munster_. See
_Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p. 172.

=1574.= Eden’s _Briefe Collection_ was reissued. There was a copy in
the Heber sale, and one is now in the British Museum, according to

[Illustration: Title of Stultifera Nauis (1570)

  [Stultifera Nauis,
  qua omnium mortalium narratur stultitia, admodum
  vtilis & necessaria ab omnibus ad suam salutem perlegenda,
  è Latino sermone in nostrum vulgarem versa,& iam diligenter
  impressa. An. Do. 1570.

  The Ship of Fooles, wherin is shewed the folly
  of all States, with  diners other workes adioyned  unto the same,
  very profitable and fruitfull for all men.
  Translated out of Latin into Englishe by Alexander
  Barclay Priest.]]


=1576.= In April appeared Sir Humphrey Gilbert’s _Discourse of a
Discoverie for a new passage to Cataia_, a Gothic-letter tract of
great rarity in these days. It is credited with giving a new impulse
to English explorations; and had exerted some influence in manuscript
copies before being printed. See _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p. 258;
_Brinley Catalogue_, no. 31, Heber’s copy, which brought $255. It is
also in the Lenox Library; and this and the Carter-Brown copy have
the rare map which in the Catalogue of the latter collection is given
slightly reduced, and it is in part reproduced herewith. See Fox
Bourne’s _English Seamen_, chs. 5 and 7. Gilbert in this had undertaken
to prove, both from reasoning and report, that there was a northwest
passage, and that America was an island, and he recounts traditions of
its being sailed through. See Mr. Deane’s chapter on “The Cabots.”

[Illustration: PART OF GILBERT’S MAP, 1576.]

=1577.= Settle published in London his _True Reporte of the laste
Voyage into the west and northwest regions_, the author having
accompanied Frobisher on his voyage in 1577. Its rarity—for besides
the Grenville copy in the British Museum, that in the _Carter-Brown
Catalogue_, p. 266, where its title is given in fac-simile, is the only
one we have noted—may signify the eagerness there was to read it, with
a consequent use great enough to destroy the edition, though there
are said to have been two issues the same year. A fac-simile reprint
(fifty copies) has been privately made from the Carter-Brown copy; and
it is also reprinted in Brydges’s _Restituta_, 1814, vol. ii. See _N.
E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1869, p. 363,—a notice by John Russell

=1577.= Richard Willes brought out in London, with some augmentation,
an edition of Eden’s Peter Martyr, under the new title of _The History
of Trauvayle_, a stout volume, which in the known copies has stood wear
better. Willes’s preface tells the story of Eden’s labors, and adds,
“Many of his Englysche woordes cannot be excused in my opinion for
smellyng to much of the Latine.”

It would seem that the arrangement was still mostly the labor of Eden,
who did not die till 1576. Willes, however, suppressed Eden’s preface
of 1555.

This edition has likewise much appreciated in value. Rich, in his 1832
_Catalogue_, no. 57, priced a fine copy at £4 4_s._; now one is worth
£20 or more. There are copies in Harvard College, Carter-Brown (no.
312), Charles Deane’s and Boston Athenæum Libraries. See also _Brinley
Catalogue_, no. 41; _Sunderland Catalogue_, no. 4180; Field, _Ind.
Bibl._, no. 485; _Huth Catalogue_, p. 922.


=1577.= John Frampton translated and published, under the title of
_Joyfull Newes out of the New founde Worlde_, a book of the Seville
Physician, Nicholas de Monardes. See _Brinley Catalogue_, no. 46;
Stevens’s _Nuggets_, 1924; _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, no. 313.

=1578.= Thomas Churchyard’s _Prayse and Report of Maister Martyne
Forboisher’s Voyage to Meta Incognita_, London. Bohn’s _Lowndes_, p.
450, reports a copy in the British Museum.

=1578.= George Best published his _True Discourse of the late voyage of
discoverie for the finding of a passage to Cathaya by the North-weast,
under the Conduct of Martin Frobisher, generall_. This is also very
rare. See _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, no. 319, which shows the two rare
maps, a portion of one of which is given in fac-simile in ch. iii. from
that in Collinson’s _Martin Frobisher_.

=1578.= Thomas Nicholas printed, under his initials only, an English
version of Gomara’s account of Cortes’ conquest of New Spain, called
_The Pleasant Historie of the Conquest of the Weast Indies_. Fine
copies are worth about £10. There are copies in the Boston Athenæum,
Lenox Library, etc. See _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p. 275, for
fac-simile of title; Sabin’s _Dictionary_, vii. 311; W. C. Hazlitt’s
_Bibliog. Coll. and notes_, 2d ser. p. 265.

=1580.= A new edition of Frampton’s _Joyfull Newes_. This edition is
worth about £4. There is a copy in Harvard College Library. Rich,
_Catalogue_, 1832, no. 64.

=1580.= John Florio published a retranslation into English from
Ramusio’s Italian version of Cartier’s _Voyage to New France_ (1534),
which had appeared originally in French, but was not now apparently
accessible to Florio. _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, no. 331.

=1581.= T. Nicholas published an English translation, now very rare, of
Zarate’s account of the Conquest of Peru.

=1582.= Hakluyt began his active participation in furthering English
maritime exploration by his first publication, the little _Divers
Voyages_, dedicating it to Sir Philip Sidney; and in this he says: “I
marvaile not a little ... that we of England could never have the grace
to set fast footing in such fertill and temperate places as are left
as yet unpossessed.” Again he says: “In my public lectures I was the
first that produced and showed both the olde imperfectly composed and
the new lately reformed mappes, globes, and spheares, to the generall
contentment of my auditory.” See further in Mr. Deane’s chapter on “The
Cabots.” Cf. W. C. Hazlitt’s _Bibliog. Coll. and notes_, 1st ser. p.

There is, unfortunately, no sufficiently extended account of Hakluyt,
and the most we know of him must be derived from his own publications.
The brief account in Anthony Wood’s _Athenæ Oxonienses_ is the source
of most of the notices. Mr. J. Payne Collier has added something in a
paper on “Richard Hakluyt and American Discovery” in the _Archæologia_,
xxxiii. 383; and Mr. Winter Jones in his Introduction to the reprint
of the _Divers Voyages_ has told about all that can be gleaned, and in
his Appendix he gives some papers before unprinted, including Hakluyt’s
will. The subject has had later treatment, with the advantage of some
recent information, in the Introduction to the _Westerne Planting_, by
Dr. Woods and Mr. Deane.

With the exception of the criticism of John Locke,—if he be the editor
of Churchill’s _Collection_,—who wished Hakluyt had condensed more,
and of Biddle, who accuses him of perversions in his account of the
Cabots (see Mr. Deane’s chapter), the general opinion of Hakluyt’s
labor has been very high. Locke’s explanatory catalogue of voyages,
which appeared in Churchill, is reprinted in Clarke’s _Maritime
Discovery_. Oldys in the _British Librarian_, p. 136, analyzes
Hakluyt’s books, and there is a list of them in Sabin’s _Dictionary_
and in the _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p. 448. An account of the set in
the Lenox Library is printed in Norton’s _Literary Gazette_, i. 384.

Of the _Divers Voyages_, perfect copies are excessively rare, and the
two maps are almost always wanting. The two British Museum copies have
them, but the Bodleian has only the Lok map, and the same is true
of the Carter-Brown copy (_Catalogue_, p. 290). The other copies in
America belong to Harvard College (imperfect), Charles Deane, and Henry
C. Murphy. Of the maps, that by Lok is given in reduced fac-simile in
the _Carter-Brown Catalogue_ (as also in chapter i. of the present
volume), and both are given full size in the reprint of the Hakluyt

=1583.= Captain J. Carleill’s little _Discourse upon the entended
Voyage to the hethermoste Partes of America_, a tract of a few leaves
only, in Gothic letter, was probably printed about this time with the
aim to induce emigration and the fixing of commercial advantages.
Hakluyt thought it of enough importance to include it in his third
volume seventeen years later. _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p. 292.

=1583.= Sir George Peckham’s _True Report of the late Discoveries_,
etc. See further on this tract on a preceding page.

=1583.= M. M. S. published at London a small tract giving a
translation of Las Casas’ story of the Spanish deeds in the New World.
_Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p. 293.

=1588.= What is called the second original work published in England
on the New World is Hariot’s _New Foundland of Virginia_, a small
quarto of twenty-three leaves, imprinted at London. Heber had a copy;
and Brunet, the first to describe it, took the title from Heber’s
Catalogue. There are copies in the Lenox, Huth (_Catalogue_, ii.
652), Grenville (British Museum) and the Bodleian libraries. Sabin,
_Dictionary_, viii. 30377, who says this, adds that there was a copy
sold surprisingly low at Dublin in 1873, escaping the attention of
collectors. It was reprinted at Frankfort in 1590. See chapter iv.

=1588.= Appeared an English version of the Latin account of Drake’s

=1589.= Hakluyt gave out the first edition of his _Principall
Navigations_. Copies are at present worth from £5 to £10, according to
condition; and we have noted the following: Harvard College, Brinley
(no. 33), Carter-Brown (no. 384), Charles Deane, Long Island Historical
Society, Field (_Ind. Bibliog._ no. 631), Crowninshield (_Catalogue_,
no. 487), etc. The catalogues usually note the six suppressed leaves of
Drake’s voyage when present.

Hakluyt, at the end of his preface, speaks of “The comming out of a
very large and most exact terestriall Globe, collected and reformed
according to the newest, secretest, and latest discoveries, ...
composed by Mr. Emmerie Mollineaux, of Lambeth, a rare gentleman in his

In place of this Molineaux map, there sometimes appears, at p. 597,
what Hakluyt calls “One of the best general mappes of the world,”
which is a recut plate of one in Ortelius’s Atlas; and in other copies
instead we find another edition of the same, which is also found in the
English translation of Linschoten. Sabin says he has sometimes found a
woodcut of Gilbert’s map substituted. The Ortelius map is reproduced in
chapter i. of the present volume.

=1591.= Job Hortop’s _Rare Travales of an Englishman_, published in
London. Bohn’s _Lowndes_, p. 1124. There is a copy in the British
Museum. Hortop was one of Ingram’s companions, and after being captured
and confined in Mexico, reached England after very many years’ absence.

=1595.= John Davis published his _Worlde’s Hydrographical
Descriptions_, which in parts reiterates the views of Gilbert’s
_Discourse_. The only copies known are in the Grenville Library
(British Museum) and Lenox Library, New York. It is reprinted in the
Hakluyt Society’s edition of _Davis’s Voyages_, p. 191, and in the 1812
edition of Hakluyt’s _Principall Navigations_.

=1596.= A third edition of Frampton’s _Joyfull Newes_. A fine copy is
worth about three guineas. See _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, no. 497.

=1596.= Second edition of Nicholas’s translation of Gomara. _Brinley
Catalogue_, nos. 32 and 5309; Sabin, _Dictionary_, 27752; Field, _Ind.
Bibl._ no. 611; _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, no. 499.


=1598.= Wolfe, of London, published an English translation, by William
Philip, of Linschoten’s _Discours of Voyages into y^e Easte and West
Indies, in foure Bookes_, with a dedication to Sir Julius Cæsar, Judge
of the High Court of Admiralty. The preface adds: “Which Booke being
commended by Maister Richard Hackluyt, a man that laboureth greatly
to advance our English Name and Nativity, the Printer thought good
to cause the same to bee translated into the English Tongue.” The
original became a very popular book on the Continent. The maps of
American interest are those of the World, of the Antilles, and of South
America. The description of America begins on p. 216. _Carter-Brown
Catalogue_, i. no. 527; _Crowninshield Catalogue_, no. 625; Rich
(1832), no. 84, prices a copy at £8 8_s._


These are all, or nearly all, the publications brought out in English
and relating to America prior to the enlarged edition of Hakluyt’s
Collection, which was dedicated to Sir Robert Cecil, and of which the
third volume, bearing date 1600, was devoted to America. Compared
with the publications of the Continent for the same century, they are
strikingly fewer in number; and such as they are, it will be seen that
of the thirty-four separate issues enumerated above only fourteen are
of English origin, and of the whole number only twelve belong to the
first three quarters of the century.


During this same century the literature of navigation took its origin.
The Continental nations had already preceded. It was not till 1528 that
the first sea-manual appeared in England, and no copy of it is now
known. This was a translation of the French _Le Routier de la Mer_,
the antetype of the later rutters. The English edition was called _The
Rutter of the Sea_, and other editions appeared in 1536, 1541, and 1560
(?); the second of these adding, “A rutter of the northe, compyled
by Rychard Proude.” None of these, however, recognized the American

In 1561, Eden, at the suggestion of the Arctic navigator, Stephen
Burrough (b. 1525, d. 1586), again tried to give some impulse
to English interest by his translation of Martin Cortes’ _Art
of Navigation_, which had appeared at Seville ten years before.
(_Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p. 151.) Cortes was the first to suggest a
magnetic pole. Frobisher, when he made his first voyage, fifteen years
later (1576), perhaps because Eden’s translation was out of print, took
with him a Spanish edition of Medina’s _Arte de Navegar_,—a work which
preceded Cortes’, but never became so popular in England.

In 1565 came a fifth edition of the _Rutter of the Sea_, and in 1573
William Bourne first issued his _Regiment of the Sea_, which long
remained the chief English book on navigation.[442]

Eden put forth, at what precise date is not known, but not later than
1576, _A very necessarie and profitable book concerning Navigation,
compiled in Latin by Joannes Taisnierus_, in which the translator
intimates that Cabot knew more of the ways of discovering longitude
than he had disclosed. See _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p. 262. _Davis’s
Voyages_ (Hakluyt Society) gives the date 1579.

Such books, as the interest in America became more general, increased
rapidly, and I note them in chronological order.

=1577.= Second edition, _Regiments of the Sea_.

=1578.= Edward Hellowes published in London, in a small tract, a
translation, _A booke of the Invention of Navigation_ of Antonio de
Gaevara, Bishop of Mondonedo, originally printed at Valladolid in 1539.

=1578.= Second edition, Eden’s Cortes.

=1580.= Sixth edition of _The Rutter of the Sea_.

=1580.= Third edition, Eden’s Cortes.

=1581.= _The Arte of Navigation. By Pedro de Medina. Translated out of
the Spanish by John Frampton._ Medina’s _Arte de Navegar_ originally
appeared at Valladolid in 1545.

=1584.= Fourth edition, Eden’s Cortes. See _Brinley Catalogue_, no. 19,
for a copy which has a folding woodcut map of the New World, which is
usually wanting in later editions.

=1585.= Robert Norman, hydrographer, published his _Newe Attractive_,
with rules for the art of navigation annexed.

=1587.= Robert Tanner’s _Mirror for Mathematiques, ... a sure safety
for Saylers_, etc.

=1587.= Seventh edition of _The Rutter of the Sea_.

=1588.= The first marine atlas ever made appeared at Leyden in 1583-84,
and this year in London as _The Mariner’s Mirrour, ... first made by
Luke Wagenaer, of Enchuisen, and now fitted with necessarie additions
by Anthony Ashley_.

=1588.= Fifth edition, Eden’s Cortes.

=1589.= Thomas Blundeville’s _Brief Description of Universal Mappes and
Cardes, and of their Use, and also the Use of Ptolemy his tables_.

=1589.= A sixth edition of Eden’s version of Martin Cortes’ _Arte of
Navigation_ appeared. Good copies of this small black-letter quarto are
worth about seven guineas. It is known that Hakluyt about this time was
endeavoring with the aid of Drake to found in London a public lecture
for the purpose of advancing the art of navigation.

=1590.= Robert Norman translated from the Dutch _The Safeguard of
Saylers, or Great Rutter_. Edward Wright corrected and enlarged this in
1612. Norman was the inventor of the dipping-needle, in 1576.

=1590.= Thomas Hood’s _Use of the Jacob’s Staffe; also a dialogue
touching the use of the Crosse Staffe_. These were instruments for
the taking of latitude. The astrolabe, an instrument of remote
antiquity, had been adapted to sea-use by Martin Behaim; but it was
soon found that it did not adapt itself to the automatic movement of
the observer’s body in a rolling sea, and in 1514 the cross-staff was
invented, or at least was first described.

=1592.= A third edition of Bourne’s _Regiment of the Sea_, corrected by
Thomas Hood.

=1592.= Thomas Hood’s _Use of both the Globes, celestiall and
terrestriall_, written to accompany the Molineaux globes.

=1592.= Thomas Hood’s _Marriner’s Guide_.

=1594.= John Davis published his _Seaman’s Secrets, wherein is taught
the three kindes of Sayling,—Horizontall, Paradoxall, and Sayling upon
a great Circle_. He held up the example of the Spaniards: “For what
hath made the Spaniard to be so great a Monarch, the Commander of both
Indies, to abound in wealth and all Nature’s benefites, but only the
painefull industrie of his Subjects by Navigation.” No copy of this
first edition is known. The second edition, 1607, is in the British
Museum, and from this copy the tract is reprinted in _Davis’s Voyages_
(Hakluyt Society ed.).

=1594.= _M. Blundevile, his Exercises_, with instruction in the art of
navigation. This proved a popular instruction book.

=1594.= Robert Hues printed in London a Latin treatise on the Molineaux
globes, _Tractatus de Globis, et eorum usu_. This includes a chapter by
Thomas Hariot on the rhumbs, or the lines which so perplexingly cover
the old maps.

=1596.= Another edition of Hood’s corrected issue of Bourne’s _Regiment
of the Sea_.

=1596.= Second edition of Norman’s _Newe Attractive_, etc.

=1596.= John Blagrave’s _Necessary and Pleasaunt Solace and recreation
for Navigators.... Whereunto ... he has anexed another invention
expressing on one face the whole globe terrestrial, with the two great
English voyages lately performed round the world_. This last is a map
by Hondius, reproduced in Drake’s _World Encompassed_ (Hakluyt Soc.

=1596.= Thomas Hood’s _Use of the mathematicall Instruments, the Crosse
Staffe differing from that in common use, and the Jacob’s Staffe_.

=1596.= Seventh edition of Eden’s version of Cortes.

=1597.= Second edition of _Blundevile, his Exercises_.

=1597.= William Barlow’s _Navigator’s Supply, containing many things of
principal importance belonging to navigation_. Largely on compasses.

=1598.= John Wolfe translated and printed _A treatyse ... for all
seafaringe men, by Mathias Sijverts Lakeman, alias Sofridus_.

=1599.= Simon Stevin’s _De Haven-vinding_ appeared at Leyden, and
Edward Wright brought it out at once in English, as _The Haven-Finding

=1599.= Edward Wright published his _Certain Errors in Navigation,
detected and corrected_. Wright was born in 1560, was lecturer on
navigation for the East India Company, was the verifier and improver of
Mercator’s projection, and is thought to have been the author of the
Molineaux map.

It will be observed that of this list of thirty-three publications for
twenty-five years about one half is of foreign origin.

SOCIETY.—The history of this manuscript, so far as known, is as

The family of Sir Peter Thomson (who died in 1770) possessed it,
from whom Lord Valentia secured it, and this collector indorsed upon
it “unpublished” and “extremely curious.” It subsequently is found
in the hands of Mr. Henry Stevens, who put it into a public sale in
London, May, 1854; and in the Catalogue (lot 474) it is called “a
most important unpublished manuscript, 63 pages, closely and neatly
written, in the original calf binding.” It brought £44, and passed into
the Collection of Sir Thomas Phillipps. (Stevens’s _Hist. and Geog.
Notes_, 1869, p. 20.) This gentleman began in 1837 to print privately
a catalogue of his library, then kept at Middle Hill, Worcestershire,
and continued the printing, sheet by sheet, and under no. 14097 this
manuscript appears as “A Hakluyt Discourse.” In 1859 Sir Thomas bought
Thirlestane House, Cheltenham, the seat of Lord Northwick, and hither
he removed his vast collections of manuscripts and books, where they
now are, in the possession of his heirs, Sir Thomas having died in
1872. They are open to inquirers under restrictions. See _N. E. Hist.
and Geneal. Reg._, 1873, p. 429.

The manuscript of the _Westerne Planting_ is not thought to be in
Hakluyt’s hand, though in a contemporary script; and the writing of it
by Hakluyt seems to have been in progress during the summer of 1584,
while its author was thirty-two years old. There is evidence that it
existed in four or five copies,—of which the only one known at this
day is the Phillipps copy,—one of which was for the queen, and all
were made with the view of recommending the planting of Norumbega.

In 1867 Dr. Woods was commissioned by the Governor of Maine to
procure in Europe material for the early history of the State, and
the first fruit was the engaging of Dr. Kohl in the work, which
subsequently assumed shape in his _Discovery of Maine_, and the second
the procurement of this Hakluyt manuscript. Dr. Woods was engaged in
preparing it for the press, when his health declined, and the labor was
completed by Mr. Charles Deane, the book being published by the Maine
Historical Society in 1877.

       *       *       *       *       *

Under the auspices of this Society some important historical work has
been done. Dr. Kohl’s book is the most elaborate summary yet made
of the early explorations on our New England coast. The labors of
Dr. Woods have been the subject of consideration in Dr. E. A. Park’s
_Life and Character of Leonard Woods_, Andover, 1880, 52 pp., and in
Dr. C. C. Everett’s notice in _Me. Hist. Coll._, viii. 481, and in
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xviii. 15. The late George Folsom opened
an important field of investigation in his _Catalogue of Original
Documents in the English Archives relating to the Early History of
Maine_, privately printed, New York, 1858, which covers the years
1601-1700, and is said to have been compiled for him by Mr. H. G.
Somerby. See _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._,1859, p. 262, and 1869, p.
481. Of the labors of William D. Williamson, the principal historian
of the State, there is due record in the _Historical Magazine_, xiii.
265, May, 1868, and in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, i. 90. The
Hon. William Willis, of whom there are accounts in the _Maine Hist.
Coll._, vii. 473, and in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1873,
p. 1, was for many years the president of the Society, and besides
furnishing many communications, he issued a bibliography of Maine in
_Norton’s Literary Letter_, no. 4, 1859, which was much enlarged in
the _Historical Magazine_, xvii. 145, March, 1870. In connection with
this subject the bibliography in Griffin’s _History of the Press in
Maine_, 1872, deserves notice. There is in the _Hist. Mag._, Jan.
1868, an account of the Maine Historical Society and the historical
investigations it has patronized.

A list of the charters and grants on the Maine coast is given in the
_Hist. Mag._, March, 1870, p. 154. See in this connection S. F. Haven’s
lecture in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Lowell Lectures_.

[Illustration: DR. JOHN G. KOHL.

We are indebted for the photograph used by the engraver to Dr.
Kohl’s successor in the librarianship of the Public Library at
Bremen, Dr. Heinrich Bulthaupt. No name ranks higher than Kohl’s
in the investigations of our early North American geography. “From
my childhood,” he says, “I was highly interested in geographical
researches in connection with history.” Having gathered much material
on the early cartographical history of America in the archives and
libraries of Europe, he came to this country, and receiving an
appropriation from Congress to enable him to make copies of his maps
for the Government, he undertook that work, the results of which are
now in the State Department at Washington. All that he desired to do
was not provided for by the order of Congress, and he returned to
Europe disappointed in his hopes, but leaving behind him, besides
the collections in Washington, a memoir with maps on the discovery
of the western coast of America, which is now in the library of the
American Antiquarian Society. In Europe he annotated and published at
Munich in fac-simile the two oldest general maps of America, those
known as Ribero’s and Ferdinando Columbus’s, and a treatise on the
history of the Gulf Stream, as well as a condensed popular history of
the discovery of America. In 1868 he undertook, what proved to be his
chief contribution to American historical geography, his _Discovery of
Maine_. He did not feel that he had accomplished all in this that he
would; but it still remains the most important essay since Humboldt in
that peculiar field. See Charles Deane’s notice of Kohl in _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, Dec. 1878, and the memoir in the _Beilage zur Allgemeinen
Zeitung_, Augsburg, July 9, 1879.]

=C.= THE POPHAM COLONY.—It was unfortunate, as it was unnecessary,
that any theological color should have been given to the discussion
arising out of the claims made for this colony, since the merits of the
case concerned solely the historical significance of secular events,
upon which all were agreed in the main. The claim asserted by the
Maine Historical Society, or by those representing it, was this: That
the temporary settlement at Sabino, being made under the charter of
1606, was the first event to secure New England for the English crown,
and should therefore be deemed the beginning of the existence of its
colonies. The claim of those historical students who took issue was
this: That the granting in 1606 of a patent by the king to his subjects
concerned no further the question than that it simply formulated a
pre-existing claim, while the actual attempts at colonization by
Gosnold in 1602, whether authorized or not,—the latter alternative
having of late years been brought forward by Dr. De Costa,—were more
practically demonstrative of that claim, in accordance with the English
interpretation of rights in new countries, namely, actual possession.
Further, that the true historic beginning of New England was not in
the abortive attempts of Gosnold and Popham to effect a settlement,
however much, in connection with many other events, they helped in
preparing a way, but in the permanent colonization which was made at
Plymouth in 1620, which was the first founded upon family life, and
which under greater distress than befell either of the others, was
rendered permanent more by the spirit of religious independency, as
evinced by their Holland exile, than by the mercenary longing, which
was professedly the chief motive of the others. Strachey distinctly
says of the Popham Colony, that mining was “the main intended benefit

It is susceptible of proof that the blood of the Pilgrims and of their
congeners runs through the veins of a large part of the population
of New England to-day. No genealogical tree has been produced which
connects our present life with a single one of the Sabino party.
How, then, was New England saved for the English race? The decisive
historical event is never those scattering forerunners which always
harbinger an epoch, but the fulfilment of the idea which comes in the
ripeness of time.

The controversy as it was waged was a reaction from the views with
which the Pilgrims had long been regarded for their devotion under
trial and for the pluck of their constancy in first making English
homes on this part of the continent. Maine writers like George Folsom
and William Willis had never questioned such established claims,
but had reasserted them. The leading spirit in this revocation of
judgment was Mr. John A. Poor, of Portland. This gentleman, having
done much to increase the material interests of his native State,
entered with pertinacity into a process of rendering, as he claimed,
the position of Maine in history more conspicuous. This required the
aggrandizement of the fame of Sir Ferdinando Gorges; and he began his
missionary work with a vindication of Gorges’ claims to be considered
the father of English colonization in America. It was no new idea,
for George Folsom had done Gorges justice in his _Discourse_ in 1846.
Mr. Poor’s lecture was printed, and was subsequently appended to the
_Popham Memorial_. To emphasize this claim, he secured the naming of
a new fort in Portland Harbor after Sir Ferdinando in 1860; and in
1862, when the General Government built a fortification on the old
peninsula of Sabino, his efforts caused it to be named Fort Popham,
and his zeal planned and directed a commemorative service in August of
that year on the spot, when a tablet recounting the claims of which
he was the champion was placed near its walls. The address which he
then delivered, which showed the intemperance, if not the perversity,
of an iconoclast, and which appeared with other papers and addresses
more or less pronounced in the same way in a _Popham Memorial_, opened
the controversy. See also _Historical Magazine_, Jan. 1863, and
Sept. 1866, and Mr. C. W. Tuttle’s account of Mr. Poor’s agency in a
“Memorial of J. A. Poor,” in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, Oct.
1872. The committee charged with the preparation of the _Memorial_
unwisely omitted a counter speech of the late J. Wingate Thornton, on
“The Colonial Schemes of Popham and Gorges,” which was accordingly
printed in the _Congregational Quarterly_, April, 1863, and separately,
and is examined favorably by Abner C. Goodell in the _Essex Institute
Collections_, Aug. 1863, p. 175. A similar unfavorable estimate of
Popham’s colonists had been taken by R. H. Gardiner in the _Maine
Historical Collections_, ii. 269; v. 226.

For some years the spirit was kept alive by recurrent commemorations.
Mr. Edward E. Bourne (see memoir of him in _N. E. Hist and Geneal.
Reg._, 1874, p. 9, and _Me. Hist. Coll._, viii. 386) answered the
detractors in an address, “The Character of the Colony founded by
George Popham,” Portland, 1864. The statements of Poor and Bourne led
to a review by S. F. Haven in the _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April
26, 1865, and in the _Hist. Mag._ (Dec. 1865, p. 358; March, July,
Sept., Nov., 1867; Feb. and May, 1869). There was a dropping fire on
both sides for some time. Meanwhile the address in 1865 by James W.
Patterson, on _The Responsibilities of the Founders of Republics_, led
to a controversy between William F. Poole attacking, and Rev. Edward
Ballard and Frederick Kidder defending, the colonists; and their
papers were printed together as _The Popham Colony: a Discussion of
its Historic Claims_, to which Mr. Poole appended a bibliography of
the subject up to 1866. Poole also gave his view of Gorges and the
colony in his edition of Johnson’s _Wonder Working Providence_, and in
the _North American Review_, Oct. 1868. At the celebration in 1871 Mr.
Charles Deane reviewed the erroneous conclusions presented at earlier
anniversaries, in a paper on “Early Voyages to New England, and their
Influence on Colonization,” which was printed in the _Boston Daily
Advertiser_, Sept. 2, 1871. A paper by R. K. Sewall on “Popham’s Town
of Fort St. George,” which contains a summary of the arguments and
events on the side of its historic importance, is given in the _Me.
Hist. Coll._, vii., accompanied by a map of the region. The latest
statement of the claim, apart from the review in the Preface to _The
Voyage to Sagadahoc_, referred to on an earlier page, is in General
Chamberlain’s _Maine_: _her Place in History_, which is too moderate
to provoke any criticism. Thus a reaction that at one time claimed the
necessity of rewriting history, has in the end engaged few advocates,
and is almost lost sight of.

=D.= CAPTAIN JOHN SMITH’S PUBLICATIONS.—The _Description_ is now a
rare book, worth with the genuine map, should one be offered, fifty
pounds or upwards. There is some bibliographical detail regarding it
in the _Memorial History of Boston_, i. 50, 52, 53. Latin and German
versions of it were included in De Bry, part x. Michael Sparke, the
London printer, issuing Higginson’s _New England’s Plantation_ in 1630,
appended this recommendation:—

 “But whosoever desireth to know as much as yet can be discovered, I
 advise them to buy Captaine John Smith’s booke of the description of
 New England in folio, and reade from fol. 203 to the end; and there
 let the reader expect to have full content.”

Smith’s letter (1618) to Bacon, upon New England, is in the _Hist.
Mag._, July, 1861, and the annexed autograph is taken from the original
in the Public Record office. See Sainsbury’s _Calendar of Colonial
Papers_, no. 42, p. 21; _Popham Memorial_, App. p. 104; Palfrey, _New
England_, i. 97.


A little tract of Smith’s, _New England’s Trials_ [_i. e._ Attempts at
Settlements], needs to be taken in connection with the _Description_.
Of this tract, of eight pages, published in 1620, there is no copy
known in America, and Mr. Deane describes it and reprints it in the
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ xii. 428, 449, from the Bodleian copy, which
differs in the names of the dedication from the British Museum copy.
In 1622 it was issued in a second edition, enlarged to fourteen pages,
which is also very rare, though copies are in the Deane Collection
and in that of John Carter-Brown, from the last of which a privately
printed reprint has been made. It was this text which Force used in his
_Tracts_, ii. See _Brinley Catalogue_, no. 363.

Smith had moved, April 12, 1621, in a meeting of the Virginia Company,
that its official sanction should be given to a compiled history of
“that country, from her first discovery to this day,” showing that
the purpose of his _Generall Historie_ was then in his mind. (Neill’s
_Virginia Company_, p. 210.) The first edition of it was issued in
1624, and in it he included, besides abstracts of various other
writings, substantially all his previous publications on America (see
the chapter on Virginia in the present volume), except his _True
Relation_, in the place of which he had put the _Map of Virginia_, a
tract covering the same transactions. When reissued in 1626 it was
from the same type, and again in 1627, and twice in 1632. An account
of the various editions in the Lenox Library, which differ only in the
front matter and plates, can be found in Norton’s _Literary Gazette_,
new ser. i. pp. 134 _a_, 218 _c_. Mr. Deane has printed a part of the
original prospectus. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, ix. 454.

The best opportunity for studying the slight diversities of the
different issues of this book may be found in the Lenox Library, which
has ten copies, showing all the varieties. Among other copies, the
following are noted:—

1624., Charles Deane. A large paper dedication copy of this edition,
bound for Smith’s patron, the Duchess of Richmond and Lenox, was
bought, at the Brinley Sale in 1879, no. 364, for the Lenox Library,
$1,800. The Menzies and Barlow copies are also called large paper
ones. See _Griswold Catalogue_, no. 778; Field’s _Ind. Bibliog._ no.
1435. The _Huth Catalogue_, p. 1367, gives a copy of this edition in
the original rich binding, showing the arms of the Duke of Norfolk
quartered with those of his wife, the daughter of the Duchess of
Richmond and Lenox.

1626., Harvard College Library. Sparks’s Collection, now at Cornell
University, no. 2424.

1627., Prince Library in Boston Public Library. Massachusetts
Historical Society. See the _Crowninshield Catalogue_, no. 992.

1631., The _Huth Catalogue_, p. 1367, gives, perhaps by error, an
edition of this date. I have noted no other copy.

1632., Harvard College Library.

The two portraits of the Duchess of Richmond and of Matoaka are usually
wanting. See the note to chapter v. Average copies without the genuine
portraits, which in Rich’s day (1832) were worth five guineas, are now
valued at more than three times that sum. The portrait of Smith, which
is shown reduced on the map of New England already given, has been
similarly reproduced full size in the _Memorial History of Boston_, i.,
and is engraved in the Richmond edition of the _Generall Historie_, in
Bancroft, Drake’s _Boston_, Hillard’s _Life of Smith, N. E. Hist. and
Geneal. Reg._, Jan. 1858, etc.

The _Generall Historie_, in conjunction with the _True Travels_, was
carelessly reprinted at Richmond, in 1819, at the cost of the Rev. John
Holt Rice, D.D., who lost by the speculation. (_N. E. Hist. and Geneal.
Reg._, 1877, p. 114.) A large part appeared in Purchas’s _Pilgrims_,
iv. 1838. It is given entire in Pinkerton’s _Collections of Voyages_,

It is the sixth book of this _Generall Historie_ which relates to
New England, and in this Smith supplements his own experience, and
brings the details down beyond the limits of this present chapter,
by borrowing from _Mourt’s Relation_ and reporting upon other
accounts, as he did in his still later publication, the tract called
_Advertisements for the Unexperienced Planters of New England_, which
brings the story down to 1630.

Dr. Palfrey has a note on the confidence to be reposed in Smith’s
books, in his _History of New England_, i. 89.

Smith was born in 1579 at Willoughby, as the parish records show.
(_Hist. Mag._, i. 313; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, ix. 451.) He died
June 21, 1631, signing his will the same day (_Ibid._ ix. 452), and
was buried in St. Sepulchre’s, London, where the inscription above
his grave is said to be now illegible. A committee of the American
Antiquarian Society was appointed in 1874 to see to its restoration,
but were prevented from acting by the demand of a fee for the privilege
from the vestry of the church. (_N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1874,
p. 222.) In Sparks’s _American Biography_ is a memoir of him by George
S. Hillard; another, by W. Gilmore Simms, was printed in 1846; and a
recent study of his life and writings has been made by C. D. Warner,
who says that the inscription, with the three (Turks’?) heads in St.
Sepulchre’s, long supposed to mark the grave of Smith, is proved to
commemorate some one who died in September, aged 66, while Smith died
June, 1631, aged 51. Stow’s _Survey of London_, 1633, gives the long
epitaph which could be read on the walls of the church previous to its
destruction in the great London fire in 1666. Cf. Deane in _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, Jan. 1867, p. 454.


Simon Passe, whose Latinized name we see on the engraving of Smith’s
map, was ten years in England, and engraved many of the chief people
of the time; and as he was his own draughtsman, it is probable the
portrait of Smith was drawn by Passe from life, though Robert Clerke is
credited with draughting the map.

=E.= EARLY GLOBES.—The Molineaux globe referred to in the text was
constructed at the instance of that great patron of navigation, William
Sanderson. (_Davis’s Voyages_, Introduction by Markham, pp. xii. 211.)
It is said to be the earliest ever made in England. (_Ibid._ p. lix.)
It is two feet in diameter, and was completed in 1592. (Asher’s _Henry
Hudson_, p. 274.) The oldest globe known antedates it more than a
century, and of those intervening which are known, the following, with
the prototype, deserve mention:—

1. Martin Behaim’s, 1492, preserved in the library at Nuremberg. It
presents an open ocean between Europe and Asia. The first meridian runs
through Madeira. There is a copy in fac-simile in the Bibliothèque
Nationale, at Paris. There have been engraved delineations of it
by Doppelmayr at Nuremberg in 1730; by Dr. Ghillany, in connection
with his _Geschichte des Seefahrers Ritter Martin Behaim_, 1853; by
Jomard in his _Monuments de la Géographie_, 1854-56, pl. 15. There are
sections and reductions in Cladera’s _Investigaciones Historicas_,
Madrid, 1794; in Lelewel’s _Moyen Age_; in the _Journal of the Royal
Geographical Society_, xviii.; in Kohl’s _Discovery of Maine_; in some
of the editions of Irving’s _Columbus_; in Bryant and Gay’s _United
States_, i. 103; and in Maury’s paper in _Harper’s Monthly_, xlii.
(February, 1871).

2. Acquired from a friend in Laon in 1860 by M. Leroux, of the
Administration de la Marine at Paris, and represents the geographical
knowledge current at Lisbon, 1486-87, according to D’Avezac, who gives
a projection of it in the _Bulletin de la Société de Géographie de
Paris_, 4th series, viii. (1860). It is dated 1493. The first meridian
runs through Madeira.

3. A small copper globe in the Lenox Library, in New York, which is
said to be the earliest globe to show the American coast, and its date
is fixed at about 1510-12, but by some as early as 1506-7.


This extract is from a tracing by Dr. De Costa. The legends on it are
marked as follows: A, Nova Francia; B, Canada; C, Norumbega; D, India;
E, Virginia, primum lustrata et Culta ab Anglis inpensis D. Gualteri de
Ralegh Equitis Aurati, etc., annuente Elizabetha sev. Angliæ Regina.

   1. Hochelaga.         18. S. Cruz.           34. Claudia.
   2. Mont Royal.        19. De Breton.         35. Rio Grande.
   3. Estade.            20. Aredona.           36. De Lagus.
   4. Stadin flu.        21. C. de Breton.      37. Montagna.
   5. Saguinay.          22. S. Miguel.         38. B. S. Johan.
   6. I. de Orleans.     23. C. Real.           39. Buena Vista.
   7. R. Dulce.          24. C. S. Joan.        40. S. Samson.
   8. R. S. Laurens.     25. Sinus Laureti.     41. Chesapicke.
   9. S. Nicolas.        26. C. d’Esperance.    42. R. de Buelta.
  10. C. Tienot.         27. G. de Chalue.      43. C. de Arenas.
  11. Chasteaux.         28. Hunedo.            44. S. Christovall.
  12. Belle Ysle.        29. I. S. Joan.        45. Chiapanak.
  13. C. Blanco.         30. R. de la Pelaijo.  46. Trinitie Harbour.
  14. Isle des Oiseaux.  31. R. Vista.          47. P. Hatorack.
  15. C. de Bona Vista.  32. R. de Montagnas.   48. C. Hatoras.
  16. The Bacailo.       33. Rio Honda.         49. Ye C. of Fear.
  17. C. de Razo.]

It was bought in Paris about twenty-five years ago by R. M. Hunt, the
architect, and was given by him to Mr. Lenox. It is about five inches
in diameter. Dr. De Costa has described it and given a draught of
its geography in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Sept. 1879. This paper,
translated by M. Gravier, appeared in the _Bulletin de la Société
normande de Géographie_, 1880. A projection of it is said to have
been made in the Coast Survey Bureau in 1869, at the instance of Mr.
Henry Stevens, and a reduction of this is given in the _Encyclopædia
Britannica_, 9th edition, x. 681, of which the Western Hemisphere is
herewith reproduced. The globe opens on the line of the equator, and
was probably used as a pyx. It may be said to be the oldest globe
showing any part of the New World.

4. Brought to light in a _Catalogue de Livres rares appartenant à M. H.
Tross, année 1881_, no. xiv. 4924, where a fac-simile by S. Pilinski is
given. The gores composing it are found in a copy of the _Cosmographiæ
Introductio_, supposed to have been printed at Lugduni, 1514. This is
the claim of the _Catalogue_; but if it belonged to the tract it could
hardly have been earlier than 1518. It is understood that the book has
been added to an American collection. The plate is styled _Universalis
Cosmographie Descriptio tam in solido quem_ [sic] _plano_, and is given
in twelve sections. The delineation of South America is marked “America
noviter reperta.” It is claimed that this gives this copperplate,
“essentiellement française,” the honor of being the earliest to bear
the name of America,—that credit having been claimed for the woodcut
map in Camer’s edition of Solinus, 1520. The manuscript delineation by
Leonardo da Vinci, also giving the name, and preserved at Windsor in
the Queen’s collection, probably antedates it.

5. Made by Johann Schoner at Bamberg in 1520, preserved in the library
at Nuremberg, and thought, until the discovery of the Lenox globe,
to be the earliest showing the discoveries in America. The northern
section is still broken up into islands large and small; but South
America is delineated with approximate correctness. Dr. Ghillany gave
a representation of the American hemisphere in the _Jahresbericht der
technischen Anstalten in Nürnberg für 1842_; also see his _Erdglobus
von Behaim vom Jahre 1492, und der des Joh. Schoner von 1520_,
Nürnberg, 1842, p. 18, two plates. Humboldt examines this Schoner
globe in his _Examen critique_, and in his Appendix to Ghillany’s
_Ritter Behaim_, where a reproduction is given. There are also
delineations or sections in Lelewel’s _Moyen Age_; in Kohl’s _Discovery
of Maine_; in Santarem’s _Atlas_; and in Maury’s paper in _Harper’s
Monthly_, February, 1871. Schoner published, in 1515, a _Terræ totius
descriptio_, without a map, of which there are copies in Harvard
College Library and the Carter-Brown Collection at Providence.

6. Preserved at Frankfort-on-the-Main; of unknown origin. It is figured
in Jomard’s _Monuments de la Géographie_. See also the _Journal of
the Royal Geographical Society_, xviii. 45. It resembles Schoner’s,
and Wieser ascribes it to that maker, and dates it 1515. It is 10½
inches in diameter, and by some the date is fixed at 1520.

7. Given by Duke Charles V. of Lorraine to the church at Nancy, and
opening in the middle, long used there as a pyx, is now preserved in
the Public Library in that town, and was described (with an engraving)
by M. Blau in the _Mémoires de la Société royale de Nancy_, in 1836,
and again in the _Compte-Rendu, Congrès des Américanistes_, 1877, p.
359, and from a photograph by Dr. DeCosta, in the _Magazine of American
History_, March, 1881. It makes North America the eastern part of Asia,
and transforms Norumbega into Anorombega. It is made of silver, gilt,
and is six inches in diameter.

8. Supposed to be of Spanish origin; preserved in the Bibliothèque
Nationale, at Paris, and formerly belonged to the brothers De Bure. It
bears a close resemblance to the Frankfort globe.

9. In the custody of the successors of Canon L’Ecuy of Prémontré. It is
without date, and D’Avezac fixed it before 1524; others put it about
1540. It is the first globe to show North America disconnected from
Asia. It is said to be now in the Bibliothèque Nationale, at Paris. Cf.
Raemdonck, _Les Sphères de Mercator_, p. 28.

10. What was thought to be the only copy known of one of Gerard
Mercator’s engraved globes was bought at the sale of M. Benoni-Verelst,
at Ghent, in May, 1868, by the Royal Library at Brussels. In 1875 it
was reproduced in twelve plane gores at Brussels, in folio, as a part
of _Sphère terrestre et sphère céleste de Gerard Mercator, éditées
à Louvain en 1541 et 1551_, and one of the sections is inscribed,
AD AN SEX LOVANII AN 1541.” Only two hundred copies of the fac-simile
were printed. There are copies in the Library of the State Department
at Washington, of Harvard College, and of the American Geographical
Society, New York. The outline of the eastern coast of America is
shown with tolerable accuracy, though there is no indication of the
discoveries of Cartier in the St. Lawrence Gulf and River, made a few
years earlier. In 1875 a second original was discovered in the Imperial
Court Library at Vienna; and a third is said to exist at Weimar.

11. Of copper, made apparently in Italy,—at Rome, or Venice,—by
Euphrosynus Ulpius in 1542, is fifteen and one half inches in
diameter, was bought in 1859 out of a collection of a dealer in
Spain by Buckingham Smith, and is now in the Cabinet of the New York
Historical Society. The first meridian runs through the Canaries, and
it shows the demarcation line of Pope Alexander VI. It is described in
the _Historical Magazine_, 1862, p. 302, and the American parts are
engraved in B. Smith’s _Inquiry into the Authenticity of Verrazano’s
Claims_, and Henry C. Murphy’s _Verrazzano_, p. 114. See Harrisse,
_Notes sur la Nouvelle France_, no. 291. The fullest description,
accompanied by engravings of it, is given by B. F. De Costa in the
_Magazine of American History_, January, 1879; and in his _Verrazano
the Explorer_, New York, 1881, p. 64.


The Legends of this Globe are these: 1. Parias. 2. C. San til. 3.
Isabelle. 4. Jamaica. 5. Spagnolla. 6. Lit. incognita [The Baccalaos
region]. The passage to the west by the Central America isthmus will be

Mr. C. H. Coote, in his paper on “Globes” in the new edition of the
_Encyclopædia Britannica_, x. 680, mentions two other globes of the
sixteenth century, which may antedate that of Molineaux, both by A.
F. van Langren,—one in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris, and the
other, discovered in 1855, in the Bibliothèque de Grenoble.

The globe-makers immediately succeeding Molineaux were W. J. Blaeu
(1571-1638) and his son John Blaeu, and their work is rare at this day.
Mr. P. J. H. Baudet, in his _Leven en werken van W. J. Blaeu_, Utrecht,
1871, reports finding but two pair of his (Blaeu’s) globes (terrestrial
and celestial) in Holland. His first editions bore date 1599, but he
constantly corrected the copper plates, from which he struck the gores.
Muller, of Amsterdam, offered a pair, in 1877, for five hundred Dutch
florins, and in his _Books on America_, iii. 164, another at seven
hundred and fifty florins. (_Catalogue_, 1877, no. 329.) A pair, dated
1606, was in the Stevens sale, 1881. _Hist. Coll._, i., no. 1335.

I find no trace of the globe of Hondius, 1597, which gives the American
discoveries up to that date. See _Davis’s Voyages_ (Hakluyt Society),
p. 351. Hondius and Langeren were rivals.


The Legends are as follows:—

   1. This land was discovered by John and Sebastian Cabot for Kinge
      Henry y^e 7, 1497.
   2. Bacalaos.
   3. C. Bonavista.
   4. C. Raso.
   5. C. Britton.
   6. I. Sables.
   7. I. S. John.
   8. Claudia.
   9. Comokee.
  10. C. Chesepick.
  11. Hotorast.
  12. La Bermudas.
  13. Bahama.
  14. La Florida.
  15. The Gulfe of Mexico.
  16. Virginia.
  17. The lacke of Tadenac, the bounds whereof are unknowne.
  18. Canada.
  19. Hochelague.]

=F.= MOLINEAUX MAP, 1600.—Emeric Molineaux, the alleged maker of this
map, belonged to Lambeth, “a rare gentleman in his profession, being
therein for divers years greatly supported by the purse and liberality
of the worshipful merchant, Mr. William Sanderson.” Captain Markham
(_Davis’s Voyages_, Hakluyt Society, London, 1880, pp. xxxiii, lxi,
also p. lxxxviii) is of the opinion that the true author is Edward
Wright, the mathematician, who perfected and rendered practicable what
we know to-day as Mercator’s projection,—first demonstrating it in his
Certain Errors in Navigation Detected, 1599, and first introducing its
formulæ accurately in the 1600 map. Hakluyt had spoken of the globe
by Molineaux in his 1589 edition, but it was not got ready in time
for his use. The map followed the globe, but was not issued till about
1600, the discoveries of Barentz in 1596 being the last indicated on
it. It measures 16½ × 25 inches. Quaritch in 1875 advanced the
theory that the globe of Molineaux was referred to in Shakespeare’s
_Twelfth Night_ (act iii. sc. 2), as the “new map.” (Quaritch’s 1879
_Catalogue_, no. 321, book no. 11919),—a theory made applicable to the
map and sustained by C. H. Coote in 1878, in _Shakespeare’s “new map”
in Twelfth Night_ (also in _Transactions_ of the New Shakspere Society,
1877-79, i. 88-100), and reasserted in the Hakluyt Society’s edition
of _Davis’s Voyages_, p. lxxxv. Henry Stevens (_Hist. Coll._ i. 200),
however, is inclined to refer Shakespeare’s reference (“the new map
with the augmentation of the Indies”) to the “curious little round-face
shaped map” in Wytfliet’s _Ptolemæum Augmentum_, 1597.

The Molineaux-Wright map has gained reputation from Hallam’s reference
to it in his _Literature of Europe_ as “the best map of the sixteenth
century.” It is now accessible in the autotype reproduction which was
made by Mr. Quaritch from the Grenville copy of Hakluyt’s _Principall
Navigations_ in the British Museum, and which accompanies the Hakluyt
Society’s edition of _Davis’s Voyages_. There are nine copies of the
map known, as follows: 1. King’s Library. 2. Grenville Library. 3.
Cracherode Copy. (These three are in the British Museum.) 4. Admiralty
Office. 5. Lenox Library, New York. 6. University of Cambridge. 7.
Christie Miller’s Collection. 8. Middle Temple. 9. A copy in Quaritch’s
Catalogue, 1881, no. 340, title-number, 6235, which had previously
appeared in the Stevens sale, _Hist. Collections_, i. 199. Quaritch
held the Hakluyt (3 vols.) with this genuine map at £156, and it is
said no other copy had been sold since the Bright sale.

It may be noted that Blundeville, who in his _Exercises_, pp. 204-42,
describes the Mercator and Molineaux globes, also, pp. 245-78, gives a
long account of a mappamundi by Peter Plancius, dated 1592, of which
Linschoten, in 1594, gives a reduction.

reproductions of the older maps, showing portions of the American
coast, and representing what may be termed the beginnings of modern
cartography, are the following:—

JOMARD, E. F. _Les Monuments de la Géographie._ Paris, 1866. The death
of Jomard in 1862 (see Memoir by M. de la Roquette, in _Bulletin de
la Soc. Géog._ February, 1863, or 5th ser. v. 81, with a portrait;
Cortambert’s _Vie et Œuvres de Jomard_, Paris, 1868, 20 pages; and
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, iv. 232, vi. 334) prevented the completion
by him of the text which he intended should accompany the plates. M.
D’Avezac’s intention to supply it was likewise stayed by his death, in
1875. It proved, however, that Jomard had left behind what he had meant
for an introduction to the text; and this was printed in a pamphlet
at Paris in 1879, as _Introduction à l’Atlas des Monuments de la
Géographie_, edited by E. Cortambert. It is a succinct account of the
progress of cartography before the times of Mercator and Ortelius. The
atlas contains five maps, of great interest in connection with American

The Frankfort Globe, _circa_ 1520.

Juan de la Cosa’s map, 1500.

The Cabot map of 1544.

A French map, made for Henri II.

Behaim’s Globe, 1492.

These reproductions are of the size of the original. Good copies are
worth £10 10_s._

SANTAREM, VISCONDE DE. _Atlas Composé de Cartes des XIV^e XV^e XVI^e
et XVII^e siècles_, Paris. 1841-53. This was published at the charge
of the Portuguese Government, and is the most extensive of modern
fac-similes. Copies, which are rarely found complete, owing to its
irregular publication over a long period, are worth from $175 to $200.
A list of the maps in it is given in Leclerc, _Bibliotheca Americana_,
1878, no. 529; and of them the following are of interest to students of
American history:—

51. Mappemonde de Ruysch. This appeared in the Ptolemy of 1508 at Rome,
the earliest engraved map of America.

52. Globe of Schoner, and the map in Camer’s edition of Solinus, each
of 1520.

53. Mappemonde par F. Roselli, Florence, 1532, and the maps of
Sebastian Munster, 1544, and Vadianus, 1546.

The atlas should be accompanied by _Essai sur l’histoire de la
Cosmographie et de la Cartographie pendant le Moyen Age, et sur les
progrès de la Géographie après les grandes découvertes du XV^e siècle_.
3 vols. Paris. 1849-52.

KUNSTMANN, F. _Entdeckung Amerikas nach den ältesten Quellen
geschichtlich dargestellt._ Munich, 1859. This was published under
the auspices of the Royal Bavarian Academy of Sciences, and is
accompanied by a large atlas, giving fac-similes of the principal
Spanish and Portuguese maps of the sixteenth century, including one of
the California coast, and that of the east coast of North America, by
Thomas Hood, 1592. Copies are worth from $15 to $20.

LELEWEL, J. _Géographie du Moyen Age étudiée._ Bruxelles. 1852. 3
vols. 8º. With a small folio atlas, of thirty-five plates, containing
fifty-two maps. The text is useful; but, as a rule, the maps are on too
small a scale for easy study.

A series of photographic reproductions of early maps is now appearing
at Venice, under the title of _Raccolta di Mappamondi e Carte nautiche
del XIII al XVI secolo_. There are two which have a particular interest
in connection with the earliest explorations in America; namely,—

 16. _Carta da navigare._ Attributed to ALBERTO CANTINO, supposed to
 be A.D. 1501-03, and to illustrate the third voyage of Columbus. The
 original is in the Bibl. Estense at Modena. [Not yet published.]

 17. AGNESE, BATTISTA. _Fac-simile delle Carte nautiche dell’ anno
 1554, illustrate da Teobaldo Fischer._ Venezia. 1881.

The editor, Fischer, is Professor of Geography at Kiel. The original is
in the Bibliotheca Marciana, at Venice. The sheets which throw light
upon the historical geography of America are these:—

XVII. 4. North America northward to the Penobscot and the Gulf of
California; and the west coast of South America to 15° south; then
blank, till the region of Magellan’s Straits is reached.

XVII. 5. North America, east coast from Labrador south; Central
America; South America, all of east coast, and west coast, as in XVII.

XVII. 33. The World,—the American continent much as in XVII. 4 and 5.

We note the following other maps of Agnese:—

_a._ Portolano in the British Museum, bearing date 1536. _Index to MSS.
in British Museum_, 19,927. If this is the one Kohl (_Discovery of
Maine_, p. 293) refers to as no. 5,463, MS. Department British Museum,
it is signed and dated by the author.

_b._ Portolano, dated 1536, in the royal library at Dresden, of ten
plates,—one being the World, the western half of which, showing
America, is given reduced by Kohl, p. 292. It resembles XVII. 33,
above, but is not so well advanced, and retains a trace of Verrazano’s
Sea, which makes New England an isthmus. It wants the California
peninsula, a knowledge of whose discovery had hardly yet reached Venice.

_c._ Portolano, in the Bodleian Library, Oxford; thought by Kohl,
who gives a sketch (pl. xv. c), to be the work of Agnese, since it
closely resembles, in its delineations of the American continent, that
Venetian’s notions. This, perhaps, is earlier than the previous map;
for it puts a strait leading to the Western sea, where Cartier had just
before supposed he had found such in the St. Lawrence.

_d._ Map in the archives of the Duke of Coburg-Gotha, marked “Baptista
Agnes fecit, Venetiis, 1543, die 18 Febr.” Kohl (pl. xvii. 3) gives
from it a draft of the eastern coast of the United States.

_e._ Map, like _d_, in the Huth Library at London.

_f._ Portolano in the Royal Library, Dresden. It shows California.
Kohl, p. 294.

_g._ Portolano in the British Museum, dated 1564. _Index to MSS._

Kohl says (p. 293) there are other MS. maps of Agnese in London, Paris,
Gotha, and Dresden, not here enumerated.

A few other books, less extensive and more accessible, deserve
attention in connection with the study of comparative early American

HENRY STEVENS. _History and Geographical Notes of the Early Discoveries
in America, 1453-1530_, New Haven, 1869, with five folding plates of
photographic fac-similes of sixteen of the most important maps.

DR. J. G. KOHL. _Discovery of Maine_ (_Documentary History of Maine_,
1), with reduced sketches, not in fac-simile, of many early charts of
our eastern seaboard.

CHARLES P. DALY. _Early History of Cartography, or what we know of
Maps and Map-making before the time of Mercator_,—being his annual
address, 1879, before the American Geographical Society. The maps are
unfortunately on a very much reduced scale.

       *       *       *       *       *

NOTE.—Since this chapter was completed Henry Harrisse’s _Jean et
Sébastien Cabot_, Paris, 1882, has given us the fullest account of
Agnese’s cartographical labors, with much other useful information
about the maps from 1497 to 1550; and George Bancroft (_Magazine of
American History_, 1883, pp. 459, 460), in defence of his latest
revision, has controverted Dr. De Costa’s statement (Ibid., 1883, p.
300), that Gosnold had no permission from Ralegh, and has set forth his
reasons for believing that Waymouth ascended the George’s River. De
Costa replied to Bancroft in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Aug., 1883, p.




_Vice-President of the Massachusetts Historical Society._

THERE is no occasion to offer any elaborate plea for making this theme
the subject of a chapter of American history, however extended into
detail or compressed in its dealing with general themes that history
might be. In the origin and development, the strengthening and the
triumph, of those agencies which transferred from the Old World to the
New the trial of fresh ideas and the experiment with free institutions,
the colonists of New England had the leading part. The influence and
the institutions which have gone forth from them have had a prevailing
sway on the northern half of this continent. Their enterprise—in
its seemingly feeble, but from the first earnest and resolute,
purpose—took its spring from religious dissension following upon the
earlier stages of the Protestant Reformation in England. The grounds,
occasions, and results of that dissension thus become the proper
subject of a chapter in American history. It is certain that in tracing
the early assertion in England of what may be called the principles of
dissent from ecclesiastical authority, we are dealing with forces which
have wrought effectively on this continent.

The well-established and familiar fact, that the first successful and
effective colonial enterprises of Englishmen in New England found their
motive and purpose in religious variances within the English communion,
is illustrated by an incident anticipatory by several years of the
period which realized that result. A scheme was devised and entered
upon in England in the interest of substantially the same class of
men known as Separatists and Nonconformists, who twenty-three years
afterward established themselves at Plymouth, and ten years later in
Massachusetts Bay. In the year 1597, there were confined in London
prisons a considerable number of men known confusedly as Barrowists or
Brownists, who had been seized in the conventicles of the Separatists,
or had made themselves obnoxious by disaffection with the government,
the forms, or the discipline of the English hierarchy. In that year a
scheme was proposed, apparently by the Government, for planting some
permanent colonists somewhere in the northern parts of North America.
Some of these Separatists petitioned the Council for leave to transport
themselves for this purpose, promising fidelity to the Queen and her
realm. Three merchants at the time were planning a voyage for fishing
and discovery, with a view to a settlement on an island variously
called Rainea, Rainée, and Ramees, in a group of the Magdalen Islands,
in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and they were to furnish two ships for the
enterprise. Reinforcing the petition of the Separatists, they asked
permission to transport with them “divers artificers and other persons
that are noted to be Sectaries, whose minds are continually in an
ecclesiastical ferment.” Permission was granted for the removal of two
such persons in each of the two ships, the merchants giving bonds that
the exiles should not return unless willing to obey the ecclesiastical
laws. The four prisoners who embarked for the voyage, April 8, 1597,
were Francis and George Johnson, brothers, who had been educated at
Cambridge, and Daniel Studley and John Clarke, who shared with them
their Separatist principles. One of the vessels was wrecked when near
its destination, and the company took refuge on the other, which,
proving unseaworthy and scantily provisioned, returned to England,
arriving in the Channel, September 1. The four exiles found their way
stealthily to a hiding-place in London, and by the middle of the month
were in Amsterdam. Their history there connects with the subsequent
fortunes of the Separatists in England, and with those of the Pilgrims
at Plymouth.[443]

The facts, persons, and incidents with which we have to deal in
treating of this special matter of religious contention within the
English Church, give us simply the opening in series and course of
what under various modifications is known as the history of Dissent.
The strife then engendered has continued essentially the same down to
our own times, turning upon the same points of controversy and upon
contested principles, rights, and methods. The present relations of
the parties to this entailed dissension may throw some light back upon
the working of the elements in it when it was first opened. The result
which has been reached, after the processes engaged in it for nearly
four centuries, shows itself to us in a still existing National Church
establishment in England, with authority and vested rights, privileges,
and prerogatives, yet nevertheless repudiated by nearly, if not quite,
half of the subjects of the realm. The reason or the right, the
grounds or the justification, of the original workings of Dissent have
certainly been suspended long enough for discussion and judgment upon
their merits to help us to reach a fair decision upon them.

The indifference, even the strong distaste, which writers and readers
alike feel to a rehearsal in our days of the embittered and aggravated
strife,—often concerned too, with what seem to us petty, trivial,
and perverse elements of scruple, temper, and passion,—in the early
Puritan controversy in the Church of England, may be sensibly relieved
by the spirit of fairness and consideration in which the subject is
treated in the most recent dealing with it by able and judicious
writers. There are even now in the utterances of pulpit and platform,
and in the voluminous pages of pamphlet, essay, and so-called history,
survivals and renewals of all the sharpness and acrimoniousness of
the original passions of the controversy. And where this spirit has
license, the lengthening lapse of time will more or less falsify
the truth of the relation of either side of the strife. One whose
sympathies are with either party may rightly claim that it be fairly
presented, its limitations, excesses, and even its perversities being
excused or palliated, where reasons can be shown. Nor is one who for
any fair purpose undertakes a statement or exposition of the views
and course of either of those parties to be regarded as also its
champion and vindicator. But no rehearsal of the controversy will
have much value or interest for readers of our day which does assume
such championship of one party. As the Puritans, Nonconformists, or
Dissenters, from the beginning up to this day, were substantially
defeated, disabled, and made the losers of the object for which they
contended, they may fairly claim the allowance of making the best
possible statement of their cause.

Those who at this distance of time accede in their lineage and
principles to the heritage of the first Dissenters from the English
Church system, might naturally eulogize them for their noble service
in laying the foundations of religious and civil liberty in the realm.
But there are not lacking in these days Royalists and Churchmen alike
who in the pages of history and in essays equally extol the English
Nonconformists as the foremost champions, the most effective agents,
in bringing to trial and triumph the free institutions of the realm.
Making the fullest allowances for all the perversities and fanaticisms
wrought in with the separating tenets and principles of individuals and
sects, their protests and assertions, their sufferings and constancy
under disabilities, all wrought together at last to insure a grand
result. Boldly is the assertion now maintained, that the Church of
England at several critical periods would have been unable to withstand
the recuperative forces of the Roman Church, had it not been for the
persistent action of the Nonconformists in holding the ground won
by the Reformation, and in demanding advance in the same line. The
partial schemes of toleration and comprehension which were hopefully or
mockingly entertained by parties in the Government down to the period
of the Revolution, were avowedly designed “to strengthen the Protestant
interest.” The strength of Dissent, in all its forms and stages, lay in
its demanding for the laity voice and influence in all ecclesiastical
affairs. It was this that restrained the dominance of priestly power.

There is a very important consideration to be had in view when we aim
to form a fair and impartial judgment of the spirit and course of those
earnest, if contentious, men, scholars, divines, heads and fellows
of universities, who in their Nonconforming or Separatist principles
originated dissensions in the English Church, and withdrew from it,
bearing various pains and penalties. Even in the calmer dealing with
them in the religious literature of our own times coming from Episcopal
writers, we find traces of the irritation, reproach, and contempt felt
and expressed for these original Dissenters when they first came into
notice, to be dealt with as mischief-makers and culprits. They were
then generally regarded as unreasonable, perverse, and contentious
spirits, exaggerating trifling matters, obtruding morbid scruples,
and keeping the realm in a ferment of petty squabbles on subjects in
themselves utterly indifferent. They withstood the hearty, harmonious
engagement of the rulers and the mass of the people of the realm in the
difficult task of securing the general principles and interests of the
Reformation, when perils and treacheries of a most formidable character
from the Papacy and from internal and external enemies threatened every
form of disaster. To this charge it might be replied, that the Puritans
believed that a thorough and consistent work of reformation within the
realm would be the best security for loyalty, internal harmony, and
protection from the plottings of all outside enemies.

The most interesting and significant fact underlying the origin and the
principles alike of Nonconformity and of Separatism in England at the
period of the Reformation, is this: the facility and acquiescence with
which changes were made in the English ecclesiastical system up to a
certain point, while further modifications in the same direction were
so stiffly resisted. It would seem as if it had been assumed at once
that there was a well-defined line of division which should sharply
distinguish between what must necessarily or might reasonably be made
a part of the new order of things when the Papacy was renounced, and
what must be conserved against all further innovation. The pivot of
all subsequent controversy, dissension, and alienation turned upon the
question whether this sharply drawn line was not wholly an arbitrary
one, not adjusted by a principle of consistency, but of the nature of
a compromise. This question was followed by another: Why should the
process of reformation in the Church, so resolute and revolutionary in
changing its institution and discipline and ritual, stop at the stage
which it has already reached? Could any other answer be given than that
the majority, or those who in office or prerogative had the power to
enforce a decision, had decided that the right point had been reached,
and that an arrest must be made there?

We must indicate in a summary way the stage which the Reformation had
reached in England when Puritanism, in its various forms, made itself
intrusive and obnoxious in demanding further changes. We need not open
and deal with the controverted point, about which English Churchmen are
by no means in accord, as to whether their Church had or did not have
an origin and jurisdiction independently of all agency, intrusion, or
intervention of the Bishop of Rome, or the Pope. It is enough to start
with the fact, that up to the reign of Henry VIII. the Pope asserted
and exercised a supremacy both in civil and in ecclesiastical affairs
in the realm. If there was a Church in England, it was allowed that
that Church must have a head. The Pope was acknowledged to be that
head. Henry VIII., with the support of his Parliament, renounced the
Papal supremacy, and himself acceded to that august dignity. The
year 600 is assigned as the date when Pope Gregory I. put Augustin,
or Austin, over the British Church. The headship of the Pope was
acknowledged in the line of monarchs till Henry VIII. became the
substitute of Clement VII. In the twenty-sixth year of Henry’s reign
his Parliament enacted that “whatsoever his Majesty should enjoin in
matters of religion should be obeyed by all his subjects.” Some of the
clergy, being startled at this exaltation of a layman to the highest
ecclesiastical office, demanded the insertion of the qualifying words
“as far as is agreeable to the laws of Christ.” The King for a time
accepted this qualification, but afterward obtained the consent of
Parliament for its omission. Whatever may be granted or denied to the
well-worn plea that the King’s reformatory zeal was inspired by his
feud with the Pope about his matrimonial infelicities, it is evident
that, notwithstanding the unrestrained royal prerogative, the monarch
could not have struck at the very basis of all ecclesiastical rule and
order in his kingdom, had there not been not only in his Council and
Parliament, but also working among all orders of the people, a spirit
and resolve against the Papal rule and discipline, ready to enter upon
the unsounded and perilous ventures of radical reformation. None as
yet knew where the opened way would lead them. The initiatory and each
onward step might yet have to be retraced. Not for many years afterward
did the threat and dread of the full restoration of the Papal power
cease to appal the people of the realm. The final and the impotent blow
which severed the Papacy from the realm came in the Bull of Pope Pius
V. in 1571, which denounced Elizabeth as a heretic, and, under pain of
curse, forbade her subjects to obey her laws. The measures of reform
under Henry were tentative and arbitrary on his part. They made no
recognition of any defined aim and stage to be reached. We must keep
this fact in view as showing that while the realm was ready for change,
it was as yet a process, not a mark.

It is necessary to start with a definition of terms which are
often confounded in their use. “Puritans,” “Separatists,” and
“Nonconformists” might in fact be terms equally applicable to many
individuals, but none the less they were distinctive, and in many cases
indicated very broad divergencies and characteristics in opinion,
belief, and conduct. Nonconformists and Separatists were alike
Puritans,—the latter intensively such. Puritanism developed alike
into Nonconformity and Separatism. The earliest Puritans came to be
Nonconformists, after trying in vain to retain a ministry and communion
in the English Church as established by royal and civil authority, and
after being driven from it because of their persistent demands for
further reform in it. As heartily as did those who remained in its
communion, they believed in the fitness of an established nationalized
Church. They wished to be members of such a Church themselves; and
not only so, but also to force upon others such membership. It was
not to destroy, but to purify; not to deny to the civil authority
a legislative and disciplinary power in religious matters, but to
limit the exercise of that right within Scriptural rules and methods.
They had sympathized in the processes of reform so far as these had
advanced, but complained that the work had been arbitrarily arrested,
was incomplete, was inconsistently pursued, was insecure in the stage
which it had reached, and so left without the warrant which Scripture
alone could furnish as a substitute for repudiated Rome.

Who were the Separatists, whose utterances, scruples, and conduct
seemed so whimsical, pertinacious, disloyal, and refractory in Old
England, and whose enterprise has been so successful and honorable in
its development in New England? When the unity of the Roman Church
was sundered at the Reformation, all those once in its communion who
parted from it were Separatists. It is an intricate but interesting
story, which has been often told, wearisomely and indeed exhaustively,
in explanation of the fact that this epithet came to designate a
comparatively small number of individuals in a nation to the mass
of whose population it equally belonged. The term “separatist” or
“sectary” carries with it a changing significance and association,
according to the circumstances of its application. It was first
used to designate the Christians. The Apostle Paul was called “a
ringleader of the _sect_ of the Nazarenes” (Acts xxiv. 5). The Roman
Jews described the Christians as a “_sect_” that was “everywhere
spoken against” (Acts xxviii. 22). The civil power gave a distinctive
limitation to the epithet. It is always to be remembered that every
national-church establishment existing among Protestants is the
creation of the civil authority. Its inclusion and its exclusion,
the privileges and disabilities which it gives or imposes, its
titles of honor or reproach, are the awards of secular magistrates.
All ecclesiastical polity, outside of Scriptural rule and sanction,
receives its authority, for those who accept and for those who reject
it, from the extension of the temporal power into the province of
religion. When King Henry VIII. and the English Parliament assumed the
ecclesiastical headship and prerogative previously exercised by Pope
Clement VII., all the loyal people of the realm became Separatists. All
the Reformed bodies of the Continent substantially regarded themselves
as coming under that designation, which might have been applied and
assumed with equal propriety as the epithet “protestants.” The Curia
of the hierarchy at Rome from the first until now regards English and
all other Protestants as Separatists. An archbishop or bishop of the
English Church is ranked by the Church of Rome in the same category of
unauthorized intruders upon sacred functions with the second-advent
exhorter and the field-preacher. The pages of English history, so
diligently wrought, and the developments of ecclesiastical polity in
the realm must be studied and traced by one who would fully understand
the occasion, the grounds, and the justice of the restriction which
confined the title of “separatists” to the outlawed and persecuted
and exiled class of persons, many of them graduates of English
universities, ordained and serving in the pulpits of the Church, who
were represented in and out of English jails by the four men whose
abortive scheme of planting a colony in North America has just been
referred to. However, justly or unjustly, the epithet “separatists”
came to be applied and accepted as designating those who would not only
not conform to the discipline of the Church, as still members of it,
but who utterly renounced all connection with it, kept away from it,
and organized assemblies, conventicles, or fellowships, subject only to
such discipline as they might agree upon among themselves.

A suggestion presents itself here, to which a candid view of facts
must attach much weight. Nonconformity, Separatism, Dissent, are not
to be regarded as factiously obtruding themselves upon a peaceful,
orderly, and well-established system, already tried and approved in
its general workings. The Reformation in England was then but in
progress, in its early stages; everything had been shaken, all was
still unsettled, unadjusted, not reduced to permanence and order. There
was an experiment to be tried, an institution to be recreated and
remodelled, a substitute Church to be provided for a repudiated Church.
The early Dissenters regarded themselves as simply taking part in an
unfinished reform. The Church in England, under entanglements of civil
policy and complications of State, gave tokens of stopping at a stage
in reform quite different from that reached, and allowed progressive
advance and unfettered conditions among Protestants on the Continent.
There the course was free. The French, Dutch, and Italian systems,
though not accordant, were all unlike the English ecclesiastical
system. In England it was impeded, leading to a kind of establishment
and institution in hierarchical and ritual administration which had
more regard for the old Church, and looked to more compromise with
it. It was not as if yielding to their own crotchets, self-willed
idiosyncrasies, and petty fancies that those who opened the line of
the Dissenters obtruded their variances, scruples, and contentions in
assailing what was already established and perfected. They meant to
come in at the beginning, at the first stage, the initiation of what
was to be the new order of things in the Church, which was then, as
they viewed it, in a state of formation and organization for time to
come. They took alarm at the simulation of the system and ritual of the
Roman Church, which the English, alone of all the Reformed Churches,
in their view evidently favored. They wished to have hand and voice
in initiating and planning the ecclesiastical institutions under
which they were to live as Christians. Individual conscience, too,
which heretofore had been a nullity, was thenceforward to stand for
something. It remained to be proved how much and what was to be allowed
to it, but it was not to be scornfully slighted. Then, also, with the
first manifestations of a Nonconforming and Separatist spirit, we note
the agitation of the question, which steadily strengthened in its
persistency and emphasis of treatment, as to what were to be the rights
and functions of lay people in the administration of a Christian
Church. Were they to continue, as under the Roman system, simply to
be led, governed, and disciplined, as sheep in a fold, by a clerical
order? Hallam gives it as his conclusion, that the party in the realm
during Elizabeth’s reign “adverse to any species of ecclesiastical
change,” was less numerous than either of the other parties, Catholic
or Puritan. According to this view, if one third of the people of the
realm would have consented to the restoration of the Roman system,
and less than one third were in accord with the Protestant prelatical
establishment, certainly the other third, the Puritanical party, might
assert their right to a hearing.

While claiming and pleading that the strict rule and example of
Scripture precedent and model should alone be followed in the
institution and discipline of the Christian Church, there was a
second very comprehensive and positive demand made by the Puritans,
which,—as we shall calmly view it in the retrospect, as taking its
impulse and purpose either from substantial and valid reasons of good
sense, discretion, and practical wisdom, or as starting from narrow
conceits, perversity, and eccentric judgments leading it on into
fanaticism,—put the Puritans into antagonism with the Church party.
From the first token of the breach with Rome under Henry VIII. through
the reigns of his three children and the four Stuarts, the Reformation
was neither accomplished in its process, nor secure of abiding in
the stage which it had reached. More than once during that period of
one and a half centuries there were not only reasonable fears, but
actual evidences, that a renewed subjection to the perfectly restored
thraldom of Rome might, in what seemed to be merely the cast of a
die, befall the distracted realm of England. The Court, Council, and
Parliament pulsated in regular or irregular beats between Romanism
and Protestantism. Henry VIII. left the work of reform embittered in
its spirit for both parties, unaccomplished, insecure, and with no
settlement by fixed principles. His three children, coming successively
to the crown, pursued each a policy which had all the elements of
confusion, antagonism, inconsistency, and extreme methods.

The spirit which vivified Puritanism had been working in England, and
had been defining and certifying its animating and leading principles,
before any formal measures of King and Parliament had opened the breach
with Rome. The elemental ferment began with the circulation and reading
of parts or the whole of the Scriptures in the English tongue. The
surprises and perils which accompanied the enjoyment of this fearful
privilege by private persons of acute intelligence and hearts sensitive
to the deepest religious emotions, were followed by profound effects.
The book was to them a direct, intelligible, and most authoritative
communication from God. To its first readers it did not seem to need
any help from an interpreter or commentator. It is a suggestive fact,
that for English readers the now mountainous heaps of literature
devoted to the exposition, illustration, and extended and comparative
elucidation of Scripture were produced only at a later period. The
first Scripture readers, antedating the actual era of the English
Reformation and the formal national rupture with the Roman Church, were
content with the simple text. They were impatient with any glosses or
criticisms. When afterward, in the interests of psalmody in worship,
the first attempts were made in constructing metrical versions of the
Psalms, the intensest opposition was raised against the introduction of
a single expletive word for which there was no answering original in
the text.

We must assign to this early engagedness of love and devoted regard
and fond estimate of the Bible the mainspring and the whole guiding
inspiration of all the protests and demands which animated the Puritan
movements. The degree in which afterward any individual within the
communion of the English Church was prompted to pursue what he regarded
as the work of reformation, whether he were prelate, noble, gentleman,
scholar, husbandman, or artisan, and whether it drove him to conformity
or to any phase of Puritanism, or even Separatism, depended mainly upon
the estimate which he assigned to the Scriptures, whether as the sole
or only the co-ordinate authority for the institution and discipline of
the Christian Church. The free and devout reading of the Scriptures,
when engaging the fresh curiosity and zeal of thoroughly earnest
men and women, roused them to an amazed surprise at the enormous
discordance between the matter and spirit of the sacred book and the
ecclesiastical institutions and discipline under which they had been
living,—“the simplicity that was in Christ,” constrasted with the
towering corruptions and the monstrous tyranny and thraldom of the
Papacy! This first surprise developed into all shades and degrees of
protest, resentment, indignation, and almost blinding passion. Those
who are conversant with the writings of either class of the Puritans
know well with what paramount distinctness and emphasis they use the
term, “the Word.” The significance attached to the expression gives
us the key to Puritanism. For its most forcible use was when, in a
representative championship, it was made to stand in bold antagonism
with the term “the Church,” as inclusive of what it carried with
it alike under the Roman or the English prelatical system. “The
Church,” “the Scriptures,” are the word-symbols of the issue between
Conformity and Puritanism. Christ did not leave Scriptures behind him,
said one party, but he did leave a Church. Yes, replied the other
party; he left apostles who both wrote the Scriptures and planted and
administered the Church. The extreme to which the famous “Se-Baptist,”
John Smyth, carried this insistency upon the sole authority of the
Scriptures, led him to repudiate the use of the English Bible in
worship, and to require that the originals in Greek and Hebrew should
be substituted.[444] The fundamental distinguishing principle which is
common to all the phases of Puritanism, Dissent, and Separatism in the
English Church is this,—of giving to the Scriptures sole authority,
especially over matters in which the Church claimed control and
jurisdiction. There was in the earlier stage of the struggle little,
if any, discordance as to doctrine. Discipline and ritual were the
matters in controversy. The rule and text of Scripture were to displace
canon law and the Church courts. The first representatives of the
sect of Baptists resolved, “by the grace of God, not to receive or
practise any piece of positive worship which had not precept or example
in the Word.”[445] Nor were the Baptists in this respect singular or
emphatic beyond any others of the Dissenting company. None of them
had any misgiving as to the resources and sole authority of Scripture
to furnish them with model, guide, and rule. It is remarkable that
in view of the positive and reiterated avowal of this principle by
all the Puritans, there should have been in recent times, as there
was not in the first era of the controversy, any misapprehension of
their frank adoption of it, their resolute standing by it. Archbishop
Whately repeatedly marked it as evidence of the inspired wisdom of the
New Testament writers, that they do not define the form or pattern
of a church institution for government, worship, or discipline. The
Puritans, however, believed that those writers did this very thing,
and had a purpose in doing it. It was to strike at the very roots
of this exclusive Scriptural theory of the Puritans that Hooker
wrought out his famous and noble classical production, _The Laws of
Ecclesiastical Polity_. He admitted in this elegant and elaborate work
that Scripture furnished the sole rule for doctrine, but argued with
consummate ability that it was not such an exclusive and sufficient
guide for government or discipline. The apostles did not, he said,
fix a rule for their successors. The Church was a divinely instituted
society; and, like every society, it had a full prerogative to make
laws for its government, ceremonial, and discipline. He argued that
a true Church polity must be taken not only from what the Scriptures
affirm distinctly, but also “from what the general rules and principles
of Scripture potentially contain.” Starting with his grand basis of
the sanctity and majesty of Law, as founded in natural order, he
insisted that the Church should establish such order in laws, rites,
and ceremonies within its fold, and that all who have been baptized
into it are bound to conform to its ecclesiastical laws. He would not
concede to the Puritans their position of denial, but he insisted that
Episcopacy was of apostolic institution. He was, however, at fault
in affirming that the Puritans admitted that they could not find all
the parts of the discipline which they stood for in the Scriptures.
Dean Stanley comes nearer to the truth, in what is for him a sharp
judgment, when he writes: “The Puritan idea that there was a Biblical
counterpart to every—the most trivial—incident or institution of
modern ecclesiastical life, has met with an unsparing criticism from
the hand of Hooker.”[446] Indeed, it was keenly argued as against these
Puritan sticklers for adhesion to Scripture rule and model, that they
by no means conformed rigidly to the pattern, as they dropped from
observance such matters as a community of goods, the love feast, the
kiss of peace, the Lord’s Supper in upper chambers, and baptism by

It is, in fact, to this attempt of all Nonconformists to make the
Scriptures the sole and rigid guide alike in Church discipline as in
doctrine, that we are to trace their divergencies and dissensions
among themselves, their heated controversies, their discordant
factions, their constant parting up of their small conventicles
into smaller ones, even of only two or three members, and the real
origin of all modern sects. This was the common experience of such
Dissenters from the Church, alike in England before their exile and
then in all the places of their exile,—Holland, Frankfort, Geneva,
and elsewhere. It could not but follow on their keen, acute, and
concentrated searching and scanning of every sentence and word of
Scripture as bearing upon their contest with prelacy, that they should
be led beyond matters of mere discipline into those of doctrine. A
very small point was enough to open a new issue. It is vexing to the
spirit, while winning sometimes our admiration for the intense and
awful sincerity of the self-inflicting victims of their own scruples,
magnified into compunctions of conscience, to trace the quarrels and
leave-takings of those poor exiles on the Continent, struggling in
toil and sacrifice for a bare subsistence, but finding compensation
if not solace in their endless and ever-sharpening altercations. But
while all this saddens and oppresses us, we have to allow that it was
natural and inevitable. The Bible, the Holy Scriptures, will never
henceforward to any generation, in any part of the globe, be, or stand
for, to individuals or groups of men and women, what it was to the
early English Puritans. To it was intrusted all the honor, reverence,
obedience, and transcendent responsibility in the life, the hope,
and the salvation of men, which had but recently been given, in awe
and dread, to a now dishonored and repudiated Church, against which
scorn and contempt and hate could hardly enough embitter reproach and
invective. With that Book in hand, men and women, than whom there
have never lived those more earnest and sincere, sat down in absorbed
soul-devotion, to exercise their own thinking on the highest subjects,
to decide each for himself what he could make of it. Those who have
lived under a democracy, or a full civil, mental, and religious freedom
like our own, well know the crudity, the perversity, the persistency,
the conceits and idiosyncrasies into which individualism will run on
civil, social, and political matters of private and public interest.
How much more then will all exorbitant and eccentric, as well as all
ingenious and rational, manifestations of like sort present themselves,
when, instead of dealing with ballots, fashions, and social issues, men
and women take in hand a book which, so to speak, they have just seized
out of a descending cloud, as from the very hand of God. It was easy to
claim the right of private judgment; but to learn how wisely to use it
was quite a different matter. It was, however, in those earnest, keen
studies, those brooding musings, those searching and subtle processes
of speculation and dialectic argument engaged upon the Bible and upon
institutional religion, that the wit, the wisdom, the logic, and the
vigor of the understanding powers of people of the English race were
sharpened to an edge and a toughness known elsewhere in no other. The
aim of Prelatists, Conformists, and clerical and civil magistrates in
religion, to bring all into a common belief and ritual, was hopeless
from the start. It made no allowance for the rooted varieties and
divergencies in nature, taste, sensibility, judgment, and conscience
in individuals who were anything more than animated clods. How was it
possible for one born and furnished in the inner man to be a Quaker,
to be manufactured into a Churchman? It soon became very evident
that bringing such a people as the English into accord in belief and
observance under a hierarchical and parochial system would be no
work of dictation or persuasion, but would require authority, force,
penalties touching spiritual, mental, and bodily freedom, and resorting
to fines, violence, and prisons.

The consumptive boy-king, Edward VI., dying when sixteen years of age,
through his advisers, advanced the Reformation in some of its details
beyond the stage at which it was left by his father, and put the work
in the direction of further progress. But “Bloody Mary,” with her
spectral Spanish consort, Philip II., overset what had by no means
become a Protestant realm, and made it over to cardinal and pope.
Nearly three hundred martyrs, including an archbishop and four bishops,
perished at the stake, besides the uncounted victims in the dungeons.
No one had suffered to the death for religion in the preceding reign.
After her accession, Elizabeth stiffly held back from accepting even
that stage of reform reached by Edward. In the Convocation of 1562,
only a single vote, on a division, withstood the proposal to clear the
ritual of nearly every ceremony objectionable to the Puritans. The two
statutes of supremacy and uniformity, passed in the first year of the
reign of Elizabeth, brought the English Church under that subjection to
the temporal or civil jurisdiction which has continued to this day. The
firmness, not to say the obstinacy, with which the Queen stood for her
prerogative in this matter has been entailed upon Parliament; and the
ecclesiastical Convocation has in vain struggled to assert independency
of it. Elizabeth exhibited about an equal measure of zeal against
Catholics and Puritans. She frankly gave out her resolution that if
she should marry a Catholic prince, she should not allow him a private
chapel in her palace. About two hundred Catholics suffered death in her

An important episode in the development of Puritanism and Separatism
in the English Church brings to our notice the share which different
parties came to have in both those forms of dissent during a period of
temporary exile on the Continent in the reigns of Henry VIII. and Mary,
and afterward of Elizabeth. The results reached by the two classes
of those exiles were manifested respectively in the colonization,
first by Separatists, at Plymouth, and next by Nonconformists in the
Massachusetts Bay, and by other New England colonists.

In the thirty-first year of Henry’s reign, 1539, while the monarch was
vacillating between the old religion and the new, was enacted what
was called “The Bloody Statute.” This was of “six articles.” These
articles enforced the dogmas of Transubstantiation, of Communion in
One Element, of the Celibacy of the Clergy, of the Vows of Chastity,
of Private Masses, and of Auricular Confession. An infraction of these
articles in act or speech or writing was to be punished either by
burning, as heresy, or by execution, as felony. The articles were to
be publicly read by all the clergy quarterly. To escape the operation
of this statute, many of the clergy went to Geneva. Returning on the
accession of Edward, they had to exile themselves again when Mary came
to the throne, to venture home once more under Elizabeth, in 1559. As
early as 1528, there had been a small but earnest religious fellowship
of devout scholars in Cambridge, meeting for exercises of prayer and
reading. Three of its members—Bilney, Latimer, and Bradford—were
burned under Mary. Afterward Travers and Cartwright, both of them men
of eminent ability and religious fervor, had found refuge in Geneva;
and to them, on their return, is to be ascribed the strength and
prevalence of the spirit of Puritanism in Cambridge. The fact that so
many men of parts and scholarship and distinguished position were thus
principal agents in the first working of Puritanism, should qualify
the common notion that Nonconformity in England had its rise through
obscure and ordinary men. Some of the most eminent Puritans, and even
Separatists, were noted university men and scholars,—like Cartwright,
Perkins, Ames, Bradshaw, and Jacob, the last being of Oxford. Robinson,
the pastor at Leyden, has been pronounced to have been among the first
men of his time in learning and comprehensiveness of mind.[447] It
was really in the churches of the English exiles in Holland that the
ultimate principles of Independency and Congregationalism were wrought
out, to be asserted and so manfully stood for both in Old and in New
England. Indeed, the essential principles of largest toleration and
of equality, save in civil functions, had been established in Holland
in 1572, before the coming of the English exiles. Almost as real as
ideal was the recognition there of the one all-comprehensive church
represented by a multitude of independent elements. Greenwood and his
fellow-student at Cambridge,—Barrow, a layman,—joined the Separatists
in 1586. The Separatists in England might well, as they did, complain
to King James that he did not allow the same liberty to them, his own
subjects, as was enjoyed by the French and Walloon churches in London
and elsewhere in England.

On the accession of Queen Mary, who was crowned in 1553, more than
eight hundred of the English Reformers took refuge on the Continent.
Among them were five bishops, five deans, four archdeacons, fifty
doctors of divinity and famous preachers, with nobles, merchants,
traders, mechanics, etc. Among the “sundrie godly men” who went to
Frankfort, the Lutheran system gained much influence. Those who
found a refuge in Zurich and Geneva were more affected towards the
Calvinistic. Soon after a flourishing and harmonious church, with the
favor of the magistrates, had been established at Frankfort, dissension
about matters of discipline and the use of the Prayer-book of King
Edward VI., with or without a revision, was opened by some new-comers.
The advice of Knox, Calvin, and others, which was asked, did not
prevent an acrimonious strife, which ended in division.[448] Carrying
back their differences to England, we find them contributing to deepen
the alienation and the variances between Conformists, Nonconformists,
and Separatists. The intimacy and sympathy with Reformers on the
Continent naturally induced the exiles, even the English bishops
who had been among them, to lay but little stress on the exclusive
prerogatives of Episcopacy, including the theory of Apostolic

The English bishops who were most earnest in the early measures of
reform,—such as Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer,—realizing that in the
minds of the common people the strong ties of association connected
with the emblems, forms, and vestments of the repudiated Church of
Rome would encourage lingering superstitions in their continued use,
would have had them wholly set aside. Especially would they have had
substituted in the chancels of churches tables instead of altars, as
the latter would always be identified with the Mass. The people also
associated the validity of clerical administrations with priestly
garments. The starting point of the Puritan agitation and protest as
to these matters may well be found, therefore, in the refusal of Dr.
Hooper to wear the clerical vestments for his consecration as Bishop of
Gloucester in 1550. Having exiled himself at Zurich during the latter
part of the reign of Henry VIII., Hooper had become more thoroughly
imbued with Reforming principles, and withstood the compromising
compliances which some of the Continental Reformers yielded. Even
Ridley insisted upon his putting on the vestments for his consecration;
and after being imprisoned for his recusancy, he was forced to a
partial concession. This matter of habits, tippets, caps, etc., may
be viewed either as a bugbear, or as representative of a very serious

In an early stage of the Puritan movement as working in the progress of
the Reformation in England, it thus appeared that what, as represented
in men and principles, might be called a third party, was to assert
itself. As the event proved, in the struggle for the years following,
and in the accomplished result still triumphant, this third party was
to hold the balance of power. There was a general accord in dispensing
with the Pope, renouncing his sway, and retaining within the realm the
exercise of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. A Romanizing party was
still in strength, with its hopes temporarily reviving, its agencies,
open and secret, on the alert, and its threats bold, if opportunity
should favor the execution of them. This Romanizing faction may
represent one extreme; the Puritans may represent another. A third, and
for a considerable space of time weaker, as already stated, than either
of them, intervened, to win at last the victory. In ridding themselves
of Rome, the Puritans aimed to rid the Church of everything that had
come into it from that source,—hierarchy, ceremonial, superstition,
discipline, and assumption of ecclesiastical prerogative,—reducing
the whole Church fabric to what they called gospel simplicity in rule
and order; the apostolic model. This, as we have noticed, was to be
sought full, sufficient, and authoritative in the Scriptures. But
neither of the Reforming monarchs, nor the majority of the prelates
successively exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction, were prepared
for this reversion to so-called first principles. They would not
allow the sufficiency nor the sole authority of the Scriptural model;
nor would they admit that all that was wrought into the hierarchy,
the ceremonial, the institution, and the discipline of the English
Church came into it through Popery, and had the taint or blemish of
Popery. The English Church now represents the principles then argued
out, maintained, and adopted. It followed a principle of selection,
sometimes called compromise, to some seeming arbitrary, to others
reasonable and right. It proceeded upon the recognition of an interval
between the close of the ministry of the apostles and the rise of the
Papacy, with its superstitious innovations and impositions, during
which certain principles and usages in the government and ceremonial
of the Church came into observance. Though these might not have the
express warrant of Scripture, they were in nowise inconsistent with
Scripture. They might claim to have the real warrant and approval of
the apostles, because they were “primitive,” and might even be regarded
as essential, as Hooker so earnestly tried to show, to the good order,
dignity, and efficiency of the Church of Christ. With exceeding ability
did the Puritan and the Church parties deal with this vital issue. The
Puritans brought to it no less of keen acumen, learning, and logic than
did their opponents. They thoroughly comprehended what the controversy
involved. When, fifty years ago, substantially the same issue was under
vigorous discussion in the Oxford or Tractarian agitation, so far were
the “Puseyites,” so-called, from bringing into it any new matter, that
the old arsenal was drawn upon largely for fresh use.

The Puritans held loyally to the fundamental position asserted by
their sturdy champion. Cartwright, in his _Admonition_, etc.,—“The
discipline of Christ’s Church that is necessary for all time is
delivered by Christ, and set down in the Holy Scripture.” The
objection, fatal in the eyes of the Puritans, to receiving, as
authoritative, customs and vouchers of the so-called “Primitive” Church
and of the Fathers, was that it compelled to the practice of a sort
of eclecticism in choosing or rejecting, by individual preference or
judgment, out of that mass of heterogeneous gathering which Milton
scornfully described as “the drag-net of antiquity.” Though the
pleaders on both sides of the controversy succeeded in showing that
“patristic” authority, and the usages and institutions which might be
traced out and verified in the dim past, were by no means in accord or
harmony as to what was “primitive,” both parties seem to have consented
to hide, gloss over, or palliate very much of the crudity, folly,
superstition, conceit, and discordancy so abounding in the writings of
the Fathers. Nothing could be more positive than the teaching of St.
Augustine,—not drawn from the New Testament, in which the rite was
for adults, but from the then universal practice of the Church,—that
baptism was to be for infants, and by immersion. That Father taught
that an unbaptized infant is forever lost; and that, besides baptism,
the infant’s salvation depends upon its receiving the Eucharist. Yet
this has not hindered but that the vast majority of Christians, Roman
Catholic and Protestant, save a single sect, administer the rite by
sprinkling infants. How, too, could the Prelatists approve a quotation
from Tertullian:[449] “Where there are only three, and they laics,
there is a church”?

In consistency with this their vital principle of the sole sufficiency
of the Scripture institution and pattern for a church, the work of
purification led its resolute asserters to press their protests and
demands against not only such superstitions and innovations as could
be traced directly to the Roman corruption and innovation, but to a
more thorough expurgation. Incident to the rupture with the Papacy,
and in the purpose to repel what seemed to be its vengeful and
spiteful devices for recovering its sway, there was developed among
the most impassioned of the Reformers an intense and scornful hate, a
bitter heaping of invectives, objurgations, and all-wrathful epithets
against the old Church as simply blasphemous,—the personification of
Antichrist. So they were resolute to rid themselves of all “the marks
of the Beast.” The scrapings, rags, tatters of Popery, and everything
left of such remnants, especially provoked their contempt. Having
adopted the conviction that the “Mass” was an idolatrous performance,
all its paraphernalia, associated in the minds of the common people
with it as a magical rite, the priestly and altar habits, the cap,
the tippet, the rochet, etc., were denounced and condemned. The very
word “priest,” with all the functionary and mediatorial offices going
with it, was repudiated. The New Testament knew only of ministers,
pastors, teachers. While, of course, recognizing that the apostles
exercised special and peculiar prerogatives in planting the Church,
the Puritans maintained that they had no successors in their full
authority. The Christian Church assembly they found to be based upon
and started from the Synagogue, with its free, popular methods, and
not upon the Temple, with its altar, priests, and ritual. It is an
interesting and significant fact, that while the Reformation in its
ferment was working as if all the elements of Church institution
were perfectly free for new combinations, the edition of the English
Bible called Cranmer’s, in 1539, translated the word _ecclesia_
by “congregation,” not “church,”—thus providing for that Puritan
principle of the province of the laity. Doctrine, discipline, and
ritual, or ceremony, being the natural order in which ecclesiastical
affairs should receive regard, there being at first an accord among
the Reformers as to doctrine, the other essentials engrossed all
minds. The equality of the ministers of religion, all of whom were
brethren, with no longer a master upon earth, struck at the very roots
of all hierarchical order. What would have been simply natural in
the objections of the Puritans when they saw that Rome was to leave
the prelatical element of its system fastened upon the realm, was
intensified by the assumption of dangerous and, as they believed,
unchristian and unscriptural power and sway by a class of the clergy
of lordly rank exercising functions in Church and State, and taking
titles from their baronial tenure of land. These lordly prelates had
recently been filling some of the highest administrative and executive
offices under the Crown, and holding places in diplomacy. In an early
stage of the Reformation, the mitred abbots had been dropped out of
the upper house of Parliament. While they were in it, they, with the
twenty-one “Lord Bishops,” preponderated over the temporal peers. As
their exclusion weakened the ecclesiastical power in the government,
the prelates who remained seemed to believe and to act as if it fell to
them to represent and exercise the full prerogative of sway which had
belonged to the old hierarchy. Very marked is the new phase assumed by
the spirit and course of the Nonconformists under this changed aspect
of the controversy. The Puritans had begun by objecting and protesting
against certain usages; they now set themselves resolutely against
the authority of those who enforced such usages. To a great extent,
the Roman Catholic prelates on those parts of the Continent where the
Reformation established itself, deserted their sees. This left the way
clear in those places for a church polity independent of prelacy. The
retention of their sees and functions by the English bishops, and the
addition to their number by the consecration of others as selected
by the Crown, thus made the struggle which the Puritans maintained
in England quite unlike that of their sympathizers on the Continent.
The issue thus raised on the single question of the Divine right and
the apostolic authority and succession of bishops was continuously in
agitation through the whole contention maintained by Dissenters. In
other elements of it, the controversy exhibited changing phases, as the
process of the reform seemed at intervals to be advanced or impeded,
while the kingdom, as we have noted, was pulsating between the old and
the new _régime_,—as Henry VIII. and his three children, in their
succession to his throne, sought to modify, to arrest, or to limit it.
The distribution among the people of the Scriptures in the English
tongue was favored and brought about by Thomas Cromwell and Cranmer.
The privilege, however, was soon revoked, as the people were thus
helped to take the matter of religion into their own hands. The mother
tongue was first used in worship with the translated litany in 1542,
which was revised in 1549. The new prayer-book, canons, and homilies
were brought into use. It was by royal authority, and not either by
Convocation or Parliament, that the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion
were imposed. On Elizabeth’s accession there were nine thousand four
hundred priests in England. About two hundred of these abandoned their
posts rather than comply with the conditions exacted by the stage in
innovation already reached. The more pronounced champions of the Church
of England are earnest in pleading that the rupture with Rome was not
the act of the King, but of what might be called the Church itself. The
as yet unreformed bishops, we are told, had in Convocation, in 1531,
denied the Papal supremacy; then Parliament, the universities, the
cathedral bodies, and the monastic societies had confirmed the denial.
But on all these points there are still open and contested questions of
fact and argument not requiring discussion here.

Another radical question concerned the rights and province of the laity
in all that entered into the institutional part of religion, and the
oversight and administration of discipline in religious assemblies.
There certainly could be no complaint that lay or civil power as
represented by the monarch had not exhibited sufficient potency in
fettering the ecclesiastical or clerical usurpation. An already quoted
Act in the twenty-sixth year of Henry’s reign affirmed that “whatsoever
his Majesty should enjoin in matters of religion should be obeyed by
all his subjects.” The Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity in the first
year of Elizabeth made the Church subordinate to, and dependent upon,
the civil power. Thus ecclesiastical authority was restrained by the
prerogative of the Crown, while ceremonial and discipline, as approved
by the monarch, were left at the dictation of Parliament.

But this substitution of the lay power as represented by King or Queen
and the Houses of Parliament for the Papal sway, by no means satisfied
the Puritan idea and conviction as to the rightful claims of the laity
in their membership of the reconstructed Church. Barrow described in
the following sharp sentence the summary way of proceeding so far as
the laity were concerned: “All these people, with all their manners,
were in one day, with the blast of Queen Elizabeth’s trumpet, of
ignorant Papists and gross idolaters, made faithful Christians and
true professors.” It was said that the people, divided and classed in
local territorial parishes, were there treated like sheep in folds.
Illiterate, debauched, incompetent, “dumb” ministers or priests assumed
the pastorate in a most promiscuous way over these flocks. Membership
in the Church came through infancy in baptism. The Puritans wished
to sort out the draught of the Gospel net, which gathered of every
kind. They claimed that the laity should themselves be parties in
the administration of religion, in testing and approving discipline.
They believed, too, that ministers should be supported by their
congregations, and that the tithes and the landed privileges of the
clergy were bribes and lures to them, making them independent and
autocratical. Church lands and endowments, they insisted, should be
sequestered, as had been the abbeys, nunneries, and monasteries. As
soon as Separatist assemblies were associated in England or among the
exiles on the Continent, altercations and divisions occurred among them
as to the functions and the powers of the eldership, the responsibility
and the authority of pastor and covenanted members in discipline.

Our space will admit here of only a brief recognition, conformed
however to its slight intrinsic importance, of an element entering
into the Puritan agitation, which at the time introduced into it a
glow of excitement and a marvellously effective engagement of popular
sympathy. The controversy between the Puritans and the Prelatists
had in the main been pursued, however passionately, yet in a most
grave and serious spirit, with a profound sense of the dignity and
solemnity of its themes and interests. But from the time and occasion
when Aristophanes tossed the grotesque trifling of his _Clouds_ around
the sage and lofty Socrates, down to this day, when Mr. Punch finds
a weekly condiment of mischief and fun for the people of England in
their own doings and in their treatment by their governors, it would
seem as if no subject of human interest, however exalted its moment,
could escape the test of satire, sarcasm, and caricature. Experimental
ventures of this sort are naturally ephemeral, but they concentrate
their venom or their disdain upon their shrinking victims. Some of Ben
Jonson’s plays and Butler’s _Hudibras_ have now alone a currency, and
that a by no means extended one, out of a vast mass of the printed
ridicule which was turned upon the Puritans. But the matter now in hand
is the skill and jollity with which one or more Puritans, with the gift
of the comic in his stern make-up, plied that keen blade in his own
cause. Erasmus, though he never broke from the communion of the Papal
Church, engaged the most stinging power of satire and sarcasm, not
only against mean and humble monks, but against all the ranks of the
hierarchy, not sparing the loftiest. Helped out with Holbein’s cuts,
Erasmus’s _Encomium of Folly_ drew roars of mirth and glee from those
who winced under its mocking exposures. Even the grave Beza, in Geneva,
tried his hand in this trifling. But the venture of this sort which
cunningly and adroitly intruded itself at a peculiarly critical phase
of the Puritan agitation, was of the most daring and rasping character.
Under the happily chosen pseudonym of “Martin Mar-Prelate,” there
appeared in rapid succession, during seven months of the years 1588 and
1589, the same number of little, rudely printed tracts, the products of
ambulatory presses, which engaged the full power of satire, caricature,
and sarcasm, with fun and rollicking, invective and bitter reproach and
exposure against the hierarchy, especially against four of the most
odious of the bishops. The daring spirit of these productions was well
matched by the devices of caution and secrecy under which they were
put in print, and in the sly methods by which they were circulated, to
be caught up, concealed, and revelled over by thousands who would find
keen enjoyment in them, as in the partaking of the sweets of stolen
food and waters. They may be said to have stopped only at the very
edge of ribaldry, indecency, and even blasphemy. But they were free
and trenchant, coarse and virulent. As such, they testify to the smart
under the provocation of which they were written, and to the scorn and
contempt entertained for the men and measures to which were committed
for the time the transcendent interests of religion and piety. The more
dignified and serious of the Puritans, like Greenham and Cartwright,
frowned upon and repudiated these weapons of bitter gibe and contumely.
But there was a constituency from which they received the heartiest
welcome, and, as is usual in such cases, their circulation and
efficiency were vastly multiplied by equally bitter and malignant
replies to them from the pens or from the instigation of bishops. The
whole detective force of the kingdom was put on the search for the
writers and the printers. So adroit and cunning was the secret of their
authorship and production at the time, that up to this day it has not
been positively disclosed. Never has the investigation been so keenly
or intelligently pressed for clearing the mystery investing the Martin
Mar-Prelate tracts as by the indefatigable researches and the sharpened
inquisition of Dr. Dexter. In his _Congregationalism_ he gives his
readers an exhaustive sketch and summary, in detail and analysis, of
all the facts and documents. His conclusion, which cannot be hopefully
contested or invalidated, is that they were written by Barrow, a
prisoner in the Fleet, and carried through the press by the agency of
Penry. There is abundant evidence in the appearance, publication, and
circulation of tracts known to have come from the hands of imprisoned
Puritans, that the bars of jails and dungeons offered no sufficient
barriers to prevent the secret intercourse and interchange of
intelligence between those whom they enclosed and friends outside, who
dared all risks in their zeal and fidelity.

       *       *       *       *       *

We must now close this narration of the issues raised in the Puritan
controversy, whether by Nonconformists in the Church or by Separatists
withdrawing from it, that we may note the concentration of forces
and witnesses which were drawn together in assemblies or fellowships
prepared in Old England to transfer and establish their principles
in New England. Many of the clergy whose views and sympathies were
warmly engaged in the further work of reform and purification within
the Church, and who at the same time were moderate and conciliatory in
their spirit, contrived to remain in their parochial fields, perhaps
in this way accomplishing the most for all that was reasonable and
good in the cause which they had at heart. When occasionally molested
or challenged, they might contrive to make their peace. But the crisis
and its demands called—as has always been the case in such intense
agitations of religious passions—for patient, steadfast, and resolute
witnesses in suffering, for those who should be hounded and tracked by
judicial processes, who should be deprived of subsistence and liberty,
and be ready not only for being hidden away in prisons or exiled
beyond the seas, but for public execution as martyrs. The emergency
of time and occasion found such as these; and it was of such as these
that there were men and women in training for wilderness work on this
soil. And the combination of materials and persons was precisely
such as would meet the exactions of such an enterprise. There were
university men, scholars, doctors in divinity, practised disputants
in their cherished lore, and with gifts of zeal, fervor, and tender
eloquence in discourse and prayer. There were gentry likewise,—men
and women lifted in the social scale, with furnishings of mind and
worldly goods. To these were joined, in a fellowship which equalized
many distinctions, yeomen, small traders, artisans, and some of every
place and grade, save the low or mean or reckless, in the make-up of
the population of the realm. Governor Bradford says that the first
Separatist or Independent Church in England was that of which John
Rough, the minister, and Cuthbert Symson, the deacon, were burned alive
by Bonner, in the reign of Queen Mary. The laborious and faithful
pages of Dr. Dexter, in his _Congregationalism_, must be closely
studied for the results of the marvellous diligence and keen research
by which he has traced every vestige, memorial, and testimony that
can throw light on the little assemblies of those outlawed Puritans.
It is a curious and engaging occupation in our peaceful and lethargic
times of religious ease, to scan the make-up, the spirit, and methods
of those humble assemblies in their lurking-places, private houses,
barns, or the open fields, frequently changing their appointments under
risks from spies and tipstaves, with their secret code of signals
for communicating intelligence. Their religious exercises were of
the intensest earnestness, and above all things stimulating. Their
conferences about order and discipline bristled with individualisms
and scruples. Many of these assemblies might soon resolve themselves
into constituencies of single members. There was scarce one of those
assemblies, either in England or in exile on the Continent, that did
not part into two or three. There was a stern necessity which compelled
variance and dissension among the members. They had in hand the Bible,
and each was trying what he could draw out of it, as an oracle and
a rule. They had to devise, discuss, and if possible agree upon and
enforce ways of church order and discipline, a form of worship, rules
of initiation into church membership, of suspension, expulsion, and
restoration. It was brain work, heart work, and soul work with them.
It would be difficult to reduce to any exact statements the numbers of
persons, or even of what may in a loose sense be called assemblies, of
Nonconformists or Separatists who remained in England, or who were in
refuge on the Continent at the period just preceding the colonization
of New England. What was called the Millenary Petition, which was
presented to James I., as he came in from Scotland, was claimed to
represent at least eight hundred Nonconforming ministers.

The way is now open for connecting the principles and fortunes of the
earnest and proscribed class of religious men, whose course has been
thus traced in England and Holland, with the enterprise of colonization
in New England. It is but reasonable to suppose that, dating from the
time and the incident referred to in the opening of this chapter,
such an enterprise was latent in conception or desire in the thoughts
of many as a possible alternative for the near future. A resolve or
purpose or effort of such a nature as this involves much brooding over
by individuals, much private communing, balancing of circumstances,
conditions, gains, and losses, and an estimate of means and resources,
with an eye towards allowance by a governmental or noble patronage,
or at least to security in the venture. We have but fragmentary and
scattered information as to all these preliminaries to the emigration.
We must trace them backward from the completion to the initiation of
the enterprise.

And here is the point at which we should define to ourselves, as
intelligently and fairly as we can from our abounding authentic
sources of information, precisely what was the influence or agency of
religion in the first emigration to New England. We are familiar with
the oft-reiterated and positive statement, that the enterprise would
neither have been undertaken, nor persisted in, nor led on to success,
had not religion furnished its mainspring, its guiding motive, and the
end aimed at, to be in degree realized.

We may safely commit ourselves to these assertions, that religion was
the master-motive and object of the most earnest and ablest leaders of
the emigration; that they felt this motive more deeply and with more of
singleness of purpose than they always avowed, as their circumstances
compelled them to take into view sublunary objects of trade and
subsistence which would engage to them needful help and resources; and
that some of these secondary objects very soon qualified and impaired
the paramount importance of the primary one. I am led to make this
allowance of exception as to the occasional reserve in the avowal of
an exclusively religious motive, because of a fact which must impress
the careful student of their history and fortunes for the first hundred
years. That fact is, that in multitudes of occasional utterances,
sermons, journals, and historical sketches, many of the descendants of
the first comers laid more exclusive and emphatic stress upon the prime
agency of religion in the enterprise than did the first movers in it.
When ministers and magistrates in after years uttered their frequent
and sombre laments over the degeneracy of the times, the decay of zeal
and godliness, and the falling from the first love, the refrain always
was found in extolling the one, single, supreme aim of the fathers as
that of pure piety. The pages of Cotton Mather’s _Magnalia_ and of his
tracts of memorial, rebuke, and exhortation, and the _Century Sermon_
of Foxcroft, minister of the First Church, are specimens of masses of
such matter in our old cabinets pitched in that tone. Nor need we
conclude that, as a general rule, the most fervent of those laments or
the most positive of those statements were exaggerated. Only what such
writers and speakers recognized as the degeneracy of their own later
times, must be traced to seeds and agencies which came in with the most
select fellowship of the fathers themselves. We cannot go so far as to
claim that the whole aim, the all-including purpose of every member, or
of even of a majority of the colonists, was religion, after the pattern
of that of the leaders, or of any style of religion. But we have to
conclude that the smaller the number of those among whom we concentrate
the religious fervor in its supreme sway, the more intensified must
have been its power to have enabled them, as it did, to give direction
to the whole enterprise. And this was not only true at the first, but
proportionately so as the original centre of that enterprise for a long
period sent off its radii successively to new settlements in the woods.
There were always found men and women enough to copy the original
pattern and to keep the motive force in action. Sir Henry Maine does
not state the whole of the truth when he writes thus: “The earliest
English emigrants to North America, who belonged principally to the
class of yeomanry, organized themselves in village communities for
purposes of cultivation.”[450]

The stream of exile to New England in the interest of religion was
first parted into one small and one large rill, which, however, soon
flowed together and assimilated, as it appeared that they started
substantially from the same source, with similar elements, and found
more that was congenial than discordant in their qualities. The company
of exiles whom residence in Holland, with its attendant influences
and results, had confirmed and stiffened in their original principles
of rigid Separatism, had the start by nearly a decade of years in
transferring themselves to Plymouth. Their fortunes are traced in the
next chapter.

The colonists in Massachusetts Bay, and those who, in substantial
accord with them, struck into several other settlements in the
wilderness of New England, were mainly those who in the land of their
birth had remained steadfast to their principles of Nonconformity, and
who had borne the penalties of them when avowed and put in practice.
They had not turned in disdain and temper from the institution which
they called their “mother church.” Their divided relation to it they
regarded as rather caused by such harsh conditions as excluded them
from its privileges than by any wilfulness or hostility of their own.
They professed that they still clung to its breast, and wished to be
nourished from it. It was not strange, however, that partial alienation
should, under favoring opportunities, widen and stiffen into seeming
antagonism to it. They regarded themselves as having been subjected
to pains and penalties because of their protest against objectionable
and harmful, as well as unscriptural, exactions in its discipline and
ceremonial. So they were content to be known as Nonconformists, but
repelled the charge of being Separatists. They kept alive a lingering
tenderness, in a reminder of their early membership and later disturbed
affiliation with it. Some few of the sterner spirits among them—and
Roger Williams was such, as he appeared here in his youth—demanded a
penitential avowal of sin from Winthrop’s company, on account of their
having once been in fellowship with the English Church. An agitation
also arose upon the question whether the members of the Boston Church,
who on visits to the old home occasionally conformed, should not be put
under discipline on their return here. Happily the dispute was disposed
of by forbearance and charity.

Still, while there was a slight manifestation at first of an antipathy
or a jealousy on the part of the Nonconformists at the Bay of being
in any way confounded with the Separatists at Plymouth, there never
was a breach or even a controversy, beyond that of a friendly
discussion, between them; and there is something well-nigh amusing,
as well as interesting, in following the quaint narration[451] of the
establishment of immediate harmony and accord between their respective
church ways. Endicott’s little company at Salem, heralding the great
emigration to the Bay, “entered into church estate” in August, 1629,
having sought what we should now call the advice, help, and sympathy of
their Plymouth brethren. This fellowship was extended through Governor
Bradford and other delegates, and the example was afterward followed
in like recognition of other churches. The covenanted members of the
Salem Church _ordained_ their pastor and teacher, notwithstanding that
they had previously been under the hands of a bishop. It soon appeared,
however, that the church was to be emphatically Nonconformist. Two
brothers Brown, at Salem, set up separate worship by the Common
Prayer. On being “convented” before the Governor, his Council and
the ministers, and accusing the church of Separatism, they were told
that the members did not wish to be Separatists, but were simply
Nonconformists with the corruptions of the Church; and that having
suffered much for their principles, and being now in a free place, they
were determined to be rid of Common Prayer and ceremonial.[452]

The First Boston Church, in 1630, was organized under its covenant,
with its appointed and ordained teacher, ruling elder, and deacons. In
ten years after the landing at Plymouth there were five churches after
this pattern, and in twenty years thirty-five, in New England.

This instantaneous abandonment, as it may be called, of everything
in the institution of a church, followed by an immediate disuse of
everything in ceremonial and worship in the English usage which the
Nonconformists had scrupled at home, is of itself very suggestive,
even in the first aspect of it. Followed into detail, it presents some
surprises and very rich instruction. In full result, it exhibits to
us principles and institutions in the highest interests of religion,
in civil, social, and domestic life, which had been repudiated and
put under severe penalties in England, crossing the ocean to plant
themselves in a wilderness for the training and guidance of successive
generations of men and women in freedom, virtue, piety, worldly thrift,
and every form of prosperity. There must have been nobleness in those
principles, as well as in the men and women who suffered for them, put
them on trial, and led them to triumph.

The work of preference, of conviction and conscience, had been wrought
in behalf of those principles, in old English homes and byways, in
humble conventicles, in fireside and wayside musings and conferences.
Enough persons had been brought to be of one mind, purpose, and
resolve, in the spirit of a determined heroism, to make a beginning
of such a sort that it would be more than half of the accomplished
work. There may have been debates, warm variances, hesitations, and
conciliatory methods used among those who entered into covenant as the
First Church of Boston. If there were such, we know nothing of them.
There is no surviving record or intimation of them. The pattern and
model which the exiled colonists followed, needed no study or shaping
on the wilderness soil. It was an old-home product. What might seem to
be extemporized work was prepared work. It was as if they had brought
over timbers cut in their native woods all framed and matched for
setting up in their transferred home. Their initiated teachers had been
ordained by Episcopal hands. But this was neither help nor hindrance.
When they needed more and new ones, they had a method of qualifying
them. Surplice, tippet, cap, rochet, and prayer-book are not missed
or mourned over. Simply not a word is said about them. The fabric
which they set up was of a new and peculiar style. No! They would not
have owned it to be new; they regarded it as the oldest, because the
original,—that which was established by the first generation of the
disciples of Jesus Christ.

One hundred university men from the grand old nooks and shrines of
consecrated learning in Old England were the medium for the “Gospel
work” in New England, till it could supply its needs from its own
well-provided resources. But there was not a prelate among them.
English magistrates of various grades and authority, governors,
judges, spies, collectors, and commissionaries were here to represent
the mother country, till she became so stingy that we were forced
to wean ourselves from her; but never did an English bishop as a
functionary set foot on the soil of what is now the territory of the
United States. And when after our Revolution the virtue which comes
from episcopal hands was communicated to the possessors of it here,
it had parted with what was most offensive or objectionable in its
claim or efficacy to the Old and the New English Puritans. Town and
rural parishes, colleges and schools, had the faithful services of
that hundred of university men. For a long time, the books that were
imported here were almost exclusively the Puritan literature of the
old home, and had a perceptible influence in stiffening, rather than
relaxing, the stern spirit of Dissent, and throwing new vitality into
the hard work which it had to do in the wilderness. One consideration
of the highest practical weight is presented to us in the fact that
the Puritanism of New England originated and fostered the free and
radically working instrumentalities and forces which neutralized its
own errors, restrained its own bigotry and severity, and compelled it
to develop from its own best elements something better than itself.
There were other plantations on this virgin soil, of which religion was
in no sense the master-impulse, and others still in which the mother
church sought to direct the movement. New England was never affected
for evil or for good by them. But if over the whole land, in radiations
or percolations of influence, the leaven of any one section of the
country has wrought in the whole of it, it is that of the New England

       *       *       *       *       *


THE original authorities and sources of information, in manuscript and
print, relating to the agitations and controversies arising within
the real or assumed membership of the Church of England after the
Reformation, are to be distinguished into two great classes,—those
of a public character, as records of the proceedings of government,
of the courts, and of all bodies or individuals in office charged
with authority; and those of a private nature, coming from voluntary
bodies, or from single members of them, or from writers and authors
whose works were published after the usual method, or sent forth and
circulated surreptitiously. Both these classes of original authorities,
constituting together an enormous mass of an infinitely varied
elementary composition, are alike widely scattered, and, so far as
they have not been gathered into local repositories, could be directly
consulted only by one whose travel, investigation, and research were of
the most extended comprehensiveness. England, Holland, and Switzerland
have in keeping contemporary records and documents relating to minute
and trivial, or to most important and vital, points in one or another
stage, or concerning one or another prime party in the controversy.
Perhaps, even after all the keen investigation and diligent toil
of the most recent inquisitors, such original papers have not been
exhaustively detected and examined. But one who is familiar with the
stores already reported to us, unless his taste and interest in them
run to morbidness, will hardly desire more of them. It is certain
that whatever obscurity may still invest any incidental point in the
controversy, the matter is of such comparatively slight importance,
that the substance and details of any information as to persons or
events which may be lacking to us would hardly qualify the general
narratives of history.

The expense, diligence, and intelligent illustration which within the
last thirty or forty years have been devoted to the collection and
arrangement and calendaring of such masses of the State and other
public papers of Great Britain, have aided as well as prompted the
researches of those who have been zealous to trace out with fidelity
and accuracy every stage, and the character and course of each one,
lofty or obscure, as an actor in the larger and the lesser bearings
of the struggle of Nonconformity and Dissent. As a general statement,
it may be affirmed that the developments and the more full and minute
information concerning the substance and phases of early Puritanism,
as they have been studied in the mass of accumulated documents, have
set forth the controversy in a dignity of interest and in a disclosure
of its vital relations to all theories of civil government, church
establishments, and the institutional administration of religion, far
more fully and in a much more comprehensive view than was recognized by
contemporary actors.

There are two extensive and exceedingly rich collections of
tracts, books, and manuscript documents of a most varied character
well-preserved and easily accessible in London, which furnish
well-nigh inexhaustible materials for the study of the Puritan, the
Nonconformist, and the Separatist movements in all their phases. One of
these is in the British Museum, the other in Dr. Williams’s Library.
In the times with which we are now concerned, the motive, perhaps but
vaguely comprehended by himself, which led George Thomason to gather
his marvellous collection, now in the British Museum, would have been
called a _providential_ prompting. He was a modest man in private
life, and, so far as we know, took no part in public agitations. As a
Royalist bookseller, at “The Rose and Crown, in St. Paul’s Churchyard,”
he had opportunities favoring him in the scheme which he undertook. It
was in 1641 that he began a laborious enterprise, and one not without
very serious risks to himself, which he continued to pursue till
just before his death in 1666. This was to gather up, preserve, and
bind in volumes,—though without any system or order of arrangement
except chronological,—a copy of each of the publications in tract,
or pamphlet, or fly-leaf form which appeared from the press, licensed
or surreptitiously printed, during a period teeming with the issue,
like the dropping of forest leaves, of a most extraordinary series of
ephemeral works, quickened with all the vitality of those times. Though
he began his collection in 1641, he anticipated that date by gathering
similar publications previous to it. He copied during Cromwell’s time
nearly a hundred manuscripts, mainly “on the King’s side, which no
man durst venture to publish here without the danger of his ruin.”
He took pains to write upon most of the publications the date of its
appearance, and when anonymous, the name of its author if he could
ascertain it. Besides the risks of fire and the burden of such a mass
of materials filling his house from cellar to garret, this zealous
collector exposed himself to severe penalties from the authorities on
either side of the great civil and religious conflict. He was compelled
once at least to remove his collection to a safe hiding-place. It fills
now 2,220 volumes, and counts to 34,000 separate publications, from
folio downward. It is difficult to say what may not be found there,
and nearly as difficult to find exactly what one wishes. After various
exposures through which the collection passed safely, it now rests in
the British Museum, under the general title of the “King’s Pamphlets,”
having been purchased and presented by King George III. in 1762, at a
cost of £300. A mine of most curious matter is there ready for search
on every subject, serious or comic, sacred or secular, illustrative
of high and low life during the period. Probably the two most zealous
delvers in that mine for its best uses have been Professor Masson, for
the purpose of _The Life of John Milton: narrated in connexion with the
Political, Ecclesiastical, and Literary History of his Time_, in six
volumes; and Dr. H. M. Dexter, in his _Congregationalism of the Last
Three Hundred Years_, etc. Both authors have turned these pamphlets to
the best account in clearing obscurities or filling gaps in the history
or writings of men prominent in the cause of Nonconformity.

The other comprehensive and extensive collection of pamphlets, volumes,
and original papers for illustrating the whole history of Puritanism
and Dissent, is in what is known as Dr. Williams’s Library, in London.
Dr. Daniel Williams, an eminent Presbyterian divine, possessed of
means, had purchased the library of the famous Dr. William Bates.
Adding to it from his own resources, he founded in 1716 the library
which bears his name, committing it, with a sum of money for a building
(to which additions were made by a subscription), to the hands of
trustees in succession. The library edifice—long standing in Red-Cross
Street, now removed to Grafton Street—has been ever since a favorite
place for the assembling of meetings and committees in the Dissenting
interest (of late years Presbyterians and Unitarians acceding to their
trust), for the transaction of business, for preparing addresses to
successive sovereigns, and managing their cause in Parliament. Those
who in former years have sat in one of the ancient chairs of the
library in Red-Cross Street have hardly escaped feeling profoundly
the influence of the place and of its associations,—the walls hung
with the portraits of venerable divines and scholars learned in all
ancient lore; the cabinets filled with laboriously wrought manuscripts,
histories, diaries, and letters, some of them dating in the first
half of the sixteenth century; the crowded shelves of folios and
smaller tractates composed of brain-work and patient toil, without
the facilities of modern research and study, and the many relics and
memorials connected with the daily ministerial and domestic life of
men of self-denying and honorable service. Harvard College holds and
administers a fund of over sixteen thousand dollars, left by Dr.
Williams in 1711, as a trust for the benefit of the aborigines.

Here is the fitting place for appropriate and most grateful mention
of the results of a labor of devoted zeal and love given by the Rev.
Henry Martyn Dexter, D.D., to the historic memorial of a cause of which
he inherits the full spirit, and in the service of which he has spent
his mature life. It may safely be said that not a single person, at
least of those born on the soil of New England, of the lineage of the
Fathers has so “magnified” their cause and work as he has done. Holding
with such a rooted conviction, as is his, that the Congregational
polity of the Christian Church has the warrant of Scripture and of
the Primitive Church, and that it best serves the sacred interests of
soul-freedom and of associated religion in its institutions, works,
and influence, the earliest witnesses, confessors, and martyrs in its
behalf have seemed to him worthy of the most lavish labor for their
commemoration. Repeatedly has he crossed the seas and plied his most
diligent scrutiny of tracing and searching, as he got the scent of
some tract or record in its hiding-place of private cabinet or dim old
parchment. With hardly eye or thought for the usual attractions of
foreign travel, his valuable leisure has been spent in following any
clew which promised him even the slightest aid to clearing an obscure
point, or setting right a disputed fact, or completing our information
on any serious matter relating to the early history of what is now
represented by Congregationalism. The Introduction to his volume, _The
Congregationalism of the last Three Hundred Years, as seen in its
Literature, with Special Reference to Certain Recondite, Neglected, or
Disputed Passages_,[453] tells in a vigorous and hearty tone what was
his aim, his course, and its method.

The principal text of his volume disposes the treatment of his subject
under twelve lectures, delivered by the author in the Theological
Seminary at Andover, in 1876-1879. This text is elaborately illustrated
by notes, with references and extracts, largely drawn from the
recondite sources and the depositories already referred to. The author
is careful to authenticate all his statements from prime authorities;
and where obscurity or conflict of views or of evidence adduced makes
it necessary, his patience and candor give weight to his judgment or
decision. The extraordinary and unique element of his work is presented
in his _Collections towards a Bibliography of Congregationalism_,
which with the Index to its titles covers more than three hundred
royal octavo pages, in close type. This contains an enumeration of
7,250 titles of publications, from folios down to a few leaves, dating
between the years 1546 and 1879, which have even the slightest relation
in contents, authorship, or purpose with the most comprehensive
bearings of his subject in its historical development.

I have mentioned this elaborate work among the primary, instead of
classing it with the secondary, sources of information on the history
of Nonconformity, because it is something more than a link between the
two. It takes its flavor from the past. Its abounding extracts from the
quaint writings, and its portraitures and relations of the experiences,
of the old-time worthies transfer us to their presence, make us sharers
of their buffeted fortunes and listeners to their living speech. The
work may be regarded as a summary of monumental memorials, more frank
and true than are such generally on stone or brass of those who fought
a good fight and trusted in promises.

The natural desire of a dispassionate reader of the original documents
dealing with the heats of the Puritan controversy, or pursuing it in
the pages of historians who may relate it either with a partisan or
an impartial spirit, is that he might have before him the words and
impressions of some contemporary or observer of profound wisdom and
of well-balanced judgment, as he viewed this turmoil of affairs. The
nearest approach made to the gratification of this wish is found in
two brief but very comprehensive essays from the pen of the great
Lord Bacon, as with an evident serenity and poise of spirit he
studied the scenes before him, and the characters, aims, excesses,
and shortcomings of the various actors, monarchs, prelates, zealots,
enthusiasts, and earnest, however ill-judging, extremists on either
side. The first of these essays in publication, whenever it may have
been written, is entitled _Certain Considerations touching the better
Pacification and Edification of the Church of England_. The date of
its imprint is 1640. But in this reference is made, in the address to
King James, to an earlier essay, which appeared anonymously with the
imprint of 1641, under the title of _An Advertisement touching the
Controversies of the Church of England_. This was evidently written in
the time of Elizabeth. In it, Bacon sagaciously traces the origin of
the controversy to four main springs,—namely, the offering and the
accepting occasions for variance; the extending and multiplying them;
passionate and unbrotherly proceedings on both parts, and the recourse
on either side to a stiffer union among its members, heightening the
distraction. His most severe stricture is upon the Church, for its
harsh measures, as the strife advanced, in enforcing with penalties
what had previously been allowed to be matters of indifference, thus
driving some discontents into a banded sect. He regards it as a grave
error that some of the English Church zealots had spoken contemptuously
of foreign Protestant Churches. Though Bacon affirms that he is himself
no party to the strife, and aims only for an impartial arbitration in
it, his judgment and sympathy evidently incline him to the Puritan side
as against the bishops. A fair-minded Puritan of the time might well
have contented himself with this wise man’s statement of his side and
cause. Of the second of these essays, it being addressed to King James
on his accession, it may be said that it would be difficult to find any
piece of writing of equal compass, on the themes with which it deals,
more crowded with sound, solid good sense, better balanced in its
allowances and limitations, more moderate, judicious, and practical in
its principles, or more likely to harmonize all reasonable differences,
and to repress and discountenance extreme and perverse individualisms.
Bacon justifies innovations and reconstructions. He tells the King that
the opening of his reign is the opportune time for making them. He
protests against modelling all reformation after one pattern. Then he
utters words of eminent wisdom about the government of bishops, about
the liturgy, ceremonies, and subscription, about a preaching ministry,
the abuse of excommunication, and about non-residence, pluralities,
and the maintenance of the ministry. Here, again, moderate men of both
parties might well have been content with the great philosopher’s

DOCUMENTS IN FOREIGN REPOSITORIES.—In connection with the exile of so
many prelates, clergy, and other members of the English Church on the
accession of Queen Mary in 1553, the relations established between them
and many eminent Reformers on the Continent resulted in the production
of a large number of documents of the highest historical authenticity
and value, as throwing light upon the aims and methods of the Puritans
in England during the whole period from 1553 to 1602. Several of these
exiles settled at Zurich, and there formed intimate friendships with
many magistrates and ministers of the Reformed religion. On the return
of the exiles, on the accession of Elizabeth, many of them kept up
a constant correspondence with their friends. The letters have been
preserved in the archives of Zurich, and it has been only within the
last forty years that the wealth of information in them has been
revealed in England. There are nearly two hundred folio volumes of
these letters. Strype and Burnet had obtained copies of some of them,
which they put to use in their histories.[454] A descendant of one of
the Swiss correspondents had before 1788 copied eighteen thousand of
the letters with his own hand, arranged chronologically. In 1845 and
1846, “The Parker Society” in England published,[455] in four octavo
volumes, a large number of these “Zurich Letters,” translated and
carefully edited, with annotations. The general titles are _The Zurich
Letters, comprising the Correspondence of Several English Bishops,
and Others, with Some of the Helvetian Reformers_, during the reigns
of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Queens Mary and Elizabeth. In the
collection are several letters to royal personages. One of these, by
Rodolph Gualter, who in his youth had resided at Oxford, to Queen
Elizabeth, dated Zurich, Jan. 16, 1559, is a long epistle, written in a
dignified, courteous and earnest strain, counselling the Queen to have
two things in her supreme regard: “First, that every reformation of the
Church and of religion be conducted agreeably to the Word of God;” and
second, that she restrain her counsellors from hindering or reversing
the good work. Better than from the best-digested pages of history,
one may learn from these fresh and admirable letters, down to the most
minute detail and incident, the cross-workings, the entanglements, the
progressive advance, the obstructions, the retrograde and opposing
forces and influences connected with the oscillations of the reform
in England. Nowhere else in our abounding literature on the subject
are the Puritans and Nonconformists presented more faithfully and
intelligently in their conscientious, scrupulous, and certainly
well-meant efforts, within the Church itself, to have its institutions,
ceremonial, and discipline disposed after a pattern which should have
regard equally to discountenance the impositions and superstitions of
the Papal system, which had been nominally renounced, and to make the
purified Church a power to advance the best interests of true religion.
The intelligent American visitor to Zurich, if his attention is drawn
to this highly valued and admirably arranged collection in its library,
can hardly fail of the impression that he has before him most sincere
evidences of the depth of thought and the nobleness of spirit of men
who were working out the principles of wisdom and righteousness.

Considering the influence exerted upon some of the English Puritans
by their residence on the Continent, and their frequent reference
afterward to the different ecclesiastical system and discipline adopted
there, an interesting phase of the controversy is presented in the
two following works. At the opening of the eighteenth century, Dr.
William Nichols,—as he says, at the prompting of others, though, it
was intimated, of his own motion,—wrote a _Defence of the Doctrine
and Discipline of the Church of England_, addressed especially to
foreign divines and churches. This was replied to by James Peirce in
his _Vindication of the Dissenters; or, an Appeal to Foreign Divines,
Professors, and all other Learned Men of the Reformed Religion_. In
this volume, originally written and published in Latin, afterward
translated by the author and published in English, there is in the main
a thorough and candid review of the rise and the conduct of the cause
of Nonconformity, and a searching examination of the principles of the
Church of England. Peirce quotes with care the original authorities,
and puts them to a good use. He follows the history into the fortunes
of those who had taken refuge and established their religion in New
England, and while he says he differs with Mr. Cotton, of Boston, “in
many of his opinions,” defends him and all the “Independents” from the
charge of being “Brownists.”

The historians Bancroft and Motley and Dr. H. M. Dexter have, after
diligent research in Holland, discovered many little scraps of curious
information relating to the residence, mode of life, social and
domestic experiences, and way of conducting their religious affairs,
of the earliest English exiles there associated in churches and
assemblies. These slight memorials indicate that the Puritans and
Separatists in refuge there, though their circumstances were modest, if
not obscure, were respected for their characters and for the sincerity
of their purposes. They found conveniences from the presses in Holland
for putting into print their own fertile productions in the setting
forth of their principles, while the busy commerce between the ports
of Holland and those of England and Scotland furnished ready means for
conveying these publications, as well as private letters, secretly and
surreptitiously if it were necessary, to the safe hands of friends.
Nor, if the occasion was urgent, would one of these refugees hesitate,
taking in his hands the risk of his liberty or life, to pass the
seas on some secret errand in his own behalf or in the interest of
his fellows. Such scraps of information from Dutch repositories as
the explorers above named have gathered have all been duly valued as
filling gaps in our previous knowledge, or clearing up some obscure
passages. The results have been so gratefully recognized and at once
incorporated in the many modern rehearsals of the old history, that
they need not be referred to more specifically here.[456]

ENGLISH AUTHORITIES.—All such periods of intense controversy and
struggle upon themes of the highest concern to man, as that of the
internal commotions in England immediately following and consequent
upon the Reformation, leave behind them some memorial in literature
of so conspicuous and rare an excellence as to insure perpetual
freshness, and to acquire interest and attractions even beyond that
of the particular subject with which it deals. When the Press in
such periods is pouring its outflow of ephemeral tracts and books,
vigorous, intense, effective, as they may be for a temporary end or
for the circle of a sect or party, genius or scholarly culture, or a
philosophical and comprehensive spirit, penetrating below the surface
and rising above the details of a controversy, will engage itself upon
the product of what we call an immortal work. Such a work[457] is
that which came from the pen of “the judicious Hooker,”—Richard by
baptismal name. His eight books constitute one of the richest classics
of the English tongue. It finds delighted readers among those who
care little, if at all, for the mere issues of the questions under
controversy. Its generally rich and stately style, its logic and
rhetoric, its wealth of learning, and its occasional play of satire
or contempt, engage the interest of many a reader who would turn
listlessly from most pages of polemics. There is so much in it of a
manly, free courage and self-asserting spirit, that at times it is
difficult to believe that it was written by one who, according to the
quaint biography of him by Isaack Walton, was so cowed and subjugated
by his domestic partner, the mother of his children. English Churchmen
may well boast themselves on this majestic work, dealing with the
nucleus of the whole Puritan controversy, the question of Church
authority. Of course, its argument in its whole sum and detail, in its
array and estimate of original vouchers, has been traversed and brought
under dispute by champions on the other side. But it will always hold
its supreme place while the cause which it upholds shall need a classic.

Hallam[458] says that, “though the reasonings of Hooker won for him the
surname of ‘the Judicious,’ they are not always safe or satisfactory,
nor, perhaps, can they be reckoned wholly clear or consistent. His
learning, though beyond that of most English writers in that age, is
necessarily uncritical; and his fundamental theory, the mutability of
ecclesiastical government, has as little pleased those for whom he
wrote, as those whom he repelled by its means.” The same writer, in
another work,[459] passes a high encomium upon Hooker’s _Polity_, as
finding a basis for its argument in natural law.

The first four of the books of Hooker’s work were published in 1594,
the fifth in 1597. As the other three had been left in manuscript,
and did not appear in print till many years after his death in 1600,
suspicions were raised that they might have been interpolated. As the
Narrative of this chapter has given place to an exposition of Hooker’s
fundamental position against the Nonconformists, it need not be
repeated here.

For a long period, the well-known work[460] of Daniel Neal, in its
successive editions, was the only one written from an historical point
of view by an author not contemporary with its whole subject, which had
appeared from the press, was widely circulated and generally accredited
for its fidelity, its ability, and its trustworthiness. Mr. Neal, born
in London in 1678, was a Dissenting minister in that city, and died
in 1743. His history was published in portions between 1731 and 1738.
The editions of it now in general circulation are those edited with
valuable notes by Dr. Toulmin, the first of which appeared in London in
1793, and the last in 1837. The editor continued the history after the
English Revolution. Mr. Neal made diligent research, in order to verify
his statements from all the original sources which were open to him. He
relied largely on the laborious _Memorials_ gathered by the painstaking
Strype, while owing much to Fuller and Burnet. Mosheim accepted Neal’s
work as of the highest authority. Dr. Kippis commends it highly in the
_Biographia Britannica_. After the publication of his first volume,
Neal made public his answer to an anonymous work by Dr. Maddox, Bishop
of St. Asaph, vindicating the Church of England “from the injurious
reflections cast upon it in that volume.” Similar animadversions were
cast upon the later volumes by Dr. Zachary Grey. Bishop Warburton, in
some _Notes_ to Mr. Neal’s history which he published in 1788, even
brings in question the author’s veracity. Dr. Toulmin meets and answers
such charges. Mr. Neal sought to give his pages authenticity by full
quotations, citations, and references to his original authorities.
In a few instances in which Burnet or others denied his fairness or
accuracy, Dr. Toulmin has vindicated him against all aspersions, if
not from all charges of error. The author wrote when the Dissenters
were relieved by legislation of the severe impositions, fines, and
inflictions of an earlier period, but were by no means brought into an
equality in social and civil rights and privileges with the favored and
patronized members of the Church Establishment. So Mr. Neal’s pages
are free from the asperity and bitterness provoked into indulgence by
his predecessors under the smart of humiliating wrongs. Still, he is
loyal to the memory and steadfastness of those earlier sufferers. There
was much on which the Dissenters of his time might pride themselves as
won by the constancy of those who had fought for them the battles with
lordly arrogance and hierarchical assumptions and prerogatives. There
was a palmy age for Dissent in England which Lord Macaulay describes
very felicitously, when, as he says, there were Dissenting ministers
whose standing and condition in life compared favorably with those of
all the clergy of the Establishment below those of the bishops. Among
the Dissenting laity were men of wealth and of commercial consequence,
as a high and honored social class, whose munificent endowments were
bestowed on some of the noblest institutions of the realm.

Mr. Hallam devotes the second, third, and fourth chapters of his
_Constitutional History of England_ to the development of the history
of Nonconformity, both among Roman Catholics and Protestants, during
the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., Mary, and Elizabeth. Among
the many reviews and critical estimates of this history, that in the
_Edinburgh Review_, vol. xlviii., is especially able and satisfactory.
Mr. Hallam brought to the presentation of this part of his whole
subject, not only his habitually thorough and conscientious fulness of
research among authorities and documents, public and private, but also
that spirit of candor, moderation, and equitable impartiality which,
if not already cherished in the purposes and motives of one intending
the task of an historian, may or may not be acquired and exercised in
dealing with themes engaging so much of temper, strife, and intenseness
of polemical animosity. From his point of view, reading backwards
along the line of historical development, he recognized that the early
Nonconformists were dealing with fundamental principles in religious
affairs which, though not at the time fully apprehended, would
necessarily involve immunities and rights of a political character.
It is because of this, now clearly exposed and certified to us, that
such lofty tributes are rendered to the Puritans as the exponents and
champions of English liberty.

The _Inner Life_[461] of Robert Barclay, not completely, though
substantially, finished and supervised by its author, is an admirable
example of the more wise, just, and considerate tone and method
adopted in quite recent years for dealing with times and subjects of
once embittered religious agitation and controversy. It is calm and
judicial in its temper, inclusive and well-digested in its materials
and contents. The author’s research was most wide and comprehensive.
He spared no labor in the quest of original documents, in manuscript
or print, all over England and on the Continent, of prime use and
authority for his purpose, whether in public repositories or in private
cabinets. For some very important matters which entered into the full
treatment of his theme he has used for the first time many records that
had been lying in undisturbed repose, and he has enlisted the valuable
aid of many friends.

The author, after defining the idea and object of a visible church,
makes an elaborate effort to trace to its sources and in its course
the development of religious opinion in England previous to 1640.
He marks the rise of Barrowism, Brownism, of the Johnsonists, the
Separatists, the Presbyterians, the early Independents, the two parties
of Baptists, and the Friends, or Quakers. Some of the views, habits,
and principles adopted by these parties he traces in their connection
with the Mennonites on the Continent. He distinguishes, as far as
possible, the various shades of opinion, the introduction of new points
of controversy or discussion, the individualisms, extravagancies,
eccentricities, and erratic excesses of individuals or parties,
and he keeps distinct the two main currents of the development, as
they favored or rejected the connection of civil and ecclesiastical
authority. He draws the line distinctly between the Episcopalians
and Presbyterians, on the one side, as according in favoring a state
church and a national establishment, and the original ideas gradually
developed into positive principles of individuals and societies
among the Separatists, which involved the complete separation of the
administration of religion from the civil power.

The central subject of Mr. Barclay’s volume is the early history of the
Friends, or Quakers. Two chief points are specially dealt with: First,
many of the distinctive principles in their teaching and conduct which
have been generally regarded as original with them are traced as in
full recognition by other parties previous to the preaching of George
Fox. Second, the author presents many facts, new, or in a new light,
which disclose how earnest were the efforts of the early Friends for
a very careful and even elaborate inner organization and discipline
of their membership, after the manner of a visible Church,—the
appointment and oversight of a qualified ministry, the sending out of
authorized missionaries, and the inquisition into the private affairs,
the home life, habits, and business of members, carried out into very
minute and annoying details. He reveals to us the embarrassments met
by them in deciding upon the question of “birthright membership.”
Manuscript documents, records, minute-books, etc., preserved in many
places where the early Friends had their meetings, are found very

Mr. Skeats, in his _Free Churches_[463] has in view as his general
purpose, to trace “the part which English Dissent has played in
the history of England.” Following this comprehensive design, he
presents the various phases of Nonconformity and Separatism through
denominational organizations among Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers,
Independents, and Congregationalists, noting the attitude of opposition
assumed towards them by the civil and ecclesiastical authorities. He
regards the Toleration Act, passed in 1689,—which even then excluded
the Unitarians from its terms,—as drawing the line between the
efforts which had been made up to that time to extinguish Dissent,
and the leaving it simply under a stigma, as lacking social standing
and Government recognition. Only the first chapter, covering a
hundred of the six hundred pages of the volume, is concerned with the
subject directly in our hands. The author is in full sympathy with
the principles and the cause, the attitude and the persistency, of
the resolute and buffeted men whose views he sets forth, as developed
from the earliest stage of the Reformation in England. He cites and
quotes original authorities to authenticate his statements and his
judgments. In some instances, where they bear hard upon the conduct
of the archbishops of Canterbury under Queen Elizabeth, Curteis, in
his _Bampton Lectures_, challenges their fairness. More than four
hundred Dissenting societies, Congregationalist and Baptist, are now
existing in England, which date their origin before the passage of
the Toleration Act under William.[464] To these are to be added many
societies of Presbyterians and Quakers.

The Congregational Union of England and Wales is an organized body
devoted to the interests of the fellowship to which it succeeds as
representing the original single and associated Nonconformists from the
date of the English Reformation. Its magazines, its annual reports,
and various publications issued under its patronage, keep in living
interest and advocacy the principles first stood for by faithful
witnesses, sufferers, and martyrs. One of these publications, of
especial importance, bears the following title: _Historical Memorials
relating to the Independents, or Congregationalists, from their Rise to
the Restoration of the Monarchy_, 1660, London, 1839. The distinctive
value and authority of this work, which is in four octavo volumes,
attach to its being almost exclusively composed of the original
writings, of various kinds, from the pens of the first Nonconformists,
and the answers or arguments brought against them. These have been
gathered by keen and extended investigation, carefully authenticated,
and, where it is necessary, annotated. The motive which inspired
this undertaking was to remove the obscurity and contumely which had
been threatening to settle over the memory and principles of men
whose own writings prove them to have been equal in learning, acumen,
argumentative power, and heroic constancy of purpose to defend a cause
by them thought worthy of their devotion. Many important papers which
elsewhere are found only in quotations, extracts, or fragments, are
here given in full.

The Bi-Centennial commemoration of the ejectment of all Nonconforming
ministers from the parish churches of England, on St. Bartholomew’s
Day, 1662, was made the occasion, after modern usage for such
observances, of the delivery of a multitude of addresses, and the
preparation and publication of numerous pamphlets and volumes, of
local or general interest, with historical retrospect and review of
the origin and development of English Nonconformity. Curteis[465] has
a very pregnant note on the “bicentenary rhetoric” connected with this
occasion. He alleges that “incredible exaggerations” were exposed, as
founded upon the lists given in Calamy’s famous Nonconformist Memorial
(edited by Palmer) of the ejected ministers, as being in number two
thousand. Curteis says it was proved that instead of there being 293
such in London parishes, there were by count only 127, and that from
the whole alleged number of two thousand, there should be struck off no
less than twelve hundred.[466]

There are three very admirable works[467] covering much of the matter
of this chapter, from the pen of John Tulloch, D.D., Principal of St.
Mary’s College in the University of St. Andrew’s.

Though these three works are from the pen of a clergyman of the
Church of Scotland, they are written in a spirit of the most broad
and comprehensive catholicity. They set forth with keen discernment
and with generous appreciation the advances made by highly gifted
individual minds in the several stages and phases of the development of
a protracted controversy upon the principles involved in an attempted
adjustment of the rights of conscience and free thought, in asserting
themselves against traditional and ecclesiastical proscriptions. It
required the contributions from many such minds and spirits, with their
fragments of certified truth, to insure the substitution of reason for

CHURCH OF ENGLAND AUTHORITIES.—Among the recently published works, the
authors of which have aimed with moderation and impartiality to treat a
theme of embittered relations and rehearsals so as to present readers
with information of facts and the means of judging fairly between
violent contestants in their once angry issues, is one already referred
to as Curteis’s _Bampton Lectures_.[468] Assuming that the English
Church had an origin and existence independent of the ecclesiastical
authority of the Pope, the author relates the process by which it
reformed itself, by renouncing his interference and impositions, and
establishing its own discipline and ritual. After this he regards and
treats the Romanists as but one class of Dissenters, taking their
place as such with the Independents, the Baptists, the Quakers, the
Unitarians, and the Wesleyans. Of these divided elements of the common
Christian fold, the author traces the rise, the leading principles, and
the distinct institutions and methods which they adopted. His treatment
of his large and tangled subject is as fair, considerate, and judicious
as could be expected from an earnest and heartily loyal minister of the
English Church. He makes many strong statements to commend and urge a
national establishment of religion as far more dignified, consistent,
and desirable than the scattering and fragmentary multiplication,
indefinitely increasing under petty variances, of independent religious
organizations. But he does not work out a practicable method for his
suggested scheme when those concerned in it prefer their own ways. Mr.
Curteis is very severe (p. 62) in his rebuke upon the harshness of
terms in which Mr. Skeats[469] deals with Archbishop Parker, in the
course pursued by him towards the Puritans. But the view presented by
Mr. Skeats is more than justified by Hallam,[470] in his calm dealing
with the original documents.

In the same connection may be mentioned _The Church and Puritans_,[471]
a small and compact volume, written in the best spirit of moderation
and candor. In but little more than two hundred open pages, the author
traces the whole course of Dissent,—its rise, aims, principles,
and methods, and its struggles, buffetings, and discomfitures, from
its manifestations under Elizabeth to the failure of “a glorious
opportunity of reconciling all moderate Dissenters to the communion
of the Church of England, under William and Mary.” By the judicious
restraint upon what might naturally be his promptings, as a clergyman
of the Church of England, to criticise with some sharpness what has so
generally been represented as the perversity and weak scrupulosity of
the Puritans, he is eminently fair and considerate in presenting their
side of the controversy, and in dealing with their more conspicuous
men. The abounding citation of original authorities on both sides in
his notes authenticates, for nearly every sentence of the work, the
statement made in it.

Two works of a remarkably liberal and scholarly character which have
quite recently appeared from the pens of eminent divines of the English
Church, would have been gratefully welcomed by the Nonconformists in
the period of their sharpest conflict, on account of their generous
spirit and their contents. They would have been especially noteworthy
in the liberal concessions which they make upon all the points
involved in the controversy, as to the simple authority and pattern of
Scripture in the constitution and discipline of the Christian Church,
as against the hierarchical claims based upon traditions and usages
subsequent to the age of the apostles, and traceable in the so-called
Primitive Church. These books are Mr. Edwin Hatch’s _Organization of
the Early Christian Churches_,[472] and Dean Stanley’s _Christian

Mr. Hatch has also published articles of a similar tenor to the
contents of his Bampton Lectures, in the _Dictionary of Christian
Antiquities_. In these lectures, the author aims to trace the facts
of ecclesiastical history in the same way as those of civil history
are usually dealt with. His aim is to investigate the framework of
the earliest Christian societies. He says these societies in their
formation adjusted themselves to previously existing methods of
association. The philanthropic element in them suggested the sort
of officers needed, their provinces and functions. A president of
the society and one or more distributors of alms were the requisite
officers. Then as increasing numbers in a society, and of societies,
made necessary a distribution of functions, with centralization and
subordination of duty and authority, an ecclesiastical system was
developed by like methods to those of a civil or political system.
Convenience and adaptation thus originated the elements of a hierarchy,
the regulation of which was watched over and disposed by a system of

Dean Stanley’s volume is a collection of essays, previously published
separately. They are liberal in tone and tenor, and by no means
in harmony with, or even quite respectful toward, any high-church
principles, or any demands of “divine right” for ecclesiastical
authority. He adopts a rational point of view for marking the
accumulation of sentiments and usages around the original substance of
Christianity. He exhibits the entire unlikeness of conditions and needs
between the early days of the religion and our own. He recognizes the
vast superstructure of fable reared upon original simple verities, and,
like Mr. Hatch, identifies the development of ecclesiastical with that
of civil forms and usages.

An _Essay on the Christian Ministry_, by Bishop Lightfoot, treats after
a like unconventional method, the themes which in the days of early
Nonconformity were dealt with in so different a tone and method.

NEW ENGLAND AUTHORITIES.[474]—The authorities concerning every detail
in the institution and disposing of church affairs in New England are
abundant and well-nigh exhaustive. They may be consulted as digested
and set in order in the more recently published works to be here
named by title, or they may be traced fragmentarily in chronological
order in the writings of the Fathers themselves. The organization of
the New England churches came to be best described under the term
“Congregational.” It was in substance a modification of Barrowism.
While there seems to have been but little discordancy here among those
who followed the pattern, they were soon challenged by some of their
brethren in England most nearly in sympathy with them, as to doubtful
or debated principles and methods in their institution and discipline
of churches. There were two chief points which came under discussion:
first, the respective rights of all the brethren composing a church
fellowship in administering discipline, and those of the pastor,
teacher, and elders. Should the whole church, or only its officers, be
primarily and ultimately invested with executive and administrative
power? The second point covered all the considerations which would
come into prominence in deciding upon the relations of churches to
each other,—whether each should maintain an absolute independency, or
qualify it in any way by seeking sympathy, fellowship, and advice, and
heeding remonstrances or interference from “sister churches,” through
their teachers and elders.

Contemporary references to these matters as they presented themselves
to the attention of those who here first entered into a “church
estate,” are scattered over Governor Winthrop’s journal. John Cotton,
minister of the First Church of Boston, diligently and earnestly,
in successive writings and publications, set himself to answering
all questioning and challenging friends abroad. He evidently had to
work out clear and consistent views of his own on a subject which,
besides being novel in many of its relations, was embarrassed by local
difficulties, and by some conscientious or practical diversities of
judgment among his associates. Richard Mather, of Dorchester, also
contributed his help in the exposition of the Congregational polity,
which was to be defended alike from extreme Barrowism and from
Presbyterianism, which was soon found to have some sympathizers in the
colony. By a sort of general consent, recourse was had to a succession
of “synods,” or councils of the representatives of the churches, first
those of the Bay Colony alone, then with some of the other New England
colonies. These synods resulted in the formation of a “Platform,” which
laid out in form and detail the system of the Congregational polity.

It is not necessary here to indicate the titles, contents, and authors
of the several publications, preserved in our cabinets of relics, which
contributed either to the dissension or to the pacification of the
sometimes eccentric and heated, and of the always scrupulous, earnest,
and independent parties in this work of ecclesiastical reconstruction.
They have been so faithfully, admirably, and impartially digested by
Dr. Dexter in the eighth of the lectures in his _Congregationalism_,
as to present to the reader a full and intelligent view of the whole
subject in its development and its results, while relieving him of
what save to the fewest possible of historical students would be
a repelling task. If, however, zeal or curiosity should dispose
any one to peer through those dried and withered relics of the old
polemics of a generation that drew its honey from the rocks, he will
find much occasion to respect the acuteness and the persistency of
men who, having taken the interests of their creed and piety into
their own hands, determined to build on what was to them the only
sure foundation. That foundation was “the Word.” If the Scriptures,
as their prelatical foes insisted, were not intended to afford, and
would not afford, a complete pattern of a method of institution and
government of a Christian Church, the reader of those patiently wrought
tractates will often be amazed as he notes how rich and fertile, how
apt and facile, the contents of the sacred books were found to be, in
furnishing the requisite material for argument and authority.

A controversial discussion was opened in 1861 by Hon. D. A. White, of
Salem, by the publication of his _New England Congregationalism in its
Origin and Purity, illustrated by the Foundation and Early Records
of the First Church in Salem, and Various Discussions pertaining to
the Subject_. To this work Rev. J. B. Felt, in the same year, made
an answer: _Reply to the New England Congregationalism of Hon. D. A.
White_. The principal interest of the matter of these two publications
consists in their arguments upon the question whether Congregationalism
as a system of polity in the constitution and government of churches
carries with it, as an essential organic part, the doctrinal creed
held by those who first adopted it. Dr. Dexter offers some suggestions
on this point, arguing that the creed of the first Congregationalists
belongs continuously to their system of polity. Of course, only
constructive and inferential arguments can be brought to bear on this
point. As we have seen, from the first manifestations of Nonconformity
and Dissent in England, doctrinal themes did not at all enter into the
controversy, it being taken for granted that there was accord upon
them. But there certainly is no absolute, vital connection between a
form of polity and a doctrinal system. There have come to be very many
organizations and fellowships among Protestants which are substantially
Congregational in their order, while widely diverse in their creeds.

In 1862, Mr. Felt published _The Ecclesiastical History of New England_.

Very full and curiously interesting information about the principles,
persons, and events connecting the Puritan controversy in the Old
World with the settlement of New England, may be found in the now
well-nigh innumerable volumes containing the history of our oldest
towns and churches. In their earlier pages or chapters these histories
find the town and the church a common theme. Grateful occasions have
been found in commemorations of bi-centennial or longer periods, from
the settlement of municipalities or the foundation of parishes, to
review the past, and to trace in the old land the men who brought
here in their exile, for free and successful enjoyment, principles
for which they had there suffered. The history of the Reformation and
of Nonconformity might indeed be largely written from the pamphlets
and the volumes called out by these local commemorations, so numerous
during the last decade of years. Traces of matter of a similar
character may also be found in the personal and historical references,
in text or note, of the first volume of the _Biographical Sketches
of the Graduates of Harvard University_, by John Langdon Sibley. In
connection with the public and formal observance of the Two Hundred and
Fiftieth Anniversary of the Founding of the First Church of Boston,—in
the fifth in order of the edifices in which it had worshipped,—a son
of the present pastor (the seventeenth in the line of succession)
prepared and published a work with the following title: _History of
the First Church in Boston. 1630-1880. By Arthur B. Ellis. With an
Introduction by George E. Ellis. Illustrated._ Boston, 1881. Pages
lxxxviii + 356.





_Professor of American History in Yale College._

THE preceding chapter has outlined the growth of Separatism in England,
and prepared the way for the story of the fortunes of that remarkable
congregation which has given a new significance to the name “Pilgrim.”


Elizabeth’s policy of Uniformity, so sternly pursued by her last
Archbishop of Canterbury, Whitgift (1583-1604), was ostentatiously
adopted by her successor, James I., at the Hampton Court Conference
held in his presence by learned men of the Puritan and High Church
parties in the first year of his reign; and when this conference
was quickly followed by the elevation of Bancroft, a more arbitrary
Whitgift, to Whitgift’s vacant place, those who were earnest in the
opposite opinions were forced to choose between persecution and exile.


[This cut follows an engraving in Bartlett’s _Pilgrim Fathers_, p.
40, representing the scene about thirty years ago. Raine, _Parish of
Blyth_, p. 129, referring to the time of Edwin Sandys, raised to the
archiepiscopal throne of York in 1576, says: “Under him a family of
the name of Brewster occupied the manor-house, which had gradually and
insensibly dwindled down from a large mansion to a moderately sized
farmhouse;” and Raine gives for a frontispiece a view of the remaining
fragment, which is copied by Dr. Dexter in _Sabbath at Home_, 1867, p.
135. Mr. Deane says of it, “It may have been originally connected with
the manor-house, which has long since passed away.” (_Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc._ xi. 404.) Dr. Dexter gives a plan of the neighborhood.—ED.]]


There were doubtless other neighborhoods where the Separatists
maintained thriving congregations for a longer or shorter time after
the King’s policy became known; but by far the most zealous company of
which accounts remain was one formed by residents “of sundry towns and
villages, some in Nottinghamshire, some of Lincolnshire, and some of
Yorkshire, where they border nearest together.” In 1602, or thereabout,
these people, from places at least eight or ten miles apart, gathered
themselves into a church,—probably at Gainsborough, a market-town in
Lincolnshire, on the Trent; at least we know that when the original
congregation divided, in 1605 or 1606, into two,—perhaps for greater
security, as well as for local convenience,—it was at Gainsborough
that one branch remained, which soon chose John Smyth, a Cambridge
graduate, who had been some time with them, to be its pastor, and that
with him many of this portion of the parent stock migrated in 1606 to

The western division of the original company appears to have been
formed into a distinct church in the summer of 1606, and, according to
the testimony of Governor Bradford, in his notice of Elder Brewster,
“they ordinarily met at his [Brewster’s] house on the Lord’s day
(which was a manor [_i. e._ manor-house] of the Bishop’s), and with
great love he entertained them when they came, making provision for
them, to his great charge.”


[No wholly authenticated signature of Robinson is known. Dr. Dexter, in
his _Congregationalism as seen in its Literature_, pp. xx, 359, gives
the upper of these two, as from a book in the British Museum, “believed
by the experts of that institution to have belonged to him.” It is
evidently by the same hand as the lower of the two, which, with another
very like it, is upon the title of Sir Edwin Sandys’s _Relation of the
State of Religion_, London, 1605, belonging to Charles Deane, Esq., of
Cambridge. Hunter, _Founders of New Plymouth_, p. 155, has pointed out
how parts of this book show its author to have been “much in advance
of his time,” and that there is “a correspondency in some parts with
the celebrated Farewell Address of Robinson.” It is easy to suppose,
therefore, that Robinson once owned the little treatise. Hunter errs
in assigning 1687 as the date of its first edition. That of 1605 is
called in the 1629 edition a surreptitious one, and there is a copy in
the Boston Athenæum, with MS. annotations said to be by the author. Dr.
Dexter points out 1629 as the year of the first authorized edition, and
there were others in 1632, 1633, 1638, and 1673. (_Congregationalism_,
App. nos. 299, 568; Palfrey, _New England_, i. 191.)—Ed.]]

William Brewster, the chief layman of this congregation, was
postmaster, or “post,” as the usual term was, at Scrooby, a small
village in the northern part of Nottinghamshire, ten miles west
of Gainsborough. Though Scrooby was a mere hamlet, its station on
the London and Edinburgh post-road gave Brewster full occupation,
especially after the two capitals were united under one king, as it
was his duty to provide food and lodging for all travellers by post on
Government business, as well as relays of horses for them and for the
conveyance of Government despatches. He was a native of the village,
and had matriculated in 1580 at the University of Cambridge, where he
came under Puritan influence; he soon, however, quitted his books to
enter the service of William Davison, Elizabeth’s upright and Puritan
Secretary of State, whose promising career was sacrificed to her
duplicity in the matter of the execution of Mary Stuart. Under Davison,
Brewster had experience both at court and in foreign embassies; he
remained with his master for a year or two after the fall of the
latter in 1587, and then retired to his native village. There he
assisted his father, who was then postmaster, until the latter’s death
in 1590; and after a brief interval the son, then about twenty-three
years of age,[475] succeeded to the father’s place through the
intercession of his old patron, Davison.[476]

In 1603 his annual stipend from the Government was raised from £30 to
£36, the two sums corresponding in present values to perhaps six and
seven hundred dollars respectively. The manor-house of Scrooby, built
originally as a hunting-seat for the Archbishops of York, though in
Brewster’s time “much decayed,”[477] had been occupied for many years
by his father as bailiff for the archbishops, and as representative of
their vested interests in the surrounding property, which was leased to
Sir Samuel Sandys, of London.

The clerical leaders of the church, meeting in the great hall or chapel
under Brewster’s roof, were Richard Clyfton and John Robinson. The
former had been instituted in 1586, at the age of thirty-three, rector
of Babworth, a village six or seven miles southeast of Scrooby, and
had continued there until the undisguised Puritanism of his teachings
caused his removal, probably in connection with Archbishop Bancroft’s
summary proceedings against Nonconformist ministers at the end of 1604.
His associate, Robinson, apparently a native of the neighborhood, had
entered Cambridge University in 1592, and after gaining a Fellowship
had spent some years in the ministry in or near Norwich; but about 1604
he threw up his cure on conscientious grounds, and returning to the
North, allied himself with Separatists in Gainsborough. He was, by the
testimony of an opponent (Robert Baillie), “the most learned, polished,
and modest spirit among the Brownists.”


[This cut follows a photograph owned by Mr. Charles Deane, who also
furnished a photograph, after which the accompanying fac-simile of the
registry of the baptism of Bradford, preserved in this church, is made;
see _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ x. 39. The view of the church given in the
title of Bartlett’s _Pilgrim Fathers_ is the one followed by Dexter
in _Sabbath at Home_, 1867, p. 131, and in _Harper’s Magazine_, 1877,
p. 183. Raine, in his _Parish of Blyth_, Westminster, 1860, gives a
larger view; and Bartlett, p. 36, gives the old Norman door within the

The other members of the Scrooby congregation were of humble station,
and have left little trace even of their names; most notable to us is
young William Bradford, born in 1590 in Austerfield, a hamlet two and a
half miles to the northward, within the limits of Yorkshire.


After they had covenanted together in church relations, “they could
not long continue in any peaceable condition, but were hunted and
persecuted on every side.... For some were taken and clapped up in
prison; others had their houses beset and watched night and day, and
hardly escaped their hands; and the most were fain to fly and leave
their houses and habitations. ... Seeing themselves thus molested, and
that there was no hope of their continuance there, by a joint consent
they resolved to go into the Low Countries, where they heard was
freedom of religion for all men.”


The remedy of exile was not new to a generation that could remember
the emigration of Robert Browne’s followers from Norwich to Zealand in
1581, and had witnessed the transfer of their Gainsborough neighbors
to Holland shortly after their own organization. “So, after they had
continued together about a year, and kept their meetings every Sabbath
in one place or other, ... seeing they could no longer continue in
that condition, they resolved to get over into Holland as they could.”
A large number attempted, in the latter part of the year 1607, to
embark at Boston in Lincolnshire, the most convenient seaport for them,
though fifty miles distant from Scrooby. But emigration, except with a
license, was in general prohibited by an early statute (A. D. 1389),
and the ship’s captain, who had engaged to take them, found it to his
interest to betray them in the act of embarking; so that the only
result for most of them was a month’s detention in Boston jail, and
the confiscation of their goods, while seven of the leaders, including
Brewster, were kept in prison still longer. In a new attempt the
following spring, an unfrequented strip of sea-coast in northeastern
Lincolnshire, above Great Grimsby, was selected, and a bargain made
with a Dutch captain to convey the party thence to Holland; then,
perhaps, taking advantage of the Idle, a sluggish stream flowing
near their doors, tributary to the Trent, and so to the Humber, the
women and children, with all the household goods, were in that case
despatched by water, while the men marched some forty miles across
country to the rendezvous. But after a part of the men (who arrived
first) had embarked, on the appearance of armed representatives of the
law the captain took alarm and departed; some of those left on shore
fled, and reached their destination by other means; but the women and
children, with a few of the men and all their valuables, were captured.
Another season of suspense followed; but at length the absurdity of
detaining such a helpless group began to be felt, the magistrates were
glad to be rid of them, and by August, 1608, the last of the straggling
unfortunates got safely over to Amsterdam.


They found there the church of English Separatists transplanted under
Francis Johnson upwards of twenty years before, as well as that of
John Smyth and his Gainsborough people; but the church from Scrooby
appears to have kept its separate organization, and their experience
is calmly recounted by their historian, Bradford, as follows: “When
they had lived at Amsterdam about a year, Mr. Robinson, their pastor,
and some others of best discerning, seeing how Mr. John Smyth and his
company was already fallen into contention with the church that was
there before them, and no means they could use would do any good to
cure the same; and also that the flames of contention were like to
break out in the ancient church itself (as afterwards lamentably came
to pass),—which things they prudently foreseeing, thought it was best
to remove, before they were anyway engaged with the same; though they
well knew it would be much to the prejudice of their outward estates,
both at present and in likelihood in the future,—as, indeed, it proved
to be.”

For these, with other reasons, in the winter after their arrival
they asked the authorities of Leyden, an inland city, twenty miles
or more southwest from Amsterdam, and the next in size to it in the
province, to allow their congregation, of about one hundred English
men and women, to remove thither by May 1, 1609.[478] The application
was granted, and the removal to that beautiful city was accomplished,
probably in May; but their senior pastor, Clyfton, being oppressed with
premature infirmity, preferred to remain in Amsterdam.

[Illustration: LEYDEN.

[This little cut is a fac-simile of one given by Mr. Murphy in the
_Historical Magazine_, iii. 332, following a bird’s-eye map of the
city, dated 1670, when this part of the town was unchanged from its
condition in the Pilgrims’ time. More of the same plan is given by
Dr. Dexter in _Hours at Home_, i. 198. No. 1 is the bell turret, no
longer standing, of the cathedral which stood at 2, and beneath which
Robinson was buried. No. 10 is the house in which Robinson lived,
with a garden on the hither side, the front being at the other end of
the building, on the Klog-steeg, or Clock-alley, marked 5; a building
now on the spot, bearing the date 1683 as that of its erection, has
also borne since 1866 another tablet, placed there by the care of Dr.
Dexter, which reads: “_On this spot lived, taught, and died_ JOHN
ROBINSON, 1611-1625.” See Dexter in _Hours at Home_ i. 201-2, and in
_Congregationalism as seen in its Literature_, p. 387.—ED.]]

In Leyden they were forced to adapt themselves, as they had begun to
do hitherto, to conditions of life very unlike those to which they had
been trained in their own country; and so far as we can trace them, a
majority of the flock seem to have found employment in the manufacture
of the woollen goods for which the city was famous. Upon the public
records the church appears as an organized body early in 1611, when
Robinson with three others purchased for 8,000 guilders (corresponding
in our currency to perhaps $10,000 or $12,000) a valuable estate in the
centre of the city, including a spacious house for the pastor, used
also for Sunday worship, and at the back of the garden an area large
enough for the subsequent erection of twenty-one small residences for
church members.

Among additional reasons which had led the studious Robinson to favor
the removal to Leyden, may be counted the fact that it was the site
of a university already famous, and so furnished ample opportunities
of intercourse with learned men and of access to valuable libraries.
The sharp controversy between the occupants of the chair of
theology, Gomarus and Arminius, involving no personal risk to the
English spectators, was an added attraction; and before long Robinson
himself appeared as a disputant on the Calvinist side in the public
discussions, and so successfully that by Bradford’s testimony “the
Arminians stood more in fear of him than [of] any of the University.”
This perhaps opened the way for his admission to membership of the
University, which took place in September, 1615, and secured him
valuable civil as well as literary privileges. Such an honor was
justified also by the activity of his pen while in exile. Between
1610 and 1615 he published four controversial pieces, of nearly seven
hundred quarto pages, the most important being a popularly written
Justification of Separation from the Church of England. In the same
field of argument were the other treatises; while in 1619, when public
attention was absorbed with the Synod of Dort, he brought out in
Latin a brief but telling _Apologia_, or Defence of the views of the
Separatists, in distinction from those of the Dutch churches.

[Illustration: PLAN OF LEYDEN.

[This follows a plan given by Bartlett in his _Pilgrim Fathers_, p.
79. No. 1 is Saint Peter’s Church, where Robinson was buried in 1625.
Bartlett also gives, p. 88, a view of the interior. No. 2 is Saint
Pancras church. No. 3 is the Town Hall. Bartlett also gives a view, p.
83. from the tower of this building.—ED.]]

These outside discussions, in which their pastor took such interest,
left undisturbed the steady growth of the Pilgrim church, in the
government of which Brewster, as ruling elder, was associated with
Robinson, after the removal to Leyden. In these years “many came
unto them from divers parts of England, so as they grew a great
congregation,” numbering at times nearly three hundred communicants.
Among these new-comers were some who ranked thenceforth among their
principal men: John Carver, an early deacon of the church, and leader
of the first migrating colony; Robert Cushman, Carver’s adjutant in
effecting that migration; Miles Standish, the soldier of the company;
and Edward Winslow, a young man probably of higher social position than
the rest, who shared with Bradford, after Carver’s death, the main
burden of sustaining the infant colony.

But though some recruits were attracted by Robinson’s gifts and by a
prospect of freedom from prelatical oppression, yet the condition of
the Leyden people was in general one of struggling poverty, with little
hope of amendment. It were vain to expect that their language or their
peculiarities of religious order could gain a secure foothold on Dutch
soil, or that a Government on friendly terms with England could show
active good-will to a nest of outcasts which England was anxious to
break up. The increase of numbers had come in spite of the hardships
attending the struggle for a livelihood in a foreign city; but as
the conditions of the struggle were better understood, the numbers
fell off. Time was also bringing a new danger with the approaching
expiration of the twelve years’ truce (April, 1609-April, 1621) between
Spain and the Netherlands.

As years passed, the older generation among the exiles who clung
loyally to the English name and tongue began to realize that a great
part of their aims would be frustrated if their children should, by
intermarriage with the Dutch and other outside influences, wander
from their fathers’ principles, and be absorbed in the Dutch people.
These dangers being recognized, and the major part of the company
being agreed that it was best to avoid them by a removal, it became
necessary to select a new asylum, where Englishmen might preserve their
nationality undisturbed. To the new continent of America, which best
satisfied the conditions, all thoughts turned as early as the summer of
1617; and the respective claims were weighed of tropical Guiana on the
one hand, which Raleigh had described in 1595 as the true Eldorado, and
Virginia on the other, conspicuous as the seat of the first successful
English colony. A little consideration excluded Guiana, with its
supposed wealth of gold tempting the jealousy of the Spaniard; and
so the choice was limited to the territory somewhat vaguely known as
Virginia, within the bounds assigned to the two companies chartered by
King James in 1606. The objection was duly weighed “that if they lived
among the English which were there planted [_i.e._ on the James River],
or so near them as to be under their government, they should be in as
great danger to be troubled or persecuted for the cause of religion as
if they lived in England; and it might be worse. And if they lived too
far off, they should neither have succor nor defence from them.”

There were risks either way; but they decided, under the advice of some
persons of rank and quality at home,—friends, perhaps, of Brewster’s
when at court, or of Winslow’s,—to dare the dangers from wild beasts
and savages in the unsettled parts of Virginia, rather than the dangers
from their own bigoted countrymen, and to ask the King boldly for leave
to continue as they were in church matters.

Their first care was for the regular sanction of the Virginia Company
in London to the settlement of the proposed colony on their territory;
and with this object Carver and Cushman were despatched to England as
agents, apparently in September, 1617. They took with them, for use in
conciliating the sentiments which any petition from a community with
their history would awaken at court, a memorable declaration in seven
articles, signed by the pastor and elder, which professed their full
assent to the doctrines of the Church of England, as well as their
acknowledgment of the King’s supremacy and of the obedience due to him,
“either active, if the thing commanded be not against God’s Word, or
passive [_i.e._ undergoing the appointed penalties], if it be.” The
same articles, in carefully guarded language, recognized as lawful
the existing relations of Church and State in England, and disavowed
the notion of authority inhering in any assembly of ecclesiastical
officers, except as conferred by the civil magistrate. In any estimate
of the Pilgrims, it is necessary to give full weight to this deliberate
record of their readiness to tolerate other opinions.

The two messengers found the Virginia Company in general well disposed,
and gained an active friend in Sir Edwin Sandys (a prominent member of
the Company and brother of Sir Samuel Sandys, the lessee of Scrooby
Manor), who, though no Puritan, was a firm advocate of toleration; but
as he was also a leader of the Parliamentary Opposition, his friendship
was a doubtful recommendation to royal favor. Their report, on their
return in November, was so encouraging that Carver and another were
sent over the next month for further negotiations with the Virginia
Company and with the King. But the former business still halted,
because of the prejudice in official minds against their independent
practices in church government. Sir Edwin Sandys, Sir Robert Naunton
(one of the Secretaries of State), and other friends labored early in
1618 with the King for a guarantee of liberty of religion; but the
ecclesiastical authorities were strong in their opposition, there
was a suspicion abroad that the design was “to make a free popular
State there,”[479] and the delegates returned to Leyden to propose
that a patent be taken on the indirect assurance of the King “that
he would connive at them and not molest them, provided they carried
themselves peaceably.” It seemed wisest to proceed, and Brewster
(now fifty-two years of age, one of the oldest and most experienced
of the congregation) and Cushman were commissioned in the spring of
1619 to procure a patent from the Virginia Company, and to complete
an arrangement with some London merchants who had partially agreed to
advance funds for the undertaking. The business was delayed by a crisis
in the Virginia Company’s affairs, connected with the excited canvass
attending the election (April 28 [May 8], 1619) of Sir Edwin Sandys as
Governor; but at length the patent was granted (June 9/19, 1619), being
taken by the advice of friends, not in their own names, but in that of
Mr. John Wincob (or Whincop), described by Bradford as “a religious
gentleman then belonging to the Countess of Lincoln, who intended to go
with them.”[480]

When the patent was secured, Brewster appears to have returned to
Leyden at once, leaving Cushman for a time to negotiate with the
merchants; but so little was done or perhaps hoped for in this
direction, that an entirely new project was started the next winter
under Robinson’s auspices. Certain Amsterdam merchants, already
interested in the rich fur-trade on and near the Hudson River,
presented a memorial to the States-General, Feb. 2/12, 1620, from which
it appears that Robinson had signified his readiness to lead a colony
of over four hundred English families to settle under the Dutch in New
Netherland, if assured of protection. The memorial asked for assurances
on this last head, and for the immediate despatch of two ships of war
to take formal possession of the lands to be reserved for such a colony.

While this memorial was awaiting its (unfavorable) answer, Thomas
Weston, one of those London merchants with whom there had already
been consultations, came to Leyden as their agent, to propose a new
arrangement for a settlement in North Virginia. For some reason, not
now clear, the Pilgrims showed peculiar deference to his advice;
and accordingly the negotiations with the Dutch were broken off and
articles of agreement with the London merchants drawn up, embodying the
conditions propounded by Weston. By these conditions a common stock was
formed, with shares of ten pounds each, which might be taken up either
by a deposit of money or of goods necessary for the undertaking; and
Carver and Cushman were sent to England to collect subscriptions and
to make purchases and preparations for the voyage. In this service,
while Carver was busy with the ship in Southampton, Cushman took the
responsibility of conceding certain alterations in the agreement, to
please the “merchant adventurers,” as they were styled, whose part in
the scheme was indispensable. The original plan was for a seven years’
partnership, during which all the colonists’ labor—except for two days
a week—was to be for the common benefit; and at the end of the time,
when the resulting profits were divided, the houses and improved lands
in the colony were to go to the planters: but the changes sanctioned
by Cushman did away with the reservation of two days in the week for
each man’s private use, and arranged for an equal division, after seven
years, of houses, lands, and goods between the “merchant adventurers”
and the planters. Dr. Palfrey has well observed that “the hardship
of the terms to which the Pilgrims were reduced shows at once the
slenderness of their means and the constancy of their purpose.” About
seventy merchants joined in the enterprise, of whom only three—William
Collier, Timothy Hatherly, and William Thomas—became sufficiently
interested to settle in the colony.

Notwithstanding discouragements, the removal was pressed forward,
but the means at command provided only for sending a portion of the
company; and “those that stayed, being the greater number, required the
pastor to stay with them,” while Elder Brewster accompanied, in the
pastor’s stead, the almost as numerous minority who were to constitute
a church by themselves; and in every church, by Robinson’s theories,
the “governing elder,” next in rank to the pastor and the teacher, must
be “apt to teach.”

A small ship,—the “Speedwell,”—of some sixty tons burden, was bought
and fitted out in Holland, and early in July those who were ready for
the formidable voyage, being “the youngest and strongest part,” left
Leyden for embarkation at Delft-Haven, nearly twenty miles to the
southward,—sad at the parting, “but,” says Bradford, “they knew that
they were pilgrims.” About the middle of the second week of the month
the vessel sailed for Southampton, England. On the arrival there,
they found the “Mayflower,” a ship of about one hundred and eighty
tons burden, which had been hired in London, awaiting them with their
fellow-passengers,—partly laborers employed by the merchants, partly
Englishmen like-minded with themselves, who were disposed to join the
colony. Mr. Weston, also, was there, to represent the merchants; but
when discussion arose about the terms of the contract, he went off in
anger, leaving the contract unsigned and the arrangements so incomplete
that the Pilgrims were forced to dispose of sixty pounds’ worth of
their not abundant stock of provisions to meet absolutely necessary

The ships, with perhaps one hundred and twenty passengers, put to sea
about August 5/15, with hopes of the colony being well settled before
winter; but the “Speedwell” was soon pronounced too leaky to proceed
without being overhauled, and so both ships put in at Dartmouth, after
eight days’ sail. Repairs were made, and before the end of another week
they started again; but when above a hundred leagues beyond Land’s
End, Reynolds, the master of the “Speedwell,” declared her in imminent
danger of sinking, so that both ships again put about. On reaching
Plymouth Harbor it was decided to abandon the smaller vessel, and thus
to send back those of the company whom such a succession of mishaps
had disheartened. Those who withdrew were chiefly such as from their
own weakness or from the weakness of their families were likely to be
least useful in the hard labor of colonization; the most conspicuous
desertion was that of Cushman, smarting under criticism and despairing
of success. The unexpected parting between those who disembarked and
those who crowded into the “Mayflower” was sad enough. It was not
known till later that the alarm over the “Speedwell’s” condition was
owing to deception practised by the master and crew, who repented of
their bargain to remain a year with the colony, and took this means of
dissolving it.

At length, on Wednesday, September 6/16, the “Mayflower” left Plymouth,
and nine weeks from the following day, on November 9/19, sighted
the eastern coast of the flat, but at that time well-wooded, shores
of Cape Cod. She took from Plymouth one hundred and two passengers,
besides the master and crew; on the voyage one man-servant died and
one child was born making 102 (73 males and 29 females) who reached
their destination. Of these, the colony proper consisted of 34 adult
males, 18 of them accompanied by their wives and 14 by minor children
(20 boys and 8 girls); besides these, there were 3 maid-servants and
19 men-servants, sailors, and craftsmen,—5 of them only half-grown
boys,—who were hired for temporary service.




It is thought that the autographs of all who came in the “Mayflower,”
whose signatures are known, are included in this group, except that of
Dorothy May, who at this time was the wife of William Bradford, and
whose maiden signature Dr. Dexter found in Holland, as well as the
earliest one known of Bradford, attached to his marriage application at
Amsterdam, in 1613, when he was twenty-four years old.

(See Dexter’s _Congregationalism_, p. 381.) Resolved White was then
but a child, and his brother Peregrine was not born till the ship had
reached Cape Cod Harbor.

John Cooke, son of Francis Cooke, was the last male survivor of the
“Mayflower” passengers.—ED.]

Of the thirty-four men who were the nucleus of the colony, more than
half are known to have come from Leyden; in fact, but four of the
thirty-four are certainly known to be of the Southampton accessions.
The ruling motive of the majority was, therefore, that which had
impelled the church in Leyden to this step, modified, perhaps, to
some small extent by their knowledge of the chief reason, as Bradford
alleges, in the minds of Weston and the others who had advanced them
money, “for the hope of present profit to be made by the fishing that
was found in that country” whither they were bound.

And whither were they bound? As we have seen, a patent was secured
in 1619 in Mr. Wincob’s name; but “God so disposed as he never went
nor they ever made use of this patent,” says Bradford,—not however
making it clear when the intention of colonizing under this instrument
was abandoned. The “merchant adventurers” while negotiating at Leyden
seem to have taken out another patent from the Virginia Company, in
February, 1620, in the names of John Peirce and of his associates;
and this was more probably the authority under which the “Mayflower”
voyage was undertaken. As the Pilgrims had known before leaving
Holland of an intended grant of the northern parts of Virginia to a
new company,—the Council for New England,—when they found themselves
off Cape Cod, “the patent they had being for Virginia and not for
New England, which belonged to another Government, with which the
Virginia Company had nothing to do,” they changed the ship’s course,
with intent, says Bradford, “to find some place about Hudson’s River
for their habitation,” and so fulfil the conditions of their patent;
but difficulties of navigation and opposition from the master and crew
caused the exiles, after half a day’s voyage, to retrace their course
and seek a resting-place on the nearest shore. Near half a century
after, a charge of treachery was brought against Mr. Jones, the master
of the “Mayflower,” for bringing the vessel so far out of her course;
but the alleged cause, collusion with the Dutch, who desired to keep
the English away from the neighborhood of New Netherland, is incredible.

But their radical change of destination exposed the colonists to a new
danger. As soon as it was known, some of the hired laborers threatened
to break loose (upon landing) from their engagements, and to enjoy full
license, as a result of the loss of the authority delegated in the
Virginia Company’s patent.

The necessity of some mode of civil government had been enjoined on the
Pilgrims in the farewell letter from their pastor, and was now availed
of to restrain these insurgents and to unite visibly the well-affected.
A compact, which has often been eulogized as the first written
constitution in the world, was drawn up, as follows:—

 “In the name of God, amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal
 subjects of our dread sovereign lord King James, by the grace of God
 of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith,
 etc., having undertaken, for the glory of God and advancement of
 the Christian faith, and honor of our King and country, a voyage to
 plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these
 presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one of
 another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body
 politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance
 of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute,
 and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions,
 and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and
 convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise
 all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have
 hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in
 the year of the reign of our sovereign lord King James, of England,
 France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth.
 Anno Dom. 1620.”

[Illustration: CAPE COD HARBOR.

[This is a reduction of part of a map, which is given by Dr. H.
M. Dexter in his edition of _Mourt’s Relation_. He has carefully
studied the topography of the region in connection with the record,
and he possessed certain advantages in such study over Dr. Young,
who has similarly investigated the matter in his _Chronicles of the
Pilgrims_. There were three expeditions from the ship, and Dr. Dexter’s
interpretation is followed. The women were set ashore to wash at
_a_, and while the carpenter was repairing their shallop, Standish
and sixteen men started on the 15th November (O. S.) on the first
expedition. At _b_ they saw some Indians and a dog, who disappeared
in the woods at _c_, and later ran up the hill at _d_. The explorers
encamped for the night at _e_, and the next day, where they turned the
head of the creek, they drank their first New England water. Then at
_g_ they built a fire as a signal to those on the ship. At _h_ they
spent their second night; at _j_ they found plain ground fit to plough;
at _k_ they opened a grave; at _l_ dug up some corn; at Pamet River
they found an old palisade and saw two canoes. They then retraced their
steps, and at _i_ Bradford was caught in a deer-trap. They reached
the ship on the 17th. When the shallop was ready, ten days later, a
party of thirty-four started in her with Jones, the captain of the
“Mayflower,” as leader, and the expedition, called the second on the
map, lasted from the 27th to the 30th November. The third expedition,
likewise in the shallop, started on the 6th of December. Farther
south than the map carries the dotted line, they landed at the modern
Eastham, and had their first encounter with the natives on the 8th, and
the same day reached Plymouth Harbor in the evening, as narrated in the
text. On the 12th the shallop, sailing directly east across the bay,
returned to the “Mayflower,” which on Saturday, the 16th, reached the
anchorage depicted on the map on the following page.—ED.]]

Of the forty-one signers to this compact, thirty-four were the adults
called above the nucleus of the colony, and seven were servants or
hired workmen; the seven remaining adult males of the latter sort were
perhaps too ill to sign with the rest (all of them soon died), or the
list of signers may be imperfect.[481]

This needful preliminary step was taken on Saturday, November 11/21,
by which time the “Mayflower” had rounded the Cape and found shelter
in the quiet harbor on which now lies the village of Provincetown;
and probably on the same day they “chose, or rather confirmed,” as
Bradford has it (as though the choice were the foregone conclusion of
long previous deliberation), Mr. John Carver governor for the ensuing
year. On the same day an armed delegation visited the neighboring
shore, finding no inhabitants. There were no attractions, however,
for a permanent settlement, nor even accommodations for a comfortable
encampment while such a place was being sought. After briefer
explorations, an expedition started on Wednesday, December 6/16, to
circumnavigate Cape Cod Bay in search of a good harbor, and by Friday
night was safely landed on Clark’s Island (so called from the ship’s
mate, who was of the party), just within what is since known as
Plymouth Bay. On Saturday they explored the island, on the Sabbath day
they rested, and on Monday, the 11th,[482] they sounded the harbor and
“marched also into the land, and found divers cornfields and little
running brooks, a place very good for situation.”[483]

[Illustration: PLYMOUTH HARBOR.

[This is reduced from a map given in Dr. Dexter’s edition of _Mourt’s
Relation_. The Common House of the first comers was situated on
Leyden Street, which left the shore just south of the rock and ran
to the top of Burial Hill, and it is the lots on the south side of
this street that Bradford marked out in the fac-simile of the first
page of the record given on another page. The “highway” as marked on
that plan led to the south to the Town Brook. The Common House, if it
had been designated on that draft, would have been put next “Peter
Brown;” on the plan here given it would be on the north side of the
brook, about where the meridian crosses it, though the engraver has
put the designation on the opposite side of the water. It was not
till about 1630, or ten years after their landing, that the Plymouth
settlers began to spread around the bay, beyond the circuit of mutual
protection. Still for a year or two they scattered merely for summer
sojourns, to work lands which had been granted them. About 1632 Duxbury
began to receive as permanent residents several of the “Mayflower”
people. Standish settled on the shore southeast of Captain’s Hill, thus
attaching his military title to the neighboring eminence, and though
his grave is not known, it is probable that he was buried, in 1656, on
his farm. His house stood, it is supposed, nearly ten years longer, and
was probably enlarged by his son, Alexander Standish, who was, there
is some reason to believe, a trader, and he may have been the town
clerk of Duxbury. Its records begin in 1666, and the tradition that
connects the destruction of the earlier records with that of this house
derives some color from the traces of fire which have been discovered
about its site. (_Sabbath at Home_, May, 1867.) The house now known as
the Standish house was built afterwards by Alexander, the son. Elder
Brewster became Standish’s neighbor a little later, and lived east of
the hill.


Alden settled near the arm of the sea just west of Powder Point, and
George Soule on the Point itself; Peter Brown also settled in Duxbury.
Still farther to the north, beyond the scope of the map, Edward Winslow
established his estate of Careswell, where in our day Daniel Webster
lived and died, in Marshfield. John Howland found a home at Rocky Nook.
Isaac Allerton removed to New Haven, and Governor Bradford during his
last years was almost the only one of those who came in the first ship
who still lived in the village about the rock. (Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc._ xi. 478.)—ED.]]

Prepared to report favorably, the explorers returned to the ship, which
by the end of the week was safely anchored in the chosen haven. The
selection of a site and the preparation of materials, in uncertain
weather, delayed till Monday, the 25th, the beginning of “the first
house, for common use, to receive them and their goods.” Before the
new year, house-lots were assigned to families, and by the middle of
January most of the company had left the ship for a home on land.
But the exposures incident to founding a colony in the dead of a
New England winter (though later experience showed that this was a
comparatively mild one) told severely on all; and before summer came
one half of the number, most of them adult males, had fallen by the
way.[484] Yet when the “Mayflower” sailed homewards in April, not one
of the colonists went in her, so sweet was the taste of freedom, even
under the shadow of death.

An avowed motive of the emigration was the hope of converting the
natives; but more than three months elapsed before any intercourse with
the Indians began. Traces of their propinquity had been numerous, and
at length, on March 16/26, a savage visited the settlement, announcing
himself in broken English as Samoset, a native of “the eastern parts,”
or the coast of Maine, where contact with English fishermen had led
to some knowledge of their language. From Samoset the colonists
learned that the Indian name of their settlement was Patuxet, and
that about four years before a kind of plague had destroyed most of
the inhabitants of that region, so that there were now none to hinder
their taking possession or to assert a claim to the territory. They
learned also that their nearest neighbors were the Wampanoags, the
headquarters of whose chief sachem, Massasoit, were some thirty miles
to the southwestward, near the eastern shore of Narragansett Bay. The
next week Samoset brought in Squanto, formerly of Patuxet, who had
been taken to England in 1614 by Hunt, and who was now willing to act
as interpreter in a visit from Massasoit; the latter followed an hour
later and contracted unhesitatingly a treaty of peace and alliance,
which was observed for fifty-four years.

[Illustration: THE SWORDS.

[This group is preserved in the cabinet of the Massachusetts Historical
Society, and all but two of the swords are associated with Plymouth
history. The middle sword is that of Governor Carver. On the left,
descending, are those of General John Winslow, Captain Miles Standish,
and Governor Brooks of Massachusetts. On the right are those, in a
like descending order, of Sir William Pepperrell, Elder Brewster,
and Colonel Benjamin Church, the Plymouth hero of Philip’s War.
Another Standish sword is preserved in Pilgrim Hall in Plymouth, and
is figured in the group of Pilgrim relics on another page, as well
as in Bartlett’s _Pilgrim Fathers_, p. 177. Concerning those above
represented, see _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, i. 88, 114.—ED.]]

With the beginning of a new civil year (March 25) Carver was re-elected
governor, and some simple necessary laws were established; on Carver’s
sudden death the following month, Bradford was chosen his successor,
under whose mild and wise direction the colony went on as before. As
Bradford was then enfeebled by illness, Isaac Allerton was at the same
time appointed Assistant to the Governor.

After a summer and autumn of prosperous labor and harvest, they were
cheered, November 11/21, by the arrival of the “Fortune” from London,
bringing as a visitor Robert Cushman, their former associate, and
thirty-five additions to their feeble number, twenty-five of them adult
males,—the majority, however, not from Leyden. The ship brought also
a patent, granted June 1/11,[485] by the President and Council of New
England—within whose territory the new settlement lay—to the same
John Peirce and his associates in whose names the merchants fathering
this venture had secured a patent the year before from the Virginia
Company for the use of the “Mayflower” colonists. Without fixing
territorial limits, the new grant allowed a hundred acres to be taken
up for every emigrant, with fifteen hundred acres for public buildings,
and empowered the grantees to make laws and set up a government.

[Illustration: SIGNERS OF THE PATENT, 1621.]

By the delivery of this patent a sufficient show of authority was
conferred for immediate need and for eight and a half years to come.
It is true that in April, 1622, Peirce obtained surreptitiously for
his private use a new grant with additional privileges, to be valid in
place of the grant just described; but the trick was soon discovered,
and the associates were reinstated by the Plymouth Company in their

Taking these eight and a half years under the first patent as a
separate period, the progress made in them may be briefly stated.

The settlement is first called “New Plymouth” in a letter sent back to
England by the “Fortune” in December, 1621, and printed in the second
edition of Captain John Smith’s _New England’s Trials_, in 1622. That
it was so called may have been suggested as much by the name Plymouth
on Smith’s map of this region (1614) as by the departure of the
“Mayflower” from Plymouth, England, or by the knowledge that the colony
was the first within the limits of the newly incorporated Plymouth
Company. Later, the town was called simply Plymouth, while the colony
retained the name New Plymouth.

In numbers they increased from less than fifty at the arrival of the
“Fortune,” to near three hundred on the reception of the second charter
in May, 1630. The most important accessions were in July, 1623,—about
sixty persons, a few of them from Leyden; and about as many more—all
from Leyden—in 1629-30.

In the second year at New Plymouth, because of threats from the
Narragansett tribe of Indians about Narragansett Bay, the town was
enclosed with a strong palisade, and a substantial fort (used also
on Sundays as a meeting-house) was erected on the hill which formed
so conspicuous a feature of the enclosure. The mode of life which
John Smith described in his _Generall Historie_ in 1624,—that “the
most of them live together as one family or household, yet every man
followeth his trade and profession both by sea and land, and all for
a general stock, out of which they have all their maintenance,”—was
modified the same year, to the great advantage of all, by the
assignment to each head of a family of an acre of ground for planting,
to be held as his own till the division of profits with the London
merchants. While this taste of proprietorship tended to increase the
restlessness of the planters, the vanishing prospect of large returns
was simultaneously disheartening the “merchant adventurers,” so that
many withdrew, and the remainder agreed to a termination of the
partnership, in consideration of the payment of £1,800, in nine equal
annual instalments, beginning in 1628. This arrangement was effected in
London in November, 1626, through Isaac Allerton, one of the younger
of the original Leyden emigrants, who had been commissioned for the
purpose; and to meet the new financial situation, the resident adult
males (except a few thought unworthy of confidence) were constituted
stockholders, each one being allowed shares up to the number of his
family. Then followed an allotment of land to each shareholder, the
settlement of the title of each to the house he occupied, and a
distribution of the few cattle on hand among groups of families,—all
these possessions having hitherto been the joint, undivided stock of
the “merchant adventurers” and the planters. At the same time eight
leading planters (Bradford, Standish, Allerton, Winslow, Brewster,
Howland, Alden, and Prince), with the help of four London friends,
undertook to meet the outstanding obligations of the colony and the
first six annual payments on the new basis, obtaining in return a
monopoly of the foreign trade.


[This is the only authentic likeness of any of the “Mayflower”
Pilgrims. It was painted in England in 1651, when Winslow was
fifty-six. It has been several times engraved before, as may be seen in
the _Winslow Memorial_, in Young’s _Chronicles_, in Bartlett’s _Pilgrim
Fathers_, and in Morton’s _Memorial_, Boston edition, 1855. The
original, once the property of Isaac Winslow, Esq., is now deposited
in the gallery of the Pilgrim Society at Plymouth. (Cf. 3 _Mass. Hist.
Coll._, vii. 286, and _Proc._, x. 36.) Various relics of the Governor
are also preserved in Pilgrim Hall at Plymouth. There are biographies
of him in Belknap’s _American Biography_, and in J. B. Moore’s
_American Governors_. A record of Governor Winslow’s descendants will
be found in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1850, 297 (by Lemuel
Shattuck); 1863, p. 159 (by J. H. Sheppard). Of the descendants of his
brother Kenelm, see L. R. Paige’s account in the _Register_, 1871, p.
355, and 1872, p. 69. An extensive _Winslow Memorial_ has been begun
by David P. Holton, 1877, the first volume of which is given to all
descendants (of all names) of Kenelm. See _Register_, 1877, p. 454;
1878, p. 94, by W. S. Appleton, who in the _Register_, 1867, p. 209,
has a note on the English ancestry; and Colonel Chester has a similar
note in 1870, p. 329. There is in Harvard College Library a manuscript
on Careswell and the Winslows by the late Dr. James Thacher.—ED.]]

In these arrangements, which proved eminently wise for the public
interests, one object was to facilitate further emigration from Leyden.
The management of the London merchants had been unfavorable to this
end, and it was a special grief that during this period of delay the
beloved pastor, Robinson, had ended his life in Leyden,—Feb. 19 (March
1), 1625. The heavy expenses of transporting and providing for such as
came over in 1629-30 were cheerfully borne by the new management.

The same temper in the London merchants which had hindered Robinson’s
coming,—a conviction that the religious peculiarities of the Pilgrims
interfered with the attractiveness and financial success of the
colony,—led them to send over in 1624 a minister of their own choosing
(John Lyford), who was not merely not in sympathy with the wants of the
Plymouth men, but even tried to serve his patrons by false accusations
and by attempting to set up the Church of England form of worship. He
was expelled from the colony within a year from his arrival, and the
church continued under Elder Brewster’s teaching. In 1628 Mr. Allerton
on a voyage from England, without direction from the church, brought
over another minister, but mental derangement quickly ended his career.

The colony began within these first years to enlarge its outlook. In
1627, to further their maritime interests, an outpost was established
on Buzzard’s Bay, twenty miles to the southward; in the same year
relations of friendly commerce were entered into with the Dutch of New
Amsterdam, and as soon as the nearer plantations of the Massachusetts
Company were begun, Plymouth was prompt to aid and counsel as occasion
offered. In 1628 the attempt was made to establish more firmly the
existing trade with the Eastern Indians, by obtaining a patent for a
parcel of land on the River Kennebec.


[Of John Carver, the first governor, no signature is known. This group
shows the autographs of all his successors, who held the office for the
years annexed to their names:—

William Bradford, 1621-32, 1635, 1637, 1639-43, 1645-56.

Edward Winslow, 1633, 1636, 1644.

Thomas Prince, 1634, 1638, 1657-72.

Josiah Winslow, 1673-80.

Thomas Hinckley, 1681 to the union, except during the Andros

These outside experiences were all in the way of encouragements:
the most serious annoyances came, not directly from the savages,
but from neighbors of their own blood. Thus in 1623 the wretched
colonists sent out the year before by Thomas Weston to Weymouth, twenty
miles northwest from Plymouth, had to be protected from their own
mismanagement and the hostility of the natives, by which means came
about the first shedding of Indian blood by the Pilgrims; and thus
again, five years later, the unruly nest of Morton’s followers at Merry
Mount, just beyond Weymouth, had to be broken up by force.

Of the progress of civil government in this first period we have scanty
memorials. Few laws and few officials answered the simple needs of
the colony. Bradford was annually elected governor, and in 1624, at
his desire, a board of five Assistants was substituted for the single
Assistant who had hitherto shared the executive responsibility. The
people met from time to time in General Court for the transaction
of public business, and in 1623 a book of laws was begun; but three
pages sufficed to contain the half-dozen simple enactments of the next
half-dozen years.

The next period of the colony history extends from Jan. 13/23,
1629-30, when the Council for New England granted to Bradford, his
heirs, associates, and assigns, a useful enlargement of the patent for
Plymouth and Kennebec, to March 2/12, 1640-41, when Bradford in the
name of the grantees conveyed the rights thus bestowed to the freemen
of New Plymouth in their corporate capacity.

[Illustration: PILGRIM RELICS.

[The chest of drawers is an ancient one, which there is some reason
to believe belonged to Peregrine White. (_N. E. Hist._ and _Geneal.
Reg._ 1873, p. 398.) The sword and vessels belonged to Standish. The
cradle belonged to Dr. Samuel Fuller, the physician of the Pilgrims.
(Russell’s _Pilgrim Memorials_, p. 55; Bartlett’s _Pilgrim Fathers_,
p. 201.) Chair No. 1 belonged to Governor Carver; No. 2 was Elder
Brewster’s; No. 3 is said to have been Governor Edward Winslow’s;
and this with a table, which was until recently in the hall of the
Massachusetts Historical Society, has lately been reclaimed by
its owner, Mr. Isaac Winslow. (See 3 _Mass. Hist. Coll._ v. 293.;
_Proceedings_, ii. 1, 284; iv. 142; xix. 124; Young’s _Chronicles_, p.
238; Bartlett’s _Pilgrim Fathers_, p. 197.) There are other groupings
of Pilgrim relics in Dr. Dexter’s papers; C. W. Elliott’s “Good Old
Times at Plymouth” in _Harper’s Monthly_, 1877, p. 180; Bartlett’s
_Pilgrim Fathers_.—ED.]]

The most striking feature of this period was the growth from a single
plantation to a province of eight towns, seven of them stretching
for fifty miles along the shore of Cape Cod Bay, from Scituate
to Yarmouth, and Taunton lying twenty-five miles inland,—in all
containing about twenty-five hundred souls. With this growth there
was also some extension of trade on the Kennebec and Penobscot, and
in 1632 a beginning of exploration, and in 1633 of settlement, in
the Connecticut Valley; but the appearance of numerous emigrants from
Massachusetts Bay defeated the contemplated removal of the entire
colony to the last-named location.

The establishment of towns led necessarily to a more elaborate
system of civil government, and in 1636 it was found expedient to
revise and codify the previous enactments of the General Court, and
to prescribe the duties of the various public officers. In 1638 the
inconveniences of governing by mass-meeting led to the introduction of
the representative system already familiar to Massachusetts Bay. The
number of Assistants had been increased in 1633 from five to seven.

In 1629 an acceptable minister of the gospel—Ralph Smith, a Cambridge
graduate—for the first time took charge of the church in Plymouth;
and by 1641 the eight towns of the colony were all (except Marshfield,
which was but just settled) supplied with educated clergy, of whom
perhaps the most influential was Ralph Partridge, of Duxbury.

The half-century (1641-91) which completed the separate existence of
Plymouth Colony, witnessed no radical changes, but a steady development
under the existing patent, though repeated but unsuccessful attempts
were made to obtain a charter direct from the English Government. At
the outset (in 1641), by a purchase of the remaining interests of the
English partners of 1627, the last trace of dependence on foreign
capital was wiped out.

Notwithstanding the discontinuance of English emigration after 1640,
and the enormous devastation of Philip’s war in 1675-76, the population
of the colony increased to about eight thousand in these fifty years,
being distributed through twenty towns, of which Scituate had probably
the largest numbers and certainly the most wealth, the town of Plymouth
having lost, even as early as 1643, its former prominence. That this
growth was no greater, and that expansion beyond the strict colony
limits was completely checked, resulted inevitably from the more
favorable situation of the neighboring colony of the Bay.

The civil administration continued as before, the Governor’s Assistants
and the Deputies sitting in General Court as one body. Deputies were
elected in each town by the resident freemen, the freemen being
the original signers of the compact on board the “Mayflower,” with
such persons as had been added to their number by a majority vote
of the general court. Public sentiment was so trustworthy that no
qualifications were named for the estate of freemen until 1656, when
it was merely provided that a candidate must have been approved by
the freemen of his own town. Two years later, when the colony was
overrun by Quaker propagandists, persons of that faith, as well as all
others who similarly opposed the laws and the established worship,
were distinctly excluded from the privileges of freemen, and in the
new revision of the laws in 1671 freemen were obliged to be at least
twenty-one years of age, “of sober and peaceable conversation,
orthodox in the fundamentals of religion,” and possessed of at least
£20 worth of ratable estate in the colony. By the Code of 1671 a Court
of Assistants was created to exercise the judicial functions hitherto
retained by the General Court; but in 1685, with the constitution of
three counties, most of these duties were transferred to county courts.

Two interdependent circumstances conspired with the poverty of the
settlers and the unattractiveness of the soil,—even as compared with
Massachusetts Bay,—to retard seriously the progress of the colony;
and these were, their inability to keep up a learned ministry, and the
enforced delay in providing for public education. The first of these
facts was so patent as to call forth public rebukes from Massachusetts,
and it may be enough to recall that in 1641 seven of the eight
townships constituting the colony were served by ministers of English
education; but in the next half-century these same pulpits stood vacant
on the average upwards of ten years each, and the new towns which were
formed in the colony had no larger amount of ministerial service. As to
the other point, it is sufficient to note that neither from tradition
nor from public records is there evidence of any opportunity or
provision for education before 1670,—except, of course, in the private
family. Their poverty no doubt chiefly occasioned this.

Yet while the resources of Plymouth and the education of her public
men were distinctly inferior to those of the Bay, she bore herself in
her relations with the other colonies with a certain simple dignity
and straightforward reasonableness which won respect; and in matters
of general interest she was content to share the sentiments of her
comrades without controlling them. She joined in the New England
Confederation of 1643; and though the idea sprang from another quarter,
it is probable that the form was influenced by suggestions from the
Plymouth men, derived from their experience in the United Netherlands.

Plymouth’s treatment of the Quakers, in 1656 and the following years,
illustrated in part the contrast with Massachusetts Bay. At the outset
public sentiment was much the same in the two colonies, in view of
the extravagances and indecencies of these intruders; but the greater
mildness of administration in Plymouth bore its appropriate fruit in
lessening the evil characteristics which developed by opposition, and
gradually the dreaded sectaries gained a foothold, until finally their
principles were widely adopted in certain localities with only good

Plymouth’s treatment of the Royal Commissioners in 1665 indicated
fairly her consistent attitude towards the mother country; in receiving
the King’s mandates with respect, and in promising conformity, she held
the course which had produced the seven articles at Leyden in 1617.

The most serious misfortune to visit the colony was the Indian war
which broke out early in 1675. Up to that time the Plymouth men had
been careful to acquire by _bonâ fide_ purchase a title to all new
lands as they were occupied; they had endeavored also (with fair
success, as compared with like efforts in Massachusetts Bay) to spread
the knowledge of Christianity; and in 1675 there were perhaps six or
seven hundred “praying Indians” within the colony bounds.


[This canvas is likewise the property of Isaac Winslow, Esq., and is
now in the Pilgrim Hall, at Plymouth. This portrait, and that of the
father, the elder Governor Winslow, are the only likenesses of the
Plymouth governors extant; and Josiah Winslow was the first governor of
native birth, having been born in Marshfield in 1629; dying there in

But Wamsutta and Metacomet (otherwise Alexander and Philip), the sons
and successors of the sachem Massasoit, were hostile to the whites
and unaffected by Christian influences; and after Alexander’s death,
in 1662, the colonists found that only by constant watchfulness could
they prevent a breach with the savages. Finally under Philip’s lead
they rose and began a war of extermination. The exciting cause and the
earliest operations were within the territory claimed by Plymouth;
on her fell successively the heaviest blows (in proportion to her
population) and the most pressing responsibilities for defence. When
the war ended with Philip’s death, in August, 1676, more than half
her towns had been partially or wholly destroyed, and the colony’s
share (about £15,000) of the expense incurred by the New England
Confederacy in suppressing the Indians was a very serious burden on
a feeble agricultural community. Before the slow process of recovery
from these desolations could be accomplished, the ancient customs of
self-government were invaded by James II.; and when the arbitrary
exactions under Andros, as Governor of all New England, were ended
in the Revolution of 1689, the return to the old conditions of
freedom was but temporary; the new monarchs followed James’s policy
of consolidation, and Plymouth found herself fated to be included
either in the charter of New York or in that of Massachusetts. Better
a known than an unknown evil; and accordingly the London agent of
Plymouth was authorized to express a preference for union with Boston,
and the provincial charter of Massachusetts in October, 1691, put an
end to the separate existence of the colony of New Plymouth. Of the
original “Mayflower” company but two members survived,—John Cooke, of
Dartmouth, who died in 1695, and Mary (Allerton) Cushman, of Plymouth,
who died in 1699. The younger generation were accustomed to the
leadership of Massachusetts Bay, and accepted the union as a natural
and fitting step.


THE earliest printed volume treating of the origin of Plymouth Colony
was _New England’s Memorial; ... with special Reference to the first
Colony thereof_, published by Nathaniel Morton in 1669. As he states
in his “Epistle Dedicatory,” the most of his intelligence concerning
the beginnings of the settlement came from manuscripts left by his
“much-honored uncle, Mr. William Bradford.” Morton’s parents had
emigrated in 1623, when he was a boy of ten, from Leyden to Plymouth,
with a younger sister of Mrs. Morton, who had been sent for to become
the wife of Governor Bradford. This connection and his own position as
secretary of the General Court of the Colony from 1645, gave peculiar
opportunities for gathering information; but his book preserves nothing
on the earliest portion of the Pilgrim history, beyond the date (1602)
and the place (“the North of England”) of their entering into a church
covenant together.

The manuscripts of Governor Bradford passed at his death (1657) to
his eldest son, Major William Bradford, of Plymouth, and while in his
possession a few particulars were extracted for Cotton Mather’s use in
his _Magnalia_ (1702), especially in the “Life of Bradford” (book ii.
chap. i.). A minute, but very efficient typographical error, however
(A_n_sterfield for A_u_sterfield), kept students for the next century
and a half out of the knowledge of Governor Bradford’s birthplace,
and of the exact neighborhood whence came the Leyden migration. From
Major William Bradford, who died in 1704, the manuscripts descended to
his son, Major John, of Kingston (originally a part of Plymouth), by
whom the most precious were lent or given, in 1728, to the Rev. Thomas
Prince, of Boston.[486] Prince made a careful use of this material in
the first volume of his _Annals_ (1736), fixing the locality whence
the Pilgrims came as “near the joining borders of Nottinghamshire,
Linconshire, and Yorkshire,” and lodged the originals in the library
which he bequeathed, in 1758, to the Old South Church in Boston.
Governor Thomas Hutchinson, while writing his _History of Massachusetts
Bay_, found these manuscripts in the Prince Library, and printed in the
Appendix to his second volume (1767) a valuable extract describing the
exodus to Holland. In the troublous times which followed, the Bradford
papers disappeared.

Another extract from Bradford, however, soon after came to light in the
records of the First Church in Plymouth, where Secretary Morton had
transcribed, in 1680, most of his uncle’s account of the transatlantic
history of the Pilgrims. This was printed, in part and somewhat
inaccurately, by Ebenezer Hazard, in vol. i. of his _Historical
Collections_ (1792), and in full by the Rev. Alexander Young, in his
_Chronicles of the Pilgrims_ (1841).

The clews furnished by Mather and Prince to the Pilgrim cradle-land
attracted no special attention until 1842, when the Hon. James Savage,
during a visit to England,[487] submitted the problem to the Rev.
Joseph Hunter, author of a history of South Yorkshire, of which region
he was also a native. Mr. Hunter, though the evidence was incomplete,
suggested that Austerfield was the place wanted; and the attention of
this accomplished antiquary being thus enlisted, the result appeared
in a tract, published by him in 1849, entitled _Collections concerning
the Founders of New Plymouth_, which identified the meeting-place of
the Separatist Church before their removal to Holland. This tract
was reissued, in 1852, in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, vol. xxxi.,
and again in London, in an enlarged form, in 1854.[488] The author’s
careful examination of local records made plain the position of the
Brewsters in Scrooby, and of the Bradfords in Austerfield (with the
entry of Governor Bradford’s baptism), and traced their families, as
well as the families of other early members of the Scrooby flock, in
the neighboring parishes. The importance of Mr. Hunter’s labors may
be seen in the fact, that, besides Brewster and Bradford, none of the
“Mayflower” passengers (except the two Winslows) have even yet been
surely traced to an English birthplace.[489]

Mr. Hunter’s success soon attracted the attention of other
investigators. The earliest visit to Scrooby which has received notice
in print was one made in July, 1851, by the Rev. Henry M. Dexter, of
Boston, described by him in _The Congregationalist_ of Aug. 8, 1851.
Mr. W. H. Bartlett’s _Pilgrim Fathers_, p. 35, published in 1853, added
nothing to Hunter’s researches, except some interesting engravings of
the church in which Bradford was baptized, and of Scrooby village.
In his enlarged edition of 1854, Hunter gave a better view of the
remains of the palace inhabited by Brewster. Mr. Palfrey visited the
neighborhood in 1856, and records his impressions in a note on p. 134
of vol. i. (1858) of his _History of New England_. In 1860 the Rev.
John Raine, vicar of the parish of Blyth, in which these hamlets were
formerly included, printed a valuable account of that parish’s history
and antiquities.[490]

In January, 1862, the Rev. H. M. Dexter published, in the
_Congregational Quarterly_, an article on “Recent Discoveries
concerning the Plymouth Pilgrims,” summarizing conveniently what had
been learned regarding the place where, and the time when, the church
was gathered. In March, 1867, he contributed to the _Sabbath at Home_
magazine an illustrated article on the “Footprints of the Pilgrims in
England,” which is still the most vivid and the fullest description
extant of the Scrooby neighborhood. With this should be compared,
for additional facts, a letter from Dr. Dexter in the _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._ (xii. 129) for July, 1871; the early pages of the chapter
on Robinson, in the same author’s _Congregationalism as seen in its
Literature_ (1880); and the record of a visit in 1860, in Professor
James M. Hoppin’s _Old England_. The Scrooby episode is also told, more
or less fully, in the Rev. Ashbel Steele’s _Life of Elder Brewster_
(1857), in Dr. John Waddington’s _Track of the Hidden Church_ (1863),
and in chap. vi. of the second volume of his _Congregational History_
(1874), in the Rev. George Punchard’s _History of Congregationalism_,
vol. iii. chap. xi. (1867), in chap. vii. of vol. ii. of S. R.
Gardiner’s _Prince Charles and the Spanish Marriage_ (1869), and in
chap. x. of Dr. Leonard Bacon’s _Genesis of the New England Churches_

Scrooby village is about one hundred and forty miles N.N.W. from
London, and eighty miles due east from Liverpool. It lies on the Great
Northern Railway; but as its population numbers only some two hundred,
it is practically a mere suburb of Bawtry, a small market-town a
mile and a quarter to the north, of perhaps a thousand inhabitants.
Austerfield, a little larger than Scrooby, and at about the same
distance from Bawtry in a northeasterly direction, is included, as well
as much of the other two localities, in the patrimony of Lord Houghton
(Richard Monckton Milnes), whose family have held it since 1779.

       *       *       *       *       *

Of the life in Holland and the preparations for removal to America,
the first connected account in print was that appended by Edward
Winslow (who had joined the company at Leyden in 1617, at the age of
twenty-two) to his _Hypocrisy Unmasked_, in 1646, which was reprinted
in 1841, in Dr. Young’s _Chronicles of the Pilgrims_. Winslow’s object
in this brief appendix was to refute an unjust charge of schism in
the Leyden church, and to explain the reasons for the removal and the
course of the accompanying negotiations; he also reviewed Robinson’s
doctrinal position, and incidentally preserved the substance of the
pastor’s farewell address to the departing portion of his flock.[492]
Morton’s _Memorial_, in 1669, gave from Bradford’s manuscripts a fuller
account of the events in question; and Mather’s _Magnalia_ (1702), and
Prince’s _Annals_ (1736), added a few touches to the picture. Prince
has also the distinction of being the first of those who have retraced
the steps of the Pilgrims on Dutch soil, his _Annals_ (vol. i. p. 160)
recording his visit to Leyden in 1714, and his supposed identification
of the church which Robinson’s congregation used, and in which he was

The extracts from Bradford published by Hazard in 1792, with those
included in the notes to Judge John Davis’s edition of Morton’s
_Memorial_ in 1826, all of which were reprinted by Dr. Young in 1841,
set forth in a more orderly way the story of the removal. But there was
no inquiry in Holland until Leyden was visited by Mr. George Sumner,
a younger brother of Senator Sumner, who communicated the results
of his researches to the Massachusetts Historical Society, in 1843,
in a paper which was published separately at Cambridge in 1845, and
in the Society’s _Collections_, vol. xxix. (1846). Mr. Sumner threw
much light on the actual condition of the Pilgrims in Holland, while
investigating Prince’s report of a church lent them by the city, and
Winslow’s account of the respect paid Robinson at his funeral. He
showed that Prince had confused this congregation with one founded
contemporaneously by English Presbyterians in Leyden, for whose use a
chapel was granted, while Robinson’s company received no such favor. He
also printed the record of Robinson’s admission to the University,—a
fact not before recovered,—and the entry of his burial in St. Peter’s
cathedral, just across the way from his house.[494]

In 1848 another item of interest,—the application of Robinson and his
people for leave to come to Leyden,—was printed for the first time
in a _Memoir of Robinson_, by Professor Kist, in vol. viii. of the
_Nederlandsch Archief voor Kerkelijke Geschiedenis_.[495] A fuller
memoir, prefixed to a collected edition of his writings, was published
in London three years later (1851), by the Rev. Robert Ashton, and
reprinted in the _Mass. Hist. Coll._, vol. xli. (1852).

Next in chronological order comes the publication of the most important
of all known sources of information respecting the Pilgrims from 1608
to 1646,—the _History of Plymouth Plantation_, by William Bradford,
second governor of the colony. We have seen that this history was
used, in manuscript, by various writers, but disappeared after 1767.
In 1844 a _History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America_,
by the Bishop of Oxford (Dr. Samuel Wilberforce), was published in
London, in which quotations embodying new information were made from an
otherwise unknown “Manuscript History of the Plantation of Plymouth,
etc., in the Fulham Library.” The Bishop’s volume passed to a second
edition in 1846, and was reprinted in New York in 1849; while in
1848 there appeared in London the Rev. J. S. M. Anderson’s _History
of the Colonial Church_, in which reference was distinctly made to
“Bradford’s MS. History of Plymouth Colony ... now in the possession
of the Bishop of London.” But the significance of these allusions was
ignored by American students, until February, 1855, when Mr. John
Wingate Thornton, of Boston, called the attention of the Rev. John S.
Barry, who was then engaged on the first volume of his _History of
Massachusetts_, to the Bishop of Oxford’s book. Taking up the clew thus
given, Mr. Barry conferred with Mr. Charles Deane, who sent at once
to London for information, and by the replies received, was enabled
to announce at the meeting of the Massachusetts Historical Society,
April 12, 1855, that the complete manuscript of Governor Bradford’s
history had been found in the Library of the Bishop of London’s Palace
at Fulham, and that an accurate copy had been ordered for the Society’s
use. This transcript reached Boston in August, and was issued, under
Mr. Deane’s able editorship, in the spring of 1856, both as a separate
publication and as volume xxxiii. of the Society’s _Collections_.[496]

How the manuscript came to be in the Fulham Library is uncertain; most
probably it was taken from the Prince Library, upon the evacuation of
Boston by the British in March, 1776, and was preserved and finally
deposited in a public collection by those who perceived it to be of
value. The desirability of its return to America has been repeatedly
suggested; but as an individual bishop has no power to alienate the
property of his See, nothing has yet been accomplished.

The next special contribution to the history of the Pilgrims in Holland
was the publication of the “Seven Articles which the church of Leyden
sent [in September, 1617] to the Council of England, to be considered
of in respect of their judgments occasioned about their going to
Virginia, anno 1618.” A contemporary transcript of this paper was
found in the British State-Paper Office by the Hon. George Bancroft,
and communicated by him, with an introductory letter, to the New York
Historical Society, in October, 1856. It was included, in 1857, in vol.
iii. of the second series of their _Collections_.[497]

In 1859-60 the Hon. Henry C. Murphy, of Brooklyn, N. Y., United States
Minister at the Hague from 1857 to 1861, published in the _Hist. Mag._
(iii. 261, 335, 357; iv. 4) a series of four “Contributions to the
History of the Pilgrim Fathers, from the Records at Leyden.” These
valuable papers presented much new information (derived especially
from the marriage records) as to the full names, ages, occupations,
and English homes of Robinson’s congregation; they determined also the
site and dimensions of his house, and the details of its purchase.
Another fact, which was already known, that Elder Brewster during the
last three years of his stay in Leyden was a printer and publisher,
especially of books on ecclesiastical matters, both in Latin and
English,[498] which it would not have been safe to print at home,
received new illustration from Mr. Murphy.

The labors of Sumner and Murphy in Holland have been supplemented by
the diligent researches of Dr. H. M. Dexter, whose work at Scrooby
was mentioned above. In the _Congregational Quarterly_ for January,
1862 (vol. iv.), he gave an account of the recent additions to our
knowledge; and in the notes to his invaluable addition of _Mourt’s
Relation_, in 1865, he traced the personal history of the Pilgrims,
so far as an exhaustive examination of the Leyden records made that
possible. In 1866, in company with Professor George E. Day, of Yale
College, who had shared in the previous investigations, Dr. Dexter
superintended the erection of a marble tablet, with appropriate
inscription, on the front of the Home for Aged Walloons, which now
occupies the site of Robinson’s house. In the _Sabbath at Home_ for
April, 1867, he published a graphic account of the “Footprints of the
Pilgrims in Holland,” and in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ for January,
1872 (xii. 184), suggested some valuable corrections of Mr. Sumner’s
Memoirs, respecting Robinson’s death and burial. The Leyden pastor’s
influence and doctrinal position may be best studied in Dr. Dexter’s
_Congregationalism as seen in its Literature_ (1880), and in vol. iii.
of the Rev. George Punchard’s _History of Congregationalism_ (2d ed.

For various contributions to fuller knowledge than Bradford affords of
the negotiations in London, after removal to America had been decided
on, great credit is due to the researches of the Rev. Edward D. Neill,
especially in his _History of the Virginia Company_ (1869) and his
_English Colonization of America_ (1871). Cf. _Hist. Mag._, xiii.
278. The same writer has investigated the personal history of Captain
Thomas Jones, master of the “Mayflower,” in the _Historical Magazine_
(January, 1869), xv. 31-33, and in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._
(1874), xxviii. 314-17. The charge that Jones was bribed by the Dutch
in 1620, is considered by Mr. William Brigham in the volume of lectures
published by the Massachusetts Historical Society on the _Early History
of Massachusetts_, and in the Society’s _Proceedings_ for December,

For the colony’s affairs from the sailing of the “Mayflower” to 1646,
the prime source of knowledge is Bradford’s _History_. At the time
of emigrating, the author was in his thirty-first year, and his book
was written at various dates, from 1630 to 1650, when he was from
forty to sixty years of age. Less than four months after landing he
became Governor, and for the remaining quarter-century covered by his
_History_ he held the same office, except during five years, when
excused at his own urgent request. The foremost man in the colony for
this long period, nature and opportunity equally fitted him to be its
chronicler from the beginning. No one could speak with more authority
than he of the inner motives and guiding policy of the original
colonists,—fortunately, also, no one could exemplify more clearly in
written words the ideal Pilgrim than does Bradford, with his grave,
homely, earnest style, not unsuggestive of the English of the Bible.
Between his style and that of Winthrop, the contemporary historian
of the Bay, there is something of the same difference that existed
between the two emigrations; and yet Bradford’s simple story, standing
as it does as the earliest piece of American historical composition,
possesses a peculiar charm which the broader, more philosophic page of
Winthrop cannot rival.[501]


       *       *       *       *       *

The special contributions by others to the history of Bradford’s period
began in 1622 with the publication of _Mourt’s Relation_, a daily
journal of the first twelve months (Sept. 1620, to Dec. 11, 1621),
so called from the name, “G. Mourt,” subscribed to the preface, but
doubtless written by Bradford and Winslow. The standard edition is that
of 1865, with notes by Dr. H. M. Dexter.[502] A few facts may also be
gleaned from a _Sermon_ (by Robert Cushman) preached at Plymouth, Dec.
9, 1621,[503] and from the second edition of Captain John Smith’s _New
England’s Trials_,—both published in London in 1622. Winslow’s _Good
News from New England_ appeared in 1624, continuing the narrative of
events from November, 1621, to September 10, 1623.[504] Next came,
after a long interval, _New England’s Memorial_, by Nathaniel Morton,
printed at Cambridge in 1669, which professed to give the annals of New
England to 1668; beyond the part supplied from Bradford and Winslow,
however, there was little of value. Judge John Davis’s[505] edition of
1826 is still the best.[506]


To these materials the next sensible addition was in the “Summary of
the Affairs of the Colony of New-Plimouth,” appended, in 1767, to
vol. ii. of Governor Hutchinson’s _History of Massachusetts Bay_, and
containing some personal items not before collected. In 1794 a fragment
of a letter-book, preserving copies of important letters written and
received by Governor Bradford from 1624 to 1630, having lately been
found in Nova Scotia, was printed in the _Massachusetts Historical
Collections_, vol. iii.[507] In 1798 Dr. Jeremy Belknap included in
vol. ii. of his _American Biography_ sketches of the leading Pilgrims
(Robinson, Carver, Bradford, Brewster, Cushman, Winslow, and Standish),
which put in admirable form all then known of early Plymouth history.

The next quarter of a century added nothing to the existing stock of
knowledge, unless by the publication in 1815 of the _General History
of New England_ to 1680, by the Rev. William Hubbard (born 1621, died
1704), which, so far as Plymouth was concerned, was little more than a
compilation from sources already named. But with the issue, in 1826,
of a new edition of _Morton_, and in 1830 of _An Historical Memoir of
the Colony of New Plymouth_, by the Hon. Francis Baylies,[508] and in
1832 of a _History of the Town of Plymouth_, by Dr. James Thacher, was
introduced the new era of modern research.[509]


[This is in the handwriting of Governor Bradford; it is also in Hazard,
i. 100, and in the State edition, xii. 2. It is not clear when the
entry was made. Pulsifer, _Records_, xii. p. iv., holds it was written
in 1620; Shurtleff, _Ibid._, i. Introd., says that all entries dated
before 1627 were made in this last year. Beside the account of the
records in this introduction, there is another in 3 _Mass. Hist.
Coll._, ii. Also see _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1858, p. 358.
The State edition is in twelve volumes, usually bound in ten; and was
originally sold for $75, but is now obtainable at a much less price.

The patents under which the colony governed itself have been defined
in the preceding narrative, and in a note the first one is traced.
(Cf. also Neill’s notes on it in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1876,
p. 413, and Poor’s _Vindication of Gorges_.) The second patent, of
April 20, 1622, is not extant. The third, of Jan. 13, 1629-30, is at
Plymouth in the Registry of Deeds, and is printed in Brigham’s edition
of the _Laws_, Hazard’s _Collections_, etc. Cf. _Mass. Archives,
Miscellanies_, i. 123.—ED.]]

The Legislature of Massachusetts gave fresh impulse to this spirit
of investigation by publishing in 1836, under the editorship of Mr.
William Brigham, the _Laws passed in Plymouth Colony from 1623 to
1691_, with a selection of other permanent documents. In 1841 the
Rev. Alexander Young[510] collected, under the title of _Chronicles
of the Pilgrim Fathers from 1602 to 1625_, the principal writings of
that period, and, enriching them with a body of useful notes, made
a volume which still retains a distinct value. In 1846 and 1851 a
local antiquary, Mr. William S. Russell,[511] brought out two small
volumes,—_A Guide to Plymouth_ and _Pilgrim Memorials_,—which are
not yet superseded; Mr. William H. Bartlett’s _Pilgrim Fathers_[512]
(1853) added something to these local touches. Between 1855 and 1861
the _Records of the Colony of New Plymouth_ were printed _in extenso_,
by order of the State Legislature, under the editorship of Dr. N. B.
Shurtleff[513] and Mr. David Pulsifer.

The year 1856 was made memorable by the printing of Bradford’s
manuscript, and two years later appeared the initial volume of Dr.
John G. Palfrey’s _History of New England_, which comprehends by far
the best of modern narratives of the complete career of Plymouth
Colony. Only in subsidiary literature have the more recent years added
anything. Valuable bibliographical notes on Pilgrim history, by the
editor of the present volume, were printed in the _Harvard College
Library Bulletin_ for 1878, nos. 7 and 8; and the “Collections toward
a Bibliography of Congregationalism,” appended to Dr. H. M. Dexter’s
_Congregationalism as seen in its Literature_ (1880), are indispensable
to future students. In 1881 General E. W. Peirce published a useful
volume of _Civil, Military, and Professional Lists of Plymouth and
Rhode Island Colonies_ to 1700.

Apart from strictly historical composition, the theme has inspired
some of the greatest oratorical efforts of the sons of New England in
the present century,—especially in connection with the stated annual
celebrations of the Pilgrim Society,[514] formed at Plymouth in 1820
(a successor of the earlier Old Colony Club,[515] founded in 1769).
Most deservedly conspicuous in this series are the orations delivered
in 1820 by Daniel Webster, in 1824 by Edward Everett, and in 1870 by
Robert C. Winthrop; of similar note are several of the orations before
the New England Society of New York, founded in 1805. The Pilgrim
Society has also fostered local sentiment by erecting (in 1824) Pilgrim
Hall in the town of Plymouth, and by gathering within it a valuable
collection of memorials of the early settlers and of portraits of
historical interest.[516]

A portrait of Edward Winslow (engraved on a previous page) is in
Pilgrim Hall at Plymouth, and is the only undoubted portrait of any
of the Pilgrims now existing.[517] Of the many attempts to depict
on canvas signal events of Pilgrim history, the most important is a
painting by Robert W. Weir of the embarkation at Delft Haven, executed
in 1846, and occupying one of the panels in the Rotunda of the Capitol
at Washington.[518] The most imposing works of architecture and
sculpture in commemoration of the same events are the canopy recently
erected over the rock in Plymouth on which the Pilgrims are believed to
have landed, and the monument on a neighboring hill-top.[519]

In poetical literature the most serious and sustained effort to
represent the Pilgrim spirit is in Longfellow’s “Courtship of Miles
Standish” (1859);[520] while in briefer compass Old England, through
Lord Houghton (Prefatory Stanzas to Hunter’s _Founders of New
Plymouth_) and Mrs. Hemans (“Landing of the Pilgrim Fathers”), and New
England through Pierpont (“The Pilgrim Fathers”) and Lowell (“Interview
with Miles Standish”), have vied in celebrating the character and deeds
of the exiles of 1620.[521]





_Vice-President of the Massachusetts Historical Society._

THE COUNCIL FOR NEW ENGLAND.—This body was incorporated in the
eighteenth year of the reign of James I., on the 3d of November, 1620,
under the name of the “Council established at Plymouth, in the County
of Devon, for the planting, ruling, ordering, and governing of New
England, in America.” The corporation consisted of forty patentees, the
most of whom were persons of distinction: thirteen were peers, some
of the highest rank. The patentees were empowered to hold territory
in America extending from the fortieth to the forty-eighth degree of
north latitude, and westward from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and
they were authorized to settle and govern the same. This charter is
the foundation of most of the grants which were afterward made of the
territory of New England.

This Company was substantially a reincorporation of the adventurers
or associates of the Northern Colony of Virginia, with additional
privileges, placing them on a footing with their rivals of the Southern
Colony, whose franchise had been twice enlarged since the issuing
of the original charter of April 10, 1606, which incorporated both
companies. A notice of this earlier enterprise will but briefly detain

While the Southern Colony had attracted the wealth and influence of
leading adventurers who represented the more liberal party in the
government, and were enabled to prosecute their plans of colonization
with vigor to a good degree of success, the Northern Colony had
signally failed from the beginning. The former had established at
Jamestown, in 1607, the first permanent English Colony in America.
The latter produced no greater results than the abortive settlement
at Sabino, known as the Popham Colony.[522] The discouragement
following upon its abandonment prompted the withdrawal of many of the
adventurers, though the organization of the patentees still survived;
but of their meetings and records we have no trace. Sir Ferdinando
Gorges himself would not despair, but engaged his private fortune in
fishing, trading, and exploring expeditions, and in making attempts at
settlement. Many of these enterprises he speaks of as private ventures,
while the Council for New England, in their _Briefe Relation_, of 1622,
which I have sometimes thought was written by Gorges himself, speaks of
them in the name of the Company. The probability is that Gorges was the
principal person who kept alive the cherished scheme of settling the
country, and by his influence a few other persons were engaged, and the
name of the Council covered many of these enterprises.

       *       *       *       *       *

Gorges now conceived the scheme of a great monopoly. King James had
reigned since 1614 without a parliament, and during the following
years down to the meeting of the next parliament, in January, 1620/21,
a large part of the business of the country had been monopolized by
individuals or by associations that had secured special privileges from
the Crown. Gorges was a friend of the King and of the “prerogative.”
Under the plea of desiring a new incorporation of the adventurers
of the Northern Colony, in order to place them on an equality of
privileges with the Southern Colony, Gorges had devised the plan of
securing a monoply of the fishing in the waters of New England for the
patentees of the new corporation, and for those who held or purchased
license from them. He had the adroitness to enlist in his favor a
large number of the principal noblemen and gentlemen. Relative to
his proceedings, Gorges himself says: “Of this, my resolution, I was
bold to offer the sounder considerations to divers of his Majesty’s
honorable Privy Council, who had so good liking thereunto as they
willingly became interested themselves therein as patentees and
councillors for the managing of the business, by whose favors I had
the easier passage in the obtaining his Majesty’s royal charter to be
granted us according to his warrant to the then solicitor-general,”
etc. The petition for the new charter was dated March 3, 1619/20; the
warrant for its preparation, July 23; and it passed the seals Nov. 3,

An inspection of the several patents granted by King James will show
that, in those of 1606 and 1609, among the privileges conferred is that
of “fishings.” But the word is there used in connection with other
privileges appertaining to and within the precincts conveyed, such as
“mines, minerals, marshes,” etc., and probably meant “fishings” in
rivers and ponds, and not in the seas. In the patent of Nov. 3, 1620,
a similar clause ends, “and seas adjoining,” which may be intended to
cover the alleged privilege. In this patent, as in the others, there is
no clause forbidding free fishing within the seas of New England; but
all persons without license first obtained from the Council are, in the
patent of Nov. 3, 1620, forbidden to visit the coast, and the clause of
forfeiture of vessel and cargo is inserted. This prevented fishermen
from landing and procuring wood for constructing stages to dry their

A few days after the petition of Gorges and his associates had been
presented to the King for a new charter, with minutes indicating the
nature of the privileges asked for, the Southern Colony took the
alarm, and the subject was brought before its members by the treasurer,
Sir Edwin Sandys, at a meeting on the 15th of March, 1619/20, at which
a committee was appointed to appear before the Privy Council the next
day, to protest against the fishing monopoly asked for by the Northern
Colony. The result of the conference, at which Gorges was present, was
a reference to two members of the Council,—the Duke of Lenox and the
Earl of Arundell, both patentees in the new patent; and they decided
or recommended that each colony should fish within the bounds of the
other, with this limitation,—“that it be only for the sustentation of
the people of the colonies there, and for the transportation of people
into either colony.” This order gave satisfaction to neither party.
The Southern Colony protested against being deprived of privileges
which they had always enjoyed. Gorges contended that the Northern
Colony had been excluded from the limits of the rival company, and he
only desired the same privilege of excluding them in turn. The matter
came again before the Privy Council on the 21st of July following, and
that board confirmed the recommendation of the 16th of March. Two days
later, on the 23d of July, the warrant to the solicitor-general for
the preparation of the patent was issued, and it passed the seals, as
already stated, on the 3d of November.

On the following day, November 4, Sir Edwin Sandys announced at a
meeting of the Southern Colony, or what was now known as the Virginia
Company, that the patent of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, containing certain
words which contradicted a former order of the Lords of the Council,
had passed the seals, and that the adventurers of the Northern Colony
by this grant had utterly excluded the Southern Colony from fishing on
that coast without their leave and license first sought and obtained.
By a general consent it was resolved to supplicate his Majesty for
redress, and Sir Thomas Roe was desired to present the petition which
had been drawn.

On the 13th Sir Thomas Roe reported that he had attended to that
duty, and that the King had said that if anything was passed in
the New England patent prejudicial to the Southern Colony, it was
surreptitiously done, and without his knowledge, and that he had been
abused thereby by those who pretended otherwise unto him. This was
confirmed by the Earl of Southampton, who further said that the King
gave command to the Lord Chamberlain, then present, that if this new
patent were not sealed, to forbear the seal; and if it were sealed and
not delivered, to keep it in hand till they were better informed. His
Lordship further signified that on Saturday last they had been with
the Lord Chancellor about it, when were present the Duke of Lenox, the
Earl of Arundell, and others, who, after hearing the allegations on
both sides, ordered that the patent should be delivered to be perused
by some of the Southern Colony, who were to report what exceptions
they found thereunto against the next meeting. Two days later it was
announced through the Earl of Southampton that, at a recent conference
with Gorges, it was agreed that for the present “the patent of Sir
Ferdinando Gorges should be sequestered and deposited in my Lord
Chancellor’s hands according to his Majesty’s express command.”

The Council for New England, in their _Briefe Relation_ (1622) of these
proceedings, recounting the opposition of the Virginia Company, say
that “lastly, the patent being passed the seal, it was stopped, upon
new suggestions to the King, and by his Majesty referred to the Council
to be settled, by whom the former orders were confirmed, the difference
cleared, and we ordered to have our patent delivered us.”

The modifications suggested or directed by the Privy Council appear
not to have been embodied in the instrument itself as it passed the
seals. Gorges’ friends were very strong in the council board, some of
the members being patentees in the grant, and they carried matters
with a high hand. But before the order came for the final delivery of
the patent, Gorges and his patentees were called to encounter a still
more formidable opposition. Gorges himself tells us that his rivals had
plainly told him that “howsoever I had sped before the Lords, I should
hear more of it the next Parliament;” and that this body was no sooner
assembled than he found it too true wherewith he had been formerly

The Parliament met Jan. 16, 1620/21, it being the first time for more
than seven years, and at once adjourned to the 30th of that month. On
its assembling, the House of Commons immediately proceeded to present
the public grievances of the kingdom, prominent among which were the
monopolies that had sprung up like hydras during the last few years
under the royal prerogative. On the 17th of April “An Act for the freer
liberty of fishing voyages, to be made and performed on the sea-coast
and places of Newfoundland, Virginia, New England, and other the
sea-coasts and parts of America,” was introduced. On the 25th this was
repeated, and a debate followed, opened by Sir Edwin Sandys, who called
attention to the new grant obtained for what had now come to be called
New England, with a sole privilege of fishing; also to the fact that
the King, who had been made acquainted with it, had stayed the patent;
that the Virginia Company desired no appropriation of this fishing to
them; that it was worth one hundred thousand pounds per annum in coin;
that the English “little frequent this, in respect of this prohibition,
but the Dutch and French.” He therefore moved for “a free liberty for
all the King’s subjects for fishing there,” saying it was pitiful that
any of the King’s subjects should be prohibited, since the French and
Dutch were at liberty to come and fish there notwithstanding the colony.

The debate was continued. Secretary Calvert “doubteth the fishermen the
hinderers of the plantation; that they burn great store of woods, and
choke the havens;” that he “never will strain the King’s prerogative
against the good of the commonwealth;” and that it was “not fit to
make any laws here for those countries which not as yet annexed to the

The bill was committed to Sir Edwin Sandys, and a full hearing
advertized to all burgesses of London, York, and the port towns, who
might wish to testify, that day seven-night, in the Exchequer Chamber.

On the 4th of June Parliament adjourned to the 14th of November, and in
the intermission Sir Edwin Sandys was arrested and thrown into prison.
It is significant that, notwithstanding this opposition in the House of
Commons, the Privy Council, on the 18th, ordered that the sequestered
patent be delivered to Gorges, in terms which provided that each colony
(the Northern and the Southern) should have the additional freedom
of the shore for the drying of their nets and the taking and saving
of their fish, and to have wood for their necessary uses, etc.; also
that the patent of the Northern plantation be renewed according to the
premises, while those of the Southern plantation were to have a sight
thereof before it be engrossed, and that the former patent be delivered
to the patentees.

I have already remarked that the orders of the Privy Council early
directed certain modifications to be made in the proposed patent which
were not embodied in it when first drawn; nor were they ultimately
included, although Gorges himself admitted, when afterward summoned
before the Committee of the House of Commons, that the patent yet
remained in the Crown office, “where it was left since the last
Parliament” (he meant, since the last session of Parliament), “for
that it was resolved to be renewed for the amendment of some faults
contained therein.”

No doubt the intention was that a new patent should be drawn, and that
the delivery of the existing parchment was provisional only.[523] The
patent, however, never was renewed, though a scheme for a renewal of
a most radical character was seriously contemplated all through the
year following the dissolution of the Parliament in 1622; and Sir Henry
Spelman and John Selden were consulted in regard to land tenures, the
rights of the Crown, and the like, in reference thereto.

On the reassembling of Parliament in November, the subject was once
again approached in the Commons. It was charged that since the recess
Gorges had executed a patent. One had been issued, dated June 1, 1621,
to John Peirce for the Plymouth people. He had also, by patent or
by verbal agreement, by the King’s request, released to Sir William
Alexander all the land east of St. Croix, known as Nova Scotia,
confirmed to him by a royal charter September 10 of this year.[524]
It was also charged that Gorges was threatening to use force in
restricting the right to fish; and accordingly on the 20th an order
was passed directing his patent to be brought in to the Committee on

The result was that on the 21st of December an Act for freer liberty
of fishing passed the Commons, while previously, on the 18th, “Sir
Ferdinando Gorges and Sir Jo. Bowcer, the patentees for fishing in and
about New England, to be warned to appear here the first day of next
Access, and to bring their patent, or a copy thereof.” Parliament then
adjourned to the 8th of February; but it was subsequently prorogued
and dissolved. Before the adjournment, in the afternoon, the Commons,
foreseeing their dissolution, entered on their records a protestation
in vindication of their rights and privileges; but the record is
here mutilated by having the obnoxious passage torn out by the hands
of the King, who sent for the Journal of the House and placed this
mark of his tyranny upon it. Gorges himself, at this session of the
Parliament, twice appeared before the Committee of the House, and had
a preliminary examination without his counsel. He was questioned by
Sir Edward Coke about his patent, which Coke called a grievance of
the commonwealth, and complained of as “a monopoly, and the color of
planting a colony put upon it for particular ends and private gain.”
Gorges says he was treated with great courtesy, but was told that “the
Public was to be respected before all particulars,” and that the patent
must be brought into the House. Gorges replied by defending the plan
of the adventurers, which he said was undertaken for the advancement
of religion, the enlargement of the bounds of the nation, the increase
of trade, and the employment of many thousands of people. He rehearsed
what had already been done in the discovery and seizure of the coast,
told of the failures and discouragements encountered, and explained the
present scheme of regulating the affairs of the intended plantation
for the public good. As for the delivery of the patent, he had not the
power to do it himself, as he was but a particular person, and inferior
to many. Besides, the patent still remained, for aught he knew, in the
Crown Office, where it was left for amendment. He was then told to be
prepared to attend further at a future day, and with counsel. In the
end, also, the breaking up of Parliament prevented the bill for free
fishing, which had passed the Commons, from becoming a law.

Of course, the opposition encountered—first from the Virginia Company
and then from the House of Commons, the latter representing largely the
popular sentiment—was a serious hindrance to the operations of the
Council for New England. The disputes with the former, the Council
themselves say, “held them almost two years, so as all men were afraid
to join with them.”

The records of the Council, so far as they are extant, begin on
“Saturday, the last of May, 1622,” at “Whitehall,” at which there were
seven persons present, “the Lord Duke of Lenox” heading the list. Some
business was transacted before this date, as the first day’s record
here refers to it. The record of the organization of the Council is
wanting; and two persons named as present at this meeting—Captain
Samuel Argall and Dr. Barnabe Goche—were not included in the list of
the forty patentees. They must have been elected since, in the place
of others who had resigned. Goche was now elected treasurer in the
place of Sir Ferdinando Gorges. I think that the Duke of Lenox was the
first president of the Council. In the patent granted to John Peirce,
mentioned above as taken out on behalf of the Pilgrims, dated June
1, 1621,—which, I may add, was nearly a year before the date of any
known record of the Council,—purporting to be signed by “the President
and Counsell,” who have “set their seals” to the same, were the names
of Lenox, Hamilton, Ro. Warwick, Sheffield, Ferd. Gorges, in the
order here given, and one other name indistinct, with their separate

It is not improbable, therefore, that the business transactions of the
Council, in this inchoate and uncertain period of its existence, were
so few that they were preserved only in loose minutes, or files of
papers, which were never recorded, and are now lost.

After they had freed their patent, they first considered how they
should raise the means to advance the plantation, and two methods were
suggested. One contemplated a voluntary contribution by the patentees;
and the other, the ransoming the freedoms of those who were willing
to partake of present profits arising by the trade or fishing on the
coast. The patentees, in the one case, agreed to pay one hundred pounds
apiece (the records say £110); in the other, inducements were offered
to the western cities and towns to form joint-stock associations
for trade and fishing, from which a revenue in the shape of royalty
might be derived to the Council: and, in order to further this latter
project, letters were to be issued to those cities, by the Privy
Council, prohibiting any not free of that business from visiting the
coast, upon pain of confiscation of ship and goods. This last scheme
was not favorably received. The letters produced an effect contrary to
what was expected, since the restraining of the liberty of free fishing
gave alarm; and, as the Parliament of 1621 was about to meet, every
possible influence was brought to bear against this great monopoly,
with what effect we have already seen.

While the plan of voluntary associations failed, the business of
exacting a tax from individual fishermen was prosecuted with vigor,
and probably; in some instances with success. A proclamation against
disorderly trading, or visiting the coasts of New England without a
license from the Council, was issued. A grand scheme for settling the
coast of New England by a local government was marked out, and the
_Platform of the Government_ was put into print.[527]

The project of laying out a county on the Kennebec River; forty
miles square, for general purposes, and building a great city at the
junction of the Kennebec and Androscoggin Rivers, was part of the
great plan. A ship and pinnace had been built at Whitby, a seaport in
Yorkshire, at large expense, for use in the colony; and others were
contemplated. They were to lie on the coast for the defence of the
merchants and fishermen, and to convoy the fleets as they went to and
from their markets. Sir Ferdinando Gorges, who had been treasurer of
the Council, was now chosen governor, and was destined for New England;
but the Company were seriously embarrassed for funds, and finally were
obliged to mortgage the ship to some of their individual members. The
assessments of £110 each were not all paid in, and patentees who did
not intend to pay were asked to resign, so that others might take their
places. Constant complaints were made of merchants who were violating
the privileges of the Company by sending out vessels for fishing and
trading on the coast; and orders were passed for applying remedies. The
plan for the new patent is constantly referred to in the records, and
the present patentees are to be warned that they will have no place
in it, unless they pay up their past dues. The inducement to be held
out is, that all who actually pay £110 may have a place in the new
grant, provided they “be persons of honor or gentlemen of blood, except
only six merchants to be admitted by us for the service, and especial
employments of the said Council in the course of trade and commerce,”
etc. But their schemes were not realized.

In the Council’s prospectus already cited, issued in the summer of
1622, they say, “We have settled, at this present, several plantations
along the coast, and have granted patents to many more that are in
preparation to be gone with all conveniency.” The bare fact, however,
is that the Pilgrims at Plymouth were the only actual settlers, and
they had landed within the patent limits by the merest chance. There
may have been some other bodies of men, in small numbers, living on
the coast, such as Gorges used to hire, at large expense, to spend the
winter there. His servant, Richard Vines, a highly respectable man,
was sent out to the coast for trade and discovery, and spent some time
in the country; and he is supposed to have passed one winter during a
great plague among the Indians,—perhaps that of 1616-17,—at the mouth
of the Saco River.[528] Vines and John Oldham afterward had a patent of
Biddeford, on that river. Several scattering plantations were begun in
the following year.


The complaints to the Council of abuses committed by fishermen and
other interlopers, who without license visited the coast, and by their
conduct caused the overthrow of the trade and the dishonor of the
government, led to the selection of Robert Gorges, the younger son of
Sir Ferdinando Gorges, and who was recently returned from the Venetian
wars, to be sent to New England for the correction of these abuses. He
was commissioned as lieutenant-general, and there were appointed for
his council and assistants Captain Francis West as admiral, Christopher
Levett, and the governor of Plymouth for the time being. Robert Gorges
had but recently become a shareholder in the grand patent, and he
had also a personal grant of a tract of land on the northeast side of
Massachusetts Bay, ten miles along the coast, and extending thirty
miles into the interior. This was made to him partly in consideration
of his father’s services to the Company.

West was commissioned in November, 1622; and his arrival at Plymouth,
in New England, is noticed by Bradford “as about the latter end of
June.” He had probably been for some time on the Eastern coast as he
related his experiences to Bradford, who says he “had a commission to
be admiral of New England, to restrain interlopers and such fishing
ships as came to fish and trade without a license from the Council
of New England, for which they should pay a round sum of money.
But he could do no good of them, for they were too strong for him,
and he found the fishermen to be stubborn fellows.... So they went
from hence to Virginia.” West returned from Virginia in August, and
probably joined Captain Gorges, who made his appearance in the Bay
of Massachusetts in August or September of this year, having “sundry
passengers and families, intending there to begin a plantation,
and pitched upon the place Mr. Weston’s people had forsaken,” at
Wessagusset. By his commission he and his council had full power “to
do and execute what to them should seem good, in all cases, capital,
criminal, and civil.”

This sending out of young Gorges with authority was probably a
temporary expedient for the present emergency, preparatory to the great
scheme of government set forth, a few months before he sailed, in the
Council’s _Briefe Relation_. Captain Gorges had a private enterprise to
look after while charged with these public duties. The patent which he
brought over, issued to himself personally, provided for a government
to be administered “acording to the great charter of England, and such
Lawes as shall be hereafter established by public authority of the
State assembled in Parliament in New England,” all decisions being
subject to appeal to the Council for New England, “and to the court of
Parliament hereafter to be in New England aforesaid.”

Gorges remained here but a short time,—probably not quite a
year,—having during his stay a sharp conflict with the notorious
Thomas Weston, whom Governor Bradford, in pity to the man, attempted
to shield from punishment. In speaking of Gorges’ return to England,
Bradford says that he “scarcely saluted the country in his government,
not finding the state of things here to answer his quality and
condition.” His people dispersed: some went to England, and some to
Virginia. Sir Ferdinando Gorges himself assigns another reason for
his son’s speedy abandoning the country. He says that Robert was sent
out by Lord Gorges and himself,—meaning, I suppose, that he came at
their personal charge,—and that he was disappointed in not receiving
supplies from “divers his familiar friends who had promised as much;
but they, hearing how I sped in the House of Parliament, withdrew
themselves, and myself and friends were wholly disabled to do anything
to purpose.” The report of these proceedings coming to his son’s ears,
he was advised to return home till better occasion should serve.

The records of the Council show that for the space of one year their
business was pursued with considerable vigor by the few members who
were interested.[529] Sir Ferdinando Gorges, of course, was the
mainstay of the enterprise. The principal business was to prepare to
put their plans into operation. The money did not come in, and a large
number of the patentees fell off. Much time was spent in inducing new
members to engage, and pay in their money; and the efforts to bring the
merchant fishermen to acknowledge the claims of the Council, and to
take out licenses for traffic and fishing, were untiring.

Finally, in the summer of 1623, the Council resolved to divide the
whole territory of New England among the patentees, “in the plot
remaining with Dr. Goche,” the treasurer. The reasons given for this
step are, “For that some of the adventurers excuse their non-payment
in of their adventures because they know not their shares for which
they are to pay, which much prejudiceth the proceedings, it is thought
fit that the land of New England be divided in this manner; viz., by
20 lots, and each lot to contain 2 shares. And for that there are not
full 40 and above 20 adventurers, that only 20 shall draw those lots.”
Provision was accordingly made that each person drawing two shares
should part with one share to some member who might not have drawn, or
some one else who shall thereafter become an adventurer, to the end
that the full “number of forty may be complete.” The meeting for the
drawing was held on Sunday, June 29, 1623, at Greenwich, at which the
King was present.[530]

The “plot” of New England, on which this division is shown, with the
names set down according as the lots were drawn, was published the
next year in Sir William Alexander’s _Encouragement to Colonies_; and
on page 31 of his book the writer speaks of hearing that “out of a
generous desire by his example to encourage others for the advancement
of so brave an enterprise he [Sir Ferdinando Gorges] is resolved
shortly to go himself in person, and to carry with him a great number
well fitted for such a purpose; and many noblemen in England (whose
names and proportions as they were marshalled by lot may appear upon
the map), having interested themselves in that bounds, are to send
several colonies, who may quickly make this to exceed all other

Alexander must have been well informed of the intentions of the
Company, certainly familiar with those of Gorges himself; and it must
have been with their knowledge and approbation that the act above
recorded was thus published.

[Illustration: ALEXANDER’S MAP, 1624.

[This is a fac-simile of a part of the map, as reproduced in Purchas’s

The meeting at which the division was made is the last of which we
have any record for a number of years, and the history of the Company
during these years must be gathered from other sources. The grand
colonial scheme intended to be put in operation never went into effect;
and at a late period the Council say, concerning this division, that
hitherto they have never been confirmed in the lands so allotted.

A new Parliament was summoned to meet February 12, 1623/24, and on
the 24th we find this minute: “Mr. Neale delivereth in the bill for
free liberty of fishing upon the coasts of America.” “Five ships of
Plymouth under arrest, and two of Dartmouth, because they went to
fish in New England. This done by warrant from the Admiralty. To have
these suits staid till this bill have had its passage. This done by
Sir Ferdinando Gorges his Patent. Ordered, that this patent be brought
into the Committee of Grievances upon Friday next.” March 15, 1623/24,
an Act for freer liberty of fishing, as previously introduced, was
committed to a large committee, of which Sir Edward Coke was chairman.
On the 17th, Sir Edward reported from this committee that they had
condemned one grievance, namely, “Sir Ferdinand Gorges his patent for
a plantation in New England. Their council heard, the exceptions being
first delivered them. Resolved by consent, that, notwithstanding the
clause in the patent dated 3d November, 18th Jac., that no subject
of England shall visit the coast upon pain of forfeiture of ship and
goods, the patentees have yielded that the Englishmen shall visit, and
that they will not interrupt any fisherman to fish there.” Finally it
was enacted by the House that the clause of forfeiture, being only by
patent and not by act of Parliament, was void.

Gorges himself gives a graphic picture of the scene when he, with
his counsel, was before the Committee of the House, and he spoke so
unavailingly in defence of his patent. This patent was the first
presented from the Committee of Grievances. “This their public
declaration of the Houses ... shook off all my adventurers for
plantation, and made many of the patentees to quit their interest;”
so that in all likelihood he would have fallen under the weight of
so heavy a burden, had he not been supported by the King, who would
not be drawn to overthrow the corporation he so much approved of, and
Gorges was advised to persevere. Still he thought it better to forbear
for the present, though the bill did not become a law of the realm.
Soon afterward the French ambassador made a challenge of all those
territories as belonging of right to the King of France, and Gorges was
called to make answer to him; and his reply was so full that “no more
was heard of that their claim.”

Being unable to enforce the claim whence was to come the principal
source of its income, and the larger part of the patentees having
abandoned the enterprise, the Great Council for New England, whose
patent had been denounced by the House of Commons as a monopoly and
opposed to the public policy and the general good, became a dead body.
In the following year, 1625, we hear of Gorges as commander of one of
the vessels in the squadron ordered by Buckingham to Dieppe for the
service of the King of France. Finding on his arrival that the vessels
were destined to serve against Rochelle, which was then sustaining a
siege, Gorges broke through the squadron, and returned to England with
his ship.

In the summer of 1625 the Plymouth people were in great trouble by
reason of their unhappy relations to the Adventurers in London, and
Captain Standish was sent over to seek some accommodation with them. At
the same time he bore a letter from Governor Bradford to the Council of
New England, urging their intervention in behalf of the colony “under
your government.” But Bradford says that, by reason of the plague which
that year raged in London, Standish could do nothing with the Council
for New England, for there were no courts kept or scarce any commerce

Two years later, in the summer of 1627, Governor Bradford again wrote
to the Council for New England, under whose government he acknowledged
themselves to be, and also to Sir Ferdinando Gorges himself, advising
them of the encroachments of the Dutch, and also making complaints of
the disorderly fishermen and interlopers, who, with no intent to plant,
and with no license, foraged the country and were off again, to the
great annoyance of the Plymouth settlers.

After a patent to Christopher Levett, of May 5, 1623, the Council
appear to have made no grants of land till, in 1628, two patents
were issued,—one to the Plymouth people of land on the Kennebec
River, and one to Rosewell, Young, Endicott, and others, patentees of
Massachusetts. These were followed by a grant to John Mason, of Nov. 7,
1629, the Laconia grant of Nov. 17, 1629, that to Plymouth Colony of
Jan. 13, 1629/30, and sundry grants of territory in the present States
of Maine and New Hampshire.

The records of the Council, of which there is a hiatus of over eight
years in the parts now extant (and the latter portion is a transcript
with probably many omissions), begin on the 4th of November, 1631,
with the Earl of Warwick as president, and contain entries of sundry
patents granted, and of the final transactions of the Company during
its existence. Precisely when the Earl of Warwick was chosen president
we do not know. His name appears in the Plymouth patent of Jan. 13,
1629/30, as holding that office, and it is quite likely that he was
president when the Massachusetts patent was issued, he being chiefly
instrumental in passing that grant. The Council seem now to have
revived their hopes as they did their activity. As late as Nov. 6,
1634, divers matters of moment were propounded: “First, that the number
of the Council be with all convenient speed filled. [It appears by a
previous meeting that there were now but twenty-one members in all,
whereas the patent called for no less than forty.] Second, that a new
patent from his Majesty be obtained.” Also, that no ships, passengers,
nor goods be permitted to go to New England without license from the
President and Council; and that fishermen should not be allowed to
trade with savages, nor with the servants of planters, nor to cut
timber for stages, without license. This, surely, is a revival of the
old odious policy. We do not know if any of these orders were adopted.

There seems at this time to have arisen a serious misunderstanding or
quarrel between the Council and their President, the Earl of Warwick.
It first appears at a meeting held June 29, 1632. The President was
not present at this meeting, though it was held, as the meetings had
been held for some years past, at “Warwick House.” An order was adopted
“that the Earl of Warwick should be entreated to direct a course for
finding out what patents have been granted for New England.” At the
same meeting the clerk was sent to the Earl for the Council’s great
seal, which was in his lordship’s keeping; and word came back that
he would send it when his man came in. It was also ordered that the
future meetings of the Council be held at the house of Captain Mason,
in Fenchurch Street. But the seal was not sent, and two more formal
requests were made for it during the next six months. Captain John
Mason was chosen vice-president Nov. 26, 1632. The records for 1633
and 1634 are wanting. Early in 1635 the Council resolved to resign
their patent into the hands of the King; preparatory to which they
made a new partition of the territory of New England, dividing it
among themselves, or, according to the records, among eight of their
number. Of what precise number the Council consisted at this time we
have no means of knowing. The division was made at a meeting held
Feb. 3, 1634/35, and to the description of each particular grant the
members on the 14th of April affixed their signatures, each person
withholding his signature to his own share. In making this division it
was ordered that every one who had lawful grants of land, or lawfully
settled plantations, should enjoy the same, laying down his _jura
regalia_ to the proprietor of this division, and paying him some small
acknowledgment. A memorandum is also made that “the 22d day of April
several deeds of feoffment were made unto the several proprietors.”

The act of surrender passed June 7, 1635. Lord Gorges had been chosen
president April 18. The Company seem to have been kept alive till some
years later, as there is an entry as late as Nov. 1, 1638, at which
it was agreed to augment the grants of the Earl of Sterling and Lord
Gorges and Sir F. Gorges, the two latter to have “sixty miles more
added to their proportions further up into the main land.” Of course,
in making this division the whole patent of Nov. 3, 1620, was not
divided, for that ran from sea to sea. It was a division on the New
England coast, running back generally sixty miles inland. It was part
of the plan to procure from the King, under the great seal of England,
a confirmation of these several grants. Lord Sterling’s grant included
also Long Island, near Hudson’s River.

The intention in this division was to ride over the Massachusetts
patent of 1628, which had been confirmed the following year by a
charter of incorporation from the King, and legal proceedings were soon
afterward instituted by a writ of _quo warranto_ for vacating their
franchises. The notorious Thomas Morton was retained as a solicitor
to prosecute this suit. The grants issued in this division to Sir
Ferdinando Gorges and to John Mason are the only ones with which
subsequent history largely deals.[531]

The King, in accepting the resignation of the Grand Patent, resolved
to take the management of the affairs of New England into his own
hands, and to appoint as his general governor Sir Ferdinando Gorges,
who himself, or by deputy, was to reside in the country. But “the best
laid schemes o’ mice and men gang aft a-gley.” The attempt to vacate
the charter of Massachusetts Bay, a fundamental thing to be done, was
not accomplished. The patentees to whom several of the divisions of the
territory of New England were assigned appear to have wholly neglected
their interest, and, except in the case of Sir Ferdinando Gorges,
before referred to, royal charters were granted to none.

Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Connecticut were settled under
grants, or alleged grants, from the Council for New England. The grant
of the territory of Massachusetts Bay of March 19, 1627/28, was in the
following year confirmed by the Crown, with powers of government. The
grant to Sir Ferdinando Gorges in the general division of February,
1634/35, with an additional sixty miles into the interior subsequently
added, was confirmed by the Crown April 3, 1639, with a charter
constituting him Lord Proprietor of the Province of Maine, and giving
him extraordinary powers of government. The territory issued to John
Mason at the general division, which was to be called New Hampshire,
the parchment bearing date April 22, 1635, was never confirmed by the
King, nor were any powers of government granted. The first settlements
in Connecticut,—namely, those of the three towns on the river of
that name, in 1635 and 1636,—were made under the protection of
Massachusetts, as though the territory had been part of that colony.
But the inhabitants subsequently acquired a _quasi_ claim to this
territory, under what is known as the “old patent of Connecticut,”
impliedly proceeding from the Council for New England, through the
Earl of Warwick, to Lord Say and Sele and his associates. The settlers
of Quinnipiack, afterward called New Haven, in 1638 and 1639, had no
patent for lands, but made a number of purchases from the Indians.
Plymouth Colony, of which an account is given here by another hand,
received a roving patent from the Council, dated June 1, 1621, with no
boundaries; and another patent, dated Jan. 13, 1629/30, defining their
limits, but with no powers of government. The territory of Rhode Island
was not a grant from the Council to the settlers.

MASSACHUSETTS.—There were scattered settlements in Massachusetts Bay
prior to the emigration under the patent of 1627/28. Thomas Weston
began a settlement at what is now Weymouth Fore-River, in the summer
of 1622, which lasted scarcely one year. Robert Gorges, as we have
seen, took possession of the same place, in September, 1623, for his
experimental government, but the colony broke up the next spring,
leaving, it is thought, a few remnants behind, which proved a seed for
a continuous settlement. Persons are found temporarily at Nantasket
in 1625, and perhaps earlier; at Mount Wollaston the same year, and
at Thompson’s Island in 1626. The solitary William Blaxton, clerk, is
traced to Shawmut, (Boston) in 1625 or 1626, and the equally solitary
Samuel Maverick, at Noddles’ Island, about the same time; while
Walford, the blacksmith, is found at Charlestown in 1629. The last
three named are reasonably conjectured to have formed part of Robert
Gorges’ company at Weymouth, in 1623/24.


The Dorchester Fishing Company, in England, of which the Rev. John
White, a zealous Puritan minister of that town, was a member, resolved
to make the experiment of planting a small colony somewhere upon the
coast, so that the fishing vessels might leave behind in the country
all the spare men not required to navigate their vessels home, who
might in the mean time employ themselves in planting, building, etc.,
and be ready to join the ships again on their return to the coast at
the next fishing season. Cape Ann was selected as the site of this
experiment, and in the autumn of 1623 fourteen men were left there to
pass the winter. In the latter part of the year 1625 Roger Conant,
who had been living at Plymouth and at Nantasket, was invited to join
this community as its superintendent, and he remained there one year.
The scheme proving a financial failure, the settlement broke up in the
autumn of 1626, most of the men returning home; but Conant and a few
others removed to Naumkeag (Salem), where they were found by Endicott,
who, under the authority of the Massachusetts patentees, arrived there
Sept. 6, 1628. These old settlers joined the new community.

Endicott was sent out as agent or superintendent of a large land
company, of which he was one of the proprietors, colonization being,
of course, a prominent feature in their plans. In the following year,
March 4, 1628-29, the patentees and their associates received a charter
of incorporation, with powers of government, and with authority to
establish a subordinate government on the soil, and appoint officers
of the same. This local government, entitled “London’s Plantation
in Massachusetts Bay in New England,” was accordingly established,
and Endicott was appointed the first resident governor. The charter
evidently contemplated that the government of the Company should
be administered in England. In a few months, however, the Company
resolved to transfer the charter and government from London to
Massachusetts Bay; and Matthew Cradock, who had been the first charter
governor, resigned his place, and John Winthrop, who had resolved to
emigrate to the colony, was chosen governor of the Company in his
stead. On the transfer of the Company to Massachusetts by the arrival
of Winthrop, the subordinate government, of which Endicott was the
head, was silently abolished, and its duties were assumed by its
principal, the corporation itself, which took immediate direction of
affairs. As the successor of Cradock, Winthrop was the second governor
of the Massachusetts Company, yet he was the first who exercised his
functions in New England.


The Massachusetts charter was not adapted for the constitution of
a commonwealth; therefore, as the colony grew in numbers it became
necessary for it to assume powers not granted in that instrument.
Between the years 1630 and 1640 about twenty thousand persons arrived
in the colony, after which, for many years, it is supposed that more
went back to England than came thence hither. Previous to the year last
named the colony had furnished emigrants to settle the colonies of
Connecticut, New Haven, and Rhode Island.

The charter gave power to the freemen to elect annually a governor,
deputy-governor, and eighteen assistants, who should make laws for
their own benefit and for the government of the colony; and provision
was made for general courts and courts of assistants, which exercised
judicial as well as legislative powers. But at the first meeting of
the general court in Boston, in October, 1630, it was ordered that the
governor and deputy-governor should be chosen by the assistants out of
their own number. This rule was of short duration, as in May, 1632, the
freemen resumed the right of election, and the basis of a second house
of legislature was laid.

The colonists, though Puritans, were Church of England men, and were
fearful of rigid separation; but Winthrop and his party,—among whom
was John Wilson, a graduate of King’s College, Cambridge, and destined
to become their first minister,—found on their arrival a church
already established at Salem on the basis of separation. Thenceforward,
following that example, the Massachusetts colony became a colony of
congregational churches. It has been a favorite saying with eulogists
of Massachusetts, that the pious founders of the colony came over
to this wilderness to establish here the principle of civil and
religious liberty, and to transmit the same inviolate to their remotest
posterity. Probably nothing was further from their purpose, which was
simply to find a place where they themselves, and all who agreed with
them, could enjoy such liberty. This was a desirable object to attain,
and they made many sacrifices for it, and felt that they had a right to
enjoy it.

The banishment of Roger Williams, and of Mrs. Hutchinson and her
sympathizers, was no doubt largely due to the feeling that the peace
of the community was endangered by their presence. In the unhappy
episode of the Quakers, at a later period, the colonial authorities
were wrought into a frenzy by these “persistent intruders.” It seemed
to be a struggle on both sides for victory; but though four Quakers
were hanged on Boston Common, the Quakers finally conquered. In the
second year of the settlement, in order to keep the government in
their own hands, or, in the language of the Act, “to the end the body
of the commons may be preserved of honest and good men,” the Court
ordered that thenceforward no one should be elected a freeman unless
he was a member of one of the churches of the colony. Probably there
were as good men outside the churches as there were inside, and by and
by a clamor was raised by those who felt aggrieved at being denied
the rights of freemen; but the rule was not modified till after the


[This portrait of the first minister of Boston hangs in the gallery
of the Massachusetts Historical Society. Its authenticity has been in
turn questioned and maintained. Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ September,
1867, and December, 1880.—ED.]]

A few unsavory persons whom Winthrop and his company found here
and speedily sent away, on their arrival home failed not to make
representations injurious to the Puritan settlement, and they were
seconded by the influence of Sir Ferdinando Gorges and John Mason.
Attempts were made in 1632 to vacate the colony’s charter; but these
attempts proved unsuccessful. A more serious effort was made a few
years later, when the Council for New England resigned its franchises
into the hands of the King; but owing to the trouble which environed
the government in England, and to other causes not fully explained, the
colony then escaped, as it also escaped at the same time the impending
infliction of a general governor for New England.

In 1640 some of the colony’s friends in England wrote to the
authorities here advising them to send some one to England to solicit
favors of the Parliament. “But, consulting about it,” says Winthrop,
“we declined the motion, for this consideration,—that if we should put
ourselves under the protection of Parliament, we must then be subject
to all such laws as they should make, or at least such as they might
impose upon us; in which course, though they should intend our good,
yet it might prove very prejudicial to us.” From 1640 to 1660 the
colony was substantially an independent commonwealth, and during this
period they completed a system of laws and government which, taken as
a whole, was well adapted to their wants. Their “Body of Liberties”
was established in 1641, and three editions of Laws were published by
authority, and put in print in 1649, in 1660, and in 1672. The first
law establishing public schools was passed in October, 1647. Harvard
College had already, in 1637, been established at Cambridge.


[This group gives the names of some of the victims of the judicial
extremities practised in Boston. See Bowden’s _Friends in America_, and
the _Memorial History of Boston_. Cf. the note on the treatment of the
early Quakers in New England, in chapter xii.—ED.]]

The ecclesiastical polity of the churches, embodied in the “Cambridge
Platform,” was drawn up in 1648, and printed in the following year, and
was finally approved by the General Court in 1651.

The community was obliged to feel its way, and adapt its legislation
rather to its exigencies than to its charter. The aristocratical
element in the society early cropped out in the institution of a
Council for life, which may have had its origin in suggestions from
England; but it met with little favor.

The confederation of the United Colonies, first proposed by
Connecticut, was an act of great wisdom, foreshadowing the more
celebrated political unions of the English race on this continent, for
they all have recognized the common maxim, that “Union is strength.”
The colonists were surrounded by “people of several nations and
strange language,” and the existence of the Indian tribes within the
boundaries of the New England settlements was the source of ceaseless
anxiety and alarm. The Pequot War had but recently ended, and it had
left its warning. It would have been an act of grace to admit the
Maine and Narragansett settlements to this union, but it was probably

[Illustration: DR. JOHN CLARK.

[This portrait of a leading physician of the colony hangs in the
gallery of the Massachusetts Historical Society, and is inscribed
“Ætatis suæ 66 ann. suo,” and purports to be a Dr. John Clark, and is
probably the physician of that name of Newbury and Boston, who died in
1664. His son John, likewise a physician, was also a prominent public
man in Boston, and died in 1690. That it is the former is believed by
Dr. Thacher in his _American Medical Biography_, and by Coffin in his
_History of Newbury_, both of whom give lithographs of the picture.
Dr. Appleton, who printed an account of the Society’s portrait in
its _Proceedings_, September, 1867, also took this view; while the
Rev. Dr. Harris, in the Society’s _Collections_, third series, vii.
287, finds the year 1675 in the inscription, which is not there, and
identifies the subject of the picture with another Dr. John Clark, who
was prominent in Rhode Island history. There was still a third Dr. John
Clark, son of John, and of Boston, who died in 1728. It is not probably
determinable beyond doubt which of the earlier two this is; and Savage,
in his _Genealogical Dictionary_, gives twenty-five John Clarks as
belonging to New England before the end of the first century; but of
these only four are physicians, as above named. Cf. _Massachusetts
Historical Society’s Proceedings_, July, 1844, p. 287.—ED.]]

The conversion of the Indian tribes to Christianity was a subject which
the colony had much at heart, and a number of its ministers had fitted
themselves for the work: the special labors of the Apostle Eliot need
only be mentioned. Through the instrumentality of Edward Winslow, a
society for propagating the gospel among the Indians was incorporated
in England in 1649, and the Commissioners of the United Colonies were
made the agents of its corporation as long as the union of the colonies

The Massachusetts colonists were at first seriously tasked for the
means of subsistence; but these anxieties soon passed away. Industry
took the most natural forms. Agriculture gave back good returns. To
the invaluable Indian maize were added all kinds of English grain,
as well as vegetables and fruits. Some were indigenous to the soil.
English seeds of hay and of grain returned bountiful crops. All animals
with which New England farms are now stocked then well repaid in
increase the care bestowed upon them. The manufacture of clothing was
of slower growth. Thread and yarn were spun and knit by the women at
home; but in a few years weaving and fulling mills were set up, and
became remunerative. The manufacture of salt, saltpetre, gunpowder, and
glassware gave employment to many, while the brickmaker, the mason, the
carpenter, and indeed all kindred trades found occupation. The forests
were a source of income. Boards, clapboards, shingles, staves, and,
at a later period, masts had a ready sale. Furs and peltry, received
in barter from the Indians, became features of an export trade. The
fisheries should be specially enumerated as a source of wealth, and
this industry led to the building of ships, which were the medium of
commerce with the neighboring colonies, the West Indies, and even with

After the coin brought over by the settlers had gone back to England to
pay for supplies, the colony was greatly embarrassed for a circulating
medium, and Indian corn and beaver-skins were early used as currency,
while wampum was employed in trade with the Indians. The colony,
however, in 1652 established a mint, where was coined, from the Spanish
silver which had been introduced from the West Indies, and from
whatever bullion and plate might be sent in from any quarter, the New
England money so well known in our histories of American coinage.[533]
The relation of the colony to the surrounding New England plantations
is noticed further on in the brief accounts given of those settlements.

Events in England moved rapidly onward. The execution of King Charles
occurred about two months before the death of Winthrop, which happened
on the 26th of March, 1648/49, and it is certain that the latter never
heard of the tragic end of his old master. The colonists prudently
acknowledged their subjection to the Parliament, and afterward to
Cromwell, so far as was necessary to keep upon terms with both.
Hutchinson says that he had nowhere met with any marks of disrespect
to the memory of the late king, and that there was no room to suppose
they bore any disaffection to his son; and if they feared his
restoration, it was because they expected a change in religion, and
that a persecution of all Nonconformists would follow. Charles II. was
tardily proclaimed in the colony, owing, perhaps, to a lack of definite
information as to the state of politics in England, and to rumors that
the people there were in an unsettled condition.


[See note on this portrait in the _Memorial History of Boston_, i.

A loyal address was finally agreed upon and sent; but he was not
proclaimed till August of the following year, 1661. The Restoration
brought trouble to the colony. Among those who laid their grievances
before the King in Council were Mason and Gorges, each a grandson
and heir of a more distinguished proprietor of lands in New England.
They alleged that the colony had, in violation of the rights of the
petitioners, extended its jurisdiction over the provinces of New
Hampshire and Maine. The Quakers and some of the Eastern people also
had their complaints to make against the colony.

To the humble address made to the King a benignant answer was received;
but an order soon afterward came that persons be sent over authorized
to make answer for the colony to all complaints alleged against it.
These agents on their return brought a letter from the King to the
colony, in which he promised to preserve its patent and privileges;
but he also required of the colony that its laws should be reviewed,
and such as were against the King’s authority repealed; that the oath
of allegiance and the forms of justice be administered in the King’s
name; that no one who desired to use the book of Common Prayer should
be prejudiced thereby as to the baptism of his children or admission to
the sacrament or to civil privilege.

These requirements were grievous to the people of Massachusetts; but
worse was to come. In the spring of 1664 intelligence was brought
that several men-of-war were coming from England with some gentlemen
of distinction on board, and preparations were made to receive them.
At the next meeting of the General Court a day of fasting and prayer
was appointed, and their patent and its duplicate were brought into
Court and committed to the charge of four trusty men for safe-keeping.
The ships arrived in July, with four commissioners having authority
for reducing the Dutch at Manhados, and for visiting the several New
England colonies, and hearing and determining all matters of complaint,
and settling the peace and security of the country. Proceeding on their
errand to the Manhados, the Dutch surrendered on articles.[534] In the
mean time an address was agreed upon by the Court to be sent to the
King, in which was recounted the sacrifices and early struggles of the
colonists, while they prayed for the preservation of their liberties.
Colonel Nichols remaining in New York, the other commissioners returned
to New England, and, having despatched their business elswhere, came
to Boston in May, 1665, after they had been joined by Colonel Nichols.
Governor Endicott had died the preceding March, and Mr. Bellingham,
the deputy-governor, stood in his place. The commissioners laid their
claim before the Court, and demanded an answer. There was skirmishing
on both sides. It is a long story, filling many pages of the colony
records. The envoys asked to have their commission acknowledged by
the government; but this would have overridden the charter of the
colony, and placed the inhabitants at the mercy of their enemies. In
short, the authorities refused to yield, and the commissioners, after
being defeated in other attempts to effect their purpose, were called
home. Several letters and addresses followed. Thus ended for a time
the contest with the Crown. For nearly ten years there was an almost
entire suspension of political relations between New England and the
mother country. But the projects of the Home Government were not given
over. Gorges and Mason persisted in their claims. In the mean time
New England was ravaged by an Indian war, known as Philip’s War. The
distress was great, and the loss of life fearful. During its progress
Edward Randolph, the evil genius of New England, appeared on the scene,
prepared for mischief.


[This is considered the oldest meeting-house in present use in New
England. It was erected in 1681. Cf. _The Commemorative Services of
the First Parish in Hingham on the Two Hundredth Anniversary of the
Building of its Meeting-House, Aug. 8, 1881_ (Hingham, 1882), with
another view of the building,—a photograph; also E. A. Horton’s
_Discourse_, Jan. 8, 1882. A meeting-house of similar type, erected
in Lynn in 1682, is represented in _Lynn, Her First Two Hundred and
Fifty Years_, p. 117.


The annexed autographs, taken from a document in the _Trumbull
Manuscripts_, in the Massachusetts Historical Society’s Cabinet, and
dated 1690, represent some of the leading ministers of the colony
at the close of the colonial period. Morton was of Charlestown;
Allen of Boston; Wigglesworth, the author of the _Day of Doom_, a
sulphurous poem greatly famous in its day, was of Malden; Moodey was of
Portsmouth; Willard and Mather of Boston; and Walter of Roxbury.—ED.]]

He arrived in July, 1676, with a letter from the King and with
complaints from Mason and Gorges, and armed with a royal order for
agents to be sent to England to make answer. This was but the
beginning of the end. The legal authorities in England, before whom
the case was brought, decided that neither Maine nor New Hampshire was
within the chartered limits of Massachusetts, and that the title of the
former was in the grandson of the original proprietor. Whereupon the
agent of Massachusetts bought the patent of Maine from its proprietor
for £1,250, and stood in his shoes as lord paramount.


This greatly displeased the King, and the hostility to the colony
continued. Additional charges, such as illegal coining of money,
violations of the laws of trade and navigation, and legislative
provisions repugnant to the laws of England and contrary to the power
of the charter, were now alleged against the colony. The agents of
the colony and the emissaries of the Crown crossed and recrossed the
ocean with apologies on the one hand and requisitions on the other;
but nothing would satisfy the Crown but the subjugation of the colony.
A _quo warranto_ against the Governor and Company was issued in 1683;
and finally, by a new suit of _scire facias_ brought in the Court of
Chancery, judgment against the Company was entered up Oct. 23, 1684.
Intelligence of this was not officially received till the following
summer. Meantime the new king, James II., was proclaimed, April 20,
1685. The government of the colony was expiring. The “Rose” frigate
arrived in Boston May 14, 1686, bringing a commission for Joseph Dudley
as President of the Council for Massachusetts Bay, New Hampshire,
and Maine, and the Narraganset country, or King’s Province. There
was no House of Deputies to oppose him. Dudley was succeeded by Sir
Edmund Andros on the 19th of December, who had arrived in the frigate
“Kingfisher,” with a commission for the government of New England. He
was detested by the colony, and the people only needed a rumor of the
revolution in England, which reached Boston in the spring of 1689, to
provoke a rising, and he was thrown into prison.[535] A provisional
government, with the old charter-officers, was instituted, and
continued till the new charter of 1691 was inaugurated.

MAINE.—There were many settlements on the coast of Maine prior to
the grant to Gorges from the Council in 1635, and consequently before
his subsequent charter from the King. Indeed, very little was done
by Gorges as Lord Proprietor of Maine. The patents from the Council
to the year 1633 had embraced the whole territory from Piscataqua to
Penobscot, thus including the territory on both sides the Kennebec,
which was claimed by the Pilgrims of Plymouth under their patent of
Jan. 13, 1629/30. In various places settlements had already been begun.
In the royal charter to Gorges, whose grant extended from Piscataqua to
Sagadahoc, the rights of previous grantees were reserved to them, they
relinquishing or laying down their _jura regalia_.


The earliest permanent settlement in this State, on the mainland,
would seem to have been made at Pemaquid. One John Brown, of New
Harbor, bought land in that quarter of the Indians as early as July
15, 1625, the acknowledgment of the deed being taken by Abraham Shurt,
of Pemaquid, in the same month in the following year, if there is no
error in Shurt’s deposition. Shurt says that he came over as the agent
of the subsequent proprietors, Aldsworth and Elbridge, who had a grant
of Pemaquid from the Council, issued Feb. 29, 1631/32, and that he
bought for them the Island of Monhegan, on which a fishing settlement,
temporarily broken up in 1626, was made three years before.

The settlement at the mouth of the Saco River must have begun soon
after Richard Vines took possession of his grant there in 1630.
During the same year Cleeves and Tucker settled near the mouth of
the Spurwink; but in two years they removed to the neck of land on
which Portland now stands, and laid the foundation of that city. In
applications to the Council for grants of land made respectively to
Walter Bagnall and John Stratton, Dec. 2, 1631, the former represents
himself to have lived in New England “for the space of seven years,”
and the latter “three years last past.” Bagnall’s patent included
Richmond Island, where he had lived some three years at least. He was
killed by the Indians two months before the Council acted upon his
application. Stratton’s grant was located at Cape Porpoise. Bagnall
probably had been one of Thomas Morton’s unruly crew at Mt. Wollaston,
in Boston Harbor.

In 1630 what is known as the “Plough Patent” was issued by the Council.
The original parchment is lost, and it is nowhere recorded. The grant
was bounded on the east by Cape Elizabeth, and on the west by Cape
Porpoise, a distance of some thirty miles on the sea-coast. This
included the patents on the Saco River previously granted, against
which Vines protested. There was early a dispute as to its extent. The
holders of it came over in the ship “Plough,” in 1631. They went to the
eastward; but not liking the place, came to Boston. They subsequently
fell out among themselves, and, as Winthrop says, “vanished away.”
Afterward the patent fell into the hands of others, and played an
important part for a number of years in the history of Maine, of which
notice will be taken further on.

On Dec. 2, 1631, a grant of land of twenty-four thousand acres in
extent was made to a number of persons, including Ferdinando Gorges,
a grandson of Sir Ferdinando, then some three years of age. This
territory was on both sides of the Acomenticus River. Some settlements
were made here about this time, and April 10, 1641, after the
Gorges government was established, the borough of Acomenticus was
incorporated, and in the following March the place was chartered as the
city of “Gorgeana.”

There were other early settlements on the coast of Maine, but we have
no space for their enumeration. The inhabitants, really or nominally,
for the most part sympathized with the Loyalist party as well in
politics as in religion, and it was the policy of the proprietor of
Maine to foster no opposing views. They were subjected to no external
government until the arrival of Captain William Gorges, in 1636, as
deputy-governor, with commissions to Richard Vines and others as
councillors of the province, to which the name of “New Somersetshire”
was given. The first meeting of the commissioners was held at Saco,
March 25, 1636, where the first provincial jurisdiction in this section
of New England was exercised. The records of this province do not
extend beyond 1637, and it is uncertain whether the courts continued
to be held until the new organization of the government of Maine in
1640. In 1636 George Cleeves, a disaffected person who lived at Casco,
went to England, and next year returned with a commission from Sir
Ferdinando Gorges, authorizing several persons in Massachusetts Bay to
govern his province of New Somersetshire, and to oversee his servants,
etc. The authorities of the Bay declined the service, and the matter
“passed in silence.” Winthrop says they did not see what authority
Gorges had to grant such commissions.

The charter of Maine, which covered the same territory as New
Somersetshire, having been granted to Sir Ferdinando Gorges, he issued
a commission for its government. This included a number of his kinsmen,
with Thomas Gorges as deputy-governor. The first General Court under
this government was held at Saco, June 25, 1640, under an earlier
commission and before the arrival of the deputy-governor. This Court
exercised the powers of an executive and legislative, as well as of a
judicial, body, in the name of “Sir Ferdinando Gorges, Knight, Lord
Proprietor of the Province of Maine.” The second term of the Court was
held in September, when the Deputy-Governor was present. He made his
headquarters at Gorgeana. The records of the courts between 1641 and
1644, inclusive, are not preserved. Deputy-Governor Gorges sailed for
England in 1643, leaving Richard Vines at the head of the government.
At a meeting held at Saco in 1645, the Court, not having heard from
the proprietor, appointed Richard Vines deputy-governor for one year,
and if he departed within the year, Henry Josselyn was to take his
place. The civil war was raging in England at this time, and Sir
Ferdinando Gorges was active for the King, and was in Prince Rupert’s
army at the siege of Bristol. When that city was retaken by the
Parliamentary forces, in 1645, he was plundered and imprisoned. Under
these circumstances he had no time to give to his distant province.
In 1645 the Court ordered that Richard Vines shall have power to take
possession of all goods and chattels of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, and to
pay such debts as Gorges may owe.

But Gorges’ authority was not, meanwhile, without its rival. Not long
after the government under the charter of 1639 had been organized,
George Cleeves, of Casco, again went to England, and induced Alexander
Rigby, “a lawyer and Parliament-man,” from Wigan, Lancashire, to
purchase the abandoned Plough patent before mentioned, which he
did, April 7, 1643; and Cleeves received a commission from him,
as deputy, to administer its affairs. By the following January he
had returned, and, landing at Boston, he solicited the aid of the
Massachusetts Government against the authority of Gorges; but that
Government declined to interfere. Cleeves claimed that Casco was within
the bounds of his patent, and he immediately set up his authority
as “Deputy-President of the Province of Lygonia,” extending his
jurisdiction over a large part of the Province of Maine, which was
then under the administration of Richard Vines, as deputy for Gorges.
This produced a collision, and both parties appealed to Massachusetts,
which declined, as before, to act; but finally, in 1646, after Vines
had left the country, the Bay Government consented to serve as umpire;
but no conclusion was reached. Winthrop says that both parties failed
of proof; and as a joint appeal had been made to the Commissioners for
Foreign Plantations in England, they were advised in the mean time to
live peaceably together. Rigby’s position and influence in Parliament
secured a decision in his favor, while Gorges at that time was in no
position to protect his interests. The decision of the Commissioners,
which was given in 1646, terminated Gorges’ jurisdiction over that part
of Maine included in the Province of Lygonia, embracing the settlements
from Casco to Cape Porpoise, and including both. The last General Court
under the authority of Gorges, of which any record exists, was held at
Wells, in July of this year.

At length, in 1649, the inhabitants of the western part of this
province, between Cape Porpoise and Piscataqua River,—including
Wells, Gorgeana, and Piscataqua,—having had intelligence in 1647 of
the death of the proprietor (Gorges died in May of that year, and was
buried on the fourteenth of the month), and finding no one in authority
there, and having in vain written to his heirs to ascertain their
wishes, formed a combination among themselves. Mr. Edward Godfrey was
chosen governor, the style of the “Province of Maine” being still
retained. This state of things continued till 1652/53, when the towns
were annexed to Massachusetts. The inhabitants then living between
Casco and the Kennebec were few in number. Thomas Purchase, one of the
proprietors of the Pejepscot patent, had, in 1639, conveyed a large
tract to Massachusetts with alleged powers of government over it. The
people living within the Kennebec patent were regarded as belonging to
the jurisdiction of New Plymouth.

In the mean time the inhabitants under the Lygonia government quietly
submitted to its authority. Alexander Rigby died in August, 1650, and
the proprietorship of Lygonia fell to his son Edward. In brief, the
government was soon at an end. The inhabitants of Cape Porpoise and
Saco submitted to Massachusetts in 1652, and the remaining settlements
in 1658. Thus was accomplished what the Bay Colony had for some time
been aiming to effect,—the bringing of these eastern settlements under
her jurisdiction. Having decided that the northern boundary of her
patent extended three miles above the northernmost head of the Merrimac
River, the commissioners appointed on a recent survey showed that the
northern line, as run by them, terminated at Clapboard Island (about
three miles eastward of Casco peninsula); and this brought the Maine
settlements within the bounds of the Massachusetts charter. This state
of things continued till after the restoration of Charles II., when
the hopes of those favorable to the Gorges interest began to revive.
Young Ferdinando Gorges, the grandson and heir of the old proprietor,
petitioned the Crown to be restored to his inheritance. His agent,
Mr. Archdale, came into the province, and appointed magistrates to
act under his authority, but the Government of Massachusetts speedily
repressed all such movements. Charles II., however, soon directed his
attention to New England. He appointed four commissioners to proceed
thither, charged with important duties and clothed with large powers.
They, or three of them, visited the province in the summer of 1665, and
at York issued a proclamation to the inhabitants of Maine, requiring
them to submit to the immediate protection and government of the
King; and in his Majesty’s name forbidding the magistrates either
of Massachusetts or of the claimant to exercise jurisdiction there,
until his Majesty’s pleasure should be further known. A provisional
government was therefore established, and the revival of the Church of
England was encouraged.

In the previous year the Duke of York received a charter of the
Province of New York, and, embraced within the same document, was a
grant of the territories between the St. Croix and Pemaquid, which was
interpreted to include Pemaquid and its dependencies; and a government
was subsequently erected there under the name of Cornwall County.
After the Duke became King it was a royal province. This was beyond
the eastern bounds of the Province of Maine. There had scarcely been
even a pretence of a civil government here under the old patents. The
Royal Commissioners speak of the low moral condition of the people of
this region. “For the most part,” they say, “they are fishermen, and
share in their wives as they do in their boats.” The government under
the Duke of York was of an uncertain character, and was subject to
the contingencies of political changes; and in 1674 the Government of
Massachusetts, on the petition of the inhabitants, took them for a time
under its protection. During the Indian wars which scourged the eastern
settlements, in the latter part of that century, the Pemaquid country
was wholly depopulated.


The Government established by the Royal Commissioners in the Province
of Maine never possessed any permanent principle or power to give
sanction to its authority, and in 1668 it had nearly died out; at this
time the inhabitants there looked to the wise and stable Government of
Massachusetts for relief, and so petitioned to be again taken under its
jurisdiction. Four commissioners, therefore, accompanied by a military
escort were sent from the Bay, and reaching York in July, 1668, assumed
jurisdiction “by virtue of their charter.” There were a few prominent
individuals who did not quietly submit, but they were summarily dealt
with. Renewed exertions were now made by the proprietor and his friends
for a recognition of his title, and at length they so far prevailed as
to obtain letters from the King, dated March 10, 1675/76, requiring
the Massachusetts Colony to send over agents with full instructions to
answer all complaints. The agents appeared within the time specified,
and after a full hearing the authorities decided that neither Maine nor
New Hampshire was within the chartered limits of Massachusetts, and
that the government of Maine belonged to the heir of Sir Ferdinando
Gorges. Soon after this decision an agent of Massachusetts made a
proposition for the purchase of the province, which was accepted; and
in March, 1677/78, Ferdinando Gorges transferred his title for £1,250,
and Massachusetts became lord-paramount of Maine. This proceeding was
a surprise to the inhabitants of the province, and, as might have been
expected, gave offence to the King, who ineffectually demanded that the
bargain should be cancelled. Massachusetts, as the lawful assign of
Ferdinando Gorges, now took possession of the province. A proclamation
to that effect was issued March 17, 1679/80; and a government was set
up at York, of which Thomas Danforth was deputed to be president for
one year. This state of things continued till the accession of James
II., when the events in Maine were shaped by the revolution which took
place in Massachusetts, and Danforth was in the end provisionally
restored, as Bradstreet had been in the Bay.

NEW HAMPSHIRE.—The first settlement in New Hampshire was made by David
Thomson, a Scotchman, in the spring of 1623, at Little Harbor, on the
south side of the mouth of Piscataqua River. He had received a patent
from the Council of New England the year before, and came over in the
ship “Jonathan,” of Plymouth, under an indentured agreement with three
merchants of Plymouth in England. He lived at Little Harbor till 1626,
when he removed to an island in Boston Harbor, which now bears his
name. By 1628 he had died, leaving a wife and child. There is reason
to believe that the settlement at Little Harbor was continued after
Thomson left the place.

Following Thomson,—perhaps about 1627,—came Edward Hilton, a
fishmonger of London, who settled six miles up the river, on a place
afterward called Hilton’s Point, or Dover Neck. Here he was joined by a
few others, including his brother William and his family, who had been
at New Plymouth. In 1630 Hilton and his associates received from the
Council a patent of the place on which he was settled. This was dated
March 12, 1629 (O. S.), and the whole or part of it they soon sold to
some merchants of Bristol in England. Two years later the patent, or a
large interest in it, was purchased by Lord Say, Lord Brook, and other
gentlemen friendly to Massachusetts. This latter agreement was effected
through the agency of Thomas Wiggin, who had gone over to England in
1632, and who in the following year returned, bringing with him a large
accession to the settlement, which included a “worthy Puritan divine,”
who soon left for want of adequate support. Other ministers came, and
some laymen, all of whom had been in bad repute in Massachusetts.
Although the inhabitants went through the form of electing magistrates,
there was no authorized government. The original proprietor of the
patent had left the place, and scenes of confusion, both civil and
ecclesiastical, sometimes highly amusing, characterized the settlement
for a number of years. In 1637 the people combined into a body politic,
which seems not to have received general sanction, and the notorious
George Burdett supplanted Wiggin, the former governor; but the troubles
which subsequently ensued led to a new combination, Oct. 22, 1640,
signed by forty-two persons, or nearly every resident. Massachusetts
had for some years desired to bring the several governments on the
Piscataqua and its branches under her jurisdiction, and had, by an
early revision of the northern boundary of her patent, decided that
it included them. The inhabitants here desired to be under a stable
government, and on June 14, 1641, they submitted to the Massachusetts
authorities, and the Act of Union was passed by that Government, Oct. 9

The next independent settlement was made by the Laconia Company in
1630. This company was formed soon after the Laconia patent of Nov.
17, 1629, was granted to Sir Ferdinando Gorges and John Mason. It was
an unincorporated association of nine persons, most of whose names
appear in a subsequent grant of land, to be presently mentioned. Some
of these associates had been members of the Canada Company, of which
Sir William Alexander was the head, who had undertaken the conquest of
Canada as a private enterprise, under the command of Sir David Kirke.
The fur-trade of that province was the tempting prize. The sudden peace
which followed the conquest, with the stipulation that all articles
captured should be restored, brought the Canada Company to grief. Ten
days after the return of the expedition, Sir Ferdinando Gorges and John
Mason took out the patent above mentioned. The purpose of the Company
was to engage in the fur-trade; to send cargoes of Indian truck-goods
to the Piscataqua and unlade them at their factories near the mouth of
the river, and thence to transport them in boats or canoes up the river
to Lake Champlain, to be bartered there for peltries for the European
market. Their patent was a grant of a vaguely bounded territory on
the lakes of the Iroquois, which they named Laconia. The first vessel
despatched to Piscataqua was the barque “Warwick,” which sailed from
London the last of March, 1630, and which by the first of June had
arrived, with Walter Neal, governor, and Ambrose Gibbons, factor, and
some others. They took possession of the house and land at Odiorne’s
Point, Little Harbor, which Thomson had left in 1626,—perhaps by
an agreement with his associates. In the following year others were
sent. Stations for the Company’s operations were also established at
Strawberry Bank (Portsmouth), and at Newichwaneck (South Berwick), on
the eastern side of the river. Captain Neal was charged with the duty
of penetrating into the interior of the country in search of the lakes
of Laconia. This he finally attempted, but without success. Hubbard
says that “after three years spent in labor and travel for that end,
or other fruitless endeavors, and expense of too much estate, they
returned back to England with a _non est inventa Provincia_.” The
Company also attempted to carry on, in connection with the peltry
business, the manufacture of clapboards and pipe-staves, and the making
of salt from sea-water. A fishing station was also set up at the Isles
of Shoals. Large quantities of truck-goods were sent over, which were
put off to advantage for furs brought to the factories by the Indians.
In order to afford the Company greater facilities, and to secure to
themselves what they had already gained, they had, on Nov. 3, 1631,
procured a grant from the Council of a tract of land on each side of
the Piscataqua River, in which the Isles of Shoals were included.

But success did not attend their operations. The returns were
inadequate to the outlay, and there was bad management and alleged bad
faith on the part of the employés; the larger part of the associates
became discouraged, and at the end of the third year they decided to
proceed no further till Captain Neal should return and report upon the
condition of affairs. Neal left Piscataqua July 15, 1633, and sailed
from Boston in August. His report was probably not encouraging, for
the Company proceeded later to wind up its affairs, and in December
following they divided their lands on the east side of the river. In
May, 1634, a further division was made, by which it appears that Gorges
and Mason, by purchase from their partners, had acquired one half
of the shares; and of this part Mason owned three fourths. Gibbons,
their factor, was now directed to discharge all the servants and pay
them off in beaver. Mason next sent over a new supply of men, and set
up two saw-mills on his own portion of the lands; but after this we
have no account of anything being done by him or by any other of the
adventurers on the west side. Neither have we seen evidence of any
division of lands having been made on the west side. Hubbard says that
in some “after division” Little Harbor fell to Mason, who mentions it
in his will. But Mason in that instrument claims and bequeaths his
whole grant of New Hampshire of April 22, 1635, which included the
part mentioned by Hubbard. Mason died before the close of the year
1635. What course was taken by his late partners or by the heirs of
Mason during the two following years, there are but few contemporary
documents to tell us. In 1638 Mrs. Mason, the executrix of John Mason’s
estate, appointed Francis Norton her general attorney to look after her
interests in those parts. But the expenses were found to be so great
and the income so small, and the servants were so clamorous for their
arrears of pay, that she was obliged to relinquish the care of the
plantation, and tell the servants to shift for themselves. Upon this
they shared the goods and cattle, while some kept possession of the
buildings and improvements, claiming them as their own. Charges were
afterward brought against her agents and servants for embezzling the
estate. Some years later suits were brought in her name and in that
of the other proprietors in the courts of Massachusetts against the
inhabitants of Strawberry Bank and of Newichwaneck, for encroaching
upon the lands in the Laconia patent. As a conclusion of this summary
sketch of the Laconia Company, it may be added that the records of the
old Court of Requests of London show that, on the dissolution of the
Company, suits sprang up among the adventurers themselves, which were
for a long time in litigation.

After Captain Neal went to England the Company appointed Francis
Williams to be governor in his place. As Strawberry Bank (the place was
not called Portsmouth till 1653) had no efficient government during
all this time, the inhabitants now by a written instrument, signed by
forty-one persons, formed a combination among themselves, as Dover had
done, and Francis Williams was continued governor. The people belonged
principally to the Church of England, and during this combination they
set apart fifty acres of land for a glebe, committing it in trust
to two church wardens.[537] Reference has already been made to the
successful attempts of the Massachusetts Government to bring all the
Piscataqua settlements under her jurisdiction. The people of Strawberry
Bank were as successfully wrought upon as those of Dover were, and the
same agreement of June 14, 1641, included the submission of both, and
certain proprietors named, in behalf of themselves and of the other
partners of the two patents, subscribed to the paper.

Of no one of the grants issued to John Mason, or in which he had a
joint interest, covering the territory of New Hampshire (except those
connected with the Laconia Company) did he make any improvement,—and
these grants were that of Aug. 10, 1622, with Gorges, between the
Merrimac and Sagadahoc; that of Nov. 7, 1629, between the Merrimac
and the Piscataqua; and that of April 22, 1635, between Naumkeag and
the Piscataqua. The territory now known as New Hampshire was never
called by that name, except by Mason in his last will, till 1661, when,
through the discussions consequent upon the claims of the heir of
Mason, this designation was introduced for the first time.

The independent settlement at Exeter was made in 1638 by John
Wheelwright and others; and of these pioneers Wheelwright himself with
some companions had been banished from Massachusetts in the previous
year. They bought their lands in April of that year from the Indians.
On the 5th of June, 1639, they formed a combination as a church and
as subjects of King Charles, promising to submit to all laws to be
made. It was signed by thirty-one persons, of whom fourteen made
their marks. In 1643 they came under Massachusetts. The order of the
General Court of that colony recites, under date of September 7, that,
finding themselves within the bounds of Massachusetts, the inhabitants
petitioned to be taken under her jurisdiction. Wheelwright then removed
to Wells, in the Province of Maine.

Hampton, where the “bound-house” was built by Massachusetts in 1636,
was considered from the first as belonging to the jurisdiction
of Massachusetts. A union having been thus formed between the
settlements on the Piscataqua River and its branches and the colony of
Massachusetts, their history for the next forty years is substantially
the same. These plantations were governed by the general laws of
Massachusetts, and the terms of union were strictly observed.[538]

But Massachusetts was destined to be arraigned by the heir of the old
patentee of New Hampshire, Robert Tufton Mason, who at the Restoration
pressed his claim on the attention of the Crown. Finally, after a long
struggle, the judges in 1677 advised that Mason had no right to the
government of New Hampshire, but that the four towns of Portsmouth,
Dover, Exeter, and Hampton were beyond the bounds of Massachusetts,
whose northern boundary was thereby driven back to its old limits,
while its charter of 1629 was held to be valid. In 1679 a revised
opinion was given by the attorney, Jones, to the effect that Mason’s
title to the soil must be tried on the spot, where the ter-tenants
could be summoned. A new government was now instituted by the Crown for
New Hampshire, and a commission was issued to John Cutt as president
for one year.

This form of government, the administration of which was arbitrary and
very unpopular throughout the province, continued till the time of
Dudley and Andros, whose commissions rode over all others preceding. On
the downfall of Andros New Hampshire was for a short time again united
to Massachusetts.

CONNECTICUT.—Connecticut was settled in 1635 and 1636 by emigrants
from three towns in Massachusetts,—namely, Dorchester, Watertown,
and Newtown (Cambridge); those from Newtown arriving in 1636. Their
places of settlement on the Connecticut River bore for a while the
names of the towns in Massachusetts whence the emigrants came; but
in February, 1637, the names of Windsor, Wethersfield, and Hartford
were substituted.


The Rev. Thomas Hooker and the Rev. Samuel Stone accompanied the
people from Newtown. The Rev. John Warham joined his people at
Windsor, and the Rev. Henry Smith was chosen pastor of the church at
Wethersfield. These several communities, though beyond the borders
of Massachusetts, were instituted under her protection, and for one
year they were governed by a commission issuing from the General Court
of that colony. Springfield, settled in 1636, was in this commission
united with the lower plantations. This provisional arrangement was
found to be inconvenient, and at the end of the year the several
towns took the government into their own hands, and a General Court
was held at Hartford, May 1, 1637. Preparations were now made for the
impending Pequot war, which called out all the strength of the feeble
settlements. On its conclusion, after arrangements had been made for
future security from savage foes, and for the purchase of food till
the new fields should become productive, the inhabitants of these
towns—Springfield, now suspected, and soon afterward declared, to be
within the bounds of Massachusetts, excepted—formed a constitution
among themselves, bearing date Jan. 14, 1638/39. This instrument has
been called “the first example in history of a written constitution,—a
distinct organic law constituting a government and defining its
powers.”[539] It contained no recognition of any external authority,
and provided that all persons should be freemen, who should be admitted
as such by the freemen of the towns, and should take the oath of
allegiance. It continued in force, with little alteration, for one
hundred and eighty years.


John Haynes[540] was the first governor; and he and Edward Hopkins
held the office during most of the time for the next fifteen years. In
1657 John Winthrop, son of the Massachusetts governor, was chosen, and
continued to serve till the acceptance of the new charter by New Haven,
when he was continued in that office.

[Illustration: J Winthrop

[This portrait hangs in the gallery of the Massachusetts Historical
Society. A heliotype of it will be found in the _Winthrop Papers_, Part
iv., and in Bowen’s _Boundary Disputes of Connecticut_.—ED.]]

Meanwhile, in October, 1635, this same John Winthrop, Jr., had returned
from England with a commission from Lord Say and Sele, Lord Brook, and
others, their associates, patentees of Connecticut, constituting him
“governor of the River Connecticut, with the places adjoining,” for
the space of one whole year. He was instructed to build a fort near
the mouth of the river, and to erect habitations; and he was supplied
with means to carry out this purpose. He brought over with him one
Lion Gardiner, an expert engineer, who planned the fortifications,
and was appointed lieutenant-governor of the fort. It was expected
that a number of “gentlemen of quality” would come over to the colony,
and some disposition was at first shown to remove the settlers of the
towns on the river who had “squatted” on the lands of the Connecticut

In the summer of 1639 George Fenwick, who was interested in the
patent, and his family came over in behalf of the patentees, and took
possession of the place, intending to build a town near the mouth of
the river. A settlement was made, and named Saybrook, in honor of
the two principal patentees. The government of the town was entirely
independent of Connecticut till 1644/45, when Fenwick, as agent of the
proprietors, transferred by contract to that government the fort at
Saybrook and its appurtenances, and the land upon the river, with a
pledge to convey all the land thence to Narragansett River, if it came
into his power to convey it.

[illustration: John Davenport

[The editor is indebted to Professor F. B. Dexter, of Yale College, for
a photograph of the original picture, which is in New Haven, painted on
panel, and bears the inscription, “J. D. obiit, 1670.” Davenport left
Connecticut in 1668 to become the successor of John Wilson in Boston,
and died as the pastor of the First Church in Boston, March 11, 1670.
Cf. _Memorial History of Boston_, i. 193, and the important paper on
Davenport by Professor Dexter, printed in the _New Haven Historical
Society’s Papers_, vol. ii.—ED.]]

In 1638 a settlement was made at Quinnipiack, afterward called New
Haven, under the lead of John Davenport. The emigrants, principally
from Massachusetts,—like those of the river towns,—had no patent or
title to the land on which they planted, but made a number of purchases
from the Indians. Here, in April, under the shelter of an oak, they
listened to a sermon by Davenport, and a few days afterward formed a
“plantation covenant,” as preliminary to a more formal engagement,—all
agreeing to be ordered by the rule of Scripture. This colony, as well
as that just described, sympathized substantially in religious views
with Massachusetts.

On the 4th of June, 1639, all the free planters met in a barn “to
consult about settling civil government according to God.” Mr.
Davenport prayed and preached, and they then proceeded, by his advice,
to form a government. They first decided that none but church members
should be free burgesses. Twelve men were then chosen, who out of
their own number chose seven to constitute a church and on the “seven
pillars” thus chosen rested also the responsibility of forming the
civil government. On October 29 these seven persons met, and, after
a solemn address to the Supreme Being, proceeded to form the body of
freemen, and to elect their civil officers. Theophilus Eaton was chosen
to be governor for that year; indeed, he continued to be rechosen
to the office for nearly twenty years, till his death. This was the
original, fundamental constitution of New Haven. A few general rules
were adopted, but no code of laws established. The Word of God was to
be taken as the rule in all things.

[Illustration: CONNECTICUT RIVER, 1661.

[This is taken from a Dutch map which appeared at Middleburgh and the
Hague in 1666, in a tract belonging to the controversy between Sir
George Downing and the States General. It follows the fac-simile given
in the Lenox edition of Mr. H. C. Murphy’s translation of the _Vertoogh
van Nieu Nederland_. It also is found as a marginal map in the _Pas
Kaart van de Zee Kusten van Nieu Nederland_, published at Amsterdam
by Van Keulen, which shows the coast from Narragansett Bay to Sandy
Hook, where is also a portion of the map of the Hudson given in the
notes following Mr. Fernow’s chapter in Vol. IV. The _Pas Kaart_ is in
Harvard College Library (Atlas 700, No. 9). No. 10 of the same atlas is
_Pas Kaart van de Zee Kusten inde Boght van Nieu Engeland_, which shows
the coast from Nantucket to Nova Scotia.—ED.]]

This year settlements were made at Milford and at Guilford, each for a
time being independent of any other plantation. Connecticut had also
interposed two new settlements between New Haven and the Dutch, at
Fairfield and at Stratford.

In 1642 the capital laws of Connecticut were completed and put upon
record; and in May, 1650, a code of laws known as “Mr. Ludlow’s Code”
was adopted. In 1643 Connecticut and New Haven were both included in
the New England Confederation, as mentioned on an earlier page, and the
articles of union were printed in 1656, with the code of laws which was
adopted by New Haven, as drawn up by Governor Eaton, the manuscript
having been sent to England to be printed.

The old patent of Connecticut mentioned in the agreement with Fenwick
seems never to have been made over to the colony; and they were very
anxious, on the restoration of Charles II. in 1660, for a royal
charter, which would secure to them a continuance and confirmation
of their rights and privileges. Governor John Winthrop was appointed
as agent to represent the colony in England, for this purpose; and
in April, 1662, he succeeded in procuring a charter, which included
the colony of New Haven. The charter conveyed most ample powers and
privileges for colonial government, and confirmed or conveyed the
whole tract of country which had been granted to Lord Say and Sele
and others. Mr. Davenport and other leading men of that colony were
entirely opposed to a union with Connecticut; and the acceptance of the
new charter was resisted till 1665, when the opposition was overcome,
and the colonies became united, and at the general election in May of
that year John Winthrop was elected to be governor.

It is needless to say that the church polity of Connecticut and New
Haven, from the beginning, was substantially that of Massachusetts.
Their clergymen assisted in framing the Cambridge Platform in 1648,
which was the guide of the churches for many years. Hooker’s _Survey_
and Cotton’s _Way of the Churches Cleared_ (London, 1648) were
published under one general titlepage covering both works. After a few
years the harmony of the churches was seriously disturbed by a set
of new opinions which sprang up in the church at Hartford, and which
finally culminated in the adoption by a general council of Connecticut
and Massachusetts churches, held in Boston in 1657, of the “Half-Way
Covenant.” New Haven held aloof. Political motives lent their influence
in the spread of the new views; and while the government of Connecticut
attempted to enforce the resolutions of the synod, the churches long
refused to comply.[541]

The union of the two communities under one charter gave strength to
both, and the colony prospered, while Winthrop felt the strong control
of a robust spirit in John Allyn, the secretary of the colony.[542]
There were of course constant occasions of annoyance and dissension,
both civil and religious. Their wily foe, the Indian, did not cease
wholly to disturb their repose. But during Philip’s War, which was so
disastrous to Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Rhode Island, there was
less suffering in Connecticut. Conflicts of jurisdiction, both east
and west, growing out of the uncertain boundaries of its grant, though
it ran west to the South Sea, were of long duration. No sooner had the
commissioners, appointed by the King in 1683, made a favorable decision
for Connecticut in her controversy with Rhode Island in regard to the
Narragansett country, than a new claimant arose. At the division of
the grand patent in 1635, James, Marquis of Hamilton, had assigned
to him the country between the Connecticut and the Narragansett
rivers; but his claim slumbered only to be revived by his heirs at
the Restoration,—and now a second time, through Edward Randolph, the
watchful and untiring enemy of New England. The prior grant to Lord
Say and Sele, confirmed by the charter of April 23, 1662, and the
settlement of the country under it, was cited by Connecticut in their
answer; and, in an opinion on the case a few years later, Sir Francis
Pemberton said that the answer was a good one.


When James II. continued the attacks on the New England charters begun
by the late king, with a view to bring all the colonies under the
crown, Connecticut did not escape. A _quo warranto_ was issued against
the Governor and Company in July, 1685, and this was followed by
notices to appear and defend; but the colony resisted, and petitioned,
and final judgment was never entered. The colony’s language to the King
in one of its addresses to him was, however, construed as a surrender.
Andros went from Boston to Hartford in October, 1687, and at a meeting
of the Assembly, which was prolonged till midnight, demanded its
charter. The story goes, that, by a bold legerdemain, the parchment,
after the lights were blown out, was spirited away and hidden in the
hollow of an oak-tree; nevertheless Andros assumed the government of
the colony, under his commission. Thus matters continued till the
Revolution of 1689, when the colony resumed its charter.

RHODE ISLAND.—Rhode Island was settled by Roger Williams in 1636, he
having been banished from Massachusetts the year before. Professor
George Washington Greene, in his _Short History of Rhode Island_,
remarks, that in the settlement of the New England colonies the
religious idea lay at the root of their foundation and development;
that in Plymouth it took the form of separation, or a simple severance
from the Church of England; in Massachusetts Bay it aimed at the
establishment of a theocracy and the enforcement of a vigorous
uniformity of creed and discipline; and that from the resistance to
this uniformity came Rhode Island and the doctrine of soul-liberty.

Williams was banished from Massachusetts principally for political
reasons. His peculiar opinions relating to soul-liberty were not fully
developed until after he had taken up his residence in Rhode Island.
Five persons accompanied him to the banks of the Mooshausic, and
there they planted the town of Providence. Williams here purchased,
or received by gift, a tract of land from the Indians, and he had
no patent or other title to the soil. Additions were soon made to
the little settlement, and he divided the land with twelve of his
companions, reserving for them and himself the right of extending the
grant to others who might be admitted to fellowship. An association
of civil government was formed among the householders or masters of
families, who agreed to be governed by the orders of the greater
number. This was followed by another agreement of non-householders or
single persons, who agreed to subject themselves to such orders as
should be made by the householders, but “only in civil things.” This
latter is the earliest agreement on the records of the colony. In
1639, to meet the wants of an increasing community, five disposers or
selectmen were chosen, charged with political duties,—their actions
being subject to revision by the superior authority of the town


Meanwhile two other colonies had been planted on the shores of
Narragansett Bay. The first, partly from the ranks of the Antinomians
of Massachusetts, led by William Coddington and John Clarke, who
settled at Pocasset (Portsmouth), in the northern part of the Island
of Aquedneck in March, 1637/38; and their number so increased that in
the following year, 1639, a portion of them moved to the south part
of the island, and settled the town of Newport. Like Roger Williams,
the settlers had no other title to the land than what was obtained
from the natives. Another colony was planted at Shawomet (Warwick),
in January, 1642/43, by Samuel Gorton,—a notorious disturber of the
peace,—with about a dozen followers, who also secured an Indian title
to their lands. Gorton had been in Boston, Plymouth, Portsmouth, and in
Providence, and was an unwelcome resident in all, and at Portsmouth he
had been whipped.


About 1640, with some followers, he came to Pawtuxet, in the south
part of Providence, and, taking sides in some previous land quarrel
there, prevailed. The weaker party appealed to Massachusetts for
protection, and finally subjected themselves and their lands to that
government; upon which Gorton and his followers fled south to Shawomet.
Soon afterward, by the surrender to Massachusetts of a subordinate
Indian chief, who claimed the territory there, purchased by Gorton of
Miantonomi, that Government made a demand of jurisdiction there also;
and as Gorton refused their summons to appear at Boston, Massachusetts
sent soldiers, and captured the inhabitants in their homes, took them
to Boston, tried them, and sentenced the greater part of them to
imprisonment for blasphemous language to the Massachusetts authorities.
They were finally liberated, and banished; and as Warwick was included
in the forbidden territory, they went to Rhode Island. Gorton and two
of his friends soon afterward went to England.

The inhabitants on the island formed themselves into a voluntary
association of government, as they had done at Providence. The
community at Warwick was at first without any form of government.

Feeling a sense of a common danger, the little settlements of
Providence and Rhode Island sent Roger Williams to England, in 1643, to
apply for a charter. He found the King at open war with the Parliament;
but from the Parliamentary commissioners, with the Earl of Warwick
at their head, he procured a charter of “Incorporation of Providence
Plantations in the Narragansett Bay in New England,” dated March 14,
1643; that is, 1644 (N. S.). Three years were allowed to pass before
the charter was formally accepted by the plantations; but in May,
1647, the corporators met at Portsmouth, and organized a government;
and Warwick, whither Gorton and his followers had now returned,
though not named in the charter, was admitted to its privileges. This
franchise was a charter of incorporation, as its title indicates; but
it contained no grant of land. It recites the purchase of lands from
the natives; and the Government under it claimed the exclusive right to
extinguish the Indian title to lands still owned by the tribes within
its boundaries. The code of laws adopted when the charter was accepted
is an attempt to codify the common and statute laws of England, or such
parts as were thought binding or would suit their condition.

Williams’s principle of liberty of conscience was sometimes interpreted
in the community to mean freedom from civil restraint, and harmony did
not always prevail. This gave cause to his enemies to exult, while his
friends feared lest their hope of reconciling liberty and law should

The attempt of Massachusetts to bring the territory of the colony under
her jurisdiction was a source of great annoyance. During this contest
an appeal to the authorities in England resulted in the triumph of the
weaker colony. Then came the “Coddington usurpation,”—an unexplained
episode in the history of Rhode Island, by which the island towns in
1651 were severed from the government of the colony; and Coddington, by
a commission from the Council of State in England, was made governor
for life. This revolution seemed for a time successful; but the friends
of the colony did not despair. Williams and John Clarke were sent to
England as agents,—the one in behalf of the former charter, and the
other to ask for a revocation of Coddington’s commission. They were
both successful; and in the following year the old civil _status_ was
fully restored.

As civil dissensions ceased, there was danger of another Indian
war, which for the time was arrested by the sagacity of Williams.
The refusal of the United Colonies to admit Rhode Island to their
confederacy placed her at great disadvantage. Yet though causes of
dissension remained, the colony grew in industry and strength. Newport
especially increased in population and in wealth. Not every inhabitant,
however, was a freeman. The suffrage was restricted to ownership in
land, and there was a long process of initiation to be passed through
before a candidate could be admitted to full citizenship.

Changes were taking place in England. Cromwell died, and his son
Richard soon afterward resigned the Protectorship. The restoration of
Charles II. followed by acclamation. The colony hastened to acknowledge
the new King; the acts of the Long Parliament were abrogated, and a
new charter was applied for through John Clarke, who still remained in
England. This instrument, dated Nov. 24, 1663, was evidently drawn up
by Clarke, or was prepared under his supervision. It confirmed to the
inhabitants freedom of conscience in matters of religion. It recounted
the purchase of the land from the natives, but it equally asserted
the royal prerogative and the ultimate dominion of the lands in the
Crown,—a provision which Williams had strenuously objected to and
preached against in the Massachusetts charter. The holding was from
the King, as of the manner of East Greenwich. This gave the colony, in
English law, an absolute title to the soil as against any foreign State
or its subjects. It operated practically as a pre-emptive right to
extinguish the Indian title. The charter created a corporation by the
name of “The Governor and Company of the English Colony of Rhode Island
and Providence Plantations in New England in America.”


This charter gave the whole of the Narragansett country to the colony,
which the year before had been given to Connecticut; but it did not
bring peace. That colony still clamored for her charter boundary;
while a body of land speculators from Massachusetts, known as the
Atherton Company, who had, in violation of Rhode Island law, bought
lands at Quidnesett and Namcook, now insisted upon being placed under
Connecticut jurisdiction. The King’s commissioners, who arrived in the
country in 1664, charged with the duty of settling all disputes, came
into Rhode Island. They received the submission of the Narragansett
chiefs to the King, confirmatory of the same act performed in 1644, and
they set apart the Narragansett country, extending from the bay to the
Pawcatuck River, and named it King’s Province, and established a royal
government over it. Some other matters in dispute were happily settled.
The royal commissioners were well satisfied with the conduct of Rhode

The colony still grew, but it continued poor. About the year 1663
schools were established in Providence,—a tardy following of Newport,
which had employed a teacher in 1640. The colony was kept poor by the
great expense incurred in employing agents to defend itself from the
surrounding colonies, that wished to crush it. But another trouble
arose. A fearful war was impending, the bloodiest which the colony
had yet waged with the Indians. We have no space for the story; but
Philip’s War fell most heavily on Rhode Island, which furnished troops,
but was not consulted as to its management. Peace was at length
restored, and the Indians subdued; though they were still turbulent.

Connecticut had not yet renounced her claims on the Narragansett
country. Rhode Island set up her authority in the province, and
appointed officers for its government. Both colonies appealed to the
King. Within the colony itself now arose a most bitter controversy
respecting the limits and extent of the original Providence and
Pawtuxet purchase, which was not finally settled till the next century.
It grew out of the careless manner in which Roger Williams worded the
deeds to himself from the Indians, and also those which he himself gave
to the colony.


The appeal of Connecticut and Rhode Island to the King resulted in a
commission, in 1683, headed by the notorious Cranfield, Governor of New
Hampshire, and including the no less notorious Edward Randolph. They
quarrelled with the authorities of Rhode Island, and decided in favor
of Connecticut.

In due time Rhode Island was a common sufferer with the rest of New
England, under the imposition of Andros and his commission. He came
into Rhode Island, and was kindly received. He broke the colony
seal, but the parchment charter was put beyond his reach. The colony
surrendered, and petitioned the King to preserve her charter, and then
fell back upon a provisional government of the towns. At the revolution
she resumed her charter, and later it was decided in England that it
had never been revoked and remained in full force.


THE COUNCIL FOR NEW ENGLAND.—Chalmers, _Annals_, 1780, p. 99, says
concerning the great patent of Nov. 3, 1620, “This patent which has
never been printed because so early surrendered, is in the old entries
of New England in the Plant. off.” I saw the parchment enrolment of
this charter in her Majesty’s Public Record Office, in Fetter Lane,
London, and described it in full in _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, for
April, 1867, p. 54. It was first printed by Hazard, _Historical
Collections_, vol. i. 1792, pp. 103-118, probably from a manuscript
copy in the Superior Court files, N. H.[543]

The petition of the Northern Colony for a new charter, dated March
3, 1619/20, and the warrant to his Majesty’s Solicitor-General to
prepare such a patent, dated July 23, 1620, may be seen in Brodhead’s
_Documents_, etc., iii. 2-4. The warrant is also in Gorges’ _Briefe
Narration_, p. 21.

The opposition of the Virginia Company to the granting of this patent
may be seen in their records as published by Neill., _History of the
Virginia Company of London_, 1869, _passim_; also in Gorges’ _Briefe
Narration_, pp. 22-31; in the Council’s Briefe Relation,[544] pp.
18-22; and in Brodhead’s _Documents_, iii. 4. The opposition of the
House of Commons to the patent, after it had passed the seals, may be
best seen in the printed _Journals of the House_ for the sessions of
1621 and 1624. Chalmers’ extracts are to the point, but are not full.
See also Gorges, and the _Briefe Relation_, as above. For the answer
to the French ambassador, see also Sainsbury’s _Calendar, Colonial_,
p. 61. The history of the transactions of the Council may be largely
gathered from their extant records as published in _Amer. Antiq. Soc.
Proc._, for April, 1867, and for October, 1875; from Gorges, and from
the _Briefe Relation_. Cf. Palfrey, i. 193.

Probably no complete record exists of all the patents issued by the
Council; and of those known to have been granted, the originals, or
even copies of all of them, are not known to be extant. As full a list
of these as has been collected may be seen in a Lecture read before the
Massachusetts Historical Society, Jan. 15, 1869, by Samuel F. Haven,
LL. D., entitled _History of Grants under the Great Council for New
England_, etc.,—a valuable paper with comments and explanations, with
which compare Dr. Palfrey’s list in his _History of New England_, i.
397-99.[545] Since Dr. Palfrey wrote, new material has come to light
respecting some of these grants. The patent of Aug. 10, 1622, which
Dr. Belknap supposed was the Laconia patent, and which he erroneously
made the basis of the settlements of Thomson and of the Hiltons, and
of later operations on the Piscataqua, is found not to be the Laconia
patent, which was issued seven years later, namely, Nov. 17, 1629.[546]
Later writers have copied him. Again, Dr. Palfrey refers the early
division of the territory by the Council, from the Bay of Fundy to
Cape Cod, among twenty associates, to May 31, 1622. By the recovery of
another fragment of the records of the Council in 1875, we are able to
correct all previous errors respecting that division, which really took
place on Sunday, July 29, 1623. This fact has appeared since Dr. Haven

An object of interest would be the map of the country on which the
different patents granted were marked off. Some idea from it might
be formed of the geographical mistakes by which one grant overlapped
another, or swallowed it up entirely. I know of no published map
existing at that time that would have served the purpose. The names
of the places on the coast from Penobscot to Cape Cod, mentioned by
Captain Smith in his tract issued in 1616, were rarely indicated on
his map which accompanied the tract. They had been laid down on the
manuscript draft of the map, but were changed for English names by
Prince Charles.[548] Quite likely the Council had manuscript maps of
the coast. Of the division of 1623, the records say it was resolved
that the land “be divided according as the division is made in the plot
remaining with Dr. Goche.” Smith, speaking of this division, says that
the country was at last “engrossed by twenty patentees, that divided my
map into twenty parts, and cast lots for their shares,” etc. Smith’s
map was probably the best published map of the coast which existed at
that time; but the map on which the names were subsequently engrossed
and published was Alexander’s map of New England, New France, and New
Scotland, published in 1624, in his _Encouragement to Colonies_, and
also issued in the following year in Purchas, vol. iv. p. 1872. This
record, as the fac-simile shows,[549] is a mere huddling together of
names, with no indication as to a division of the country, as it was
not possible there should be on such a map as this, where the whole New
England coast, as laid down, is limited to three inches in extent, with
few natural features delineated upon it.

The greatest trouble existed among the smaller patents. A large
patent, like that to Gorges, for instance, at the grand division, with
well-defined natural boundaries on the coast, between the Piscataqua
and the Sagadahoc, or the Penobscot, would not be likely to be
contested for lack of description; but there had been many smaller
patents issued within these limits, which ran into and overlapped
each other, and some were so completely annihilated as to cause great

Some of these smaller patents had alleged powers of government granted
to the settlers,—powers probably rarely exercised by virtue of
such a grant, and which the Council undoubtedly had no authority to
confer.[550] The people of Plymouth, for instance, in their patent of
1630, were authorized, in the language of the grant, to incorporate
themselves by some usual or fit name and title, with liberty to make
laws and ordinances for their government. They never had a royal
charter of incorporation during their separate existence, though they
strove hard to obtain one. The Council for New England might from
the first have taken the Pilgrims under their own government and
protection; and Governor Bradford, in letters to the Council and to
Sir Ferdinando Gorges, written in 1627 and 1628, acknowledges that
relation, and asks for their aid.[551]


The records of the Council, so far as they are extant, contain no
notice of the adoption of a common seal, and we are ignorant as to the
time of its adoption. In the earliest patent known to have been issued
by the Council, which was an indenture between them and John Peirce
and his associates, dated June 1, 1621, the language is, “In witness
whereof the said President and Council have to the one part of this
present Indenture set their seals.” This is signed first by the Duke of
Lenox, who I think was the first President of the Council, and by five
other members of the Council, with the private seal of each appended to
his signature. But in a grant to Gorges and Mason, of Aug. 10, 1622,
which is also an indenture, the language is, that to one part “the said
President and Council have caused their _common seal_ to be affixed.”
Here we have a “common seal” used by the Council in issuing their
subsequent grants. But it is very singular, that of the many original
grants of the Council extant no one of them has the wax impression
of the seal intact or unbroken; usually it is wholly wanting. It is
believed, however, that the design of the seal has been discovered in
the engraving on the titlepage of Smith’s _Generall Historie_; and
the reasons for this opinion may be seen in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
March, 1867, pp. 469-472.[552] A delineation of it is given herewith.

In the absence of any record of the organization of the Council, or of
any rules or by-laws for the transaction of its business, we do not
know what officers, or what number of the Council, were required for
the issuing of patents, or for authorizing the use of the Company’s
seal. The only name signed to the Plymouth Patent of Jan. 13, 1629/30
is that of the Earl of Warwick, who was then the President of the

MASSACHUSETTS.[553]—The Massachusetts Colony had its origin in a grant
of land from the Council of New England, dated March 19, 1627, in old
style reckoning.[554] So far as is known, it is the first grant of
any moment made after the general division in 1623, but probably it
was preceded by the license to the Plymouth people of privileges on
the Kennebec. This patent to the Massachusetts Colony is not extant,
but it is recited in the subsequent charter. There is some mystery
attending the manner of its procurement, as well as about its extent.
The business was managed, in the absence of Sir Ferdinando Gorges,
by the Earl of Warwick, who was friendly to the patentees.[555] The
royal charter of Massachusetts was dated March 4, 1628 (O.S.). For
the forms used in issuing it, see _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, December,
1869, pp. 167-196. A discussion of the charter itself as a frame
of government for a commonwealth is found in Hutchinson’s _History
of Massachusetts_, i. 414, 415; Judge Parker’s Lecture before the
Massachusetts Historical Society, Feb. 9, 1869, entitled _The First
Charter_, etc.; and _Memorial History of Boston_, i. 329-382, and the
authorities there cited. As to the right of the Company to transfer the
government and charter to the soil, see Judge Parker, as above; Dr.
Palfrey, _New England_, i. 301-308; Barry, _History of Massachusetts_,
i. 174-186, and the authorities cited by them. The original charter, on
parchment, is in the State House in Boston. A heliotype of a section
of it is given in the _Memorial History of Boston_, i. 329.[556] The
duplicate or exemplification of the charter, which was originally
sent over to Endicott in 1629, is now in the Library of the Salem
Athenæeum. The charter was first printed, and from the “_dupl._”
parchment, “by S. Green, for Benj. Harris, at the London Coffee-House,
near the Town-House, in Boston, 1689.” It is entitled _A Copy of the
Massachusetts Charter_.[557]

The archives of the State are rich in the materials of its history. The
records of the government from its first institution in England down
to the overthrow of the charter are almost a history in themselves.
The student is no longer required to decipher the ancient writing, for
in 1853-54 the Records were copied and printed under the editorial
care of Dr. N. B. Shurtleff.[558] A large mass of manuscripts remains
at the State House, and is known as the _Massachusetts Archives_.
The papers were classified by the late Joseph B. Felt.[559] They are
the constant resource of antiquaries and historians, few of whom,
however, but regret the too arbitrary arrangement given to them by that
painstaking scholar.[560] The City of Boston, by its Record Commission,
is making accessible in print most valuable material which has long
slumbered in manuscript. The Archives of the Massachusetts Historical
Society are specially rich in early manuscripts, a catalogue of which
is now preparing, and its publishing committees are constantly at work
converting their manuscripts into print, while the sixty-seven volumes
of its publications, as materials of history, are without a rival.[561]

The first general _History of Massachusetts Bay_ was written by Thomas
Hutchinson, afterward governor of the province, in two volumes, the
first of which, covering the period ending with the downfall of Andros,
was published in Boston in 1764. The second volume, bringing the
history down to 1750, was published in 1767. Each volume was issued in
London in the year following its publication here. The author had rich
materials for his work, and was judicious in the use of them. He had a
genius for history, and his book will always stand as of the highest
authority. A volume of _Original Papers_, which illustrate the first
volume of the history, was published in 1769.[562] Hutchinson died in
England in 1780. Among his manuscripts was found a continuation of his
history, vol. iii., bringing the events down to 1774, in which year he
left the country. This was printed in London in 1828.[563] Some copies
of vol. i., London ed., were wrongly dated MDCCLX.

In 1798 was published, in two volumes, a continuation of Hutchinson’s
second volume, by George Richards Minot,[564] bringing the history
down to 1764. The work was left unfinished, and Alden Bradford, in
1822-1829, published, in three volumes, a continuation of that to the
year 1820.

The next most considerable attempt at a general _History of
Massachusetts_ was by John Stetson Barry, who published three volumes
in 1855-1857. It is a valuable work, written from the best authorities,
and comes down to 1820.

Palfrey’s _History of New England_, the first three volumes of which
were published in 1858-1864, and cover the period ending with the
downfall of Andros, must be regarded altogether as the best history of
this section of our country yet written, as well for its luminous text
as for the authorities in its notes.[565]

[Illustration: The Rev’d Dr. Cotton Mather. p Sarah Moorhead]

I will now go back and mention a few other general histories of New
England, including those works in which the history of Massachusetts is
a prominent feature.

Cotton Mather’s _Ecclesiastical History of New England_, better known
as his _Magnalia_, from the head-line of the titlepage, _Magnalia
Christi Americana_, was published in London in 1702, in folio.
Although relating generally to New England, it principally concerns
Massachusetts. While the book is filled with the author’s conceits and
puns, and gives abundant evidence of his credulity, it contains a vast
amount of valuable historical material, and is indispensable in any
New England library. It is badly arranged for consultation, for it is
largely a compilation from the author’s previous publications, and it
lacks an index. It has been twice reprinted,—in 1820 and 1853.[566]

John Oldmixon, Collector of Customs at Bridgewater, England, compiled
and published at London, in 1708, his _British Empire in America_, in
two volumes. About one hundred pages of the first volume relate to New
England, and while admitting that he drew on Cotton Mather’s _Magnalia_
for most of his material, omitting the puns, anagrams, etc., the author
nevertheless vents his spleen on this book of the Boston divine. Mather
was deeply hurt by this indignity, and he devoted the principal part of
the Introduction to his _Parentator_, 1724, to this ill-natured writer.
He says he found in eighty-six pages of Oldmixon’s book eighty-seven
falsehoods. A second edition of _The British Empire in America_ was
published in 1741, with considerable additions and alterations. In the
mean time the Rev. Daniel Neal had published in London his _History of
New England_, which led Oldmixon to rewrite, for this new edition, his
chapters relating to New England. Oldmixon’s work is of little value.
He was careless and unscrupulous.[567]

Mr. Neal’s _History of New England_, already mentioned, first appeared
in 1720, in two volumes, but was republished with additions in
1747.[568] It contains a map “according to the latest observations,”
or, as he elsewhere observes, “done from the latest surveys,” in one
corner of which is an interesting miniature map of “The Harbour of
Boston.” This book must have supplied a great want at the time of
its appearance, and though Hutchinson says it is little more than an
abridgment of Dr. Mather’s history,—which is not quite true, as see
his authorities in the Preface,—it gave in an accessible form many
of the principal facts concerning the beginning of New England. It of
course relates principally to Plymouth and Massachusetts. Neal was an
independent thinker, and differed essentially from Cotton Mather on
many subjects.

The Rev. Thomas Prince published in Boston in 1736 A _Chronological
History of New England in the Form of Annals_, in one volume, 12º, of
about four hundred pages. The author begins with the creation of the
world, and devotes the last two hundred and fifty pages to New England,
coming down only to September, 1630, or to the settlement of Boston.
After an interval of about twenty years the work was resumed, and
three numbers, of thirty-two pages each, of vol. ii. were issued in
1755, bringing the chronology down to August, 1633, when for want of
sufficient encouragement the work ceased. Prince was very particular in
giving his authorities for every statement, and he professed to quote
the very language of his author.[569]

In 1749 was published the first volume of a _Summary, Historical
and Political, ... of the British Settlements in North America_, by
William Douglass, M.D. The book had been issued in numbers, beginning
in January, 1747. The titlepage of the second volume bears date 1751.
The author died suddenly Oct. 21, 1752, before his work was finished.
A large part of the book relates to New England. It contains a good
deal of valuable information from original sources, but it is put
together without system or order, and the whole work appears more like
a mass of notes hastily written than like a history. Dr. Douglass was a
Scotchman by birth, and coming to Boston while a young man, he attained
a reputable standing as a physician. In the small-pox episode in 1721
he took an active part as an opposer of inoculation. He was fond of
controversy, was thoroughly honest and fearless, and gave offence in
his _Summary_ by his freedom of speech. The _Summary_ was republished
in London in 1755 and in 1760, each edition with a large map.[570] The
Boston edition was reissued with a new title, dated 1753.

       *       *       *       *       *

For the origin of the brief settlement at Cape Ann, which drew after it
the planting at Salem and the final organization of the Massachusetts
Company, and for the narrative of those several events,—namely, the
formation in London of the subordinate government for the colony,
“London’s Plantation in Massachusetts Bay,” with Endicott as its first
governor, and his instructions; the emigration under Higginson in 1629;
the establishment of the church in Salem, and the difficulty with the
Browns; and the emigration under Winthrop in 1630,—see John White’s
_Planter’s Plea_,[571] Hubbard’s _New England_, chap. xviii.; the
_Colony Records_; Morton’s _Memorial_, under the year 1629; Higginson’s
_Journal_, and his _New England Plantation_;[572] Dudley’s _Letter
to the Countess of Lincoln_;[573] and Winthrop’s own Journal. For
the principal part of these documents and others of great value the
reader is referred to Dr. Alexander Young’s _Chronicles of the First
Planters of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay_,—a convenient manual for
reference, of the highest authority, containing ample bibliographical
notes and illustrations, which need not be repeated here. This book,
which was published in 1846, was unfortunately thrown into chapters as
of one narrative, as had been that relating to the Plymouth Colony,
published in 1841, whereby the original authorities, which should be
the prominent feature of the book, are subordinated to an editorial

For the original authorities of the history of the scattered
settlements in Massachusetts Bay, prior to the Winthrop emigration,
I cannot do better than refer to a paper on the “Old Planters,” so
called, about Boston Harbor, by Charles Francis Adams, Jr., in _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, June, 1878, p. 194; and to Mr. Adams’s chapter in
_Memorial History of Boston_, i. 63.

[Illustration: SHIP OF XVII^{TH} CENTURY.

[This fac-simile is from a map in Dudley’s _Arcano del Mare_,

In Captain John Smith’s _Advertisements for the unexperienced Planters
of New England, or anywhere_, London, 1631, he has two chapters (xi.
and xii.) on the settlement of Salem and Charlton (Charlestown), and
an account of the sad condition of the colony for months after the
Winthrop emigration. This is Smith’s last book, and his best in a
literary point of view, and was published the year of his death.[574]

The _New England’s Prospect_, by William Wood, London, 1634, is the
earliest topographical account of the Massachusetts Colony, so far
as the settlements then extended. It also has a full description of
its fauna and flora, and of the natives. It is a valuable book, and
is written in vigorous and idiomatic English. The writer lived here
four years, returning to England Aug. 15, 1633. His book is entered
in the Stationers’ Register, “7 Julii, 1634.” Alonzo Lewis, author
of the _History of Lynn_, thinks that he came over again to the
colony in 1635, as a person of that name arrived that year in the

The _New English Canaan_, by Thomas Morton, Amsterdam, 1637, “written
upon ten years’ knowledge and experiment of the country,” is a sort
of satire upon the Plymouth and Massachusetts people, who looked upon
the author as a reprobate and an outlaw. He came over, probably, with
Weston’s company in 1622, and on the breaking up of that settlement
may have gone back to England. In 1625 he is found here again with
Captain Wollaston’s company on a plantation at “Mount Wollaston,” where
he had his revels. He was twice banished the country, and before his
final return hither wrote this book. His description of the natural
features of the country, and his account of the native inhabitants are
of considerable interest and value, and the side-light which he throws
upon the Pilgrim and Puritan colonies will serve at least to amuse the
reader.[576] Morton’s book, though printed in Holland “in the yeare
1637,” was entered in the Stationers’ Register in London, “Nov. 18,
1633,” in the name of Charles Greene as publisher; and a copy of the
book is now (1882) in the library of the Society for the Propagation of
the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 19 Delahay Street, Westminster, London,
bearing this imprint: “Printed for Charles Greene, and are sold in
Paul’s Church-Yard;” no date, but “1632” written in with a pen. See
White Kennett’s _Bibliothecæ Americanæ Primordia_, p. 77, where this
copy is entered, and where the manuscript date is printed in the
margin. This date is, of course, an error.[577] Morton’s book was not
written till after the publication of Wood’s _New England’s Prospect_,
to which reference is frequently made in the _New English Canaan_. The
_New England’s Prospect_ was entered at the Stationers’, “7 Julii,
1634,” and was published the same year. Morton’s book is dedicated to
the Commissioners for Foreign Plantations,—a body not created till
April 28, 1634. The book must have been entered at the Stationers’ some
time in anticipation of its printing; and when printed, some copies
were struck off bearing the imprint of Charles Greene, though only one
copy is now known with his name on the titlepage.


The first serious trouble with the Indians, which had been brewing for
some years, culminated in 1637, when the Pequots were annihilated.
This produced a number of narrations, two of which were published at
the time, and in London,—one by Philip Vincent,[578] in 1637, and
one by Captain John Underhill, in 1638.[579] The former is not known
to have been in New England at the time, but the minute particulars
of his narrative would lead one to suppose that he had been in close
communication with some persons who had been in the conflict. He could
hardly have been present himself. Captain John Underhill, the writer
of the second tract, was commander of the Massachusetts forces at the
storming of the fort, so that he narrates much of what he saw. He
prefaces his account with a description of the country, and of the
origin of the troubles with the Pequots. Both these narratives are
reprinted in 3 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, vi.

I may add here that there were other narratives of the Pequot War
written by actors in it. A narrative by Major John Mason, the commander
of the Connecticut forces, was left by him on his death, in manuscript,
and was communicated by his grandson to the Rev. Thomas Prince, who
published it in 1736. It is the best account of the affair written.
Some two or three years after the death of Mason, Mr. Allyn, the
Secretary of the colony of Connecticut, sent a narrative of the Pequot
War to Increase Mather, who published it in his _Relation of the
Troubles_, etc., 1677, as of Allyn’s composition. Having no preface or
titlepage, Mather did not know that it was written by Major Mason, as
was afterward fully explained by Prince, who had the entire manuscript
from Mason’s grandson.[580]

Lyon Gardiner, commander of the Saybrook fort during the Pequot War,
also wrote an account of the action, prefacing it with a narrative of
recollections of earlier events. It was written in his old age. It was
first printed in 3 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, iii. 136-160.[581]

For the history of the Antinomian controversy which broke out about
this time and convulsed the whole of New England, see the examination
of Mrs. Hutchinson in Hutchinson’s _Massachusetts Bay_, ii. 482;
Welde’s _Short Story_, etc., London, 1644; Chandler’s _Criminal
Trials_, Boston, 1841, vol. i.[582]

A small quarto volume published in London in 1641, entitled _An
Abstract of the Lawes of New England as they are now Established_, was
one of the results of an attempt to form a body of standing laws for
the colony. I may premise, that, at the first meeting of the Court of
Assistants at Charlestown, certain rules of proceeding in civil actions
were established, and powers for punishing offenders instituted. In
the former case equity according to circumstances was the rule; and
in punishing offences they professed to be governed by the judicial
laws of Moses where such laws were of a moral nature.[583] But such
proceedings were arbitrary and uncertain, and the body of the people
were clamorous for a code of standing laws. John Cotton had been
requested to assist in framing such a code, and in October, 1636, he
handed in to the General Court a copy of a body of laws that he had
compiled “in an exact method,” called “Moses his Judicials,” which
the Court took into consideration till the next meeting. The subject
occupied attention from year to year, till in December, 1641, the
General Court established a body of one hundred laws, called the Body
of Liberties, which had been composed by the Rev. Nathaniel Ward,[584]
of Ipswich. No copy of these laws was known to have been preserved on
the records of the colony; and of the earliest printed digest of the
laws, in 1648, which no doubt substantially conformed to the Body of
Liberties, no copy is extant.


The _Abstract_ above recited, published in 1641, was therefore for many
years regarded as the Body of Liberties, or an abstract of them, passed
in that year. About forty years ago Francis C. Gray, Esq., noticed in
the library of the Boston Athenæum a manuscript code of laws entitled
“A Copy of the Liberties of the Massachusetts Colonie in New England,”
which he caused to be printed in 3 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, viii. 216-237,
with a learned introduction, in which he showed conclusively that this
body of laws was the code of 1641, and that the _Abstract_ printed
that year in London was John Cotton’s code, _Moses his Judicials_,
which the General Court never adopted. A copy having found its way
to England, it was sent to the press under a misapprehension, and an
erroneous titlepage prefixed to it. Indeed, that John Cotton was the
author of the code published in London in 1641 had been evident from an
early period, by means of a second and enlarged edition published in
London by William Aspinwall in 1655, from a manuscript copy left by the
author. Aspinwall, then in England, in a long address to the reader,
says that Cotton collected out of the Scriptures, and digested this
_Abstract_, and commended it to the Court of Massachusetts, “which had
they then had the heart to have received, it might have been better
both with them there and us here than now it is.” The _Abstract_ of
1641, with Aspinwall’s preface to the edition of 1655, was reprinted
in 1 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, v. 173-192. Hutchinson, _Papers_, 1769, pp.
161-179, had already printed the former.[585]

The religious character of the colony was exemplified by the
publication, in 1640, of the first book issued from the Cambridge
press, set up by Stephen Daye the year before; namely, _The Whole
Booke of Psalmes Faithfully Translated into English Metre_, by Richard
Mather, Thomas Welde, and John Eliot. Prince, in the preface to his
revised edition of this book, 1758, says that it “had the honor of
being the _First Book_ printed in North America, and, as far as I can
find, in this _whole_ NEW WORLD.” Prince was not aware that a printing
press had existed in the City of Mexico one hundred years before.[586]
He was right, however, in the first part of his sentence. Eight copies
of the book are known to be extant, of which two are in Cambridge,
where it was printed. Within a year or two a copy has been sold for
fifteen hundred dollars.[587] The first thing printed by Daye was the
freeman’s oath, the next was an almanac made for New England by Mr.
William Peirce, mariner,—so says Winthrop. What enterprising explorer
of garrets and cellars will add copies of these to our collections of
Americana? Probably one of the last books printed by Daye was the first
digest of the laws of the colony, which was passing through the press
in 1648. Johnson says it was printed that year. Probably 1649 was the
date on the titlepage. Not a single copy is known to be in existence.
Daye was succeeded in 1649 by Samuel Green, who issued books from the
Cambridge press for nearly fifty years.[588]

One of the most interesting and authentic of the early narratives
relating to the colony is Thomas Lechford’s _Plain Dealing_, London,
1642. Lechford came over here in 1638, arriving June 27, and he
embarked for home Aug. 3, 1641. He was a lawyer by profession, and
he came here with friendly feelings toward the Puritan settlement.
But lawyers were not wanted in the colony. He was looked upon with
suspicion, and could barely earn a living for his family. He did some
writing for the magistrates, and transcribed some papers for Nathaniel
Ward, the supposed author of the Body of Liberties, to whom he may have
rendered professional aid in that work. He prepared his book for the
press soon after his return home. It is full of valuable information
relating to the manners and customs of the colony, written by an able
and impartial hand.[589]

To the leading men in the colony, religion, or their own notion
concerning religion, was the one absorbing theme; and they sought
to embody it in a union of Church and State. In this regard John
Cotton[590] seems to have been the mouthpiece of the community. He came
near losing his influence at the time of the Antinomian controversy
but by judicious management he recovered himself. He was not averse to
discussion, had a passion for writing, and his pen was ever active. The
present writer has nearly thirty of Cotton’s books,—the _Carter-Brown
Catalogue_ shows over forty,—written in New England, and sent to
London to be printed. Some of these were in answer to inquiries from
London concerning their church estate, etc., here, and were intended
to satisfy the curiosity of friends, as well as to influence public
opinion there. Cotton had a long controversy with Roger Williams
relating to the subject of Williams’s banishment from this colony.
Another discussion with him, which took a little different form, was
the “Bloudy Tenet” controversy, which had another origin, and in
which the question of persecution for conscience’ sake was discussed.
Williams, of course, here had the argument on the general principle.
Cotton was like a strong man struggling in the mire.[591] Cotton’s book
on the _Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven_ shows his idea of the true
church polity. His answer to Baylie’s _Dissuasive_ in _The Way of the
Congregational Churches Cleared_ is really a valuable historical book,
in which, incidentally, he introduces information concerning persons
and events which relate to Plymouth as well as to Massachusetts. This
book furnished to the present writer the clew to the fact that John
Winthrop was the author of the principal part of the contents of
Welde’s _Short Story_, published in London in 1644, relating to
the Antinomian troubles and Mrs. Hutchinson. The Rev. Thomas
Hooker, of Hartford, entered with Cotton into the church controversy.
His _Survey of the Summe of Church Discipline_, etc., written
in answer to Rutherford, Hudson, and Baylie, Presbyterian
controversialists, was published within the same cover with Cotton’s
book last cited, and one general titlepage covered both, with the
imprint of London, 1648.


Well known among Cotton’s other productions is his _Milk for Babes,
drawn out of the Breasts of both Testaments, chiefly for the Spiritual
Nourishment of Boston Babes in either England, but may be of like Use
for any Children_, London, 1646.[592]


The discussion of Cotton and others having confirmed the colony in its
church polity,—“From New England,” says Baylie, writing in London
in 1645, “came Independency of Churches hither, which hath spread
over all parts here,”—it was thought best to embody the system in a
platform. So a synod was called for May, 1646, which by sundry meetings
and adjournments completed the work in August, 1648. The result was
the famous “Cambridge Platform,” which continued the rule of our
ecclesiastical polity, with slight variations, till the adoption of the
constitution of 1780. It was printed at Cambridge, in 1649, by Samuel
Green,—probably his first book,—and was entitled _A Platform of
Church Discipline_, etc. A copy of the printed volume was sent over to
London by John Cotton (who probably had the largest agency in preparing
the work)[593] to Edward Winslow, then in England, who procured it to
be printed in 1653, with an explanatory preface by himself.[594]

The important political union of the New England colonies, or a
portion of them, in 1643, has been already referred to. The Articles
of Confederation were first printed in 1656 in London, prefixed to
Governor Eaton’s code of laws entitled _New Haven’s Settling in New
England_,[595] to be mentioned further on.

The trouble of Massachusetts with Samuel Gorton was brought about by
the unwarrantable conduct of the colony towards that eccentric person.
Gorton appealed to England, and Edward Winslow, the diplomatist of
Plymouth and Massachusetts, was sent over to defend the Bay colony.
Gorton’s _Simplicitie’s Defence_, published in London in 1646, was
answered by Winslow’s _Hypocrasie Unmasked_, issued the same year.
This was reissued in 1649, with a new titlepage, called _The Danger of
tolerating Levellers in a Civill State_, the Dedication to the Earl of
Warwick, in the former issue, being omitted.[596]

Winslow had his hands full, about this time, in defending
Massachusetts. The colony was never without a disturbing element in
its own population, and about the time of the trouble with Gorton a
number of influential persons who held Presbyterian views of church
government were clamorous for the right of suffrage, which was denied
them. The controversy of the Government with Dr. Robert Child, Samuel
Maverick, and others, in 1646, need not be repeated here. An appeal
was made to England. Child and some of his associates went thither,
and published a book in 1647, in London, called _New England’s Jonas
cast up at London_, edited by Child’s brother, Major John Child, whose
name appears upon the titlepage. A postscript comments unfavorably on
Winslow’s _Hypocrasie Unmasked_. This book was replied to by Winslow
in a tract called _New England’s Salamander Discovered_, etc., London,
1647. These books are important as illustrating Massachusetts history
at this period.[597]


[A fac-simile of the opening of the little book, which contains Thomas
Shepard’s autobiography, now the property of the Shepard Memorial
Church in Cambridge.—ED.]]

During this visit of Winslow to England, from which he never returned
to New England, he performed a grateful service in behalf of the
natives. By his influence a corporation was created by Parliament,
in 1649, for propagating the gospel among the Indian tribes in New
England, and some of the accounts of the progress of the missions, sent
over from the colony, were published in London by the corporation.
The conversion of the natives was one object set forth in the
Massachusetts charter; and Roger Williams had, while a resident of
Massachusetts and Plymouth, taken a deep interest in them, and in 1643,
while on a voyage to England, he drew up _A Key unto the Language of
America_,[598] published that year in London. In that same year there
was also published in London a small tract called _New England’s
First-Fruits_, first in respect to the college, and second in respect
to the Indians.[599] Some hopeful instances of conversion among the
natives were briefly given in this tract. In 1647 a more full relation
of Eliot’s labors was sent over to Winslow, who the year before had
arrived in England as agent of Massachusetts, and printed under the
title, _The Day breaking, if not the Sun rising, of the Gospel with
the Indians in New England_. In the following year, 1648, a narrative
was published in London, written by Thomas Shepard, called _The Clear
Sunshine of the Gospel breaking forth upon the Indians_, etc., and this
in 1649 was followed by _The Glorious Progress of the Gospel amongst
the Indians in New England_, setting forth the labors of Eliot and
Mayhew. The Rev. Henry Whitfield, who had been pastor of a church in
Guilford, Conn., returned to England in 1650; and in the following year
he published in London _The Light appearing more and more towards the
Perfect Day_, and in 1652, _Strength out of Weakness_, both containing
accounts, written chiefly by Eliot, of the progress of his labors. This
last tract was the first of those published by the Corporation, which
continued thenceforth, for several years, to publish the record of
the missions as they were sent over from the colony. In 1653 a tract
appeared under the title of _Tears of Repentance_, etc.; in 1655, _A
late and further Manifestation of the Progress of the Gospel_, etc.;
in 1659, _A further Accompt_, etc.; and in 1660, _A further Account_
still.[600] Eliot’s literary labors in behalf of the Massachusetts
Indians culminated in the translation of the Bible into their dialect,
and its publication through the Cambridge press. The Testament was
printed in 1661, and the whole Bible in 1663; and second editions of
each appeared,—the former in 1680, and the latter in 1685.[601]

Eliot was imbued with the enthusiasm of the time. As John Cotton had
deduced a body of laws from the Scriptures, which he offered to the
General Court for the colony, so in like manner Eliot drew from the
Scriptures a frame of government for a commonwealth. It was entitled
_The Christian Commonwealth; or, the Civil Polity of the Rising Kingdom
of Jesus Christ_, which he sent to England during the interregnum, and
commended to the people there. He had drawn up a similar form for his
Indian community, and had put it in practice. His manuscript, after
slumbering for some years, was printed in London in 1659, and some
copies came over to the colony. The Restoration soon followed. Eliot
had in his treatise reflected on kingly government, and in May, 1661,
the General Court ordered the book to be totally suppressed; and all
persons having copies of it were commanded either to cancel or deface
the same, or deliver them to the next magistrate. Eliot acknowledged
his fault under his own hand, saying he sent the manuscript to England
some nine or ten years before. Hutchinson, commenting on this whole
proceeding, says, “When the times change, men generally suffer their
opinions to change with them, so far at least as is necessary to avoid
danger.” How many copies of the book were destroyed by this order of
the court, we cannot tell. A few years ago the only copy known was
owned by Colonel Thomas Aspinwall, then residing in London; and from
this copy a transcript was made, and it was printed in 1846 in 3 _Mass.
Hist. Coll._, ix. 129.[602]

Eliot was not the only distinguished citizen whose book came under the
ban of the Massachusetts authorities. William Pynchon, of Springfield,
wrote a book which was published in London in 1650, entitled _The
Meritorious price of our Redemption_, etc., copies of which arrived
in Boston during the session of the General Court in October of that
year. The Court immediately condemned it, and ordered it to be burned
the next day in the market-place, which was done; and Mr. Norton was
asked to answer it. Norton obeyed, and the book he wrote was ordered to
be sent to London to be published. It was _A Discussion of that Great
Point in Divinity, the Sufferings of Christ_, etc., 1653. Pynchon in
the mean time was brought before the Court, and was plied by several
orthodox divines. He admitted that some points in his book were
overstated, and his sentence was postponed. Not liking his treatment
here he went back to England in 1652, and published a reply to Norton
in a work with a title similar to that which gave the original offence,
London, 1655. Pynchon held that Christ did not suffer the torments of
hell for mankind, and that he bore not our sins by imputation. A more
full answer to Norton’s book was published by him in 1662, called the
_Covenant of Nature_.[603]

John Winthrop died March 26, 1649. No man in the colony was so well
qualified as he, either from opportunity or character, to write its
history. Yet he left no history. But he left what was more precious,—a
journal of events, recorded in chronological order, from the time of
his departure from England in the “Arbella,” to within two months of
his death. This Journal may be called the materials of history of
the most valuable character. The author himself calls it a “History
of New England.” From this, for the period which it covers, and from
the records of the General Court for the same period, a history of
the colony for the first twenty years could be written. For over
one hundred years from Winthrop’s death no mention is made of his
Journal. Although it was largely drawn upon by Hubbard in his _History_
(1680), and was used by Cotton Mather in his _Magnalia_, it was cited
by neither, and was first mentioned by Thomas Prince on the cover
of the first number of the second volume of his _Annals_, in 1755.
Among his list of authorities there given, he mentions “having lately
received” this Journal of Governor Winthrop. Prince made but little
use of this manuscript, as the three numbers only which he issued of
his second volume ended with Aug. 5, 1633. Prince probably procured
the Journal from the Winthrop family in Connecticut. It was in three
volumes. The first and second volumes were restored to the family,
and were published in Hartford in 1790, in one volume, edited by
Noah Webster.[604] The third volume was found in the Prince Library,
in the tower of the Old South Church, in 1816, and was given to the
Massachusetts Historical Society. It was published, together with
volumes one and two, in 1825 and 1826, in two volumes, edited by James
Savage.[605] Volume two of the manuscript was destroyed by a fire
which, Nov. 10, 1825, consumed the building in Court Street, Boston, in
which Mr. Savage had his office.[606]


The earliest published narrative—we can hardly call it a
history—relating generally to Massachusetts, is Edward Johnson’s
“Wonder-Working Providence of Sion’s Saviour in New England,”—the
running title to the book, which on the titlepage is called a _History
of New England_, etc., London, 1654. The book does not profess to
give an orderly account of the settlement of New England, or even of
Massachusetts, to which it wholly relates, but describes what took
place in the colony under his own observation largely, and what would
illustrate “the goodness of God in the settlement of these colonies.”
The book is supposed to have been written two or three years only
before it was sent to England to be published. It is conjectured that
the titlepage was added by the publisher.[607] The book has a value,
for it contains many facts, but its composition and arrangement are

The Quaker episode produced an abundant literature. Several Rhode
Island Baptists had previously received rough usage here; and Dr.
John Clarke, one of the founders of Rhode Island, who had a personal
experience to relate, published in London, in 1652,—whither he had
gone with Roger Williams the year before,—a book against the colony,
called _Ill-Newes from New-England, or a Narrative of New-England’s
Persecution_, etc.[609]


In 1654, two years before the Quakers made their appearance, the
colony passed a law against any one having in his possession the books
of Reeve and Muggleton, “the two Last Witnesses and True Prophets of
Jesus Christ,” as they called themselves. Some of the books of these
fanatics had been printed in London in 1653, and had made their way
to the colony, and the executioner was ordered to burn all such books
in the market-place on the next Lecture day. In 1656 the Quakers
came and brought their books, which were at once seized and reserved
for the fire; while sentence of banishment was passed against those
who brought them. The Quakers continued to flock to the colony in
violation of the law now passed against them. They were imprisoned,
whipped, and two were hanged in Boston in October, 1659, one in June,
1660, and one in March, 1661. Some of the more important books which
the Quaker controversy brought forth must now be named. An account of
the reception which the Quakers met with here soon found its way to
London, and to the hands of Francis Howgill, who published it with
the title, _The Popish Inquisition Newly Erected in New England_,
etc., London, 1659. Another tract appeared there the same year as _The
Secret Works of a Cruel People Made Manifest_. In the following year
appeared _A Call from Death to Life_, letters written “from the common
goal of Boston” by Stephenson and Robinson (who were shortly after
executed); and one “written in Plymouth Prison” by Peter Pearson, a
few weeks later, giving an account of the execution of the two former.
In October, 1658, John Norton had been appointed by the Court to write
a treatise on the doctrines of the Quakers, which he did, and the
tract was printed in Cambridge in 1659, and in London in 1660, with
the title, _The Heart of New England Rent at the Blasphemies of the
Present Generation_. After three Quakers had been hanged, the colony,
under date of Dec. 19, 1660, sent an “Humble Petition and Address of
the General Court ... unto the High and Mighty Prince Charles the
Second,” defending their conduct. This was presented February 11, and
printed, and was replied to by Edward Burroughs in an elaborate volume,
which contains a full account of the first three martyrs. This was
followed this year, 1661, by a yet more important volume, by George
Bishope, called _New England Judged_, in which the story of the Quaker
persecution from the beginning is told. Bishope lived in England, and
published in a first volume the accounts and letters of the sufferers
sent over to him. A second volume was published in 1667, continuing the
narrative of the sufferings and of the hanging of William Leddra, in
March, 1661. A general _History of the Quakers_ was written by William
Sewel, a Dutch Quaker of Amsterdam, published there in his native
tongue, in 1717, folio. Sewel’s grandfather was an English Brownist,
who emigrated to Holland. The book was translated by the author himself
into English, and published in London in 1722.[610] Joseph Besse’s
book,—_A Collection of the Sufferings of the People called Quakers,
for the Testimony of a Good Conscience_, 1753,—contains a mass of
most valuable statistics about the Quakers. Hutchinson’s _History of
Massachusetts Bay_ has an excellent summarized account, as do the
histories of Dr. Palfrey and Mr. Barry.[611]


The records of the colony, as I have frequently had occasion to
observe, afford the richest materials for the colony’s history, and
never more so than in regard to the trials which the colony experienced
from the period following the Restoration to the time of Dudley and
Andros. The story of the visit of the royal commissioners here in 1665
is no where so fully told as there. Indeed, the principal source of the
history of Maine and of New Hampshire while they were for many years a
component part of the colony of Massachusetts is told in the records of
the old Bay State.

During the trouble with the Quakers Massachusetts was afflicted by a
wordy controversy, imported from Connecticut, but which did not reach
its culminating point till 1662. I refer to the “Half-way Covenant,”
for the discussion of which a council of ministers from both colonies
was called in 1657, in Boston, which pronounced in favor of the system
in question. A synod of Massachusetts churches in 1662 confirmed
the judgment here given, and the Half-way Covenant system prevailed
extensively in New England for more than a century. After the synod
was dissolved, and the result was published by order of the General
Court, the discussion continued, and several tracts were issued from
the Cambridge press, _pro_ and _con_, in 1662, 1663, and 1664.[612]
Of Morton’s _New England’s Memorial_ mention has already been made in
the preceding chapter, as it concerns chiefly the Plymouth Colony.
It contains, however, many things of interest about Massachusetts;
recording the death of many of her worthies, and embalming their
memories in verse. It ends with the year 1668, with a notice of the
death of Jonathan Mitchel, the minister of Cambridge, and of that of
John Eliot, Jr., the son of the apostle, at the age of thirty-two
years. There are five unpaged leaves after “finis,” containing “A Brief
Chronological Table.”

There was printed in London in 1674 _An Account of Two Voyages to New
England_, by John Josselyn, Gent., a duodecimo volume of 279 pages.
This author and traveller was a brother of Henry Josselyn, of Black
Point, or Scarborough, in Maine, and they are said to have been sons of
Sir Thomas Josselyn, of Kent, knight. John came to New England in 1638,
and landed at Noddle’s Island, and was a guest of Samuel Maverick;
thence he went to Scarborough, stayed with his brother till the end of
1639, and then returned home. In 1663 he came over again, and stayed
till 1671; and then went home and wrote this book. His own observations
are valuable, but his history is often erroneous. He frequently cites
Johnson. At the end of his book is a chronological table running back
before the Christian era. His _New England’s Rarities_, published
in 1672, giving an account of the fauna and flora of the country,
has been reprinted with notes in the American Antiquarian Society’s
_Transactions_, vol. iv., edited by Edward Tuckerman.[613]

The interest of John Ogilby’s large folio on _America_ is almost solely
a borrowed one, so far as concerns New England history, arising from
the use he made of Wood, Johnson, and Gorges.[614]

The modern student will find a very interesting series of successive
bulletins, as it were, of the sensations engendered by the progress of
the Indian outbreak of 1675-76, known as “Philip’s War,” and of the
events as they occurred, in a number of tracts, mostly of few pages,
which one or more persons in Boston sent to London to be printed. They
are now among the choicest rarities of a New England library.[615] It
was to make an answer to one of these tracts that Increase Mather
hastily put together and printed in Boston,[616] in 1676, his _Brief
History of the War_, which was reprinted in London in the same
year.[617] The year after (1677) the war closed,[618] Foster, the
new Boston printer, also printed William Hubbard’s _Narrative of the
Troubles with the Indians_, which likewise came from the London press
the same year with a changed title, _The Present State of New England,
being a Narrative_, etc.,—a book not, however, confined to Philip’s
War, but going back, as the Boston title better showed, over the whole
series of the conflicts with the natives.[619]

In the year 1679 it became known to the members of the General Court
that the Rev. William Hubbard, of Ipswich, had compiled a _History of
New England_, and in June of that year they ordered that the Governor
and four other persons be a committee “to peruse the same,” and make
return of their opinion thereof by the next session, in order “that
the Court may then, as they shall then judge meet, take order for
the impression thereof.” Two years afterward, in October, the Court
thankfully acknowledged the services of Mr. Hubbard in compiling his
_History_, and voted him fifty pounds in money, “he transcribing it
fairly into a book that it may be the more easily perused.” There was
no further movement made for the printing of the volume. The transcript
made agreeably to this order is now in the Library of the Massachusetts
Historical Society. The preface and some leaves of the text are
wanting. This was by far the most important history of New England
which had then been written. The compiler had the benefit of Bradford’s
_History_ and Winthrop’s Journal, though, after the fashion of the
time, he makes no mention of them, only acknowledging in a general
way his indebtedness to “the original manuscripts of such as had the
managing of those affairs under their hands.” The manuscript was first
printed in 1815 by the Massachusetts Historical Society; and a second
edition, “collated with the original MS.,” was printed in 1848.[620]


The history of the struggles of the colony to maintain its charter
during the period immediately preceding the loss of it is largely told
in the pages of its records, and in a large mass of documents published
in Hutchinson’s volume of Papers, and cited in Chalmers’ _Annals_ and
in Palfrey’s _New England_. Reference may also be made to a paper by
the present writer in vol. i. of _Memorial History of Boston_, on this
struggle to maintain the charter.

The history of the Dudley and Andros administrations may be gathered
from numerous publications which came from the press just after
the Revolution; and, without mentioning their titles, I cannot do
better than refer to them as published in three volumes by the Prince
Society of Boston, called the _Andros Tracts_, edited with abundant
notes by William H. Whitmore.[621] Palfrey’s _History_ should be
read in connection with these memorials. The original papers of the
“Inter-charter Period” are largely wanting, though some volumes of the
Massachusetts Archives are so entitled.[622]

As materials for the history of the State it should be remembered that
there are many town histories which contain matter of more than mere
local interest. The history of the town of Boston is in a great degree
the history of the colony and State, and the several histories of that
town, notably those by Caleb H. Snow (to 1825) and Samuel G. Drake (to
1770), and the _Description_ of N. B. Shurtleff,[623] may be specially
mentioned; while the recently published _Memorial History of Boston_,
edited by Mr. Justin Winsor, is indispensable to any student who wishes
to know a large part of the story of Massachusetts.[624] The _History
of Salem_, by Dr. J. B. Felt, gives many documents of the first
importance relating to the settlement of that ancient town, where the
colony had its birth; and the same writer’s _Customs of New England_,
Boston, 1853, has a distinctive value.

The _Bibliography of the Local History of Massachusetts_, by Jeremiah
Colburn, Boston, 1871, a volume of 119 pages, deserves a place in
every New England library,[625] and it may be supplemented by the
brief titles included in Mr. F. B. Perkins’s _Check List of American
History_.[626] There is a good list of local histories in the _Brinley
Catalogue_, no. 1,558, etc. The _Sketches of the Judicial History of
Massachusetts_, by the late Emory Washburn, is a most important book
for that phase of the subject.

MAINE.[627]—The documentary history of Maine properly begins with
the grant to Sir Ferdinando Gorges. The previous operations under the
Laconia Company were partly, as we have seen, on the territory of
Maine, while in part also their history is preserved in the archives of
New Hampshire.[628]

The patent issued to Gorges at the general division, in 1635, of
the territory which he named “New Somersetshire,” is not extant. An
organization, as we have already said, took place under this grant, and
a few records are extant in manuscript.[629]

The royal charter of Maine, dated April 3, 1639, was transcribed into
a book of records of the Court of Common Pleas and Sessions for the
county of York, and, with the commissions to the officers, has been
printed by Sullivan in his _History of Maine_, Boston, 1795, Appendix
No. 1.

The first government organized under the charter[630] was in 1640, and
the manuscript records are also at Alfred with the commissions to the
officers. Extracts from the records were made by Folsom, as above,
pp. 53-57. After the submission of Maine to Massachusetts in 1653,
courts were held at York under the authority of the latter. Afterward,
when the royal commissioners came over and went into Maine, a portion
of the inhabitants were encouraged to rebel against the authority of
Massachusetts, and courts were temporarily set up under a commission
from Sir Robert Carr. Some records of their doings exist.[631]

[Illustration: AUTOGRAPHS.

[Mason was the proprietor of New Hampshire. Mr. C. W. Tuttle was
engaged at his death on a memoir of Mason, upon whom he delivered
addresses, reported in the _Boston Advertiser_, June 22, 1871, and
_Boston Globe_, April 4, 1872. Garde was the mayor of Gorgeana. Thomas
Gorges was the deputy-governor of Maine.—ED.]]

The Records of Massachusetts for the years 1652-53 show the official
relations which existed between the two colonies. The State-paper
offices of England contain a large quantity of manuscripts illustrating
the claims of Ferdinando Gorges, the grandson of the original
proprietor; and the principal part of these may be seen either in
abstracts, or at full length in Folsom’s _Catalogue of Original
Documents_[632] relating to Maine (New York, 1858), prepared by the
late H. G. Somerby.[633] Many of these papers may also be found in
Chalmers’ _Annals_, 1780, who had great facilities for consulting the
public offices in England.[634]

       *       *       *       *       *

Of general histories of Maine, the earliest was that of James Sullivan,
entitled _The History of the District of Maine_, Boston, 1795, the
territory having been made a Federal district in 1779. Judge Sullivan
was too busy a man to write so complicated a history as that of
Maine; and he fell into some errors, and came short of what would be
expected of a writer at the present day. He was one of the founders
and at that time president of the Massachusetts Historical Society,
and doubtless felt the obligation to do some such work. The next
important _History of Maine_ is that of Judge William D. Williamson,
published at Hallowell, 1832, in two volumes. This contains a vast
amount of material indispensable to the student; but there are
serious errors in the work, made known by the discovery of new matter
since its publication. In 1830 there was published at Saco, Maine, a
small 12º volume, by George Folsom,[635] called _History of Saco and
Biddeford, with Notices of other Early Settlements_, etc. Although a
history of two comparatively small towns, now cities, yet they were
early settlements; and the author, who had a faculty for history,
made his work the occasion of writing a brief but authentic sketch of
the history of Maine under all her multiform governments and varying
fortunes. It was the best town history then written in New England, as
it was also the best history of the Province of Maine..

I might mention a volume of _Sketches of the Ecclesiastical History
of Maine from the Earliest Period_, by the Rev. Jonathan Greenleaf of
Wells, published at Portsmouth, 1821.

In 1831-33 William Willis published his _History of Portland_, in two
parts. The work embraced also sketches of several other towns, and it
was prefaced by an account of the early patents and settlements in
Maine; while the second edition, issued in 1865, is yet more full on
the general history of the province.

There are other valuable town histories, and I cannot do better than
refer the reader to Mr. William Willis’s “Descriptive Catalogue of
Books relating to Maine,” in _Norton’s Literary Letter_, No. 4, for
1859, and as enlarged in _Historical Magazine_, March, 1870.[636]

The _Collections_ of the Maine Historical Society,[637] in eight
volumes, contain a large amount of material which illustrates this
early period. The first volume was issued in 1831, and in fact forms
the first part of Willis’s _History of Portland_. The _Collections_ of
the Massachusetts Historical Society, and especially vol. vii. of the
fourth series, should be cited as of special interest here.

The _Relation_ of the Council for New England, the narratives in
Purchas, Winthrop’s Journal, Hubbard’s _Indian Wars_, and that
author’s _History of New England_ and the _Two Voyages_ of Josselyn,
have already been referred to, and they should be again noted in this
place, as should Dr. Palfrey’s _History of New England_ especially.
Gorges’ _Briefe Narration_, 1658, is most valuable as coming from the
original proprietor himself. Its value is seriously impaired by its
want of chronological order and of dates, and by its errors in date.
In what condition the manuscript was left by its author, and to what
extent the blemishes of the work are attributable to the editor or the
printer, can never be known. Sir Ferdinando died in May, 1647. The
work was written not long before his death, and was published some
twelve years afterward, with two compilations by his grandson and the
sheets of Johnson’s _Wonder-Working Providence_.[638] Notwithstanding
its blemishes, the tract has great value; but it should be read in
connection with other works which furnish unquestionable historical

The _Memorial Volume of the Popham Celebration_, Aug. 20, 1862
(Portland, 1862), contains a good deal of historical material; but
a large part of it was, unfortunately, prepared under a strong
theological and partisan bias. In its connection with the settlement at
Sabino, it has been mentioned in an earlier chapter.

A valuable historical address was delivered at the Centennial
Exhibition at Philadelphia, Nov. 4, 1876, by Joshua L. Chamberlain,
President of Bowdoin College, entitled _Maine, Her Place in History_,
and was published in Augusta in 1877.

NEW HAMPSHIRE.—New Hampshire was probably first settled by David
Thomson, in the spring of 1623. The original sources of information
concerning him are the _Records_ of the Council for New England; a
contemporaneous indenture, 1622, recently found among the Winthrop
Papers, and since published; Winslow’s _Good News_, London, 1624, p.
50; Bradford’s _Plymouth Plantation_, p. 154; Hubbard’s _New England_,
pp. 89, 105, 214, 215; Levett’s Voyage[639] to New England in 1623/24;
Pratt’s Narrative, in 4 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, iv. 486, and Gorges’
_Briefe Narration_, p. 37. All these authorities are summarized by the
present writer in a note, on page 362 of _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, May,
1876, to a paper on “David Thomson and the Settlement of New Hampshire.”

For the settlement of the Hiltons on Dover Neck, and for the later
history of the town, see _Records_ of the Council; Hubbard; a Paper
on David Thomson in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, as above; 1 _Mass.
Hist. Coll._, iii. 63; _Provincial Papers of New Hampshire_, i. 118,
and the authorities (A. H. Quint and others) there cited; cf. Mr.
Hassam’s paper in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, January, 1882, p. 40;
Winthrop’s Journal, i. 276.

For the doings of the Laconia Company, and the settlement of
Portsmouth, see Belknap’s _New Hampshire_, who errs respecting the
Laconia patent and the date of the operations of the Company; Hubbard
as above; _Provincial Papers_, where the extant Laconia documents are
printed at length; Jenness’s _Isles of Shoals_, 2d ed., New York, 1875,
and his privately printed (1878) _Notes on the First Planting of New
Hampshire_; the paper on David Thomson, as above; Adams’s _Annals of
Portsmouth; N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, ii. 37.

For the history of the settlements of Exeter and Hampton see Belknap,
as above; and cf. Farmer’s edition, who holds to the forgery of the
Wheelwright deed of 1629; _Provincial Papers_ as above, pp. 128-153.
For a discussion of the genuineness of the Wheelwright deed, it will
be sufficient, perhaps, to refer to Mr. Savage’s argument against it
in Winthrop’s Journal, i. Appendix, which the present writer thinks
unanswerable, and Governor C. H. Bell’s able defence of it in the
volume of the Prince Society on John Wheelwright.[640]

Concerning the several patents issued by the Council to cover the
territory of New Hampshire, or parts of it, which afterward appeared
in history, one was made to John Mason, of Nov. 7, 1629, of territory
between the Merrimac and Piscataqua, which, “with consent of the
Council, he intends to name New Hampshire” (Mason was governor of
Portsmouth co. Hants). This grant[641] was printed in Hazard, vol. i.,
from “New Hampshire files,” and is in _Provincial Papers_, i. 21. The
Laconia grant of Nov. 17, 1629, to Gorges and Mason, was the basis of a
trading company, as we have already seen, and those associates took out
a new patent, Nov. 3, 1631, of land near the mouth of the Piscataqua.
The Laconia patent is in Massachusetts Archives, and is printed in
_Provincial Papers_, i. 38. The second grant is printed in Jenness’s
_Notes_, above cited, Appendix ii. Hilton’s patent of Dover Neck, or
wherever it may have extended, of March 12, 1629/30, is cited in the
Council _Records_, and is printed _in extenso_ in Jenness’s _Notes_,
Appendix i., which also should be read for a discussion relative to
its boundaries.[642] At the grand division in 1635 Mason had assigned
to him the territory between Naumkeag and Piscataqua, dated April
22, “all which lands, with the consent of the Counsell, shall from
henceforth be called New Hampshire.” Hazard (i. 384) printed the grant
from the “records of the Province of Maine,” and it is also printed in
_Provincial Papers_, i. 33. Mason never improved this grant. All his
operations in New Hampshire, or Piscataqua, as the place was called,
was as a member of the unfortunate Laconia Company. He died soon after
this last grant was issued, and bequeathed the property ultimately
to his grandchildren John and Robert Tufton, whose claims were used
to annoy the settlers on the soil who had acquired a right to their
homesteads by long undisputed possession.[643]

After the union of the New Hampshire towns with Massachusetts, their
history forms part of the history of that colony, and the _General
Court Records_ may be consulted for information. John S. Jenness’s
_Transcripts of Original Documents in the English Archives relating
to New Hampshire_, privately printed, New York, 1876, is a volume of
great value. An early map of Maine and New Hampshire, of about the
period of 1655, is prefixed to the book. The Appendix to Belknap’s _New
Hampshire_ also contains documents of great value. The _Collections_
of the New Hampshire Historical Society, consisting of eight volumes,
1824-1866, are rich in material relating to the State; and the three
volumes of _Collections_ published by Farmer and Moore,[644] 1822-1824,
in semi-monthly and then in monthly numbers, should not be overlooked;
nor should the _Collections_ of the Massachusetts Historical Society.

Of the general histories, that of Dr. Belknap is the first and the
only considerable _History of New Hampshire_, Philadelphia and Boston,
1784-92, 3 vols. The work early acquired the name of “the elegant
History of New Hampshire,” which it deserved. As a writer, Dr.
Belknap’s style was simple and “elegant.” Perhaps after Franklin he
was the best writer of English prose which New England had produced;
and there has been since little improvement upon him. He had the true
historical spirit, and was a good investigator.[645] He fell into an
error respecting some of the early grants of New Hampshire, and the
early part of his History needs revision. He probably never doubted the
genuineness of the Wheelwright deed; but John Farmer, the editor of a
new edition (1831) of his work, believed that document to be a forgery,
and made his book to conform to this idea, though other errors were not
corrected. Palfrey’s _New England_ is of the first authority here after

CONNECTICUT.—“_Quinni-tuk-ut_, ‘on long river,’—now
_Connecticut_,—was the name of the valley, or lands on both sides
of the river. In one early deed (1636) I find the name written
_Quinetucquet_; in another of the same year, _Quenticutt_.”[647]

The name “Connecticut,” as designating the country or colony on the
river of that name, was used by Massachusetts in their commission of
March 3, 1635/36,[648] and it was early adopted by the colonists.[649]

_Quinnipiac_,—the Indian name of New Haven, written variously, and
by President Stiles, on the authority of an Indian of East Haven,
_Quinnepyooghq_,—is probably “longwater place.”[650] The name New
Haven was substituted by the Court Sept. 5, 1640.[651]

The first English settlement was made by the Plymouth people at Windsor
in October, 1633, when they sent out a barque with materials for a
trading-house, and set it up there against the remonstrances of the
Dutch, who had themselves established a trading-house at Hartford
some time before.[652] The history of this business is well told by
Bradford (pp. 311-314), with whose narrative compare Winthrop (pp.
105, 181) and Hubbard (pp. 170, 305 _et seq._).

The story of the settlement of the three towns on the Connecticut
River by emigrants from Massachusetts is told by Winthrop, _passim_,
and by Trumbull; and the _Records_ of Massachusetts show the orders
passed in relation to their removal, and define their political status
during the first year of the settlement, and indeed to a later period.
The Connecticut _Colonial Records_ give abundant information as to
their political relations until the arrival of the Winthrop charter
of 1662, when, after some demurring on the part of New Haven, the two
small jurisdictions were merged into one.[653] A spirited letter from
Mr. Hooker to Governor Winthrop of Massachusetts, written in 1638,
disclosing his suppressed feelings towards some in the Bay Colony for
alleged factious opposition to the emigration to Connecticut, may be
seen in _Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll._, i. 3-18. What is called the original
Constitution of Connecticut, adopted by the three towns Jan. 14,
1638/39, may be seen in the printed _Colonial Records_, i. 20-25.[654]

The story of John Winthrop’s second arrival from England, in October,
1635, with a commission from Lord Say and Sele, and Lord Brook and
others, and with £2,000 in money, to begin an independent settlement
and erect a fortification near the mouth of the Connecticut River, and
to be governor there for one year, is told in Winthrop’s Journal (i.
170, 173); and is repeated in full by Trumbull, vol. i. Possession
was taken in the following month. The patent to Lord Say and others,
which was the basis of this movement, is known as the “old patent
of Connecticut,” and may be seen, with Winthrop’s commission, in
Trumbull’s _History_, vol. i., both editions. It purports to be a
personal grant from the Earl of Warwick, then the President of the
Council for New England, bearing date March 19, 1631 (1632 N.S.).
Although the authority by which the grant is made is not given in
the document itself, as is usually the case, it has been confidently
asserted that the Earl of Warwick had received the previous year a
patent for the same territory from the Council for New England, which
was subsequently confirmed by the King.[655] The grant was interpreted
to convey all the territory lying west of the Narragansett River, one
hundred and twenty miles on the Sound, thence onward to the South

The first and second agreements with Fenwick, the agent of the
proprietors, dated Dec. 5, 1644, and Feb. 17, 1646, were first printed
by Trumbull.[657] The account of Fenwick’s arrival in the colony, in
1639, with his family, and his settlement, and the naming of Saybrook,
may be seen in Winthrop.[658]

The “Capital Laws,” established by Connecticut, Dec. 1, 1642, the first
“Code of Laws,” and the court orders, judgments, and sentences of
the General and Particular Courts, from 1636 to 1662, are printed in
_Connecticut Colonial Records_.[659]

The contemporaneous accounts of the Pequot War have already been
mentioned under “Massachusetts.” What relates specially to Connecticut
is largely told in the _Colonial Records_. Mason’s narrative is by
far the best of the original accounts which have been published. The
dispute with Massachusetts respecting the division of the conquered
territory; the allotments of the same to the soldiers; the account of
the younger Winthrop’s settlement in the Pequot country, and his claim
to the Nehantick country by an early gift of Sashions, not allowed by
the United Colonies,—may be seen in the records of Massachusetts and
Connecticut, and in the records of the United Colonies.[660]

The account of the settlement of New Haven by emigrants from
Massachusetts—indirectly from the city of London,—in 1638; of their
purchases of lands from the natives, and of the formation of their
government,—church and civil,—may be seen in Winthrop,[661] and in
_New Haven Colonial Records_.[662]

The Fundamental Articles, or Original Constitution, of the Colony
of New Haven, June 4, 1639, which continued in force till 1665, was
printed in Trumbull’s _History_, vol. i., in 1797, in Appendix, no.
iv., as also in the later edition, and in the _Colonial Records_, i.
11-17, in which volume the legislative and judicial history of the
colony is recorded for many years. The orders of the General Court,
the civil and criminal trials before the Court of Magistrates, with
the evidence spread out on the pages of the record, and the sentences
following, being, in criminal cases, based on the Laws of Moses,
furnish an unpleasant exhibition; perhaps not more so, however, than
other primitive colonies would have shown if their record of crimes had
been as well preserved. From April, 1644, to May, 1653, the _Records_
of New Haven jurisdiction are lost.

What is known as Governor Eaton’s[663] Code of Laws was sent to London
to be printed under the supervision of Governor Hopkins, who had
returned to England a few years before; and an edition of five hundred
copies appeared in 1656, under the title of _New Haven’s Settling
in New England_, etc. The code was first reprinted by Mr. Royal R.
Hinman, at Hartford, in 1838, in a volume entitled _The Blue Laws of
New Haven Colony, usually called Blue Laws of Connecticut, Quaker
Laws of Plymouth and Massachusetts_, etc.; and again, in 1858, at the
end of the second volume of _New Haven Records_, from a rare copy in
the Library of the American Antiquarian Society.[664] The “Articles
of Confederation” of the United Colonies of 1643, whose records are
a mine of history in themselves, were prefixed to this code, and were
here printed for the first time. The _Records_ were first printed by
Hazard in 1794, from the Plymouth copy, and they have more recently
been reprinted by the State of Massachusetts in a volume of the
_Plymouth Records_. Each colony had a copy of those records, but the
only ones preserved are those of Plymouth and of Connecticut. The
latter, containing some entries wanting in the former, are printed at
the end of vol. iii. of the _Connecticut Colonial Records_.

The Quakers gave little disturbance to either of these colonies. While
the people in Connecticut were divided with the “Half-Way Covenant”
controversy, the Quakers, in July, 1656, made their appearance in
Boston. The United Colonies recommended the several jurisdictions to
pass laws prohibiting their coming, and banishing those who should
come. Connecticut and New Haven took the alarm, and acted upon the
advice given. New Haven subsequently increased the penalties at first
prescribed, yet falling short in severity of the legislation of

The territorial disputes of Connecticut and New Haven with the Dutch at
Manhados, which began early and were of long continuance, find abundant
illustration in Trumbull’s _History of Connecticut_, and in Brodhead’s
_History of New York_, and in the documentary history, of which the
materials were procured by Brodhead, but arranged by O’Callaghan.[666]

The records of the two colonies show the ample provision made for
public schools, and indicate a project entertained by New Haven as
early as 1648 to found a college,—a scheme not consummated, however,
till a later period.

The Winthrop charter of 1662, which united the two colonies, is in
Hazard, ii. 597, taken from a printed volume of _Charters_, London,
1766. It had been printed at New London in 1750, in a volume of _Acts
and Laws_, and is in a volume by Samuel Lucas, London, 1850. The
charter bears date April 23, 1662. In an almanac of John Winthrop,
the younger, for the year 1662, once temporarily in my possession,
and now belonging to the Hon. Robert C. Winthrop, I noticed this
manuscript note of the former owner, which I copied: “This day, May 10,
in the afternoon, the Patent for Connecticut was sealed.” The orders,
instructions, and correspondence relating to the procuring of this
charter are printed in the _Colonial Records_, text and Appendix, and
in Trumbull, vol. i., text and Appendix.[667]

The Restoration brought its anxieties as well as its blessings. The
story of the shelter afforded to the regicides Whalley and Goffe, by
New Haven, is an interesting episode. Dr. Stiles’s volume, _A History
of the Three Judges_ [including Colonel Dixwell] _of King Charles I._,
etc. (Hartford, 1794), is a minute collection of facts, though not
always carefully weighed and analyzed.[668]

The granting of the royal charter of 1662, which was followed next year
by that to Rhode Island, brought on the long controversy with that
colony as to the eastern boundary of Connecticut; and the revival of
the claim of the heirs of the Duke of Hamilton—a claim more easily
disposed of—added to the annoyances. The papers relating to these
controversies may be seen in the _Colonial Records_ of Connecticut, ii.
526-554, and of Rhode Island, ii. 70-75, 128.[669]

After the union, the earliest printed _Book of General Laws for the
People within the Jurisdiction of Connecticut_ was in 1673,—the code
established the year before. It was printed at Cambridge.[670]


[These secretaries held office consecutively: Steele, 1636-39; Hopkins,
1639-40; Wells, 1640-48; Cullick, 1648-58; Clark, 1658-63; Allyn,

The authorities for the history of Philip’s War—so disastrous
to Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Rhode Island, but from which
“Connecticut,” says Trumbull, “had suffered nothing in comparison
with her sister colonies”—have already been given under the head of
“Massachusetts.” Without citing special documents, it may be said
that Trumbull’s _History of Connecticut_ and Palfrey’s _New England_
furnish abundant authority from this time down to the conclusion of
the government of New England under Andros, and the narrative of each
may be referred to as fitting, ample, and trustworthy. Trumbull’s
_History_, as an original authority, may well compare for Connecticut
with Hutchinson’s _History_ for Massachusetts. The first volume
(1630-1713) was published in 1797; and, although the titlepage to it
reads “Vol. I.,” the author says in the Preface to vol. ii., first
printed in 1818 (1713-1764), that he never had any design of publishing
another volume. The first volume was reprinted in 1818 as a companion
to vol. ii.[671]

The _Records_ of Connecticut for the period embraced in this chapter
are abundant, and are admirably edited, with explanatory notes, by Dr.
J. Hammond Trumbull, of Hartford, who has done so much to illustrate
the history of his State, and indeed of New England.[672] I might add
that Dr. Palfrey, in writing the _History of New England_, often had
the benefit of Dr. Trumbull’s learning in illustrating many obscure
points in Connecticut history.[673]

The _New Haven Colony Records_ end, of course, with the absorption
of that colony by Connecticut. These are well edited, in two volumes
(1638 to 1649, and 1653 to 1665), with abundant illustrations in the
Appendix, by Charles J. Hoadly, M.A., and were published at Hartford in

The _Collections_ of the Connecticut Historical Society have already
been referred to.[674]

The New Haven Colony Historical Society is a separate body, devoted to
preserving the memorials of that colony. It has issued three volumes of

Among the general histories of Connecticut was one by Theodore Dwight,
Jr., in Harper’s Family Library, 1840; also another by G. H. Hollister,
2 vols., 1855, and enlarged in 1857. A condensed _History of the
Colony of New Haven, before and after the Union_, by E. R. Lambert,
was published at New Haven in 1838; and a more extensive _History of
the Colony of New Haven to its Absorption into Connecticut_, by E. E.
Atwater, was published in New Haven in 1881.[676] There are some town
histories which, for the early period, have almost the character of
histories of the State,—like Caulkins’s _Norwich_ (originally 1845;
enlarged 1866, and again in 1874) and _New London_ (1852); Orcutt and
Beadsley’s _Derby_ (1642-1880); William Cothren’s _Ancient Woodbury_, 3
vols., published in 1854-79; H. R. Stiles’s _Ancient Windsor_, 2 vols.,
1859-63. Barber’s _Connecticut Historical Collections_ is a convenient
manual for ready reference.[677]

RHODE ISLAND.[678]—The first published history of the colony of Rhode
Island and Providence Plantations was an _Historical Discourse_,
delivered at Newport in 1738, on the centennial of the settlement of
Aquedneck, by John Callender, minister of that place, and printed at
Boston the next year.[679]

Twenty-seven years afterward,—that is, in 1765,—there appeared in
seven numbers of a newspaper (the _Providence Gazette_), from January
12 to March 30, “An Historical Account of the Planting and Growth of
Providence.” This sketch, written by the venerable Stephen Hopkins,
then governor of the State, interrupted by the disastrous occurrences
of the times, comes down only to 1645, and remains a fragment.[680]

_A Gazeteer of the States of Connecticut and Rhode Island_, with maps
of each State, was published at Hartford in 1819, in 8º, compiled
by John C. Pease and John M. Niles. It furnished for the time a
large amount of statistical and historical material. The work gives
a geographical sketch of each county, with details of each town,
and “embraces notices of population, business, etc., together with
biographical sketches of eminent men.”

“Memoirs of Rhode Island” were written by the late Henry Bull, of
Newport, in 1832, and published in the _Rhode Island Republican_
(newspaper) of that year.[681] _A Discourse embracing the Civil and
Religious History of Rhode Island, delivered at Newport_, April 4,
1838, by Arthur A. Ross, pastor of a Baptist church at Newport, was
published at Providence in the same year, and is full on the history of

In 1853 there was published in New York an octavo volume of 370 pages,
entitled _History of Rhode Island_, by the Rev. Edward Peterson. “This
book abounds in errors, and is of no historical value. It is not a
continuous history, but is made up of scraps, without chronological

In 1859 and 1860 was published the _History of the State of Rhode
Island and Providence Plantations_, by Samuel Greene Arnold, in two
volumes,[683]—a work honorable alike to its author and to the State.
While Mr. Arnold was writing this history, Dr. Palfrey was engaged upon
his masterly _History of New England_. These writers differed somewhat
in their interpretation of historical events and in their estimate of
historical personages, and the student of New England history should
read them both. The value of these works consists not only in the text
or narrative parts, but also in the notes, which for the student,
particularly in Dr. Palfrey’s book, contain valuable information, in a
small compass, upon the authorities on which the narrative rests.

The late George Washington Greene prepared _A Short History of Rhode
Island_, published in 1877, in 348 pages, which formed an excellent
compendium, much needed. It is compiled largely from Mr. Arnold’s work.

“The Early History of Narragansett,” by Elisha R. Potter, was published
as vol. iii. of the _R. I. Hist. Soc. Coll._, in 1835. It is a valuable
collection of events, arranged in chronological order, and illustrated
by original documents in an appendix.

“The Annals of the Town of Providence from its First Settlement,” etc.,
to the year 1832, by William R. Staples, was published, in 1834, as
vol. v. of the _R. I. Hist. Soc. Coll._ The author says that the work
does not assume to be a “history;” but it is a valuable and authentic
record of events from the time of Roger Williams’s settlement on the
banks of the Mooshausic, in 1636, to the year 1832, illustrated by
original documents, the whole making 670 pages.

I ought not to omit the mention of several addresses and discourses
delivered before the Rhode Island Historical Society, some of which
have considerable historical interest, as illustrating the principles
on which it is claimed that Rhode Island was founded. Special mention
may be made of the Discourse of Judge Pitman, that of Chief Justice
Durfee, and that of the late Zachariah Allen.[684]

As Roger Williams is properly held to be the founder of the State of
Rhode Island; and as many of his writings had become quite rare, a
society was formed in 1865, called the “Narragansett Club,” for the
purpose of republishing all his known writings. Vol. i., containing
Williams’s _Key to the Indian Languages of America_, edited by Dr. J.
Hammond Trumbull,[685] was issued in 1866; and vol. vi., the concluding
volume, in which are collected all the known letters of Williams, in
1874. The volumes were published in quarto form, in antique style,
and edited by well-known historical scholars, and are a valuable
contribution to the personal history of Roger Williams and to the
history of the controversy on religious liberty, of which he was the
great advocate.[686]

The earliest publication of any of Williams’s letters was by Isaac
Backus, in his _History of New England_, etc., 1777, 1784, 1796, in
three volumes, written with particular reference to the Baptists.
It treats largely of Rhode Island history, and is a most authentic

A series of _Rhode Island Historical Tracts_, beginning in 1878, has
been issued by Sidney S. Rider, of Providence, each being a monograph
on some subject of Rhode Island history. No. 4, on _William Coddington
in Rhode Island Colonial Affairs_, is an unfavorable criticism on the
conduct of Coddington in the episode known as “the Usurpation,” by Dr.
Henry E. Turner.[688] No. 15, issued in 1882, is a tract of 267 pages,
on _The Planting and Growth of Providence_, by Henry C. Dorr. It is a
valuable monograph, and would have been more valuable if authorities
had been more freely cited.

One valuable source of the history of Rhode Island is the _Records_ of
the colony, and these have been made available for use by publication,
under the efficient editorship of the Hon. John Russell Bartlett, for
a number of years Secretary of State. To make up for the meagreness of
the records in some places, the editor has introduced from exterior
sources many official papers, which make good the deficiencies and
abundantly illustrate the history of the times. The first volume was
issued in 1856, and begins with the “Records of the Settlements at
Providence, Portsmouth, Newport, and Warwick, from their commencement
to their union under the Colony Charter, 1636 to 1647.”

The early history of Providence is so intimately interwoven with the
life of its founder, that some of the excellent memoirs of Roger
Williams may be read with profit as historical works. A _Memoir of
Williams_, by Professor James D. Knowles, was published in 1