Jealousy 66 Court Minutes of the East India Company prove that a sum of money to the value of 70l., "part by some of the Company's servants deceased in the Indies, and part out "of the wages of some that are living," was given towards this object. The Court showed themselves ready to forward so pious a work, ordered that it should be paid and a discharge taken from the Virginia Company under their seal, which was accordingly done (117-18). Three years later a sum of 20l. was collected both ashore and aboard the ships (124-5) and the practise seems to have been persevered in until the East India Company began to think that such a collection should be made towards a hospital for the aged and impotent in their own service, "but if anything can be collected from men that die abroad the same to be reserved for Virginia" (132-3). Thore is evidence that the East India Company paid a further sum of money to Sir John Wolstenholme by order of the Council of Virginia, and that Mr. Copland, a minister returned from India, "doth labour to draw a contribution from thence" for erecting this school, which contribution however the Company thought more proper "for building "a hospital for such as are hurt or maimed in their "service" (135-6). So there is no further mention of the School. 66 66 In the meantime Spain was watching the progress of our infant colony with jealousy and distrust. The English Ambassador at the Court of Madrid was constantly writing home about this business. "I can assure you of my own knowledge," wrote Sir Francis Cottington to Lord Treasurer Salisbury, "that with those plantations they are here so much troubled as they know not how to behave them"selves" (52). The King of Spain wrote an indignant letter to his Ambassador in England complaining of the seizure of three of his subjects who landed on the coast of Florida by certain Englishmen "who say that by order "of the King of Great Britain they have set foot in the "part of that coast which they call Virginia," and he commanded his Ambassador to express to King James the 66 just resentment" which he felt (56). Some months later Sir John Digbye (who had succeeded Cottington) wrote "they are very much displeased with our plantation "of Virginia which they stick not now to say that if His Majesty will not cause it to be recalled this King will be "forced by a strong hand to essay the removal of it" (60). And there are several more letters from our Ambassador to the same effect. from the Complaints were also received from the English Ambas- Complaints sador at Paris of our proceedings at Virginia, and Admiral de Montmorency, in a letter to King James, complains of Ambassador. depredations and cruelties committed by Samuel Argoll, Captain of the "Treasurer," in the taking of a French ship which was going to make a plantation in Virginia (81). Sir Thomas Edmondes reported to the King that he had satisfied Monsieur de Villeroy, and "he will no more dispute that matter with me" (84). Then we find La Marquise de Guercheville entreating the courtesy of Secretary Winwood for the reparation of the great wrong which had been done her, and for the recovery of the Frenchmen who remain in Virginia (85). The Marquise no doubt had begged the good offices of Louis XIII. and his Queen, for the English Ambassador again wrote home two months later that he had had audience of the King and Queen of France in reference to sundry complaints of His Majesty's subjects against the French, "whereunto the Queen made me no other answer than that the complaints "were so great which she received, of the spoils which were committed upon the French by His Majesty's subjects as she was forced to make an extraordinary y 72813. b Sir Gorges, and the ship "Richard." Captain Aigoll. "instance for the redress of the same" (86). Soon after this Sir Thomas Edmondes presented to their Majesties of France a memorial of complaints of the subjects of the King of Great Britain, a document of 21 pages, some of the complaints dating back 25 years. One of these has a special interest, inasmuch as it throws a different light upon a well-known incident which seems to have been erroneously described in works compiled by authors generally recognised as trustworthy. These are the facts of the case as represented by the English Ambassador. In the year 1606, Sir Ferdinando Georges, then Governor of Plymouth, and some others, equipped and put to sea a ship named the Richard," under the command of Captain Chaloner, to traffic and obtain a footing (prendre pied) upon the coast of Virginia. This ship was taken at sea with all her merchandise and provisions to the value of 14,000 or 15,000 livres by a ship belonging to two merchants of St Malo, Louis and Graves, the captain being Alphonse Camache, and taken to Bordeaux. One named Tucker prosecuted Camache before the Parliament of Bordeaux, but after endeavouring two years to obtain justice, an order was made 20th February 1609 dismissing his suit. Now this is at various with Chalmer's, and with Burke's, History of Virginia I. 85-92, who say the ship was commanded by Henry Challoner, and was taken by a Spanish fleet and carried into Spain. See also Holmes' American Annals, 2nd edition, I. 125 (87, 87 1.). The next abstract is the answer to the complaints presented to King James by the Sieur de Buisseaux, French Ambassador in England. The first of these relates to Newfoundland. To the fourth complaint concerning Virginia, Captain Argoll acknowledges that he took the French ship in question (about which Admiral de Montmorency wrote to James I.) within the limits of the de Mont English Colony, because she tried by force to intrude there Admiral against the privileges granted to the Virginia Company, morency. but that nevertheless said ship had been restored at the request of the French Ambassador. And His Majesty wishing to give the Ambassador every possible satisfaction has ordered Captain Argoll to give his reasons for this arrest whenever the Ambassador shall desire, and that Tucker, his Lieutenant, shall do likewise on his return. To the eighth complaint it is answered the Marquise de Marquise Guercheville has no reason to complain, or expect any cheville. reparation, seeing that her ship forcibly entered the territory of said colony (of Virginia) to settle and traffic without permission to the prejudice of treaties and good intelligence between the two Kings (88). de Guer and French to settle in A supplication of certain Walloons and French who Walloons were desirous to go into Virginia was in July 1621 addressed to Lord Ambassador Carleton who enclosed it to Virginia. Secretary Sir George Calvert (114-16). The fifty or sixty families consisted of nearly 300, all of the reformed religion, among whom were men of all trades and occupations. They wished to live in "a town or in a corporation by themselves," and to have the grant of a territory of eight English miles all round with certain rights and privileges. The signatures and calling of each are appended in the form of a round robin (in the first volume of this Calendar). The King referred this proposal to the Virginia Company, and their answer was sent to Carleton by the Secretary of State (116 1.). The papers in this addenda make this transaction more complete. Berkeley, Sir William Berkeley, whose commission is dated in Sir William August 1641 (193), remained Governor of Virginia upwards 35 years of 35 years. His letter of recall is dated 5th November Governor of Virginia. 1676. In regard of his age and infirmities which make him less able to undergo the great burthen and fatigue of letter of recall. business in Virginia, especially at this time when evildisposed persons have much increased the difficulties and troubles of his employment there, the King is pleased to give him permission to retire and repair to England to give account of the present commotions of the Colony (1109). The King's In the warrant to the Attorney-General to draw a commission for Sir Henry Chicheley to be Deputy Governor during Berkeley's retirement, the King graciously expresses his sense of Berkeley's long faithful and successful services to himself and his Royal father, and says, that though willing to give him leave to retire for his ease and the recovery of his strength, yet he will not take from him the title and dignity of Governor (1032). According to a long document of 12 closely written pages, presumably written in May 1676, with the title "Complaint from Heaven with a hue and cry and a petition out of Virginia and Mary"land to King Charles II. and his Parliament," Governor Berkeley had "altered by marrying a young wife from his wonted good" (937). What authority there is for this statement cannot be ascertained, as there is no signature and the handwriting seems to be feigned as is the case with so many anonymous communications. About the same time a petition of "your poor distressed subjects in the upper parts of James River" was addressed to Governor Sir William Berkeley (921). In it they complain that the Indians have most barbarously and inhumanly taken and murdered several of their brethren and put them to most cruel torture by burying them alive; that they are in daily danger of losing their lives and are afraid of going about their domestic affairs, and they request that officers may be chosen to lead this party now ready to take arms in defence of their lives and estates. It is not the petitioners' desire to put the country to any charge, but they implore the Governor's speedy answer as the Indians. |