The Popham Colony

We have thus with patience, and we trust with candor, examined in detail "Sabino's" statement of the Popham theory; and, if in our former article we slighted its historic claims, they have now, we hope, received due attention.

"Sabino" omitted from his formal statement – but inserted it in another part of his paper – the claim which Popham writers usually bring into the foreground, namely, that the Popham Colony was "the first colonial occupation of the soil of New England under English enterprise." What rank will he assign to Bartholomew Gosnold's occupation of Cuttyhunk, on the south shore of Massachusetts, in 1602? Gosnold there and then made a settlement, which he intended to be permanent. He and his men built a fort and a storehouse, and collected a valuable freight to send home to England. The cellar walls of the house they occupied can be identified at the present day. They planted wheat, barley and oats. "Here," says Bancroft, (i. p. 112,) "the foundations of the first New England colony were to be laid." We do not claim that Gosnold founded a colony. He attempted it, and failed; but he did all that the Popham people did, and even more. He made American colonization an honorable enterprise, and showed that it could be made profitable. Gosnold's men were not convicts. They each had a share in the undertaking; and jealousy as to the distribution of their gains led to the return of the whole company to England. The sale of their freight made it a profitable adventure. They spread the most favorable reports of the regions they had visited, and brought the best evidence that it was a country worth possessing. The Popham men, on the other hand, returned to England in penury and disgrace, "burdening the bounds where they had beene with all the aspersions that possibly they could deuise, seeking by that meanes to discourage all others." The death of Queen Elizabeth prevented Gosnold's return to the Elizabeth Islands; but his representations and cheerful energy awakened an interest in America that resulted in the Charter of 1606, under which the Northern and Southern Virginia settlements were projected. When we compare what Gosnold and his men did in 1602, with what Popham and his felons did in 1607, it requires a degree of audacity rising to sublimity to assert, that "the Popham Colony was the first colonial occupation of the soil of New England under English enterprise."

Ex-Governor Washburn, of Cambridge, in a speech he made at the first Popham Celebration in 1862, suggested that if they would set up the claim that Noah's Ark landed on one of the adjacent hills, and arrange a Celebration in honor of the event, he would volunteer to come and take part in it, without doubting it was true (Pop. Mem., p. 157). The suggestion is worthy of the serious consideration of the Pophamites. The historical difficulties in the way are but mole-hills compared with the Alpine absurdities of their present theory. Noah's Ark was an important fact in the history of the human race. Noah and his family were respectable persons. The only circumstance we know, to the discredit of the old patriarch, is excusable on the ground that there was then no "Maine Law," or even a "judicious license system." The prejudice attached to the descendants of one of his sons, has been neutralized by the Emancipation Proclamation, and the passage of the Civil Rights Bill over the head of President Johnson. The coast is now clear for Noah's Ark. Let the Celebration come off by all means. Why is it more unreasonable to suppose that the Eastern Continent was settled from the Western, than vice versa? Much as we hate celebrations of all kinds, we also volunteer; and, if we cannot attend, we promise to write a letter, developing still further the theory; and "Sabino" shall have full permission to print it as an Appendix to the public address.

"Sabino" is evidently in trouble about the "cannon story," and well he may be. He says "Williamson is inclined to discredit it." Williamson has this inclination, not on the ground of lack of evidence that it occurred; but on the ground of its shocking inhumanity, and the discredit it throws upon the colonists. We are inclined to discredit it, because of the disgrace it casts upon the human race. But the ugly fact still remains (to use Williamson's words) that it was "believed to be true by the ancient and well-informed inhabitants on the Sagadahoc." Again "Sabino" would have us believe, that, whereas the Indians, several years later, told the Jesuit missionaries some of the outrages they had suffered from the Popham colonists, and did not tell them this, therefore the story was invented in Massachusetts, seventy years after it was alleged to have happened. The Jesuits, in their Relations, were describing the friendly feelings of the Indians towards themselves. They doubtless heard, with the other cruelties mentioned, the cannon story; but they rightly judged, that, while it would not contribute to the point they were illustrating, it would appear to readers so inhuman, and hence so improbable, as to weaken the credibility of their other statements. Besides, "Sabino's" argument founded on an omission, if it proves anything, proves too much for him. It proves that not one of the many propositions set up by the Pophamites are true, for not one of them is mentioned in the Jesuit Relations. The insinuation that the cannon story originated in Massachusetts, is a curious and comical blunder. The District of Maine, Fort Popham included, was at the date specified a part of Massachusetts. "Sabino" sees this footnote in Williamson: "Supplement to King Philip's Wars, A. D., 1675, p. 75," and he supposes that 1675 was the date the statement was published, whereas it was the date when King Philip's War commenced. The book was not printed till 1716. He does not inform us how "the ancient and well-informed inhabitants on the Sagadahoc" could have been misled by a statement invented in Massachusetts in 1716.

"Sabino" firmly holds, with Mr. Kidder, that the vessel of thirty tons, built at Sagadahoc, made a voyage across the ocean. "Brief Relation, 1622," he says, "gives us much information about its arrival in England as about the arrival of the ship." But "Brief Relation" says nothing about the arrival of either vessel. It records simply, "the arrival of these people here in England was a wonderful discouragement," etc. The leaders, and the main body of these people, we believe, returned safely to England in the "Mary and John;" and this is sufficient to fulfil all the conditions of the narrative in "Briefe Narration," Strachey and the other old chroniclers. "Sabino," however, is ambitious that all (including those who left in the "pretty pynnace") should arrive in England, and show up the new craft. He says, "This word all used by Gorges and Ogilby utterly forbids the statement of your correspondent." Gorges's all has no reference to the arrival in England. His words are, "all resolved to quit the place (Sagadahoc) and with one consent to away." That "Sabino" should quote Ogilby as an authority, indicates an unfamiliarity in the authentic sources of New England history which we regret to see. Mr. John A. Poor (Popham Memorial, p. 73) says: "It is well known that the Popham Colony, or a portion of them, returned to England in 1608." It strengthens Mr. Poor's argument on the importance of the Colony in maintaining English supremacy, to claim that a portion of the colonists remained in the country. We have quoted the opinion of our esteemed Portland friend for "Sabino's" benefit; and not because it carries additional conviction to our mind. One who writes after this fashion: "They finished their vessel of fifty (?) tons in the winter and spring, called the Virginia, of Sagadahoc, in which they returned to England," – thus adding twenty tons to the size of the vessel, and crowding all into the "pretty pynnace," leaving the "Mary and John" to return in ballast, – is not amenable to the common code of literary and historical criticism.

The Popham Colony, in fine, was a scandalous and complete failure. The thing, as an historical event, was dead and buried. The grass, for more than two centuries and a half, had kindly grown over it, obliterating even from the memory of man the spot where those disgraceful scenes were enacted. In the year 1849, the Hakluyt Society of London printed Strachey's narration, and furnished a clew to the burial place. Nothing would satisfy a few excellent people in Maine but to dig up the sickening remains, and flaunt them under the nostrils of the community. Here was an offense against decency and sanitary regulations, indictable at common law. In cholera times the proceeding is insufferable.

No one imagines that the Popham investigators commenced operations with any other than the amiable motive of contributing to the historic glories of their native State. But they knew not for what they were digging. Their first mistake was, that, when they came to the putrid mass, they did not carefully replace the sod, and say nothing about it. Instead of this, every man shouted "Eureka!" They arranged a monster gathering, and invited all creation to celebrate with them the Two-hundred and Fiftieth Popham Anniversary. People came from the ends of the earth; enjoyed a generous Eastern hospitality; "drank water, if not inspiration, out of the existent Popham well" (Query – Is "Sabino" quite sure that the inspiration came from the well?), believed as much as they could, and had a good time generally. Perhaps history manufactured in this way will stand; but we think not.

Because historical writers have presumed to examine and question their theory, they have grown sullen and morose. They abuse Massachusetts; they spit at Plymouth Rock; they berate the Puritans; they eulogize Sir John Popham; and they sigh for a system of mediæval barbarism which Popham and Gorges could not plant on New England soil, because God, in his mercy to the human race, had decreed otherwise.

The true historic glory of the noble State of Maine seems to have been lost sight of, in the antiquarian researches of her zealous sons, – which is, that the State sprang from the loins of Massachusetts. To this fact, the State to-day is indebted for every one of those distinctive elements of general intelligence, enterprise and thrift that make her what she is, – a New England State, instead of a feudal Virginia or a South Carolina. The Massachusetts Puritans came in early, and took possession of the land, under a technical construction they gave to their own charter, organized municipalities, set up their churches and schools, and put down with a strong hand all opposition to their authority. The historian of New Hampshire has given a faithful picture of the social condition of the Gorges plantation on the Agamenticus (York) River, when the Puritans commenced their missionary operations.

"The people were without order or morals, and it is said of some of them, that they had as many shares in a woman, as they had in a fishing-boat… No provision was made for public institutions, schools were unknown, and they had no ministers, till, in pity of their deplorable state, two went thither from Boston on a voluntary mission." Belknap's American Biography, i. p. 387-8. See also Hutchinson's Collections, p. 424.

The appearance of the Puritans among them did not to the Gorges men seem joyous, but grievous; nevertheless afterward it yielded the peaceable fruit of civilization and godliness unto them who were exercised thereby. The territory was thus saved from the ethics of Popham, the prelacy of Laud and the Stuarts, and the barbarism of a colony of outlaws. The civilization of the District of Maine, during the colonial period, was as essentially Puritan, as that of Massachusetts Bay; and the District was represented in the General Court at Boston, from the year 1653. This close political and social union continued till the admission of the State into the Union in 1820.

It is the privilege, therefore, of the historical writers of Maine, to turn from the unpleasant topic that of late has engaged their attention, to the more congenial theme we have suggested. Let them, with filial affection, recount the virtues and deeds of their Puritan ancestors; and, if they must have an event to celebrate, let it be the landing on Plymouth Rock in 1620, or the arrival of Winthrop and the Charter in 1630, – events which are theirs to celebrate, as well as ours.

    P.

P.S. – We ought perhaps to acknowledge Mr. Kidder's kindness in sending to us a corrected copy of his article in the Portland Advertiser, in reply to our notice of Prof. Patterson's Address. The article still has so many literary and historical errors, that it would be unkindness to its author to review it in its present condition. We can imagine the inconvenience of having one's writings printed so far from home. If Mr. Kidder will furnish us with another copy, still further revised, we promise to give it all the attention it deserves.

    P.

[Boston Daily Advertiser, July 28, 1866.]

THE POPHAM COLONY, "FINALLY."

To the Editors of the Boston Daily Advertiser: —

Absences have prevented my notice of the article of your correspondent "P.," as early as I could have wished. I now take it up for some remarks on its most prominent positions.

To his criticisms, both merited and unmerited, I desire to bow in meek thankfulness. They are merited only as the imperfections were the result of haste in writing on the eve of a journey. Though they may injure the advocate, the cause stands as impregnable as ever. The unmerited are to be attributed to the indistinctness of my rapid penmanship. If our articles shall have the fortune to come to a second edition, he will not be sorry to see that his sagacity has been made useful in aid of my argument.

As to the pervading personalities in the communication, I have but little to say. Of my position and acts in connection with the commemorations of the colony, it asserts matters which never existed, and attributes to me motives which I have never entertained. These allegations do not change the facts of history. It is because of this personal phase of the discussion, that I propose to make no farther reply to your correspondent, even if he should attempt a sur-rejoinder. I do not know him. But he seems to know me, in this connection, more than well, – more than I know of myself, or any one knows or can know of me.

In ascribing to me the origination of the celebrations of the Popham Colony, the communication ignores the fact, that the "founding" thereof (and I use the word in its dictionary sense) was commemorated, in "a bi-centenary celebration," by the Rev. Dr. Jenks, "with a party of gentlemen, in 1807." So that, if there could be claimed any virtue for an Episcopal origination of the commemorative visit to Sabino, – which has never been claimed by any one acquainted with the facts, – this early act by this lover of the olden days would take it all away. Indeed, I have had nothing to do with the later celebrations, as their "original inventor and patentee," in any sense whatever. Its suggestion even was not Episcopal, but simply historical. I have been only auxiliary.

The communication has not a little to say about the bad traits of character in Chief Justice Popham, as displayed in a portion of his early manhood. But it wholly neglects testimony – elsewhere cited – to traits of an opposite kind, appearing in his more matured years. This evidence appears in the writings of his cotemporaries, who speak of him in terms of high commendation. Whatever might have been his earlier life, the path of repentance and amendment was open for his entrance. After his marriage, he changed his early courses; and by his diligence in his legal studies qualified himself for his later eminent position. When Strachey, Smith, Croke and Mather, writing after his death, and of course after his character was completed, call him "the upright and noble gentleman," "that honorable pattern of virtue," "a person of great learning and integrity," "the noble lord," with other words of approval, and none of censure, a reader of the paper cannot but wonder that the better part of his later life was not noticed as well as the worse parts of his earlier. Fuller has placed him among the "Worthies," and says: "If Quicksilver could really be fixed, to what a treasure would it amount! Such is wild youth seriously reduced to gravity, as by this young man did appear."

The opinion of Lord Campbell in his favor should not be neglected by an impartial seeker for truth. He is severe on most of the Chief Justices, not sparing even the good Sir Matthew Hale. His commendations are therefore the more valuable. In his "Life" of this Chief Justice, he describes the particular traits to his discredit, when, with other young men, he entered on his illegal acts on the highway; and then says, "We must remember that this calling was not then so discreditable as it became afterwards." He speaks of the change in his purposes; his diligence as a student; and, after some quotations, presented in this discussion, he says, "He held the office (of Chief Justice) fifteen years, and was supposed to conduct himself in it very creditably." "Many of his judgments in civil cases are preserved, showing that he well deserved the reputation which he enjoyed." "On the trial of actions between party and party, he is allowed to be strictly impartial, and to have expounded the law clearly and soundly." "I believe that no charge could justly be made against his purity as a judge."

And then, as to the reasons why censures were brought against him, this biographer says, "Yet, from the recollection of his early history, some suspicion always hung about him, and stories, probably quite groundless, were circulated to his disadvantage." "Of these we have a specimen" about "Littlecote Hall." It is "unfair to load the memory of a judge with the obloquy of so great a crime, upon such unsatisfactory testimony." A distinguished ruler – more exalted than Popham, whom Palfrey calls "that eminent person" – once wrote, "Remember not the sins of my youth."

If he was called "the hanging judge," it was because criminals were to be punished. Lloyd says, to his credit, that "the deserved death of some scores preserved the lives and livelihood of some thousands; travellers owing their safety to this judge's severity many years after his death." Aubrey says the same.

But, if all were true, as alleged to the disparagement of the Chief Justice, is there so necessary a connection between him and the colonists at Sabino as that they, except the ten men in office, must therefore have been "villains and convicts"? He certainly has on all sides the praise of having been the earliest and the most active promoter of colonization on our wild New England shores. In this relation he gained the distinct commendation of Hubbard, as "the first that ever procured men or means to possess New England," – "the main pillar" of the enterprise, with not the remotest allusion to any such acts in its accomplishment as are mentioned by your correspondent. His statement leads one to think, that he regarded these early movements as preparatory to the settlements in Massachusetts. He certainly has said nothing that can lead us to suppose he connected "convicts" with Popham's efforts.

There is a statement made, derived from Strachey's use of the word "prepared," in two instances, as though this preparation consisted chiefly in furnishing convicts for transportation to Sagadahoc. Where is the proof? There is not a word in the context to warrant any such application, and indeed no where else. One of the "prepared" expeditions was captured by a Spanish fleet, and the men held in a kind of piratical duress. The communication proceeds to say, in condemnation of the old historians and Popham, that "no word of sympathy was expressed by the old writers for the persons enslaved by the Spaniards; nor did Popham, so far as we know, make any attempts to rescue them from their hard fate." Alas! where is the proof of this sweeping assertion? Exactly opposite was the fact. His humane regard for the captives was forthwith put into action. It would have been well for the furtherance of history, if one well versed in "the old writers" against Popham had also seen and produced a single testimony in his favor. Take one sentence from Gorges, relating to this Spanish capture: "The affliction of the captain and his company put the Lord Chief Justice to charge and myself to trouble in procuring their liberties, which was not soon obtained." This citation is enough to show his efforts for their release, and proves great humanity on the part of this "noble patron of justice and virtue," as he has been well described; and that he was not herein "a heartless wretch," as your correspondent writes, and furnishes no proof of his allegation.

The quotations from Lloyd – himself mostly valuable for his quotations – are prominently presented, as bearing on the character of the colonists. He says that Popham "provided for malefactors." But that is no certain proof that he sent them to Sagadahoc. The plan and its completion are different things, and its completion was not necessarily here. "He first set up the discovery of New England to maintain and employ those that could not honestly live in the Old." But this proposal, this "setting up," if made in regard to Sagadahoc, does not prove that the suggestion was ever carried out. With the singularly imperfect knowledge of foreign geography, that has always characterized English education, all Virginia seems to have been New England, and vice versa. New England was North and South Virginia. We admit the plan. We demand the proof that convicts were banished to this region. Besides, where is the inhumanity of the proposal, or its fulfilment? It was intended to save the lives of criminals, who otherwise would have been hung, according to evidence and the laws of their time; and doubtless the culprits condemned would have deemed the provision merciful, that by banishment allowed them to live.

The quotation from Sir William Alexander has been often made; and it is valuable, as coinciding accurately with the views expressed in my communications. His book is rare; and I take his words from your columns: —

"Those that went thither being pressed to that enterprize, as endangered by the Law, or their own necessities, (no enforced thing prouing pleasant, discontented persons suffering while they act can seldom have good success and neuer satisfaction) they after a Winter stay dreaming of new hopes at home returned back with the first occasion."

Here we are accurately taught that the people – that is, the laborers in the colony – went "as endangered by the law, or their own necessities." How were they "endangered"? By what "law"? By what "necessity"? A writer of that time furnishes the reply, – in the crowded population, the poverty of the working class, and the encroachments of their rich neighbors; and urges emigration as the relief. He writes the following: —

"Look seriously into the land, and see whether there bee not just cause, if not a necessity to seek abroad. The people do swarme in the land as young bees in a hive in June: insomuch that there is hardly room for one man to live by another. The mightier, like old strong bees, thrust the weaker, as younger out of their hives. Lords of manors convert townships, in which were a hundredth or two hundredth communicants, to a shepheard and his dog. The true laboring husbandman, that sustaineth the prince by the plow, who was wont to feed many poore, to set many people on work, and pay twice as much subsidie and fifteenes to the king for his proportion of earth, as his landlord did for ten times as much; that was wont to furnish the church with saints, the musters with able persons to fight for their soveraigne, is now turned laborer, and can hardly scape the statutes of rogues and vagrants… The poore metall man worketh his bones out and swelteth himself in the fire; yet for all his labor, having charge of wife and children, he can hardly keep himselfe from the almes box… The poor man receiveth very neere four pence for every sixepeny worth of work. The thoughtfull poore woman that hath her small children standing at her side and hanging on her breast, she worketh with her needle and laboureth with her fingers, her candle goeth not out by night, she is often deluding the bitterness of her life with sweete songs, that she singeth to a heavy heart… I warrant you her songs want no passion; she never saith, O Lord, but a salt teare droppeth from her sorrowfull heart, that weepeth with the head for company with teares of sweetest bloud. And when all the week is ended, she can hardly earn salt enough for her water gruel to feede on upon the Sunday."

Surely here is a picture of extreme poverty, – fully corroborated by a document in Mather, – showing how "the land grew weary of her inhabitants;" and how "children, neighbors and friends, especially the poor, were counted the greatest burdens." It tells us how the honest yeomanry and worthy laborers of that day were harassed by the encroachments of their "mightier" neighbors, and the rigid oppression of the civil law. They were "endangered" through no fault of their own. One cannot but recall a part of the petition of Agur, – "lest I be poor, and steal" to support life. But are we to consider such men as "rascals and villains"? And were any such men, sentenced, as men of guilt, to go forth as a part of the colony? Symonds here gives a full and sufficient interpretation to the meaning of Lloyd and Alexander.

Let us now see who had the power to sentence and fix the place of exile. The Statute of 39 Elizabeth c. iv, 1597-8, to which your correspondent refers as being ample enough to cover "the plan of colonizing by banishment of convicts," authorizes this penalty for "dangerous rogues," who "shall and may lawfully be banished out of this Realme and all other the Domynions thereof." This was to be done "by the Justices of the Peace" at the "Quarter Sessions." Not a word is said about the Chief Justice. The place to which they were to be sent was to be decided "by the Privie Council;" and thus, certainly, not by Popham alone. So that, if there were shame in the transaction, the most honored men of the nation were equally involved in the disgrace. It is unfair and ungenerous to single him out to meet a purpose, as the sole object of obloquy and rebuke.

And now, as to the return of these persons to England. Your correspondent, assuming that a part of them were convicts, truly says, in agreement with his assumption, that they would not be "over-anxious to revisit their native land. They had saved their necks once by emigrating, and were not in haste to put them again into the halter." And so he invents the story about a second pinnace, with which they could "lead generally a wild and free life, such as was congenial to their character and dispositions." This is a precious statement; but it happens to be directly opposite to the citation fearlessly made from Sir William Alexander, which declares that "Those that went thither, – as endangered by the laws, – dreaming of new hopes of home, returned thither with the first occasion." None were left behind. If they had been convicts, they would have pursued some such plan as is intimated by your correspondent, and not have gone back to the hazard of certain death. For the statute last quoted enacts, "if any such Rogues, so banished as aforesaid, shall returne againe into any part of this Realme or Dominion of Wales without lawful Lycence or Warrant so to do, that in every such case such offence shall be Fellony, and the Party offending therein shall suffer Death as in case of Fellony." This was but poor encouragement for convicts to seek their native shores. The winter had been hard. But Captain Davies, who had borne news of the "success" of the enterprise to England, had come back to Sagadahoc in the spring, "with a shipp laden full of vitualls" and other useful things, so that starvation had no horrors; and the summer was at hand. Sir William testifies that they had "new hopes" inviting them to go home. But, if they were condemned criminals, what "new hopes" could have been cherished by men who had nothing to expect but certain detection, by the letter R "branded in the left shoulder," for identification, as soon as they stepped on their native shores; and penal death as its sequel? These "hopes" must have been "new" indeed, if they rested only on a halter, a hangman, and a gallows! Here your correspondent and one of his chief witnesses entirely disagree. The former says, they "were not over-anxious to revisit their native land," fearing the halter. The witness says, that "they returned back with the first occasion" – hasting, and hopeful of a better condition than the one they had left. The one says, that, as liberated jail-birds, they led a roving life here, fearing death at home. The other, in effect, says they had a happy voyage to England, with bright anticipations of a more prosperous life!

We may now look at the kind of men who were to go as settlers to the early colonies on our coast. The Charter of James, April 10, 1606, under which this colony was formed, gives the information. It proves that the specially enumerated patentees, "they and every one of them, shall and may, at all and every time and times hereafter, have, take, and lead in the said voyage, and for and towards the said Plantations, and Colonies, and to travel thitherward, and to abide and inhabit there, in every the said Colonies and Plantations, such and so many of our subjects as shall willingly accompany them or any of them, in the said voyages and Plantations."

The reader will note the sole condition annexed, as to the persons selected to go: "such and so many of our subjects, as shall willingly accompany" any or all of the patentees. Can any language be plainer? Force by the sentence of the civil law is not here thought of. The "willingness" of the "honest," hard pressed yeomanry, seeking to better their livelihood, is here provided for. The "willing" ones are allowed to go, except such as, by the royal power might "be specially restrained." So that the real rogues, however "willing" to go, might thus be forbidden, lest they should contaminate the honest men, described by Gorges, who, "not liking to be hired out as servants to foreign states, thought it better became them to put in practice the reviving resolution of those free spirits, that rather chose to spend themselves in seeking a new world, than servilely to be hired out but as slaughterers in the quarrels of strangers." The same provision existed in the patents to Gilbert and Raleigh. Yet no one has supposed that these leaders took convicts.

Yet this is not all. The same Charter of 1606 expressly provides: "that all and every the Persons being our subjects, which shall dwell and inhabit within every or any of the said several Colonies or Plantations, and every of their Children, which shall happen to be born within any of the Limits and Precincts of the said several Colonies and Plantations, shall have and enjoy all Liberties, Franchises and Immunities, within any of our other Dominions, to all Intents and Purposes, as if they had been abiding and born, within this our Realm of England, or any other of our said Dominions." Now, if the Popham Colony was composed of convicts, how enviable their condition! The sentence of the law did not touch them, except in words! They still had all the "Liberties" of the most innocent Englishman on his native soil! They were "subjects," – "loving subjects," as the same class of "willing" emigrants were called in the Charter of 1609. What "convicts" ever had such "Franchises and Immunities" since the world began? Their state was nothing less than perfect freedom! They were, therefore, no convicts at all; and so could return home safely, and with "new hopes," just as soon as they deemed the change desirable.

In double confirmation of this fact, we may go to the Charter of 18 James, Nov. 3, 1620, which speaks of the efforts made in divers years past, in the Northern Colony, by former grantees, who had "taken actual possession of the Continent," and had "settled already some of our People in Places agreeable to their Desires in those parts." This, certainly, is very far from sustaining the opinion, that the occupants of Sagadahoc were convicts. For they were settled in a place "agreeable to their Desires," until calamities darkened all their prospects. It is worth noting here, that Lord Campbell says nothing about Popham in connection with convicts and the colony. This omission is significant.

A question is proposed, with an air of confidence, as if its answer must demolish the positions of my former article. It is this: "Will 'Sabino' please point out the 'law' under which James sent off a hundred convicts in 1619, that did not exist in 1606?" The demand is adroitly made, but not pertinently. To make it touch the point, it should have been 1607. My reply is readily given.

The statute for the punishment of rogues by banishment, already noted, (39 Eliz. ch. iv.,) expired by its own limitation, in 1601; when it was renewed, to continue till the end of the first session of the next Parliament, which was held in 1603-4. It was then re-enacted, (1 James, ch. iv. and xxv.,) when the additional provision was made, that persons condemned under its sanctions should be branded on the left shoulder with "a greate Romane R," for their detection in case of their unlicensed return, so as to secure the death of the offender, "as in case of Felonie." This statute was to continue "until the end of the first session of the next Parliament" (ch. xxv.). I have no means at hand of knowing the precise date when this session closed; but the Parliament itself ended on May 27, 1606, and the statute was not revived. The temper of the king and that body was shown in the statute (3 James ch. xxvii.) entitled, "An acte for the King's most gracious generall and free Pardon." The next Parliament began Nov. 18, 1606, and ended July 4, 1607. Such was the forbearance of the supreme legislature in relation to the transportation of condemned criminals, that the session passed away, and the law, that had expired by its own limitation, was allowed to remain in this state of its natural death. Transportation seems not to have been in favor.

Therefore, from "the end of the firste session" of the Parliament whose final session was terminated May 27, 1606, till after the Popham Colony sailed, May 31, 1607, there was no statute of transportation in existence.

A re-enactment of the law, or rather a law for punishing rogues by the workhouse, and not by transportation, was not made until the Parliament beginning Feb. 9, 1609. This was four days more than a year after George Popham's death, and a year and a half after the death of the Chief Justice. So that here was at least an interval of more than two years and three-fourths, when there was no law for the exile of convicts from the royal dominions. In this space of time, the Popham Colony had its beginning, its continuance and its end, – beginning more than a year after the law had died; continuing through the larger part of the year; and ending nearly another year before it was revived, in a very different form, and with a milder penalty. During this period, no law appears in the "Statutes of the Realm" for the transportation of convicts; and it is perfectly incredible that any persons were so sentenced by the justices of the peace, and sent to Sagadahoc under any sanction of the highest judicial authority in the realm, with the specific designation of the place by the Privy Council.

The preamble of the statute of 1609 for "punishing rogues" makes known the inactivity of the magistrates in the enforcement of former provisions, and the desuetude into which this law had fallen. It declares that the earlier "Statutes had not been duly and severely putt in execution." Therefore the requisitions are made stronger, to bind the proper officers to their more stringent execution, in regard to "Houses of Correction." Transportation is not even hinted at. This previous easy state of affairs on this topic shows that the rigor of expulsion, ascribed to Popham, is a thought of later times.

It is also to be noted, that the Charter of 1606 is in strict harmony with the fact that the expired law had not been revived. Among the twenty-seven Acts of 3, 4 James, 1605-6, and the thirteen of 4, 5 James, 1606-7, no one appears on the pages to authorize the exportation of criminals. Those who went to either of the Virginias were to go "willingly," and enjoy their "liberties." If, in any other book of laws besides the "Statutes of the Realm," if there be such, or by any new and singular interpretation of any provision there can be found a rule requiring the transportation of convicts, it will not thence follow that any were sent to Sagadahoc. For the Charter will still say that only volunteers were to go, who should be free men as long as they remained in connection with the company.

I did not refer to Ogilby and Chalmers as original authorities, but as good investigators. The former has been long known. My favorable opinion of the latter is drawn from the Preface to his "Introduction to the History of the Revolt in the American Colonies." Your correspondent seems to undervalue him. But to sustain my estimate, I may quote the expressions of the American editor of the above-named volumes. "His works are deemed to possess much merit as the result of profound research and a discriminating judgment." – "His official station gave him access to all state papers." – "He took advantage of this opportunity, to investigate in its original sources the history of the colonies." – "His work (Political Annals) has ever been quoted with entire confidence and respect; and this circumstance speaks clearly in favor of the author's candor and honesty." When he speaks of no earlier transportation than 1619, I have been ready to give him credit. Your correspondent refers to him as writing, "that the policy of sending convicts to the plantations originated with King James, and that in the year 1619 he issued an order to send a hundred dissolute persons to Virginia." I am content with this statement. Bancroft thinks "some of them were convicts: but it must be remembered that the crimes of which they were convicted were chiefly political;" and political felons, as well as those whom in the same volume he calls "the Puritan felons that freighted the fleet of Winthrop," were "endangered by the law;" and yet not for this reason to be regarded as tainted in the least with moral guilt. His opinion, too, is that there was never sent to South Virginia – for he seems not to have heard of the accusations brought against the northern colony – any "considerable number" of persons convicted of "social crimes;" "certainly not enough to affect its character." This statement may be taken as a sufficient reply to the charge that Popham "stockt" the plantations out of "all the gaoles of England." Indeed, all that Bacon, nearly twenty years after his colony had ceased, and other far later writers have said, on the topic contained in the quotation from him, relates to the later affairs in the southern colony; and can be connected with Popham only as he was a prime mover in the enterprise of colonization, carried on after his death. It cannot be shown that they had Sagadahoc in mind. Weber, as "revised and corrected" by Professor Bowen, adheres to 1619.

Against a remark of mine, the communication states, that there was "no later occupancy of New England till the Pilgrims arrived in 1620." I said "the Popham Colony was followed by a succession of occupancies, that proved title." I say so still. I did not mean that all these occupancies were colonies. They were at Monhegan, by Sir Francis Popham and Captain John Smith; at Pemaquid, by the annual visits of the English from Virginia; at Mount Desert, by Argall; at Saco, by Vines; at Plymouth, by the Pilgrims and by numerous others, after that great and memorable event in our national history. They were made under the protection of the Charter of James in 1606; energetically promoted in the outset by Popham, "the first to procure men and means to possess New England;" and sustained for years at great expense by Sir Ferdinando Gorges. In this connection I wish to supply an omission noticed by your correspondent, where I said, that the colony "proved title as against the former and never-revived claims of France." "West of the Kennebec" was in my mind, but not written. I thank him for the correction, as it strengthens my position. It would have been better to have said, "the French never had any possession on the coast, west of the Kennebec."

As to the settlement of Gosnold, I have before shown that it was not a "chartered colony." It was deserted on the day when its small house was scarcely fitted for a permanent dwelling. It was "undertaken on private account;" asserted no general claim; proved no title; and was not renewed.

The powder and cannon stories appear to be singularly confused by Williamson. His misplaced footnote referring to the History of King Philip's War has misled us both. It is made as authority for the latter, when it should be for the former, and the tradition (I quote from memory) is from "an ancient mariner." As it is unsupported, it can hardly be claimed as history. As to the cannon story, one of our best antiquarians thinks that it has had no earlier mention than is found in Morse and Parish, about two centuries after its alleged occurrence, as derived from the Norridgewock Indians. Such a tradition is of very little account. If these stories had been true, it is marvellous that the "speechifying" Indians round about Arrowsic should not have told their prowess and their sufferings to the listening Jesuits in 1611. It may be well to know that a valued New Hampshire historian locates the narrative about the cannon at Dover, N. H., in the time of Waldron, when a large number of Indians were captured by stratagem. If the servants of the colony set dogs on the meddlesome Indians, the wise men in council in a later colony in New England, as Hazard gives it, decided to employ "mastiffe-dogs" to hunt down Indians in 1656. Why not blame both?