To guard against a recurrence of scarcity and famine, Sir Thomas Dale wisely provided a wider field and more ample security for agricultural labor, by new settlements at Bermuda Hundred and elsewhere, on fertile and elevated ground, protected by empalements and other stronger works of defence against Indian, or even foreign assaults. While engaged in these and other public works, the hard fare and hard tasks emboldened some of the sufferers, most likely at the suggestion of Sir Thomas Dale, "to petition Sir Thomas Gates to allow them to employ themselves in husbandry, that thereby they and all others might be better fed than they could be by supplies from England." The Governor refused to comply with their request unless they would pay the yearly rent of three bushels of corn and one month's work (31 days), to the colony. They considered these terms particularly rigorous, because many of them had been employed in general works and services from the beginning of the plantation. Still, they accepted "these hard terms of tenantship," as they said, "rather than continue in the general services and employment, no way better than slavery." At a later period, the corn rent was reduced to two and a half barrels, equal to twelve and a half bushels English; and it was agreed that the month of labor for the colony should not be exacted, either in seed time or harvest. (Hamor, p. 17; Purchas IV. p. 1766; Planter's Declaration.) Shortly before Sir Thomas Gates embarked for England, Sir Thomas Dale prevailed on him to allot to each man of the rest of the people, three acres of clear ground, which he was to cultivate as a farmer for three years; at the end of which period his absolute freedom would be awarded him. For this he was bound to work eleven months for the colony, in the building of Charles City, in erecting houses at Jamestown, and in other general services; and was allowed clothing and victuals for part of the first year, two bushels of corn yearly from the public store, and one month in the year, and one day in the week from May till harvest, to work for his own sustenance. These terms were gladly accepted; but the tenants afterwards complained that they were not faithfully observed, and that "of that small time allowed for their sustenance, they were abridged of near half." But there was no injury done. Long experience in the art of shunning public work had taught them the readiest way to indemnify themselves for any encroachment upon their own allotted time. They said, with amusing simplicity, that "out of their daily tasks" they were forced to redeem time wherein to labor for their sustentation." If wronged of a day, they got back an equivalent in fragments of days, cribbed from their tasks. Their discontent probably vanished under the less energetic rule of Dale's successor, Yeardley; and, at the end of three years, gave way to a feeling of triumphant exultation, when they compared their lot with that of the farmers, of whom less labor had been required, but who still remained in the old state of servitude. These judicious measures of Sir Thomas Dale improved the public resources, and inspired the colonists with new hopes and increased energy, by raising them from a servile condition to a state of comparative freedom and manly self-reliance. Before he left Virginia, his farmers had furnished the storehouses with a superabundance of corn; and, instead of seeking it, as formerly, of the Indians, at the hazard of being derided or capriciously refused, he sold, or lent to them, large quantities of it. (Hamor, pp. 16, 17, 18, 31-32; IV. Purchas, p. 1766; Chalmers' Revolt, pp. 9, 10, 36; Planters' Declaration; Stith, p. 140.) Chalmers, in his "Revolt of the American Colonies," cited above, says, that Dale, “in 1613, assigned to every freeman a farm of three acres, on condition that they labored annually three months for the Company, and paid them three bushels of corn." He refers to no authority for this statement, and we have failed to discover any. We apprehend it to be erroneous, and that there was no such three-acre grant, distinct from what is described above. In Chalmers' comments on the grants of fifty acres, prescribed in 1615, he differs essentially from himself, and, in part, from Stith, his authority. In his "Political Annals" (p. 36), he says, that the grants in question were made "to every adventurer and his heirs," &c.; but, in his "Revolt of the Colonies" (p. 10), he says, "to every freeman in absolute right." He repeats part of Stith's exposition, that this was the ancient legal method of granting lands in Virginia, and was adopted for the encouragement of emigration. But he overlooks the fact, also mentioned by Stith, that one hundred acres was the quantity originally allotted to the adventurer, and that it was reduced to fifty acres in 1615, because the value of land in Virginia was thought to have been doubled under the wise administration of Sir Thomas Dale. In his later work, the "Revolt of the Colonies," in reference to these fifty-acre grants, he says, "If we look into the 'Virginia Annals,' we shall find the year 1615 remarkable for the establishment of a fixed possession of the soil descendible to heirs." He does not inform the reader, nor do we know, where to find the "Virginia Annals," in which he gathered this fruit of his researches. But it is certain that the regulation, introduced in 1615, simply reduced the quantity of land previously allotted to adventurers. It conferred no new right either upon the adventurer or the inhabitants in general; nor did it in any way or degree change or affect the existing tenure by which land in the colony was held. (Stith, pp. 139, 140.) Early in the spring of 1616, Sir Thomas Dale, accompanied by Pocahontas, and John Rolfe, her husband, returned to England in the "Treasurer,” commanded by Argall. Nearly two years before, King James had written to the States-General, requesting them to extend Dale's leave of absence to two or three years longer. To this they gave their consent on the 30th of September, 1614. After he landed in England, he was prevented by ill-health from repairing to his post in the Netherlands for nearly a year and a half. At length, about the 1st of January, 1618, he went to the Hague for the purpose of obtaining, if possible, full arrears of pay for the seven years of his absence, and of being continued in the pay and favor of the States. On presenting himself to Sir Dudley Carleton, the English ambassador at the Hague, he delivered to him a letter from King James, in which Sir Dudley was specially instructed to second the endeavors of Sir Thomas in regard to his arrears of pay, and his continuance in the Dutch service. He had, also, a letter of introduction to Sir Dudley from Sir Henry Savile, one of the most learned men, and the greatest patron of learning in his day; in which Dale is mentioned as a friend of the Earl of Southampton, who had done good service in the plantation of Virginia. The Earl showed his friendship for Dale in persuading Sir Noel Caron, the Dutch ambassador, to write to the States-General, recommending his friend Dale's claim to their favorable consideration. (I. New York Docum. pp. 9, 10, 16, 17, 18; Carleton, Letters, p. 202; Eng. Dom. St. Papers, vol. xci., Dec. 4, 1617.) Sir Dudley, as English ambassador, was entitled to a seat in the Assembly of the StatesGeneral. On the 26th of January, 1618, he presented Sir Thomas Dale's petition to the House, announcing, first verbally, and afterwards in writing, that he did so by express orders from the king, his master. After bestowing high commendations on "the patience, diligence, and valor with which Sir Thomas Dale had overcome serious difficulties and dangers, and finally established a good and permanent settlement in Virginia, all along a river navigable for seventy leagues into the interior," he adverted to the grant of full pay during absence, which they had made to Sir Thomas Gates, and expressed his hope that the same favor would now be shown to Sir Thomas Dale. The petition of Dale dwelt on his long service, and his pressing want of the arrears of his pay to satisfy debts with which his company was burdened when he first received it; and concluded by "confidently requesting," that their High Mightinesses would be pleased to enable him to pay those debts, and to continue a faithful servant in their service. (I. New York Docum. pp. 16, 18.) The Assembly immediately ordered the petition, with the ambassador's recommendation, made in obedience to the command of His Majesty, to be placed in the hands of the Council of State for their advice. The Council's report of the 30th of January was read in the Assembly on the 3d of February; and, in conformity with its recommendation, it was proposed to pay Sir Thomas Dale one-half of the arrears claimed, but the final resolution on the subject was postponed till the following Monday, the 5th. On the 6th the final resolution was made known that payment should be made of half of the petitioner's wages for the seven years of his absence. But, three days after, another resolution was adopted, allowing him full wages for the time mentioned above, "notwithstanding the resolution to the contrary adopted at the time of his absence," which we have already noticed. (Supra, p. 54.) The reasons which influenced the Assembly in thus rescinding their first resolution, are, in a great degree, a matter of conjecture. The original refusal of the Assembly in 1611 to continue the pay of Dale during his intended absence, no doubt had great weight at first; but the States-General, in selling his company to Captain Willoughby, had not kept faith with Sir Thomas Dale, to whom, at the time his leave of absence was granted, and the continuance of pay refused, the States, by formal resolution, had given their promise that "his company should remain vacant" during his absence, "to be resumed if he thought proper." Sir Thomas now got back his company. This inflicted a loss and a wrong upon Captain Willoughby, who had honestly paid for the company. His friends in England interested the king in his behalf so far as to persuade him that Sir Thomas had committed a fault, and to induce him to have efforts made, through the ambassador, to procure for the captain "the company he had paid for." It may reasonably be surmised that Sir Thomas restored his company to Captain Willoughby; and by compromise, in return, was rewarded with all the arrears he had claimed. The recent appointment of Sir Thomas as Admiral in the service of the English East-India Company might have made the States-General somewhat cautious of giving him provocation to seek redress by disturbing their colonies and commerce within reach of his naval command. The king's displeasure was not excessive nor lasting. In the beginning of April, 1618, Sir Thomas sailed with six ships from England for Bantam, in Java, bearing with him the king's commission, conferring upon him civil as well as martial authority; with special injunctions to prevent traders and interlopers from disturbing the Company's commerce. On his arrival at Bantam, he found the Dutch at war with the Javanese, and was called upon by the king of Bantam to give his assistance against the oppressions of the Dutch. In the course of his voyage, Sir Thomas Dale had taken charge of a Dutch ship laden with pepper, valued at £30,000, as the Dutch alleged, under color of friendship, and he had also lost his own, the Admiral ship, on one of the Inganno, or Eugene Islands, near the Straits of Sunda. At the time these two incidents occurred, he was not aware that the Dutch, for three years previous, had been in the habit of seizing, without ceremony, English vessels with valuable cargoes, and of attacking possessions of the English East-India Company, in utter defiance of the intimate and amicable relations subsisting beween the respective governments at home. But subsequently, when better informed of the hostile conduct of the Dutch, he, no doubt, was eager to fight for the friendly king to whose kindness the English Company were indebted for their factory in Jacatra, and to hold fast the Dutch ship and cargo, by way of reprisal. A treaty between the king and the factory was soon made, by which the latter gained a permanent site for the factory in Jacatra, on payment of fifteen hundred rials of eight; and, for the annual payment of seven hundred rials, the privilege of free trade, exempt from all duties, inward and outward, except five per cent on pepper, and three per cent on cloves exported. The king bound himself to make no treaty with the Dutch, nor allow them to fortify within his dominions, without the consent of the English. The forces of each contracting party were to be employed against the Dutch at Jacatra; and, on the surrender of the castle, whatever might be taken was to be shared equally by them, after replacing their respective military stores consumed. The castle was to be at the disposal of the king; and the personal security of the Dutch, at the disposal of the English. (Carleton, Letters, p. 202; I. Bruce, E. I. Annals, pp. 204-910; I. Birch, James, p. 190.) To complete the armament of the king's ships, Sir Thomas Dale and the other commanders contributed ten heavy guns and twenty barrels of powder. In the earlier part of January, 1619, Sir Thomas left port for Jacatra, with eleven ships. On his way he had an encounter with seven Dutch vessels, six of which escaped to Amboyna, and one to Holland. Jacatra was shortly after attacked; and the castle, with its garrison of three hundred men, on the 22d of the same month, surrendered, on condition that the Dutch, to avoid the insults of the Javanese, should be conveyed to the Coromandel coast, on taking an oath not to serve against the English before the next November. But within a year the Dutch regained possession of the place, and there built and fortified the city of Batavia, the capital of their possessions in the East Indies. At that period, in fact, the Dutch selected their places of trade at discretion, and maintained them by force; while the English, at the same time, were often foiled in similar attempts, by adhering too closely to the courtly policy suggested by Sir Thomas Roe, which proscribed all soldiers, garrisons, and forts, as destructive of commercial gain. Under such a system, the ability of Sir Thomas Dale was misplaced and lost to his country. He was bred a soldier, and had he been allowed a competent land force, his professional skill, his ardor, prudence, and inflexible resolution, would have repelled all At that time Sir Thomas Dale was no longer living. He died at Masulipatam on the 9th of August, 1619. The Reverend Mr. Copeland, chaplain of Captain Martin Pring's ship of one thousand tons, the "Royal James," frequently met him in Bantam-not Japan, as misreported in the Company debates cited by Stith-during the last eight months of his life, and was so forcibly struck with Sir Thomas's glowing commendations of Virginia, that, on the homeward voyage, by his example and persuasion, he prevailed on the ship's company to contribute £70 towards building a church or free school in the colony. This sum was afterwards, by the gifts of two persons, increased to £125. The death of Sir Thomas Dale was everywhere deeply lamented by all who had known him in his varied career. In the East Indies, it was felt by the English as the severest of public calamities, until, about eight months after, news came that peace was established between England and the Dutch provinces. His friends in England, while endeavoring to secure the remnant · of his property for the benefit of his widow, depended for success on the distinguished merits of her departed husband. Captain Conway, an old comrade of Sir Thomas in the Netherland service, and whose first wife was a cousin of Lady Dale, on the 1st of July, 1623, wrote to his father, Sir Edward Conway, who had likewise served with Sir Thomas, and was then Secretary of State, to thank him for having procured from the king a special request to the Navy Commissioners to obtain for the widow of Sir Thomas the lease of an estate in the hands of the East-India Company. The friendly interest of Captain Conway was manifested in the same letter to his father, by an entreaty that he would use his influence to secure expedition in the case of Lady Dale, and a patient examination of her witnesses. Ten months after, Sir Edward Conway wrote to Sir Edward Coke to beg him to favor Lady Dale by hastening the report in another case of hers, which had been referred to a committee of the House. To quicken Sir Edward Coke's efforts in the affair, he adds, “Her late husband was a man of great courage and reputation, and in his last voyage lost his life, and a quantity of goods, which his lady now claims." (I. Purchas. 689, 640, 641, 653; Stith, pp. 204, 297; Eng. Dom. St. Papers, vol. cxlviii., July, 1628; vol. cxliii., May, 1624.) HARVEY'S DECLARATION. A BRIEFE DECLARATION OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA AT MY COMMINGE FROM THENCE IN FEBRUARY 1624.* PEOPLE. People there were about 12 hundred Whereof able men about 700. ARMES.-Peices of Ordinance 33 Whereof about ten mounted-Murtherers and Bases 26. NOTE. John Harvey, the author of the above report, was appointed by an order in council on the 24th October, 1623, together with John Pory, Esq., Abraham Persey, Samuel Matthews, and John Jefferson, to make inquiries as to the actual state of the Plantation in Virginia. Matthews and Persey were residents in the colony; the first, a member of the General Assembly, and a wealthy planter; the second, Cape merchant of the colony. John Jefferson never acted under the commission. As the particular inquiries enjoined by the commission are distinctly answered in this report, it is unnecessary to repeat them here. Stith (p. 328), in noticing the return to England of Harvey and Pory," the Privy Council's commissioners," as he distinguishes them from their two colleagues, says, " what their report was of the state of the colony, I cannot discover; but we may easily judge, by the dispositions and principles of the men, that it was not much to the honor or advantage of the present government." The report, however, agrees mainly with the representations given by the Assembly itself; with the exception, perhaps, of what it says of the general desire for a royal government, the want of public works for use and defence, and the necessity of husbanding the public resources. The report gives a much larger number of pieces of ordnance than the Assembly claimed in their reply to Butler's "Unmasking of Virginia." (Stith, p. 310.) In vindication of the recommended change of government, it is sufficient to refer to the proceedings of the Assembly eighteen years later, when they refused to listen to a proposition for restoring the Virginia Company; but denounced it as having brought intolerable calamities upon the colony, by its unlawful proceedings, cruel punishments, and monopolizing policy. (II. Force, Article VI.; Burke, II. p. 68.) That the Company, as a mercantile enterprise, was a failure, may be inferred from its inability at this time to furnish the Governor, Sir Francis Wyatt, with his legal number of tenants, without taking them from the Company's lands in Virginia; and this transfer was actually adopted as an expedient to induce him to continue in office, because the Company had no means to fit out a new governor. The welfare of the colony, under the Company, was mainly a contingency, dependent on constant supplies from England, of laborers, soldiers, and provisions. Governors, and other officers, who had large allotments of land and laborers; and private individuals, who had wealth enough to procure a competent number of laborers from England, and interest enough to obtain large tracts of land in favorable situations, might grow rich; and even the humbler classes might live in comfort: but the Company, with its idle tenants, could hardly hope for returns that would repay the advances. (Smith's Va. pp. 139, 167; Stith, p. 124.) Of Harvey's early history not much is known. From Chamberlain's and Sir Dudley Carleton's letters, it appears that in December, 1617, he was commander of a vessel with eighty men on board, fitted out by himself and Rowland Lytton, a kinsman of Sir Dudley's, for a voyage, as he alleged, for Guiana. But the Venetian resident, suspecting that Harvey's vessel, then lying wind-bound in the Texel, was designed, with other ships, to be sent to the Duke of Ossuna, the Spanish Viceroy of Naples, to aid piratical depredations, which, in defi * Indorsed, "A Declaration of the present state of Virginia by Captaine John Harvey. leb. 1624." |