Car. 2 c.

IO.

On the other hand, there is much evidence1 to show that both the Virginia Company and the Colony afterwards were very jealous for the good character of the colonists sent out. It is very doubtful whether at least before 1650 there were any convicts transported, in whose cases there were not special mitigating circumstances. In 1663 we find the draft of a Bill in Parliament enacting that persons convicted of felony, who had benefit of clergy, and women convicted of stealing money above the value of twelvepence and under that of ten shillings, should be transported to Jamaica, Virginia, or any other English Plantation beyond the seas, there to serve for not less than five nor more 22 and 23 than nine years. An Act of 1670, making the arson of corn stacks and the malicious killing of cattle, capital offences, allowed persons convicted the alternative of being shipped to the Plantations. But the first bill never became law, and, partly no doubt in response to the protest of the Virginia Assembly, we find, in 1682, the Commissioners of Trade and Plantations declaring that no felon should be transported to any of the English foreign settlements unless he could give security in a hundred pounds that he would not return for four years. On the whole, it would seem that the greater number of convicts who were transported to Virginia were political offenders, who naturally belonged to a higher moral and social category. Another proof that the imported servants were not as a rule of ingrained bad character is to be found in their youthfulness. Information has come down as to the age of a great number of them, and it would seem to have generally averaged about twenty, an age at which, for the most part, bad habits would not have become second nature. The probability of these figures is vouched by the fact that the younger the servant the more profitable the bargain for the planter. Of those who went out as settlers and not under indentures there was doubtless a mixture of all classes. Younger sons of good family and good character, in some cases men of means, jostled with adventurers and spendthrifts. The same causes, racial and

1 Collected by Mr Bruce, Econ. Hist. of Virginia in 17th century.

economic, which have in subsequent times caused a continuous exodus of Englishmen to North America, Australia, and South Africa were already at work, and producing the same results. It is probable that, writing under the influence of New England prejudices, the tendency of historians has been unfairly to cry down the early Virginian settlers. And it is only right, and their bounden duty, that the writers of that State should be jealous for the fair fame and character of their forefathers.

It is probable that the economic need for emigration at the beginning of the seventeenth century was less than it has been sometimes represented. The statements of preachers in sermons are not very high authority. It seems strange to speak of over-population at a time when England was just beginning her commercial history; but in any case, if there was need for emigration, much at least of the kind of emigration which went on to Virginia did not meet it. Upon the whole there was a serious risk that, if Virginia had remained the only English American Colony, sooner or later the game of persisting in it would not have been considered worth the candle. And yet, had this course been taken, in Dale's vigorous language, "The English Government with its wisdom would have leapt such a gudgeon as England had not done the like since it lost France. Be not gulled," he continued, "with the clamorous reports of bad people. Believe Caleb and Joshua. . . . I have seen the best countries of Europe; I protest unto you, before the living God—put them all together, this country will be equivalent unto them, it being inhabitant with good people." The proud boast of the author of "Nova Britannia" would have come to naught, "We shall reare again such marchants shippes both tall and stout, as no forreine sayle that swimmes shall make them vaile or stoope, whereby to make this little northerne corner of the world the richest storehouse and staple for marchandize in all Europe."2 Nor would the beautiful prayer have been fulfilled that "That merciful and tender God who is both

1 Dale to Sir T. Smith, 1613; Gen. of U.S., Vol. II.

2 Force's Historical Tracts, Vol. III.

Car. 2 c.
IO.

On the other hand, there is much evidence1 to show that both the Virginia Company and the Colony afterwards were very jealous for the good character of the colonists sent out. It is very doubtful whether at least before 1650 there were any convicts transported, in whose cases there were not special mitigating circumstances. In 1663 we find the draft of a Bill in Parliament enacting that persons convicted of felony, who had benefit of clergy, and women convicted of stealing money above the value of twelvepence and under that of ten shillings, should be transported to Jamaica, Virginia, or any other English Plantation beyond the seas, there to serve for not less than five nor more 22 and 23 than nine years. An Act of 1670, making the arson of corn stacks and the malicious killing of cattle, capital offences, allowed persons convicted the alternative of being shipped to the Plantations. But the first bill never became law, and, partly no doubt in response to the protest of the Virginia Assembly, we find, in 1682, the Commissioners of Trade and Plantations declaring that no felon should be transported to any of the English foreign settlements unless he could give security in a hundred pounds that he would not return for four years. On the whole, it would seem that the greater number of convicts who were transported to Virginia were political offenders, who naturally belonged to a higher moral and social category. Another proof that the imported servants were not as a rule of ingrained bad character is to be found in their youthfulness. Information has come down as to the age of a great number of them, and it would seem to have generally averaged about twenty, an age at which, for the most part, bad habits would not have become second nature. The probability of these figures is vouched by the fact that the younger the servant the more profitable the bargain for the planter. Of those who went out as settlers and not under indentures there was doubtless a mixture of all classes. Younger sons of good family and good character, in some cases men of means, jostled with adventurers and spendthrifts. The same causes, racial and 1 Collected by Mr Bruce, Econ. Hist. of Virginia in 17th century.

small discontentments cause to wish themselves at home again." At the same time the Plymouth Colony had its own difficulties. They were financed by London Gallios, who cared nothing for points of doctrine, and whose only aim was to stand well in the eyes of authority. In 1624 the partnership of the company of adventurers of Plymouth was dissolved; two-thirds of those in London withdrawing from their connection with the Colony; and three years later the Colony bought up, for the sum of £1800, all the rights of the English adventurers.

sions at

James.

This, then, was the state of things at the death of James I. Colonial Virginia was under the direct control of the crown, the posses Bermudas were under a Trading Company, which had pur- death of chased them from the Virginia Company; another Trading Company was in nominal possession of New England, while a small but active community was in virtual independence at New Plymouth. New Scotland had been granted, on paper, to Sir W. Alexander, but as yet no steps had been taken to enter into its possession. A formal grant of Newfoundland had been made in 1610 to Calvert. But in spite of Kirke's remark that the climate was good for all "except Jesuits and Schismaticks," the Colony was to remain for many years in a shadowy, not yet embodied, form of life. The prospect was not a promising one. Well might a few years later Cottington endorse on a state paper 1 "Romans, Spanish and Dutch conquer, not plant tobacco and puritanism only, like fools. If they had stayed at home they would have laboured in the Commonwealth to their own sustenance, now we must labour for them." Equally unsatisfactory had been the Colonial policy of the English Government. There had been, as has been shown above, neither consistency nor continuity, unless perhaps in the matter of religious toleration. Nor did the reign of Charles I. bring an improvement. Professor Seeley Policy of has remarked on the complete volte face in the foreign policy of Charles. Starting as a lion, it soon becomes as meek as a mouse. It may be added that the same levity characterised his Colonial policy. Many modern readers will

1 June 20, 1638, Sainsbury, Cal. of S. P.

Charles I.

applaud the sonorous periods in which the Royal1 Proclamation of 1625 speaks of private companies. "To whom it may be proper to trust matters of trade and commerce, but cannot be fit or safe to commit the ordering of state affairs be they never of so mean a consequence." The territories of Virginia and the Somers Islands, and also those of New England, are asserted to be part of our Royal Empire, descended upon us, and the resolution is proclaimed of having "one and uniform course of government in and through all our whole monarchy."

Brave words, but within four years we find a charter granted to the Massachusetts Bay Company, on precisely the old lines which had been so solemnly abandoned. (It is true that, in the event, the Massachusetts Bay Company did March 4, not trade, but this was not at the time foreseen.) The 1629. Charter 2 gave power to the freemen of the Company to elect annually, from their own number, a Governor, deputy Governor, and eighteen assistants; and to make laws and ordinances, not repugnant to the laws of England for the government of the new Colony. No reference was made to conformity to the Church of England, so that toleration to dissenters was thus practically given. In another respect the patent, so far as companies were concerned, involved a bold innovation. In previous charters a provision had been always contained, fixing the government of the Company in England. Such a clause was in the original draft of the Massachusetts Bay Company's Charter, but was afterwards deliberately omitted. If we consider the arguments used by Downing a few years later to show why New England could never aim at independence we shall recognize the importance of this omission,+ "The whole trade of the plantation is maintained by such undertakers as remain in 1 Set out in Hazard's Historical Collection, Vol. i. p. 203. (The summary in Sainsbury does not give the language respecting Trading Companies.)

3

2 Set out in Hutchinson Mass. Collection of Papers.

In a paper on Arbitrary Government (1644) in app. Life and Letters of J. Winthrop. Vol. II. p. 441, Winthrop expressly states, "so this was intended and with much difficulty we got it abscinded."

Dec. 12, 1633, Sainsbury, Cal. of S. P.