On the 25th March, 1584, Raleigh obtained letters patent from Queen Elizabeth authorising him to establish a colony in North America, south of Newfoundland. "The first voyage made" under this patent "to the coasts of America" was "with two barks, wherein were Captains M. Philip Amadas, and M. Arthur Barlowe, who discovered part of the countrey now called Virginia, anno 1584:" the account of which voyage is stated to have been "written by one of the said Captaines, and sent to Sir Walter Raleigh, knight, at whose charge and direction the said voyage was set forty"—Hak. vol. iii. p. 246.
The next voyage is called (p. 251.) "The voyage made by Sir Richard Grenvill for Sir Walter Raleigh to Virginia, in the yeere 1585." Sir Richard left a colony under the government of Master Ralph Lane. A list of all the colonists, to the number of 107, "as well gentlemen as others, that remained one whole yeere in Virginia," is given in Hakluyt, at p. 254. The first name is Master Philip Amadas, Admirall of the countrey;" the second is "Master Hariot." On the 10th June of next year the colony was visited by Sir Francis Drake, with no less than twenty-three sail of vessels, "in his prosperous returne from the sacking of Saint Domingo." Sir Francis gave the colonists, who had suffered severely from "scarsity," the means of returning to England, which they did, leaving Virginia on the 18th of June, and arriving at Portsmouth on the 28th of July, 1586. Governor Lane was greatly blamed for his precipitate desertion of the colony. Hariot wrote a description of the country, which occupies fifteen folio pages of Hakluyt. Hallam (in the passage quoted by MR. BREEN) is correct in describing Hariot as the companion of Raleigh; for that he was, and very much esteemed by him: but he is wrong in making it appear that they were together in Virginia.
In the meantime Raleigh at home was far from being forgetful of his colonists, although they seemed so little inclined to depend upon him. He got ready no less than four vessels: various delays, however, occurred to retard their sailing; and Raleigh at last getting anxious started off one of them as a "bark of aviso," or despatch boat, as it is called in one of the old accounts. It arrived at the site of the colony "immediately after the departing of our English colony out of this paradise of the world;" and "after some time spent in seeking our colony up in the countrey, and not [of course] finding them, it returned with all the aforesaid provision into England." Thus Hakluyt, page 265., who also states that it was "sent and set forth at the charges of Sir Walter Raleigh and his direction;" expressions surely inconsistent with any supposition that he was on board of this bark of aviso; and yet it would appear, from the Introduction of Sir Robert Schomburgk, already referred to, that this was the identical occasion on which Raleigh was erroneously supposed to have visited Virginia. As what Sir Robert says is very important, and bears very directly on the question, I quote his words:
"It has been asserted by Theobald and others, that Sir Walter Raleigh himself accompanied this vessel, which he sent for the relief of the young colony; such may have been his intention, as Captain Smith states in the first book of his General History of Virginia; but we have so many proofs that Sir Walter did not leave England in that year, that we are surprised that such an erroneous statement has found credence up to the present day."
This is a strong opinion of Sir Robert, and if borne out by evidence, would be conclusive; but in the first place, his reference to Smith's Virginia is incorrect; and besides, Smith, for anything he relates prior to 1606, is only secondary evidence. His book was published in 1624, and is reprinted in Pinkerton's Voyages (1812). On reference to it there I can find no such intention attributed to Raleigh; and in fact Smith's account is manifestly taken from Hakluyt (1599), who, it is well known, had his information on these voyages chiefly from Raleigh himself.[1] In the second place, it would have been well if Sir Robert had mentioned some distinct proof that Raleigh was in England on some one day that the vessel was absent, rather than generally stating that he did not leave England during 1586. Unfortunately, there is a want of precision as to the exact dates when the vessel left and returned to England; enough is said, however, to fix upon the two months at least from the 20th of May to the 20th of July as being embraced in the period during which she was on her voyage. In Hakluyt it is stated that she did not sail until "after Easter:" in 1586 Easter Sunday was, by my calculation, on the 3rd April. The 20th of May is therefore a liberal meaning to attach to the expression "after Easter." She arrived in Virginia "immediately after" Drake sailed, on the 18th of June. Say then that she even arrived on the 19th June; only spent one day in searching for the colony; and took thirty days to go home; this would bring us to the 20th July. It will be noticed that I narrow the time as much as possible, to strengthen the evidence that would be gained by proving an alibi for Sir Walter. If it can be shown that he was in England on any day between the 20th May and the 20th July, the supposition that he went on this occasion to Virginia must be given up as untenable. I have therefore directed my inquiries to this point. In the sketch of the life of George Clifford, Earl of Cumberland, given in Lodge's Portraits, a work certainly not of indisputable authority, but tolerably correct notwithstanding, I find the following statement:
"His [Cumberland's] fleet consisted of three ships, and a pinnace, the latter commanded by Sir Walter Raleigh.... It sailed from Gravesend on the 26th of June, 1586; but was repeatedly driven back by contrary winds, and could not finally leave England till the end of August."
[1] What Smith really says is, speaking generally of all the voyages, that Raleigh's occasions and employments were such that he could not go himself; but he says nothing about his intentions specially as to this particular voyage.
Now, if this were quite correct, it would be conclusive, that if Sir Walter Raleigh sailed from Gravesend on the 26th June, he could not have started from Virginia to return to England on the 20th of the same month. I thought it well, however, to verify this statement of Mr. Lodge, and had recourse to my old friend Hakluyt as usual. I there found (vol. iii. pp. 769. et seq.) that on starting from Gravesend, there were only two vessels called respectively the Red Dragon and the Clifford; these vessels arrived at Plymouth on the 24th of July, and were there detained by westerly winds until the 17th of August, when they—
"Then departed with another ship, also for our Rear-admirall, called the Roe, whereof W. Hawes was Captaine; and a fine pinnesse also, called the Dorothie, which was Sir Walter Raleigh's."
It therefore follows, that the pinnace might have joined them immediately before the 17th of August, a date too late for our purpose. Nay more, the only authority for Mr. Lodge's statement, that the vessel was commanded by Sir Walter, rests upon the words which I have put in Italics; his name is not mentioned in the subsequent account of the expedition, although, on the 7th of February, 1587, it was found necessary to hold a council of war, at which no less than eighteen officers assisted, all of whom, beginning with the admiral, are named. Raleigh's name does not occur; and is it conceivable that he, if present in the fleet, would have been absent on such an occasion? This therefore affords one additional instance in which Raleigh was presumed to be present merely because he fitted out a vessel. Being inconclusive as a positive piece of evidence on the main question, my chief reason for referring to it was to show how hastily some writers make assertions, and how probable it is that "Theobald and others" went upon similar grounds in their statement as to Raleigh's having visited Virginia. In justice to Mr. Lodge, I must mention that the error into which he fell with respect to Raleigh, in his sketch of the life of the Earl of Cumberland, is not repeated in his biography of Raleigh, in which it may be supposed he was more careful. Raleigh's having concerned himself sometime in July or August in fitting out a vessel for Cumberland's expedition, undoubtedly forms part of that chain of evidence alluded to by Schomburgk, tending to prove his continued residence in England in 1586. I feel inclined, however, to search for positive evidence on the point. In the very valuable collection of letters entitled the Leicester Correspondence, published for the Camden Society in 1844, I find his name occurring several times. On the 29th of March, 1586, Raleigh writes "from the court" to the Earl of Leicester, at that time in the Low Countries: he states that he had moved the Queen to send Leicester some pioneers, and found her very willing; but that since, the matter had been stayed, he knew not for what cause. He then goes on to protest against certain rumours which had been afloat as to his having been acting a treacherous part with the Queen against the Earl. Leicester had been in some disgrace with her Majesty, and Raleigh in a postscript says: