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.