Two Notes on Virginia in 1618-1619

 

The revised instructions of 2^nd December, 1618 to Sir George Yeardley

This document, which is now numbered FP 100 amongst the Ferrar Papers in Magdalene College, Cambridge, elaborates on the instructions given to George Yeardley on 18^th November, 1618. It incorporates advice apparently given to Yeardley when he was knighted at Newmarket on 22^nd November by King James VI and I. But it also contains provisions which suggest that, despite later claims by ‘R.F.’ on 7^th December, 1618 and in current historiography, Sir Edwin Sandys and his allies had had to take account of the views of other groups in the leadership of the Virginia Company of London. For example, item No.27 instructed Yeardley upon his arrival in Virginia to settle Martin’s Hundred in its ‘Circuit of land, with those privileges granted unto them: whereof they give you a brief.’ Since the patent for Martin’s Hundred largely exempted that plantation from the control of the colony’s local government, this provision is highly surprising. More surprisingly still given the concerns of the Virginia Company about privateers sailing from the colony to raid in the West Indies, item No.29 in this document allowed for the return of the goods of partners of Samuel Argall, who was in the process of being removed as acting Governor in Virginia, if they had not been obtained by spoil “And that there be no stay there made of the Shipp called the Treasurour set out by the Right honorable Lord Rich, whereby the Mariners wages or otherwise might be encreased.” Since Yeardley had already been instructed in item No.11 to investigate what consultations Argall had held on setting out vessels to rob in the West Indies and what commissions had received for that purpose, this exemption of the vessel called the Treasurer raises questions about whether pressure from the Rich family in England had been brought to bear. If it had, Sandys’s position in the Virginia Company was less secure than it has been represented as being.    

 

The implications of Nicholas Ferrar’s letter to William Ferrar (c.23^rd January, 1618/19)

This letter can be found amongst the Ferrar Papers in Magdalen College, Cambridge numbered as FP100 and attributed by its transcriber, David Ransome, to a date on or about 23^rd January, 1619. It has not attracted much scholarly attention to the best of my knowledge but contains some interesting information about two letters received by the Virginia Company of London from its colony in North America, one from John Rolfe and a second from Samuel Argall, the acting Governor there.

Nicholas Ferrar reported to his brother William that:

I send you heare the letters that came from thence & that w[hi]ch
I have writt to S[i]r George, by w[hi]ch you may gather the state
of thinges heare, w[hi]ch had beene to the destruction of S[i]r
George had not S[i]r Edwin socored him most nobly, and to give A
full clearinge to All thinges it was last day ordered in Courte,
that S[i]r Edwin should drawe a Comission to S[i]r George & the
counsell of state there for the examination of the publique
letter whereof this Inclosed is a coppy of Mr Rolfes owne hand:
w[hi]ch hath brought an Infinite scandall uppon the plantation,
soe that I suppose there will shortly bee sett forthe in print
som[m]e thinge against it; And concerninge Captayne Argolls
letter to S[i]r George there is another letter directed to the
counsell of state to examin S[i]r George uppon the particulars
w[i]th w[hi]ch hee is there charged, whoe I assure my selfe will
most nobly iustifie himselfe, and his innocency sufficiently

deffend him, yett you may perhapps doe him noe small service at

your returne, of such creditt will your reportts bee and soe much

more efectuall I knowe your woordes more then any other mans that

hee cann com[m]itt his deffence to, and therefore provide your

selfe that you may bee able to doe that:

It is not at all clear from this passage what, if anything, John Rolfe had written that induced Nicholas Ferrar to believe that Rolfe had brought such scandal on the plantation nor is there any indication of the lines of any likely rebuttal in print. Two obvious possibilities do spring to mind: either Rolfe had criticised the condition of the plantation as it was when his letter was written probably some time in the autumn of 1618 or he had commented adversely on the colony’s prospects in the light of his knowledge. The first of these possibilities would have been compatible with the criticisms that Sir Edwin Sandys and his allies had been developing in attacking the regime of the company’s Treasurer, Sir Thomas Smith, and his mercantile allies and thus seems unlikely to have given such offence. The second possibility, namely that Rolfe, had disparaged the colony’s future prospects seems, prima facie, a more plausible explanation since it would have undermined the case for further investment in Virginia that Sandys and his allies were hoping to secure.

Argall’s charges against the newly knighted Sir George Yeardley are more interesting still. Nicholas Ferrar’s letter suggests that Argall’s charges were serious enough to have brought Yeardley into disrepute and, by implication, to have raised issues about his future role as the next Governor of the colony had Sir Edwin Sandys not intervened to defend him in the Court of the Virginia Company. One potentially plausible explanation does spring to mind, namely, that Argall had learnt from a source in England of Yeardley’s impending appointment as his successor and had attempted a pre-emptive strike to forestall this promotion. What exactly these allegations were is unclear but they do suggest a connection between the politics of the colony and those of the company in England that may merit further exploration. This is a question or suggestion for investigation rather than a definitive explanation.