Samuel Argall and the cases of John Hudson and Edward Brewster

 Samuel Argall and the cases of John Hudson and Edward Brewster

The government of the English colony in Virginia under Samuel Argall between 1617 and 1619 was and is a contentious subject. As acting or Deputy Governor in this period, Argall was involved in a dispute with Edward Brewster, the Captain of the vessel, the Neptune, upon which the Virginia Company’s designated Governor, Lord De la Warr, had been travelling to assume command in Argall’s place. De la Warr had died en route. When the Neptune reached Virginia, there was a quarrel between Argall and Brewster over the disposition of De La Warr’s goods and servants. As a result, Brewster was tried by a Court Martial, sentenced to death and, although reprieved , sent into banishment in England. If he returned, the original punishment would be applied. Argall’s conduct was subsequently the subject of investigations in England, of disputes between Sir Edwin Sandys, the company’s chief officer from late in April, 1619, and his followers on one side and the 2nd Earl of Warwick, Argall’s patron and protector, on the other. In fact, Argall escaped retribution but, generally speaking, later historians have tended to share the view of Sandys and his allies that Argall’s conduct was oppressive and indefensible.

What has not attracted any significant attention to the best of my knowledge was Argall’s conduct in the case of John Hudson recorded in Argall’s memoranda for June, 1617. It noted that:

“John Hudson sometimes Provost Marshll for divers crimes & misdemeanors comitted agt the just & sacred Articles laws & Gouermt of this Colony & Comon Weale was at 2 Marshalls Courts condem’d to die and according to Lers from Sr Tho: Smith Treasr for ye Compa reprieved in hopes of Amendmt And now has been guilty of more Errors Therefore to prevent ye danger in harbrg so ungratefull a Viper in the young & tender bosom of this so religious & lawfull an action He is Exiled & banished & if he returns to be put to death without further Judgmt June 1617”

This evidence indicates that there was at least one precedent for the condemnation of Edward Brewster by Court Martial and for the imposition of a death penalty followed by a reprieve and banishment. The extant documentary evidence does not appear to contain any subsequent reference to this case or to any condemnation of Argall’s in this process. What had changed in the intervening period? It is likely although not certain that quarrels in the Virginia Company in London made the dispute between Argall and Brewster a useful stick with which to beat Argall and his allies. It made Argall’s replacement easier and apparently exposed his supporters to severe criticism. Further than that it is not possible to go unless and until further evidence becomes available.