Part 3

The death of Sir John Popham was a more serious matter. He was the head and front of the enterprise; the brother was only his agent. It was Sir John's Colony. He furnished the bulk of the capital, provided the colonists, gave his name and his own personal infamy to the undertaking. Who, then, was Sir John Popham? He was Lord Chief Justice of England, and was seventy-six years of age. In his youth he had been a highwayman, and probably a garroter. "He frequently sallied forth at night from a hostel in Southwark, with a band of desperate characters, and, planting themselves in ambush on Shooter's Hill, or taking other positions favorable for attack and escape, they stopped travelers and took from them not only their money, but any valuable commodities which they carried with them. The extraordinary and almost incredible circumstance is, that Popham is supposed to have continued in these courses after he had been called to the bar, and when, being of mature age, he was married to a respectable woman." (Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chief Justices, 1849-57, i. p. 210.) Lord Campbell was not the man to speak unadvisedly of one who had occupied the highest judicial office, save one, in England. "Popham's portrait," he says, "represented him as 'a huge, heavy, ugly man,' and I am afraid he would not appear to great advantage in a sketch of his moral qualities, which, lest I should do him injustice I will not attempt."--Idem, p. 229.

With regard to his law reports, Lord Campbell says "they are wretchedly ill done, and they are not considered of authority. We should have been better pleased if he had given us an account of his exploits when he was chief of a band of freebooters." (p. 229.) "The reproach urged against him was extreme severity to prisoners. He was notorious as a 'hanging judge.' Not only was he keen to convict in cases prosecuted by the government; but in ordinary larcenies, and above all in highway robberies, there was little chance of an acquittal before him."--Idem, p. 219.

"He left behind him the greatest estate that had ever been amassed by any lawyer. Some said as much as £10,000 a year; but it is not supposed to be all honestly come by; and he is reported even to have begun to save money when 'the road did him justice.'"--Idem, p. 229.

His other biographers, Fuller, Aubrey, Lloyd, Wood and Foss, paint his character in similar colors. They allude to, and several of them state at large, the shocking details of the manner in which he came into possession of Littlecote Hall, his estate in Wiltshire, by compounding with felony. Foss, the latest biographer of the Judges of England, who is disposed to soften the hard places in Popham's record, mentions this dark story, and says, (vi. pp. 183-84,) "It is extraordinary that no refutation should have been attempted; for, if any existed, it is to be presumed that such a writer as Sir Walter Scott, while detailing the charge [in Rokeby] would have noticed the answer." The "horrible and mysterious crime" alluded to by Macaulay (Hist. of Eng., ii. p. 542) refers to this affair. Here is the man, who--the Maine Historical Society would have us believe--planted civilization on this continent. Let us see how he did it.

His position as Chief Justice gave him a controlling influence in all the jails and penitentiaries in the realm. Aubrey (Letters, iii. p. 495) says "he stockt or planted [Northern] Virginia out of all the gaoles of England." Wood's Athenæ Oxonienses (Bliss's ed. ii. p. 22) says, "he was the first person who invented the plan of sending convicts to the plantations." The statement should have been limited to Englishmen; for the French had practised this mode of colonization many years before. Cartier in 1547, La Roche in 1598, and De Montes in 1604, all used this material for colonists. The permission which the King of France gave Cartier to ransack the jails of Paris may be found in Hazard, i. p. 21. Any sort of criminals he could take, except those convicted of treason, or counterfeiting the King's currency.

Thomas Fuller (Worthies of England, ii. p. 284) says "his [Popham's] justice was exemplary on Theeves and Robbers." Wood quotes this passage, adding, "whose wayes and courses he well understood when he was a young man," and connects it with the fact of his sending convicts to the plantations. Fuller, in his essay on Plantations, in "Holy and Profane States," 1642, says: "If the planters be such as leap thither from the gallows, can any hope for cream out of scum, when men send, as I may say, Christian savages to heathen savages? It is rather bitterly than _falsely_ spoken concerning _one_ of our Western plantations, consisting of most dissolute people, that it was very like unto England, as being spit out of the very mouth of it." David Lloyd (State Worthies, 1760, ii. p. 46) gives a sketch of Chief Justice Popham, in which, quoting the words of Fuller, already cited, he goes on to say: "neither did he only punish malefactors, but provide for them. He first set up the discovery of New England to maintain and employ those that could not live honestly in the Old." Lloyd also, in this connection, quotes the passage we have cited from Lord Bacon (p. 23), showing that it was understood by the old English historians as applying to the Popham Colony.

The authorities seem to be conclusive as to the character of the colonists sent to Sagadahoc, the person by whom, and the manner in which, they were "prepared;"--for that is the expression Strachey uses (p. 163) with regard to these very colonists. Popham had sent out the year before (1606) a colony of one hundred persons destined to the same place. The ship was captured by the Spaniards, and the persons taken to Spain, and "made slaves in their gallions." The loss of the ship and outfit was suitably lamented; but not one word of sympathy was expressed by the old writers for the persons enslaved by the Spaniards; nor did Popham, so far as we know, make any attempt to rescue them from their hard fate; but he forthwith "prepared a greater number of planters,"--that is, the one hundred and twenty persons who afterwards landed at Sabino. If it is pretended that the first company were honest, worthy men, the assumption carries with it the necessary inference that Popham was a heartless wretch; but, assuming that they also were criminals, it was natural that he should leave them to their fate.

The death of Popham, on the 10th of June, 1607,--only eleven days after the Popham colonists sailed[8]--was of course fatal to the original plan of the undertaking. There was no authority left to "prepare" convicts,--colonists, we mean. A criminal colony needs constant recuperation. Seventy-five of the hundred and twenty abandoned the colony before the end of four months. Why they returned to England on the first opportunity that offered, is not recorded. As they were the majority, they probably entered into a conspiracy, and deserted; or they behaved so badly, that the managers were glad to be rid of them, expecting that the Chief Justice would "prepare" others. But his Lordship was dead, though they knew it not; and with him died all hopes of continuing the enterprise. The good ship "Mary and John" returned in the spring with provisions, but with no recruits; and wound up the concern, by taking back to England the managers, and such of the wretched culprits as wished to return.

Perhaps we may as well notice here, as in another place, the only evidence "Sabino" brings forward to show that the Sagadahoc colonists were not convicted criminals, only convicted vagabonds and political offenders. It is this: "Chalmers says there was no transportation of any class of the guilty till 1619. Therefore there was none to Sagadahoc." Chalmers, we beg to submit, is not an original authority. He died only about forty years ago; and our surprise is that "Sabino" should quote him in the face of the old writers. Chalmers had no means of information which writers to-day do not possess, and it seems he did not even use what he had. He was so little acquainted with the history of the Popham Colony as not to know the name of the president who died at Sagadahoc. He gives the name of the person as Gilbert. It is but justice to the name of Chalmers to state that he made no such statement as "Sabino" attributes to him. He says simply that the policy of sending convicts to the plantations originated with King James; and, that in the year 1619, he issued an order to send one hundred dissolute persons to Virginia. There is not an intimation in Chalmers that "there was no transportation of any class of the guilty till 1619."

"Sabino" also finds much consolation "that the law has not been shown requiring transportation as a punishment for moral guilt during the time of the incipiency, continuance and end of the Popham Colony." Will "Sabino" please point out the "law" under which James sent off one hundred convicts in 1619 that did not exist in 1606? It seems never to have occurred to "Sabino," that, under the impulse of avarice, or baser motives, some things can be done without law. There was no statute of the realm requiring John Popham to commit highway robbery, yet he did waylay travelers at night, and relieve them of their purses and other valuables. But there was a law in 1606, (39 Elizabeth, ch. iv.) which, under Popham's construction, was sufficiently ample to cover his plan of colonization. But we must return to the examination of "Sabino's" theory.

6. We confess our inability to understand the concluding clause of "Sabino's" statement. The Popham Colony "was followed by a succession of occupancies that proved title, &c." What occupancies, pray? There was no later occupancy of New England till the Pilgrims arrived in 1620. No genuine Pophamite would, for an instant, admit that the Plymouth Colony had any relation to English supremacy in New England. "Regarded as a political event the Pilgrim settlement was not of the slightest consequence or importance." (Mr. John A. Poor's Vindication of Gorges, p. 72). The next event in New England history was the occupancy of Massachusetts Bay. He cannot allude to this. "Puritan" is a more distasteful word to the Maine theorists than "Pilgrim." Besides, Puritan and Pilgrim have no relation to, or connection with, Popham. We are evidently drifting away from the true interpretation, and for the present must remain in blissful ignorance of the full meaning of this Delphic utterance.

The general intent of "Sabino" is not obscure. He would have his readers understand that the Popham affair led to something that was favorable to English supremacy. This we deny, and for proof, again appeal to the record. Can "Sabino" name one of the Popham men that ever took part in, or encouraged, any subsequent settlement? Does he not know that they circulated the most unfavorable reports of the country, and prevented for many years any attempt to occupy New England? Judge Sullivan (History of District of Maine, p. 53) says, "The sufferings of this [Popham] party, and the disagreeable account which they were obliged to give to excuse their own conduct, discouraged any further attempts by the English." Brief Relation, 1622, (in Purchas, iv. p. 1826,) says, "The arrival of these [Popham] people in England was a wonderful discouragement to all the first undertakers, insomuch as there was no more speech of setting any more Plantations in those parts for a long time after." Gorges, (Briefe Narration, p. 10) speaking of the return of the Popham colonists, says, "by which means all our former hopes were frozen to death." Among his misfortunes, which he goes on to enumerate,--for he was a large holder of Popham stock,--was that the country was "wholly given over by the body of the adventurers, as also that it self was branded by the returne of the Plantation as being over cold, and in respect to that, not habitable by our Nation." This statement he must have had from the principal men of the Colony, avid shows that they were as destitute of veracity, as the main body of the colonists were wanting in the cardinal virtues enjoined in the Decalogue. Assuming Strachey's account to be correct, we know that the winter of 1607-8, on the coast of Maine, could not have been severe for that locality, whatever the season was in Europe. After the 15th of December, they finished trenching the fort, which shows that there was little or no frost in the ground. The amount of work also performed in the winter would have been absolutely impossible in a severe season. Gorges thus expressed his disbelief in the reports he received, as to the severity of the weather: "I have had too much experience in the World to be frighted with such a blast."

Sir William Alexander, Earl of Stirling, the patentee of Nova Scotia, (Description of New England, 1630, p. 30) thus describes what the Popham Colony did for English supremacy in New England:--

"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 haue good successe, and neuer satisfaction) they after a Winter stay dreaming of new hopes at home returned backe with the first occasion, and to iustify the suddennesse of their returne, they did coyne many excuses, burdening the bounds where they had beene with all the aspersions that possibly they could deuise, seeking by that meanes to discourage all others."

"Our people abandoning the plantation," says "Brief Relation," (Purchas, iv. p. 1828) "in this sort as you have heard, the Frenchmen immediately took the opportunity to settle themselves within our limits." So far, then, from keeping the Frenchmen out, the Colony invited them in. In the face of such evidence "Sabino" asserts, that the Popham affair "proved title as against the former and never-renewed claims of France." Does he mean that the French claims were never renewed after 1608? Would he wipe out from history the French and Indian wars, and the bloody strife for supremacy between the French and English, that went on for a century and a half, and culminated in the overthrow of French power in 1760?

We have thus with patience, and we trust with candor, examined in detail "Sabino's" statement of the Popham theory; and, if in our former article we slighted its historic claims, they have now, we hope, received due attention.

"Sabino" omitted from his formal statement--but inserted it in another part of his paper--the claim which Popham writers usually bring into the foreground, namely, that the Popham Colony was "the _first_ colonial occupation of the soil of New England under English enterprise." What rank will he assign to Bartholomew Gosnold's occupation of Cuttyhunk, on the south shore of Massachusetts, in 1602? Gosnold there and then made a settlement, which he intended to be permanent. He and his men built a fort and a storehouse, and collected a valuable freight to send home to England. The cellar walls of the house they occupied can be identified at the present day. They planted wheat, barley and oats. "Here," says Bancroft, (i. p. 112,) "the foundations of the first New England colony were to be laid." We do not claim that Gosnold founded a colony. He attempted it, and failed; but he did all that the Popham people did, and even more. He made American colonization an honorable enterprise, and showed that it could be made profitable. Gosnold's men were not convicts. They each had a share in the undertaking; and jealousy as to the distribution of their gains led to the return of the whole company to England. The sale of their freight made it a profitable adventure. They spread the most favorable reports of the regions they had visited, and brought the best evidence that it was a country worth possessing. The Popham men, on the other hand, returned to England in penury and disgrace, "burdening the bounds where they had beene with all the aspersions that possibly they could deuise, seeking by that meanes to discourage all others." The death of Queen Elizabeth prevented Gosnold's return to the Elizabeth Islands; but his representations and cheerful energy awakened an interest in America that resulted in the Charter of 1606, under which the Northern and Southern Virginia settlements were projected. When we compare what Gosnold and his men did in 1602, with what Popham and his felons did in 1607, it requires a degree of audacity rising to sublimity to assert, that "the Popham Colony was the _first_ colonial occupation of the soil of New England under English enterprise."

Ex-Governor Washburn, of Cambridge, in a speech he made at the first Popham Celebration in 1862, suggested that if they would set up the claim that Noah's Ark landed on one of the adjacent hills, and arrange a Celebration in honor of the event, he would volunteer to come and take part in it, without doubting it was true (Pop. Mem., p. 157). The suggestion is worthy of the serious consideration of the Pophamites. The historical difficulties in the way are but mole-hills compared with the Alpine absurdities of their present theory. Noah's Ark was an important fact in the history of the human race. Noah and his family were respectable persons. The only circumstance we know, to the discredit of the old patriarch, is excusable on the ground that there was then no "Maine Law," or even a "judicious license system." The prejudice attached to the descendants of one of his sons, has been neutralized by the Emancipation Proclamation, and the passage of the Civil Rights Bill over the head of President Johnson. The coast is now clear for Noah's Ark. Let the Celebration come off by all means. Why is it more unreasonable to suppose that the Eastern Continent was settled from the Western, than _vice versa_? Much as we hate celebrations of all kinds, we also volunteer; and, if we cannot attend, we promise to write a letter, developing still further the theory; and "Sabino" shall have full permission to print it as an Appendix to the public address.

"Sabino" is evidently in trouble about the "cannon story," and well he may be. He says "Williamson is inclined to discredit it." Williamson has this inclination, not on the ground of lack of evidence that it occurred; but on the ground of its shocking inhumanity, and the discredit it throws upon the colonists. We are inclined to discredit it, because of the disgrace it casts upon the human race. But the ugly fact still remains (to use Williamson's words) that it was "believed to be true by the ancient and well-informed inhabitants on the Sagadahoc." Again "Sabino" would have us believe, that, whereas the Indians, several years later, told the Jesuit missionaries some of the outrages they had suffered from the Popham colonists, and did not tell them this, therefore the story was invented in Massachusetts, seventy years after it was alleged to have happened. The Jesuits, in their Relations, were describing the friendly feelings of the Indians towards themselves. They doubtless heard, with the other cruelties mentioned, the cannon story; but they rightly judged, that, while it would not contribute to the point they were illustrating, it would appear to readers so inhuman, and hence so improbable, as to weaken the credibility of their other statements. Besides, "Sabino's" argument founded on an omission, if it proves anything, proves too much for him. It proves that not one of the many propositions set up by the Pophamites are true, for not one of them is mentioned in the Jesuit Relations. The insinuation that the cannon story originated in Massachusetts, is a curious and comical blunder. The District of Maine, Fort Popham included, was at the date specified a part of Massachusetts. "Sabino" sees this footnote in Williamson: "Supplement to King Philip's Wars, A. D., 1675, p. 75," and he supposes that 1675 was the date the statement was published, whereas it was the date when King Philip's War commenced. The book was not printed till 1716. He does not inform us how "the ancient and well-informed inhabitants on the Sagadahoc" could have been misled by a statement invented in Massachusetts in 1716.

"Sabino" firmly holds, with Mr. Kidder, that the vessel of thirty tons, built at Sagadahoc, made a voyage across the ocean. "Brief Relation, 1622," he says, "gives us much information about its arrival in England as about the arrival of the ship." But "Brief Relation" says nothing about the arrival of either vessel. It records simply, "the arrival of _these people_ here in England was a wonderful discouragement," etc. The leaders, and the main body of these people, we believe, returned safely to England in the "Mary and John;" and this is sufficient to fulfil all the conditions of the narrative in "Briefe Narration," Strachey and the other old chroniclers. "Sabino," however, is ambitious that all (including those who left in the "pretty pynnace") should arrive in England, and show up the new craft. He says, "This word _all_ used by Gorges and Ogilby utterly forbids the statement of your correspondent." Gorges's _all_ has no reference to the arrival in England. His words are, "all resolved to quit the place (Sagadahoc) and with one consent to away." That "Sabino" should quote Ogilby as an authority, indicates an unfamiliarity in the authentic sources of New England history which we regret to see. Mr. John A. Poor (Popham Memorial, p. 73) says: "It is well known that the Popham Colony, _or a portion of them_, returned to England in 1608." It strengthens Mr. Poor's argument on the importance of the Colony in maintaining English supremacy, to claim that a portion of the colonists remained in the country. We have quoted the opinion of our esteemed Portland friend for "Sabino's" benefit; and not because it carries additional conviction to our mind. One who writes after this fashion: "They finished their vessel of fifty (?) tons in the winter and spring, called the Virginia, of Sagadahoc, in which they returned to England,"--thus adding twenty tons to the size of the vessel, and crowding all into the "pretty pynnace," leaving the "Mary and John" to return in ballast,--is not amenable to the common code of literary and historical criticism.

The Popham Colony, in fine, was a scandalous and complete failure. The thing, as an historical event, was dead and buried. The grass, for more than two centuries and a half, had kindly grown over it, obliterating even from the memory of man the spot where those disgraceful scenes were enacted. In the year 1849, the Hakluyt Society of London printed Strachey's narration, and furnished a clew to the burial place. Nothing would satisfy a few excellent people in Maine but to dig up the sickening remains, and flaunt them under the nostrils of the community. Here was an offense against decency and sanitary regulations, indictable at common law. In cholera times the proceeding is insufferable.

No one imagines that the Popham investigators commenced operations with any other than the amiable motive of contributing to the historic glories of their native State. But they knew not for what they were digging. Their first mistake was, that, when they came to the putrid mass, they did not carefully replace the sod, and say nothing about it. Instead of this, every man shouted "Eureka!" They arranged a monster gathering, and invited all creation to celebrate with them the Two-hundred and Fiftieth Popham Anniversary. People came from the ends of the earth; enjoyed a generous Eastern hospitality; "drank water, if not inspiration, out of the existent Popham well" (Query--Is "Sabino" quite sure that the inspiration came from the _well_?), believed as much as they could, and had a good time generally. Perhaps history manufactured in this way will stand; but we think not.