



Produced by Charlene Taylor, JoAnn Greenwood, and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
(This file was produced from images generously made
available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)






Transcriber's Note:

The following Contents list was not present in the original. It has
been added for the convenience of the reader.

Remaining transcriber's notes are at the end of the text.

     PUBLISHERS' ADVERTISEMENT.                      3
     Boston Daily Advertiser, April 11, 1866.
         THE LAST POPHAM ADDRESS.                    5
     Boston Daily Advertiser, April 21, 1866.
         "THE LAST POPHAM ADDRESS."                 11
     Portland Advertiser, April 26, 1866.
         "THE LAST POPHAM ADDRESS."                 18
     Boston Daily Advertiser, May 31, 1866.
         POPHAM AGAIN AND FINALLY.                  20
     Boston Daily Advertiser, July 28, 1866.
         THE POPHAM COLONY, "FINALLY."              39
     Boston Daily Advertiser, July 28, 1866.
         A RUNNING REVIEW OF THE "POPHAM AGAIN
         AND FINALLY."                              58
     BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE POPHAM COLONY.             65




             THE POPHAM COLONY

  _A DISCUSSION OF ITS HISTORICAL CLAIMS_

                  WITH A

        BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE SUBJECT


              [Illustration]


                  BOSTON

  J. K. WIGGIN AND LUNT 13 SCHOOL STREET

                   1866


      Edition, Three Hundred Copies.

   BOSTON: PRESS OF ALFRED MUDGE & SON.




PUBLISHERS' ADVERTISEMENT.


In the following discussion, the arguments for and against the
historical claims of the English Colony that landed at the mouth of
the Kennebec River, August 19, (O. S.) 1607, are presented in an able
and comprehensive manner. The articles, when they appeared in the
columns of a daily newspaper, attracted much attention; and, as they
contain matter of permanent historical interest, we have deemed them
worthy of preservation in a collected form.

The writers can have no further motive for withholding their names. We
therefore state that "P." is Mr. WILLIAM FREDERICK POOLE, Librarian of
the Boston Athenaeum; that "Sabino" is Rev. EDWARD BALLARD, D. D., of
Brunswick, Me.; and that "Orient" and "Sagadahoc" are the signatures
of Mr. FREDERIC KIDDER, of Boston.

Each year, since the first Popham Celebration in 1862, memorial
services have been held on the Anniversary of the Landing in 1607.
Public addresses have been delivered on these occasions, and these
have usually been printed. Mr. John A. Poor, of Portland, Me.,
delivered the Oration in 1862; Mr. George Folsom, of New York, in
1863; Mr. Edward E. Bourne, of Kennebunk, Maine, in 1864; and Prof.
James W. Patterson, of Dartmouth College, in 1865.

This discussion arose from a notice by Mr. Poole, in the Boston Daily
Advertiser of April 11, 1866, of Prof. Patterson's Address which
appeared about that time in print. In this notice the writer sharply
assailed the claims for the Popham Colony, as set forth by the orator,
and also by Mr. Kidder in a Letter which the Publishing Committee of
the Celebration had printed as an Appendix to the Address. Dr. Ballard
replied in the Boston Daily Advertiser of April 21; and Mr. Kidder in
the Portland Advertiser of April 26. From this point, the disputants
came into close quarters on the general merits of the question.

As earnest historical discussion too often leads to bitterness and
estrangement, we are happy to state that such has not been the result
in this instance. "P.," whose notice brought on the discussion,
received an official invitation to attend the Popham Celebration in
August last, which he accepted. One of our firm, who was also present,
can state that the hospitality of the Maine gentlemen named in the
following extract from the report of the Celebration in the Boston
Daily Advertiser, of September 1, is not over-stated:--

     "I see to-day, among the guests from Massachusetts, your
     correspondent "P.," who has written of late some hard things
     respecting this Popham Colony. He is receiving every personal
     attention from Rev. Dr. Ballard, ("Sabino,") President Woods,
     Hon. Chas. J. Gilman and others; and the merry peals of
     laughter, that burst occasionally from the group, indicate
     that difference of opinion on historical questions need not
     disturb the harmony of social intercourse. As I finish this
     report in Bath, I understand that Dr. Ballard and the other
     gentlemen named have captured their friendly detractor, and
     taken him home with them to Brunswick, where he will
     doubtless receive good treatment."

The Bibliography of the Popham Colony, which is appended, was
compiled, at our request, by Mr. Poole; and, so far as the newspaper
articles, and the minor pieces connected with the first Celebration,
are concerned, it was made chiefly from the collection preserved by
Mr. John Wingate Thornton, of Boston, who has kindly placed them in
our hands for that purpose. The list was then sent to Dr. Ballard, who
has contributed the articles in his possession which were not already
included.

                                           W. & L.




[_Boston Daily Advertiser, April 11, 1866._]

THE LAST POPHAM ADDRESS.


We find another contribution to the literature of Popham, in the
elegantly printed Address of the Hon. James W. Patterson, delivered at
the Peninsula of Sabino, on the 258th Popham Anniversary; which, as
all the world knows without our giving the information, was August 29,
1865. Thick, creamy paper, John Wilson and Sons' best typography, and
Mr. Wiggin's imprint, were among the least of the motives that induced
us to seize upon and devour the contents of this delectable pamphlet.

We confess to a partiality for Popham literature. Its theory is so
original, so free from conventional trammels, so utterly at variance
with the accepted facts of history, that it is often difficult to
persuade one's self that its advocates intend anything more than
historical waggery. So we read on, as in other fiction, to be amused.

A false theory zealously defended commonly finds more sympathy than
the truth feebly supported. The Pophamites have nailed their flag to
the mast, and ask for no favors from any quarter. We admire their
pluck, and, for their sakes, regret that they have so few historical
verities in their ammunition locker. We have read their "Memorial
Volume," from title-page to errata, as well as Mr. Poor's facetious
Addenda in "Vindication of Sir Ferdinando Gorges;" not shying either
at his Appendix of fifty-two solid nonpareil pages. Every other
Address on the subject, and every scrap of newspaper controversy
accessible, we have diligently perused; and yet the impression remains
on the mind that the facts to sustain this extraordinary theory have
not yet been developed. For some reason, (perhaps to surprise us the
more when it does come,) the stern logic of truth is withheld; and we
are served to empty assertion and vapid declamation in its stead.
Every new publication, therefore, of Popham origin, or from the Maine
Historical Society, is of interest, as possibly it may contain the
suppressed developments. Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay are waiting,
gracefully to yield the honors awarded them in history for more than
two hundred years to "the Church Colony" of Sagadahoc. Is the pamphlet
before us the coming document? Let us see.

Mr. Patterson is well known as a gentleman and a scholar. He has been
Professor at Dartmouth College, and now is Representative in Congress
from New Hampshire. Of his early local affinities we know nothing; but
there was every reason to expect from him a valuable contribution to
this historical discussion. His opening sentence is sonorous and
impressive. "This [Fort Popham] is hallowed ground." Why "hallowed
ground?" we would detain the Professor for a moment, meekly to
inquire; but he hurries on to other glittering generalities. Is this
spot "hallowed ground," because a colony of convicted felons landed
here in August, 1607, more than half of whom deserted the next
December, and all abandoned the spot the following Spring, leaving
with the neighboring Indians the memory of the most shocking
barbarities committed upon them? (See Relations des Jesuites, 1858,
tom. i. p. 36; Parkman's Pioneers of France, p. 266.) Was it because
these sportive colonists enticed friendly Indians into this same Fort,
under the pretense of trade; and, causing them to take the drag-ropes
of a loaded cannon, fired off the piece when the Indians were in line,
and blew them to atoms? (See Williamson's Hist. of Maine, vol. i. p.
201.) "The lines of an eventful history," Mr. Patterson goes on to
say, "stretching through more than two centuries and a half, converge
to this beautiful promontory of Sabino." We think not. Heaven spare
the land from such a disgrace! Mr. Patterson devotes two pages to
general assertions of similar import, and then branches off into
another subject having no relation to the historical question. Into
this we do not propose to follow him.

A curious feature in this pamphlet is an isolated Letter,[1] written
by a respectable Boston gentleman, found in the Appendix. This alone,
of the correspondence received by the Committee on Invitations, we are
told, was found worthy of preservation. It was certainly not so much
the name of the writer that rescued this letter from the oblivion of
the waste-basket, common to its fellows, as the impression on the
minds of the managers of the Celebration, that it contained historical
information tending to confirm their theory.

The letter-writer finds that the "works" of the colonists, during the
few months they stopped at Sabino, "were far more important than their
formal acts recorded." The distinction he would make between "works"
and "formal acts" is not quite apparent. Among the "works" he
specifies, is "a vessel, the dimensions of which are unknown; but fit
to cross the ocean." Strachey tells us what we know about this vessel.
He says it was "a pretty Pynnace of about some thirty tonne." Whether
it was fit to cross the ocean, we will presently consider. The writer
claims for this fishing-boat the honor of being "the pioneer ship
built in North America." This claim is nothing new. Mr. John A. Poor
made it in Popham Memorial, (page 73,) and other writers of less
_weight_ have repeated it. The real fact, however, is that a vessel
was built in the harbor of Port Royal (now Hilton Head) forty-four
years before this, by Huguenot colonists, in which a party of more
than twenty crossed the ocean. But, leaving out of the account the
Huguenot vessel, a similar pinnace had been built at Sabino before
this. Strachey says, under the date of 28th of August: "Most of the
hands labored hard about the fort, and the carpenters about the
buylding of a  small pinnace, the president overseeing and applying
every one to his worke." The other craft, called the "Virginia," for
which the above pretensions are set up, was not framed till after
Captain Davies had sailed for England,--that is, after the 15th of
December.

The letter-writer further garnishes his theme by talking about this
fishing-boat's "safe voyage to England," and the curiosity she excited
in an English port. For the sake of these historical statements, the
Committee have thought proper to preserve this letter. Their theory
must be in a desperate condition to need such a confirmation.

We have a word to say with regard to this vessel. Writers on New
England have generally stated that the departing colonists took this
craft with them. This, however, is very different from the statements
made above, that she was "fit to cross the ocean," that she made a
"safe voyage to England," _etc._ A part of the company were not 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. With this "pretty pynnace" they could catch codfish, and cure
them along shore; barter them for other commodities with some of the
hundreds of vessels from Europe employed in the fisheries on the
coast; harass the Indians; and lead generally a wild and free life,
such as was congenial to their character and dispositions. The
vessels, doubtless, left Sabino at the same time. When the main body
of the colonists departed, it was necessary that all should leave; for
they had so incurred the enmity of the Indians by their barbarities,
that any left behind would have been murdered. Strachey's account is
entirely consistent with this. He says "they all ymbarqued in this new
arrived ship [the 'Mary and John'] and in the new pynnace, the
Virginia, and sett saile for England. And this was the end of that
northerne colony uppon the river Sachadehoc." Brief Relation, 1622,
says, "they built a pretty barke of their owne, which served them a
good purpose, as easing them in their returning." Certainly; but we do
not read that the "new pynnace" arrived in England, and was there an
object of admiration, as a specimen of naval architecture.

The improbability that this "pynnace" was sea-worthy, and made a
voyage across the Atlantic, will appear from the following
considerations;--

1. There was not time between the 15th of December and Spring to build
a sea-worthy vessel. There were but forty-five persons left in the
colony, and this number was reduced before Spring by disease and
squabbles with the Indians. There were probably not ten carpenters in
the company. The Winter, we are told, was unseasonable and intensely
severe. Strachey says, that, "after Capt. Davies's departure they fully
finished the fort, trencht and fortified it with 12 pieces of ordnance,
and built 50 howses, besides a church and a storehouse,"--sufficient
work, we might suppose, to employ forty-five Old Bailey convicts till
Spring, without building a sea-going vessel. If Strachey does not tell
the truth in this matter, we know nothing at all about this vessel.

2. They had no need of a sea-going vessel. These were furnished by the
English undertakers. What they needed was a small craft in which to
take fish along shore. The Huguenots built their vessel in 1563 to
return home in; it being their only means of escaping starvation.
There was no intention of abandoning the Popham settlement till Capt.
Davies returned in the Spring with the news that their patron saint,
Sir John Popham, surnamed "the hangman," was dead.

3. We know that the Popham colonists were knaves; but it is not
necessary to infer that they were fools. Here was a good, stanch ship,
the "Mary and John," of London, Captain Davies, master, about to sail
for England. The whole company was now reduced to about forty souls.
This same ship had brought over, a few months before, more than double
that number. The graduates of penal institutions have usually as keen
a regard for their corporal safety as other persons. Cowardice is
commonly their ruling characteristic. Is it reasonable to suppose that
any of that godless company would have risked their lives to a voyage
across the Atlantic in that "pretty pynnace," built of green pine, in
midwinter, when they could have had safe and comfortable quarters in
the "Mary and John"? If the intention, on the part of the managers,
was to transport the colonists safely to England, there was no motive
nor excuse for putting any on board the new craft. If there was a
willingness on the part of some of the colonists to embark in it, they
must, we think, have had some other project in view than a trip across
the Atlantic. The assertion that the vessel made the voyage is purely
gratuitous.

                                                P.

FOOTNOTE:

[1] This Letter is reprinted entire on page 10.


[THE LETTER REFERRED TO ON PAGE 7.]

                            BOSTON, Aug. 27, 1865.

MY DEAR SIR,--Your invitation to be present at the Popham Celebration
is at hand. The short notice will prevent me from being present to
take part in the interesting ceremonies. Without assenting to all the
claims made in your "Popham Memorial Volume," allow me to say, that I
think those who have spoken or written on that subject have overlooked
one of the most important results of that enterprise. In this
practical age, we must look to what was really effected by the
earliest colonists on these shores. Let us briefly try that at
Sagadahoc by this test; for, in my opinion, their works were far more
important than the formal acts recorded. They certainly erected
houses, a church, a fort; and, lastly, a vessel, the dimensions of
which are unknown, but fit to cross the ocean. Now we know, that, in a
forest, it is not a difficult thing to build log-houses, or a church
and a fort in the same way; but to construct a sea-going vessel is
quite a different affair. This requires artisans who are used to such
work; and there can be no doubt, that among the colonists there were
found a master-builder,[2] with the necessary journeymen and sawyers
(for there were no mills,) a smith, and also several laborers: for the
building  of a vessel in a remote wilderness would then require three
times the amount of manual labor that would now effect the same
result--in these days when materials are so easily prepared,
transported and fitted, by the aid of machinery.

Looking, then, at what was certainly done by the Popham Colony, we
must allow that, during the short period they occupied the rugged
peninsula of Sabino, and making due allowance for a hard winter, the
destruction of their storehouse, and the sickness that followed, they
deserve credit for enterprise and industry in constructing a vessel
fit to encounter the storms of the Atlantic, and make a safe voyage to
England. There she must have attracted much attention, being the
pioneer ship built in North America. When, therefore, we consider the
value of Popham's enterprise, the building and voyage of the "Virginia
of Sagadahoc" is one of its most important results. It was not
equalled by the Plymouth colony in the first ten years of its
existence; and it was not till the third year of the existence of its
powerful neighbor of "Massachusetts Bay," that a ship, fit to cross
the ocean, was constructed.

Wishing you a pleasant day and a numerous company, I am,

               Yours truly,

                                  FREDERIC KIDDER.

To Rev. EDWARD BALLARD, _Secretary, &c_.

FOOTNOTE:

[2] Strachey says, "the chief shipwright was one Digby, of London." He
also speaks of "the carpenters."--Chap. x.




[_Boston Daily Advertiser, April 21, 1866._]

"THE LAST POPHAM ADDRESS."


_To the Editors of the Boston Daily Advertiser_:--

By the courtesy of some unknown friend, I have received your paper of
the 11th inst., containing a notice of Prof. Patterson's Address at
the last Celebration at Fort Popham. As it presents some matters
needing amendment, I trust your greater courtesy will allow space in
your columns for a few observations.

Your correspondent has confessed a partiality for the literature
growing out of the first colonial occupation of the soil of New
England under English enterprise; and forthwith, in a style of
pleasantry, bearing with it the edge of ridicule, speaks of the
efforts of its writers as scarcely better than advocates indulging in
"historical waggery," whose pages "we read," as in other fiction, "to
be amused."

But without attempting to reply with smiles alone to such attempts at
smiling away the force of historic verities, it is pertinent to say,
that when your correspondent speaks of the "false theory" of the
believers in the Popham Colony, it would have been quite as lucid a
mode of treatment, if he had stated the "theory" itself. We had
supposed that we were dealing with _facts_; and were not responsible
for any deductions drawn therefrom, either by affection or prejudice.
And the _facts_, though prominent, may be comprised in a short
enumeration: That in 1607 an English colony, under President George
Popham, was founded at the mouth of the Kennebec;--was inaugurated and
continued with the sacred services of the Christian religion;--was an
actual possession of the region afterwards known as New England, under
a Royal Charter never denied nor abrogated;--and, though intended, as
the documents show, to be perpetual, it came to an end within a year,
by reason of the death of its two chief supporters;--and was followed
by a succession of occupancies, that proved title, as against the
former and never-renewed claims of France.

Now, if these facts make the "extraordinary theory," which your
correspondent has not ventured to describe, we are ready to take it in
all its dimensions, and furnish your readers the proofs, as readily as
you will grant your columns. But we are not inclined to shut our
mouths, or stop our pens, by the terror of any such words as "false
and extraordinary theory," "empty assertion and vapid declamation." We
do not ask "Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay gracefully to yield the
honors of their exalted position," any farther than "the stern logic
of truth" may demand; and we shall not be unwilling to say, that the
claims of history are worthy of respect, even among the present
dwellers in those ancient and time-honored colonies. As to the remark
about "'the Church Colony' of Sagadahoc," that may pass as a piece of
pleasantry, though it was a fact.

The question is asked, in regard to the opening sentence of Mr.
Patterson's Address, "Why is this hallowed ground?" We had supposed,
that any place where religion had held its services continuously, and
in connection with important events, might properly bear such a
designation. The orator evidently thought so; and his very large
audience, out of the thousands assembled on that day, did not once
think of a criticism upon the expression. But the question seems to
have been proposed, not so much for disputing the religious
associations connected with the undertaking, as to bring in _two_
charges against the colonists, of no force whatever against the great
purposes of the settlement.

The _first_ charge is, that "a colony of convicted felons landed here
in 1607." Now who believes this? We who live in the valley of the
Kennebec have always supposed, that faith is belief founded on
evidence; and that all other demands on faith, if answered, are
credulity. What is the evidence that the charge is true? Not a
particle. The only pretence of proof is the casual remark of Sir
William Alexander, who says of these colonists,--of course he means
the laboring part of their number, and not the ten in authority,--that
they went to these western shores, "as endangered by the law, or their
own necessities." But was there no other law than that against social
crime? Contemporaneous history shows that their _endangerment_
proceeded from the statutes against vagrancy. At that time, in
consequence of the state of the country, a poor man could hardly avoid
their grasp. Surely poverty was no crime. Gorges sought persons of
this necessitous class to aid in carrying forward his noble purposes
of colonization.[3] While history is the best comment on language, the
five words of Sir William are entitled to its explanation. True
charity never requires us to give the worst interpretation, when the
circumstances allow the best. Here they require it.

It is most unfortunate for the truth of the charge about the felons in
the colony, that Chalmers--than whom no man has had a longer and
better opportunity of searching the British State Papers of this
period, and who has the credit of being reliable as to facts--says the
law for the transportation of convicts was not enforced till 1619; and
Bancroft says, that, when they were enforced, "it must be remembered,
the crimes of which they were convicted were chiefly political. The
number transported to Virginia for social crimes was never
considerable; scarcely enough to sustain its pride in its scorn of the
laboring population; certainly not enough to affect its character."[4]
If there had been any convicts in the Kennebec Colony, it would be
fair to infer from this declaration, that they were "chiefly
political" offenders, and "certainly _not numerous enough to affect_
its character."

But Chalmers says there was no transportation of any class of the
guilty till 1619.[5] Therefore there was none to Sagadahoc; and for
the additional and better reason than his statement, that the law has
not yet been shown requiring transportation as a punishment for moral
guilt, during the time of the incipiency, continuance and end of the
Popham Colony. Convicts could not be transported without a law. Any
charge, therefore, as about the felons of the colony, is injuriously
brought against the memory of the helpless dead.

The _second_ charge comes from the cannon story: that the men at the
fort induced the Indians to man the drag-ropes, and to stand in the
line of direction of the piece aimed for execution; and then fired off
the piece upon the whole body of the unfortunates, when thus "in
line, and blew them to atoms." This is a tale of woe rather tougher
than the quoted Williamson gives it,--who is inclined to discredit it.
But is even Williamson's reluctant account true?

The best reply to this allegation of horror is to be found in the
narrative of the Jesuits, in 1611, who went to the Kennebec by the
inland passage, in quest of corn. The Indians met them. They gave them
an account of their treatment of the colonists, whom they represented
as having been defeated by them. They "flattered" the French, saying
that "they loved them well;" and, to gain their favor, told them how
the English drove them from their doors and tables with clubs, and
made their dogs bite them. All this might have been done for
protection, under a renewal of the hostile attitude assumed by the
natives on Gilbert's trip up the Androscoggin. The French were good
listeners to any charge against English Protestants. Now, if this
story about the cannon had been as true as its reality would have been
cruel, why should not these Indians have told its barbarities to such
good auditors? A cannon ball, with the explosion from the muzzle,
would have made a more damaging narrative than a club or a dog-bite.
Yet no syllable of the great event is recorded, while the little ones
are faithfully chronicled to the disparagement of the Protestants. It
is doubtful whether any cruelties did occur so utterly at variance
with the known kind treatment of them by the "worthy" President. For
the Jesuits say of these Indians, that they were "flatterers," and
"the greatest speech-makers (_harangueurs_) in the world." When they
had encouraged their visitors (_honied_ them, _emmieloyent_) with
promises of grain, they put them off by trucking in beaver.[6] Such
witnesses do not amount to much; and, if Mr. Parkman uses the language
of your correspondent in calling these uncertain incidents "the most
shocking barbarities," it might be well wished that so able and
interesting a historian as he, had given the brief narrative itself,
rather than to have derived such a "theory" from its statements. Were
there no "shocking barbarities" elsewhere against the natives?

The first known utterance of this cannon story was made in
Massachusetts, about seventy years after its asserted occurrence.

A few words may be allowed as to the letter in the Appendix, which
comes in for a large share of notice. It is intimated that other
letters were not worthy of preservation. The reason why they were not
printed was because they were notes of courtesy to the Committee, not
needing public expression. Mr. Kidder's letter was thought to have a
historical value, as illustrating the skillful and industrious
abilities of the colonists; and is certainly proved to be of some
importance, or it would not have received so much attention.

The first criticism is verbal, on the non-apparent distinction between
"works" and "formal acts recorded." To us, who have drank water, if
not inspiration, from the still existent Popham well, beneath the
shadow of Sabino Head, it appears that "formal acts recorded," were
the acts of taking possession with chartered rights, placed on the
minutes by "John Scammon, Secretary." The "works" were the daily toils
of the laborers, in trenching, fortifying, building the storehouse and
church and the "pretty pynnace."

We thank your correspondent for presenting the fact of a French vessel
built at Port Royal forty years before any naval architecture was
attempted at Sabino. We have been so much in the habit of thinking of
English colonization, that perhaps we have had too narrow a horizon.
But, better taught, hereafter we will be careful to put the patrial
adjective as the proper predecessor, and say "the _English_ 'pioneer
ship,'" and so again adhere to fact.

As to another "pynnace," built before this one claimed as the first,
we are also glad to be assured of the fact for the first time. We had
supposed that the two mentions, made in the Popham journal as given by
Strachey, related to the one vessel,--in another writer called a
"pretty bark."[7] But, if there were two, so much the better for Mr.
Kidder's illustration touching the skill and energy of the colonists.
Strachey says, they all embarked in the ship that arrived with
supplies from England, "and in the new pynnace, the 'Virginia,' and
set sail for England." This word _all_, used also by Gorges and
Ogilby, and its equivalent by a contemporaneous writer, forbids
utterly the statement of your correspondent, that a considerable
portion of the colonists took the other "pynnace"--which we cannot yet
see was built--to fish, and "lead generally a wild and free life."

It is also intimated that the "Virginia" did not reach England. But
the "Briefe Relation," 1622, gives as much information about its
arrival in England as about the arrival of the ship. A fair hearing of
the old writer is enough to show that both reached the expected haven;
and, doubtless, the first _English_ vessel built in these wild regions
did awaken curiosity in the beholders at home. But this may be
"theory."

As to the improbability of the building of this vessel in the time
allowed, and in the unusually cold winter, with the few men, it is
enough to reply, that the "Briefe Relation" says this: "Having in the
time of their abode there (notwithstanding the coldness of the season,
and the small help they had,) built a pretty bark of their own, which
served them to good purpose, as easing them [_i. e._ in the other
vessel] in their returning."

The application of the term "hangman" is made to the Chief Justice
Popham. But it is not easy to see what connection it has with the
purpose of the colony. If the laws of the land required criminals to
be hung, he cannot be blamed for their administration. Sad indeed will
it be for magistrates, if they are to be thus designated because they
execute the laws. It would not be  difficult to place his character
in an honorable light, as he was seen by his contemporaries; and as to
his brother, George Popham, he has been truly styled by the historian
of ancient Pemaquid, the "worthy" President, whom "New England counts
as among the earliest, if not the very first, of her 'illustrious
dead.'"

                                           SABINO.

FOOTNOTES:

[3] Briefe Narration, Chap. ii.

[4] Hist. U. S., Vol. ii. p. 191.--Ed. 1837.

[5] Political Annals, p. 46.

[6] Fuller information, gained from the military letters of Biard and
Masse, shows that the treatment referred to was connected with an
occupation of the same location, by the English, in the year _after_
the Popham Colony had departed.--_Reports, edited by Carayon._

[7] Briefe Relation.




[_Portland Advertiser, April 26, 1866._]

"THE LAST POPHAM ADDRESS."


Under the above caption there was printed in the _Boston Daily
Advertiser_ of the 11th instant, over the signature of "P.," what
purports to be a review of Prof. Patterson's Address at the
Celebration of the two hundred and fifty-eighth Anniversary of the
Planting of the Popham Colony, at Sagadahoc.

At the first reading of this somewhat curious review, I supposed the
writer had intended to throw ridicule on the Popham celebrations, and
all concerned in them; but, on a closer perusal, I concluded that he
has, to the extent of his abilities, really undertaken to overthrow
the whole history of that settlement, and all that has been written
about them, by the force of his arguments.

He commences his theme by ridiculing the "Popham Memorial," the
"Vindication of Gorges," and some other publications; but without
attempting to reply to any part of them. He next goes on to tell us
that Mr. Patterson is a scholar, has been a Professor at Dartmouth
College, and is now a Member of Congress; and then commences his
onslaught by stating, that on that spot (Sabino) a colony of convicted
criminals landed in 1607, more than half of whom deserted the next
December, and the remainder left the next spring, after committing the
most shocking barbarities on the Indians; and refers to Williamson's
History of Maine, and Parkman's Pioneers,--neither of which
authorities justify any such statement; and, although trying to
ridicule some of Professor Patterson's sentiments, charges him with
branching off into a subject that has no relation to the question at
all.

Leaving the thirty odd pages of the Address without any remarks, he
attacks a letter, written as a reply to an invitation to be present on
that occasion, in which the writer notices the building of a ship by
the colonists, as a fact of some importance, which, all the writers on
that expedition say, took part of the colonists to England. But let us
follow him through his many wild and unsupported assertions relating
to that vessel. And here it may be proper to say, that the letter does
not endorse the authors of the Popham Memorial, or any part of their
theory, but at the outset expresses a dissent to many of the claims
made by those writers, and refers almost entirely to the ship and its
history. This reviewer, after some grand denunciations, finally
concentrates his arguments into three stately propositions.

First, that the vessel never was built, because there was not time,
and also that there was not over ten carpenters, or forty persons, in
all the colony to do it,--while we know that since that day vessels of
five times her size have been built with half that force, and in much
less time, in that immediate vicinity. Second, that there was no need
of a vessel; and third, that she was built of green pine, and no one
would wish himself in her; and so the idea that she made the voyage is
absurd. Now this is exactly the famous kettle argument over again,
with results just as conclusive.

In reply to these three formal propositions, it is only necessary to
say, that the fact of the building of the vessel rests on as good
authority as any historical statement relating to that colony; that
there were sufficient men and full time to do it in; and that there
can be no doubt it was intended to build a ship when the expedition
left England, from the fact that they brought out a master
ship-builder and workmen. That she was built of "green pine" is an
assumption very improbable, when we know that the growth along that
shore was mainly hardwood, while pine predominates in the interior.
But his most severe tirades are poured out upon the poor colonists,
calling them felons, knaves, cowards, and almost exhausting the
vocabulary of Billingsgate. To this I will not attempt to reply, but
merely remark, that his language, style and logic, is as far removed
from the "pure well of English undefiled" as a _pool_ of stagnant
water is from a perennial fountain.

A passing reader of his famous review would be at a loss to understand
why this terrible onset is made on this small pamphlet,--nine-tenths
of which he says does not refer to the Popham subject at all,--as
though he expected to conquer them, Chinese-like, by only making a
great noise. But a friend at my elbow says that this is a broadside in
advance, or, rather, the fire of his skirmish line, and only
preparatory to the advance of his big guns, which are to come in the
shape of a preface to a reprint, in which he intended to entirely
annihilate the Pophams, the Gorges, all their followers and
biographers, great and small, rich and poor, so completely that our
histories will have to be rewritten, and these old names that have
been so prominent in our early annals obliterated entirely; and
finally to destroy the granite walls of Fort Popham, memorial stone
and all, and by further displays of his cut-and-thrust logic prove
conclusively that it is all a myth, and nothing of the kind ever
existed. _Nous verrons._

                                           ORIENT.




[_Boston Daily Advertiser, May 31, 1866._]

POPHAM AGAIN AND FINALLY.


Our notice of Professor Patterson's Address, in the _Advertiser_ of
the 11th of April, has drawn from "Sabino" an extended reply, which
appeared ten days later. As our object in noticing the Address was not
controversy; and as "Sabino," skirmishing here and there, has made no
effective attack on any historical position taken in the criticism, we
have doubted the propriety of making a rejoinder. The world is not in
haste to become Pophamized. The memories and associations of more than
two centuries, grounded on historic truth, are not to be pushed aside
by the most absurd and baseless theory ever addressed to the human
understanding.

"Sabino" has done us the honor of acknowledging, that we have
contributed to this discussion some historical facts that had not
before fallen under his notice, and he thanks us for the same. The
most courteous acknowledgment we can make is, confessedly, a
rejoinder. We shall therefore examine somewhat minutely several of the
positions taken by our Eastern friend, hoping still to deserve his
kind eulogium, by contributing other facts that may not have come
within his observation.

We feel especially favored in having, as a disputant in this
discussion, no amateur nor journeyman Pophamite; but the
master-workman, the original inventor and patentee, the Magnus Apollo
of the theory; he who compiled the "Memorial Volume;" who arranges
annually those agreeable junketings, in midsummer, at Sabino Head; who
is perpetual manager of the controversy and overseer of the press for
all Popham publications. He kindly informs us (for no one knows so
well as himself) why Mr. Kidder's letter was printed, confirming the
impression expressed in our notice. Every fact and inference, favoring
his side of the question that "Sabino" is not master of, is not worth
knowing.

It is unfortunate that one so profound in Pophamistic lore should not
express his ideas in clear and idiomatic English. Some of his
sentences, after careful study, we confess our inability to
understand; and he often makes use of words out of their ordinary
meaning. For instance, he says, "We who live in the valley of the
Kennebec have always supposed, that faith is belief founded in
evidence; and that all other demands on faith, if answered, are
credulity." How _demands_ on faith can in any event be _credulity_, is
to us as obscure as the metaphysical nomenclature in vogue in the
valley of the Kennebec. Faith is defined by the best lexicographer of
the language as "the assent of the mind to the truth of what is
declared by another, resting on his authority or veracity, without
other evidence." We, at the Bay, accept an older definition, running
after this fashion: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,
and the evidence of things not seen." We apprehend that if there is,
in the valley of the Kennebec, any faith in the Popham theory, other
than that held by our clerical friend and his copartners, it is
grounded solely on the assertion of "Sabino & Co.," (the corporate
style of the firm is the _Maine Historical Society_,) as something _to
be hoped for_, but the evidence for which _is not seen_.

"Sabino," on the other hand, objects to our style, as not appropriate
for a grave historical discussion. He is shocked that we should speak
of his theorizing as "historical waggery, which we read, as we do
other fiction, to be amused." Style, after all, is greatly a matter of
taste, for which there is no accounting. We are now, however, to deal
with History; and we promise our friend that our style shall be as
rigid and matter-of-fact as he can desire.

"Sabino" complained that we commented on the Popham theory without
"stating the theory itself." Our notice was written to be read only by
those who are conversant with the historical discussions of the day,
not one of whom, probably, is ignorant of what he and his Society have
been doing and printing for the past four years. He supplied what he
deemed an omission in our notice. We copy his carefully-prepared
statement in full, and insert numerals, for convenience in its
examination:--

     "That in 1607 an English colony, under President George
     Popham, was founded (1) at the mouth of the Kennebec;--was
     inaugurated and continued with the sacred service of the
     Christian religion (2);--was in actual possession of the
     region afterwards known as New England (3), under a royal
     charter never denied nor abrogated (4);--and, though
     intended, as the documents show, to be perpetual, it came to
     an end within a year, by reason of the death of its two chief
     supporters (5);--and was followed by a succession of
     occupancies, that proved title, as against the former and
     never-renewed chums of France" (6).

"These facts," "Sabino" says, "we are ready to take in all their
dimensions." "These facts," we, on the other hand, propose to submit
to a critical examination.

1. Was an English colony _founded_ at the mouth of the Kennebec in
1607? An attempt was made then and there to found such a colony; but
the speedy result of the experiment was a disgraceful failure, and
proved a warning to all future undertakers. This warning comes to us
in the inimitable writings of Lord Bacon. His lordship was personally
conversant with the circumstances; and to him Strachey dedicates his
"Historie of Travaile," which contains the best contemporaneous
account we have of the affair. We quote from the first complete
edition of Lord Bacon's Essays, 1625, p. 199:--

     "It is a Shamefull and Vnblessed Thing, to take the Scumme of
     People, and Wicked, Condemned Men, to be the People with whom
     you Plant: And not only so, but it spoileth the Plantation;
     For they will euer liue like Rogues, and not fall to worke,
     but be Lazie, and doe Mischief, and spend Victuals, and
     quickly weary, and then Certifie ouer to their Country to the
     Discredit of the Plantation."

"Sabino" shuns the usual expression "planted" for the more pretentious
"founded," as if the affair was a reality, and had a foundation. A
thing may be planted, and that be the end of it. If the seed be bad,
it rots in the hill. Such was the fact, and fate of the Popham Colony.

2. The religious history of the Popham Colony is the briefest
narrative of the kind on record. All that is known of it may be
comprised in one sentence. A sermon was preached on two occasions; and
some Indians were taken on a Sunday to the "place of public prayer,"
when they listened "with great reverence and silence." This conduct
was highly commendable in the Indians; and, if the colonists, "the
wicked, condemned men," had behaved as well, something, after all,
might have come of the enterprise.

3. How much of "the region afterwards known as New England" was this
Colony "in actual possession of"? A few acres of ground on the
Promontory of Sabino, where they intrenched themselves, and nothing
more! From this narrow foothold they were driven, on one occasion, by
the Indians, who took possession of their Fort, their stock of
provisions and military stores. Not understanding the nature of
gunpowder, the Indians blew themselves up; and the survivors--regarding
the explosion as an expression of disapproval on the part of the Great
Spirit for their rudeness in driving, with arrows and clubs, forty-five
Englishmen out of a Fort that was trenched, and mounted twelve pieces
of ordnance--restored the premises to its gallant defenders, and
proposed henceforth to live on terms of friendship. (See Williamson's
History of Maine, i. p. 200.) Why does "Sabino" limit their possessions
to New England? Why not give them North America, and the whole Western
Continent?

4. The Popham theorists maintain, that King James's North Virginia
Charter of 1606 had some special virtue as a barrier to French
supremacy in New England. Both nations claimed the whole
territory;--the English on the ground of Cabot's discovery, and of
Gilbert's taking formal possession in 1583; and the French on the
ground of prior settlement. The question of supremacy was to be
determined by permanent occupancy, by enterprise, and by valor in
arms; not by royal proclamations and charters. No royal charter to a
trading company could strengthen the title England already possessed
by right of discovery and former occupation. The Plymouth Colony
landed in New England without a charter, and the event will never be
the less significant on that account.

5. The Popham Colony "came to an end within a year, by reason of the
death of its two chief supporters." Did it ever occur to "Sabino,"
that his Colony must have had a very slender _foundation_ to have
fallen in ruins at the death of two, out of a hundred and twenty,
persons engaged in it? The Plymouth Colony lost by death, in four
mouths after the landing, fifty-one out of one hundred and two, and
still the Colony lived. We neither accept nor deny "Sabino's"
statement as to the cause by which _his_ Colony came to its end.
Mourners, in doubtful cases, should be allowed to settle these
questions for themselves. It was a case of complicated diseases, any
one of which would have resulted in dissolution. Sworn testimony and a
coroner's jury would be necessary to determine the approximate cause.
The first question before such a tribunal would be whether the patient
could be said to have ever lived. Waiving this point, we should, if
pressed for a verdict, give--"Died by visitation of the Almighty."

Who were the two persons whose lives were so intimately entwined with
that of the Colony? They were George Popham, who came over as
president, and his brother, Sir John Popham, who never came over--both
very aged persons. Sir Ferdinando Gorges, who was "interested in all
these misfortunes," and knew more of the end of the Colony than any
other person whose writings have come down to us, did not regard the
president's death as a matter of importance. He says, his death "was
not so strange, in that he was well stricken in years before he went,
and had long been an infirme man" (Briefe Narration, p. 10). Raleigh
Gilbert, a younger and more energetic man, "a man," says Gorges,
"worthy to be beloved of them all for his industry," was forthwith
appointed president; and the change was rather a benefit, than
otherwise, to the Colony, if anything could benefit what was _in
articulo mortis_.

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 L10,000 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 Athenae 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.

Because historical writers have presumed to examine and question their
theory, they have grown sullen and morose. They abuse Massachusetts;
they spit at Plymouth Rock; they berate the Puritans; they eulogize
Sir John Popham; and they sigh for a system of mediaeval barbarism
which Popham and Gorges could not plant on New England soil, because
God, in his mercy to the human race, had decreed otherwise.

The true historic glory of the noble State of Maine seems to have been
lost sight of, in the antiquarian researches of her zealous
sons,--which is, that the State sprang from the loins of
Massachusetts. To this fact, the State to-day is indebted for every
one of those distinctive elements of general intelligence, enterprise
and thrift that make her what she is,--a New England State, instead of
a feudal Virginia or a South Carolina. The Massachusetts Puritans came
in early, and took possession of the land, under a technical
construction they gave to their own charter, organized municipalities,
set up their churches and schools, and put down with a strong hand all
opposition to their authority. The historian of New Hampshire has
given a faithful picture of the social condition of the Gorges
plantation on the Agamenticus (York) River, when the Puritans
commenced their missionary operations.

     "The people were without order or morals, and it is said of
     some of them, that they had as many shares in a woman, as
     they had in a fishing-boat.... No provision was made for
     public institutions, schools were unknown, and they had no
     ministers, till, in pity of their deplorable state, two went
     thither from Boston on a voluntary mission." Belknap's
     American Biography, i. p. 387-8. See also Hutchinson's
     Collections, p. 424.

The appearance of the Puritans among them did not to the Gorges men
seem joyous, but grievous; nevertheless afterward it yielded the
peaceable fruit of civilization and godliness unto them who were
exercised thereby. The territory was thus saved from the ethics of
Popham, the prelacy of Laud and the Stuarts, and the barbarism of a
colony of outlaws. The civilization of the District of Maine, during
the colonial period, was as essentially Puritan, as that of
Massachusetts Bay; and the District was represented in the General
Court at Boston, from the year 1653. This close political and social
union continued till the admission of the State into the Union in
1820.

It is the privilege, therefore, of the historical writers of Maine, to
turn from the unpleasant topic that of late has engaged their
attention, to the more congenial theme we have suggested. Let them,
with filial affection, recount the virtues and deeds of their Puritan
ancestors; and, if they must have an event to celebrate, let it be the
landing on Plymouth Rock in 1620, or the arrival of Winthrop and the
Charter in 1630,--events which are theirs to celebrate, as well as
ours.

                                                P.

     P. S.--We ought perhaps to acknowledge Mr. Kidder's kindness
     in sending to us a corrected copy of his article in the
     Portland Advertiser, in reply to our notice of Prof.
     Patterson's Address. The article still has so many literary
     and historical errors, that it would be unkindness to its
     author to review it in its present condition. We can imagine
     the inconvenience of having one's writings printed so far
     from home. If Mr. Kidder will furnish us with another copy,
     still further revised, we promise to give it all the
     attention it deserves.

                                                P.

FOOTNOTE:

[8] For the date of Popham's death, we have followed Foss rather than
Campbell. The latter fixes the date as June 1, 1607, only one day
after the colonists sailed. Campbell has fallen into a mistake in
making Popham's age seventy-two; for Campbell himself, and the other
authorities, give the date of his birth as 1531.




[_Boston Daily Advertiser, July 28, 1866._]

THE POPHAM COLONY, "FINALLY."


_To the Editors of the Boston Daily Advertiser_:--

Absences have prevented my notice of the article of your correspondent
"P.," as early as I could have wished. I now take it up for some
remarks on its most prominent positions.

To his criticisms, both merited and unmerited, I desire to bow in meek
thankfulness. They are merited only as the imperfections were the
result of haste in writing on the eve of a journey. Though they may
injure the advocate, the cause stands as impregnable as ever. The
unmerited are to be attributed to the indistinctness of my rapid
penmanship. If our articles shall have the fortune to come to a second
edition, he will not be sorry to see that his sagacity has been made
useful in aid of my argument.

As to the pervading personalities in the communication, I have but
little to say. Of my position and acts in connection with the
commemorations of the colony, it asserts matters which never existed,
and attributes to me motives which I have never entertained. These
allegations do not change the facts of history. It is because of this
_personal_ phase of the discussion, that I propose to make no farther
reply to your correspondent, even if he should attempt a
sur-rejoinder. I do not know him. But he seems to know me, in this
connection, more than well,--more than I know of myself, or any one
knows or can know of me.

In ascribing to me the origination of the celebrations of the Popham
Colony, the communication ignores the fact, that the "founding"
thereof (and I use the word in its dictionary sense) was commemorated,
in "a bi-centenary celebration," by the Rev. Dr. Jenks, "with a party
of gentlemen, in 1807." So that, if there could be claimed any virtue
for an Episcopal origination of the commemorative visit to
Sabino,--which has never been claimed by any one acquainted with the
facts,--this early act by this lover of the olden days would take it
all away. Indeed, I have had nothing to do with the later
celebrations, as their "original inventor and patentee," in any sense
whatever. Its suggestion even was not Episcopal, but simply
historical. I have been only auxiliary.

The communication has not a little to say about the bad traits of
character in Chief Justice Popham, as displayed in a portion of his
early manhood. But it wholly neglects testimony--elsewhere cited--to
traits of an opposite kind, appearing in his more matured years. This
evidence appears in the writings of his cotemporaries, who speak of
him in terms of high commendation. Whatever might have been his
earlier life, the path of repentance and amendment was open for his
entrance. After his marriage, he changed his early courses; and by his
diligence in his legal studies qualified himself for his later eminent
position. When Strachey, Smith, Croke and Mather, writing after his
death, and of course after his character was completed, call him "the
upright and noble gentleman," "that honorable pattern of virtue," "a
person of great learning and integrity," "the noble lord," with other
words of approval, and none of censure, a reader of the paper cannot
but wonder that the better part of his later life was not noticed as
well as the worse parts of his earlier. Fuller has placed him among
the "Worthies," and says: "If _Quicksilver_ could really be _fixed_,
to what a treasure would it amount! Such is _wild youth_ seriously
reduced to _gravity_, as by this young man did appear."

The opinion of Lord Campbell in his favor should not be neglected by
an impartial seeker for truth. He is severe on most of the Chief
Justices, not sparing even the good Sir Matthew Hale. His
commendations are therefore the more valuable. In his "Life" of this
Chief Justice, he describes the particular traits to his discredit,
when, with other young men, he entered on his illegal acts on the
highway; and then says, "We must remember that this calling was not
then so discreditable as it became afterwards." He speaks of the
change in his purposes; his diligence as a student; and, after some
quotations, presented in this discussion, he says, "He held the office
(of Chief Justice) fifteen years, and was supposed to conduct himself
in it very creditably." "Many of his judgments in civil cases are
preserved, showing that he well deserved the reputation which he
enjoyed." "On the trial of actions between party and party, he is
allowed to be strictly impartial, and to have expounded the law
clearly and soundly." "I believe that no charge could justly be made
against his purity as a judge."

And then, as to the reasons why censures were brought against him,
this biographer says, "Yet, from the recollection of his early
history, some suspicion always hung about him, and stories, probably
quite groundless, were circulated to his disadvantage." "Of these we
have a specimen" about "Littlecote Hall." It is "unfair to load the
memory of a judge with the obloquy of so great a crime, upon such
unsatisfactory testimony." A distinguished ruler--more exalted than
Popham, whom Palfrey calls "that eminent person"--once wrote,
"Remember not the sins of my youth."

If he was called "the hanging judge," it was because criminals were to
be punished. Lloyd says, to his credit, that "the deserved death of
some scores preserved the lives and livelihood of some thousands;
travellers owing their safety to this judge's severity many years
after his death." Aubrey says the same.

But, if all were true, as alleged to the disparagement of the Chief
Justice, is there so necessary a connection between him and the
colonists at Sabino as that they, except the ten men in office, must
therefore have been "villains and convicts"? He certainly has on all
sides the praise of having been the earliest and the most active
promoter of colonization on our wild New England shores. In this
relation he gained the distinct commendation of Hubbard, as "the first
that ever procured men or means to possess New England,"--"the main
pillar" of the enterprise, with not the remotest allusion to any such
acts in its accomplishment as are mentioned by your correspondent. His
statement leads one to think, that he regarded these early movements
as preparatory to the settlements in Massachusetts. He certainly has
said nothing that can lead us to suppose he connected "convicts" with
Popham's efforts.

There is a statement made, derived from Strachey's use of the word
"prepared," in two instances, as though this _preparation_ consisted
chiefly in furnishing convicts for transportation to Sagadahoc. Where
is the proof? There is not a word in the context to warrant any such
application, and indeed no where else. One of the "prepared"
expeditions was captured by a Spanish fleet, and the men held in a
kind of piratical duress. The communication proceeds to say, in
condemnation of the old historians and Popham, that "no 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 attempts to
rescue them from their hard fate." Alas! where is the proof of this
sweeping assertion? Exactly opposite was the fact. His humane regard
for the captives was forthwith put into action. It would have been
well for the furtherance of history, if one well versed in "the old
writers" against Popham had also seen and produced a single testimony
in his favor. Take one sentence from Gorges, relating to this Spanish
capture: "The affliction of the captain and his company put the Lord
Chief Justice to charge and myself to trouble in procuring their
liberties, which was not soon obtained." This citation is enough to
show his efforts for their release, and proves great humanity on the
part of this "noble patron of justice and virtue," as he has been well
described; and that he was not herein "a heartless wretch," as your
correspondent writes, and furnishes no proof of his allegation.

The quotations from Lloyd--himself mostly valuable for _his_
quotations--are prominently presented, as bearing on the character of
the colonists. He says that Popham "provided for malefactors." But
that is no certain proof that he sent them to Sagadahoc. The plan and
its completion are different things, and its completion was not
necessarily here. "He first set up the discovery of New England to
maintain and employ those that could not honestly live in the Old."
But this proposal, this "setting up," if made in regard to Sagadahoc,
does not _prove_ that the suggestion was ever carried out. With the
singularly imperfect knowledge of foreign geography, that has always
characterized English education, all Virginia seems to have been New
England, and _vice versa_. New England was North and South Virginia.
We admit the plan. We demand the proof that convicts were banished to
this region. Besides, where is the inhumanity of the proposal, or its
fulfilment? It was intended to save the lives of criminals, who
otherwise would have been hung, according to evidence and the laws of
their time; and doubtless the culprits condemned would have deemed
the provision merciful, that by banishment allowed them to live.

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.

In double confirmation of this fact, we may go to the Charter of 18
James, Nov. 3, 1620, which speaks of the efforts made in divers years
past, in the Northern Colony, by former grantees, who had "taken
actual possession of the Continent," and had "settled already some of
our People in Places agreeable to their Desires in those parts." This,
certainly, is very far from sustaining the opinion, that the occupants
of Sagadahoc were convicts. For they were settled in a place
"agreeable to their Desires," until calamities darkened all their
prospects. It is worth noting here, that Lord Campbell says nothing
about Popham in connection with convicts and the colony. This omission
is significant.

A question is proposed, with an air of confidence, as if its answer
must demolish the positions of my former article. It is this: "Will
'Sabino' please point out the 'law' under which James sent off a
hundred convicts in 1619, that did not exist in 1606?" The demand is
adroitly made, but not pertinently. To make it touch the point, it
should have been 1607. My reply is readily given.

The statute for the punishment of rogues by banishment, already noted,
(39 Eliz. ch. iv.,) expired by its own limitation, in 1601; when it
was renewed, to continue till the end of the first session of the next
Parliament, which was held in 1603-4. It was then re-enacted, (1
James, ch. iv. and xxv.,) when the additional provision was made, that
persons condemned under its sanctions should be branded on the left
shoulder with "a greate Romane R," for their detection in case of
their unlicensed return, so as to secure the death of the offender,
"as in case of Felonie." This statute was to continue "until the end
of the first session of the next Parliament" (ch. xxv.). I have no
means at hand of knowing the precise date when this session closed;
but the Parliament itself ended on May 27, 1606, and the _statute was
not revived_. The temper of the king and that body was shown in the
statute (3 James ch. xxvii.) entitled, "An acte for the King's most
gracious generall and free Pardon." The next Parliament began Nov. 18,
1606, and ended July 4, 1607. Such was the forbearance of the supreme
legislature in relation to the transportation of condemned criminals,
that the session passed away, and the law, that had expired by its own
limitation, was allowed to remain in this state of its natural death.
Transportation seems not to have been in favor.

Therefore, from "the end of the firste session" of the Parliament
whose final session was terminated May 27, 1606, till after the Popham
Colony sailed, May 31, 1607, there was no statute of transportation in
existence.

A re-enactment of the law, or rather a law for punishing rogues by the
workhouse, and not by transportation, was not made until the
Parliament beginning Feb. 9, 1609. This was four days more than a year
after George Popham's death, and a year and a half after the death of
the Chief Justice. So that here was at least an interval of more than
two years and three-fourths, when there was no law for the exile of
convicts from the royal dominions. In this space of time, the Popham
Colony had its beginning, its continuance and its end,--beginning more
than a year after the law had died; continuing through the larger part
of the year; and ending nearly another year before it was revived, in
a very different form, and with a milder penalty. During this period,
no law appears in the "Statutes of the Realm" for the transportation
of convicts; and it is perfectly incredible that any persons were so
sentenced by the justices of the peace, and sent to Sagadahoc under
any sanction of the highest judicial authority in the realm, with the
specific designation of the place by the Privy Council.

The preamble of the statute of 1609 for "punishing rogues" makes known
the inactivity of the magistrates in the enforcement of former
provisions, and the desuetude into which this law had fallen. It
declares that the earlier "Statutes had not been duly and severely
putt in execution." Therefore the requisitions are made stronger, to
bind the proper officers to their more stringent execution, in regard
to "Houses of Correction." Transportation is not even hinted at. This
previous easy state of affairs on this topic shows that the rigor of
expulsion, ascribed to Popham, is a thought of later times.

It is also to be noted, that the Charter of 1606 is in strict harmony
with the fact that the expired law had not been revived. Among the
twenty-seven Acts of 3, 4 James, 1605-6, and the thirteen of 4, 5
James, 1606-7, no one appears on the pages to authorize the
exportation of criminals. Those who went to either of the Virginias
were to go "willingly," and enjoy their "liberties." If, in any other
book of laws besides the "Statutes of the Realm," if there be such, or
by any new and singular interpretation of any provision there can be
found a rule requiring the transportation of convicts, it will not
thence follow that any were sent to Sagadahoc. For the Charter will
still say that only _volunteers_ were to go, who should be free men as
long as they remained in connection with the company.

I did not refer to Ogilby and Chalmers as original authorities, but as
good investigators. The former has been long known. My favorable
opinion of the latter is drawn from the Preface to his "Introduction
to the History of the Revolt in the American Colonies." Your
correspondent seems to undervalue him. But to sustain my estimate, I
may quote the expressions of the American editor of the above-named
volumes. "His works are deemed to possess much merit as the result of
profound research and a discriminating judgment."--"His official
station gave him access to all state papers."--"He took advantage of
this opportunity, to investigate in its original sources the history
of the colonies."--"His work (Political Annals) has ever been quoted
with entire confidence and respect; and this circumstance speaks
clearly in favor of the author's candor and honesty." When he speaks
of no earlier transportation than 1619, I have been ready to give him
credit. Your correspondent refers to him as writing, "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 a hundred dissolute
persons to Virginia." I am content with this statement. Bancroft
thinks "some of them were convicts: but it must be remembered that the
crimes of which they were convicted were chiefly political;" and
political felons, as well as those whom in the same volume he calls
"the Puritan felons that freighted the fleet of Winthrop," were
"endangered by the law;" and yet not for this reason to be regarded as
tainted in the least with moral guilt. His opinion, too, is that there
was never sent to South Virginia--for he seems not to have heard of
the accusations brought against the northern colony--any "considerable
number" of persons convicted of "social crimes;" "certainly not enough
to affect its character." This statement may be taken as a sufficient
reply to the charge that Popham "stockt" the plantations out of "all
the gaoles of England." Indeed, all that Bacon, nearly twenty years
after his colony had ceased, and other far later writers have said, on
the topic contained in the quotation from him, relates to the later
affairs in the southern colony; and can be connected with Popham only
as he was a prime mover in the enterprise of colonization, carried on
after his death. It cannot be shown that they had Sagadahoc in mind.
Weber, as "revised and corrected" by Professor Bowen, adheres to 1619.

Against a remark of mine, the communication states, that there was "no
later occupancy of New England till the Pilgrims arrived in 1620." I
said "the Popham Colony was followed by a succession of occupancies,
that proved title." I say so still. I did not mean that all these
occupancies were colonies. They were at Monhegan, by Sir Francis
Popham and Captain John Smith; at Pemaquid, by the annual visits of
the English from Virginia; at Mount Desert, by Argall; at Saco, by
Vines; at Plymouth, by the Pilgrims and by numerous others, after that
great and memorable event in our national history. They were made
under the protection of the Charter of James in 1606; energetically
promoted in the outset by Popham, "the first to procure men and means
to possess New England;" and sustained for years at great expense by
Sir Ferdinando Gorges. In this connection I wish to supply an omission
noticed by your correspondent, where I said, that the colony "proved
title as against the former and never-revived claims of France." "West
of the Kennebec" was in my mind, but not written. I thank him for the
correction, as it strengthens my position. It would have been better
to have said, "the French never had any possession on the coast, west
of the Kennebec."

As to the settlement of Gosnold, I have before shown that it was not a
"chartered colony." It was deserted on the day when its small house
was scarcely fitted for a permanent dwelling. It was "undertaken on
private account;" asserted no general claim; proved no title; and was
not renewed.

The powder and cannon stories appear to be singularly confused by
Williamson. His misplaced footnote referring to the History of King
Philip's War has misled us both. It is made as authority for the
latter, when it should be for the former, and the tradition (I quote
from memory) is from "an ancient mariner." As it is unsupported, it
can hardly be claimed as history. As to the cannon story, one of our
best antiquarians thinks that it has had no earlier mention than is
found in Morse and Parish, about two centuries after its alleged
occurrence, as derived from the Norridgewock Indians. Such a tradition
is of very little account. If these stories had been true, it is
marvellous that the "speechifying" Indians round about Arrowsic should
not have told their prowess and their sufferings to the listening
Jesuits in 1611. It may be well to know that a valued New Hampshire
historian locates the narrative about the cannon at Dover, N. H., in
the time of Waldron, when a large number of Indians were captured by
stratagem. If the servants of the colony set dogs on the meddlesome
Indians, the wise men in council in a later colony in New England, as
Hazard gives it, decided to employ "mastiffe-dogs" to hunt down
Indians in 1656. Why not blame both?

That portions of the population in Maine were corrupt, after
settlements were dotted along the coast, is true. Deterioration often
follows colonization. For all the influence for good that
Massachusetts has spread, here and elsewhere, all ought to be glad,
though here it was somewhat irregularly introduced. The celebrations
at Sabino Head are not intended to detract from the merits of Plymouth
Rock. They were many. It is no harm to wish that they had been more.

The letter of Mr. Kidder relative to the "pretty pynnace of about
thirty tonne," is again referred to by your correspondent. What are we
to understand by the few notices of her history? Simply this, that on
"August 28," "the carpenters labored about the building of a small
pinnace." Their first act was to prepare the timber from the
surrounding forest,--not necessarily of "green pine," where the ridge
bears oak, maple and spruce now, and perhaps did then,--and put it
into shape for future use. It was left to season during the autumnal
months. Then, after Captain Davies returned to England, with an
account of the "forwardness of their plantation," on the 15th of
December, the seasoned timber was "framed," and the craft completed,
as the "Brief Relation" says, "notwithstanding the coldness of the
season and the small help they had." For reasons satisfactory to the
leaders of the colony, after Captain Davies returned to them, Strachey
says "they all ymbarqued in the new arrived shipp and in the new
pynnace, the Virginia, and sett saile for England." Gorges says they
"all resolved to quit the place, and with one consent to [go] away."
Sir William Alexander says, "Those that went thither ... returned back
with new hopes." The "Briefe Relation" says the news from home "made
the whole company to resolve upon nothing but their return with their
ships; ... having built a pretty bark of their own, which served them
to good purpose, as easing them in their returning;" and asserts "the
arrival of these people here in England,"--of course, the same
"people" who embarked, and in the same "ships" in which they
commenced the voyage. Any other interpretation will be a violent
perversion of language. As to any persons of the colony remaining to
be rovers on the coast in another supposed pinnace, it will be time
enough to consider that conjecture, when proof shall be brought to
change it into history. It will be "credulity" to answer such a
"demand" on our faith, as long as it is unsupported by evidence; and
we shall still believe that "The Virginia" was not, perhaps the first
craft of the Northmen, French, Basques, Dutch, or Indians, of whom we
were not thinking--but was the pioneer ship of the _English people_ in
the new world, and was a striking proof of the skill and enterprise of
the laboring colonists, with Digby, the London shipwright, as their
head in her construction.

But, whatever may be said of the enterprise or its details, whether
favorable or unfavorable, the true and single point for grave
consideration is the prominent fact, that a colony was founded at the
mouth of the Kennebec under the charter of James, 1606, which Popham
"certainly was a chief instrument in procuring," and that this was the
_first_ thus laid in New England under English sway.

No personalities, no imputation of sinister and never existing
motives, no disparagement of the character of the prime movers and
later advocates,--for Gorges has been blamed as well as Popham,--no
reproaches thrown upon the laboring colonists, and no finger of
derision pointed at the failure of their purpose, should turn the
reader of history away from this path. The leading minds in England,
with the King as their friend, were actuated by the desire to turn to
good account the discoveries of the early navigators; the reports of
fishermen returning from our coast, and the more systematic researches
of Gosnold, who, Strachey says, came "for discovery;" and Weymouth,
whose narrative, and Pring, whose exact description pointed out the
Kennebec as the place for speedy occupation. Emphasis was given to the
determination of the associates, by their bearing with them a charter
and a constituent code of laws, carrying out the principles of the
English Constitution. An expedition of that nature, and at that time,
required relatively much more of thought, energy and means than one of
ten times its numbers and power would do at the present day. The fact,
that it came directly to the Kennebec, shows that its course and
destination did not depend on any capricious views of its commander;
but were in accordance with a previously matured plan "for the seizing
such a place as they were directed unto by the council of the colony."
Its approach near to the claimed territory of France implies a
previous knowledge of the coast, and a purpose to take possession
within the chartered limits, fully up the undisputed boundary line.
This occupation, and those made in the few following years, were
called in the patent of 18 James, Nov. 3, 1620, the "actual possession
of the continent;" thus showing how exalted a value was placed on
these incipient, though feeble measures, by the highest authority in
the mother land. The commercial purposes of the undertaking at
Sagadahoc were not all. A religious purpose was connected therewith,
and carried on during its continuance. Its great purpose was to secure
title within the territory granted to the company. Signal disasters
attended the later part of its life; and, though it failed
commercially, Gorges "had no reason greatly to despair of means." In
its historic influence, and in its opening the way for immediate and
successive efforts, it was, in the words of Maine's most worthy and
distinguished living historian, "_one_ of the steps in the grand march
of civilization."

As such, and as the _first_ chartered "step" on our rock-bound coast
by "English hearts and hands," we have thought it proper to do it
honor; and this too as persons united in no one single denomination of
Christians. We have taken pleasure in aiding to bring before the
appreciative mind of the community "this _initial point_ in the
history of the settlement of New England," and its bearing on
subsequent settlements along our shores. We have thought that the
Charter of 1606 gave life to this and other enterprises. It was in
harmony with its design and privileges, that "the King's Majesty and
the bishops consented" to the wishes of the people at Leyden to remove
to this land; and so far gave them the aid of the Church, which Mather
says was not possessed with the spirit of persecution against them,
though some of its members indulged that folly. The several documents
following this leading instrument of title and occupation, such as the
enlarged charters, "The First Plymouth Patent," and the patents issued
for the benefit of Maine and Massachusetts, are traceable to this
source, and to the able men concerned in its origination and
provisions. So that, in a pure and great historical fact and its
sequences, we have had enough to warrant our past commemorations. It
is no fault of ours, that other colonies came earlier and later, and
did not build a sea-going vessel in this northern latitude in the
first year of their stay. We rejoice where they were successful,
permanent, and a blessing to the world. But why cannot we be allowed
to celebrate an event, one of the greatest of its times, without being
taunted with sayings, which, while bearing bitterness, need the
support of evidence; and with words which, however amiably they may
have been intended, boldly represent us as culprits, "indictable at
common law"?

In taking my leave of your columns, courteously allowed for this
discussion, I regret that I have been compelled to occupy so much
space. But much more would have been needed to rectify all the
applications of the quotations from the old writers, who, so far as
the colony of Sagadahoc is concerned, must be explained in harmony
with the Charter of 1606, which provided only for "willing" men to
join in the enterprise, and continued to them all the franchises of
Englishmen at home. I wish now only to add, that I stand not alone in
my opinions about the Popham Colony. Persons of the highest historical
authority in the State and elsewhere support the same view. One of
these, the late Bishop Burgess, had designed to write at length on
this debated subject. He had been in correspondence with the present
Duke of Somerset for information on one part of its history. He had
already said, and patriotically too, of the chaplain of the colony,
"Seymour was the first preacher of the Gospel in the English tongue,
within the borders of New England, and of the free, loyal and
unrevolted portion of these United States. Had he inherited all the
honors of his almost royal grandsire, they would have given him a far
less noble place than this, in the history of mankind." But the fatal
illness of this eminent historical scholar has prevented the intended
gift of his deliberate and final testimony in defence of the claims
here set forth in behalf of "that northerne colony uppon the
Sagadahoc."

                                           SABINO.




[_Boston Daily Advertiser, July 28, 1866._]

A RUNNING REVIEW OF THE "POPHAM AGAIN AND FINALLY."


_To the Editors of the Boston Daily Advertiser_:--

By referring to the Supplement of the _Daily Advertiser_ of the 31st
of May, I see that "pool" has again overflowed, and the result is a
wishy-washy everlasting flood of nearly four columns in small type,
some of which seem to be a reply to the fairly-written statements and
comments of "Sabino;" but the most of it reads very much like one of
Van Buren's old messages with which we were served annually, some
twenty-five years ago, while in barefaced effrontery it much resembles
the speeches of Jeff. Davis and Wigfall, at the commencement of the
late rebellion. Let us wade through this mass of matter which reaches
from the voyage of Noah to the latest raid on the Pophamites; and here
let me remark, that the writer handles that ancient navigator's
character very much as he does Chief Justice Popham's, looking only at
its worst side. Why does he not assert that his ark was built of
"green pine," and no one would embark in it, or, if they did, they
went a fishing, and never arrived at Mount Ararat; for there is just
as much evidence of this as there is in his assertions relative to the
vessel built at Sabino. But let us follow the writer, and see how he
replies to "Sabino." First, he finds great difficulty in understanding
what all others clearly appreciate, and this accounts for many of his
misstatements, for if a man cannot understand the truth, how can he
communicate it? Secondly, he gives us a short lesson on style; but
finally concludes "that, after all, it is greatly a matter of taste
for which there is no accounting." I agree with him on this point;
and, as evidence of what his taste is, let me make an extract from his
description of the discovery of the locality of the Popham Colony.
"Nothing would satisfy a few excellent people of 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. Their first mistake was, that when they came to the
putrid mass they did not carefully replace the sod." Does this read
like a review from a student of history? Does it not more likely
resemble the report of a city scavenger, when the cholera is expected?
Then, next, comes a quotation from Lord Bacon's essays on plantations
in general, published about twenty years after the Popham expedition;
and it is difficult to see what it has to do with the Popham Colony.
If it could be referred to any one in particular, it must have been
the then transporting of such people as he talks of to Virginia. Next,
he asserts that the Colony only occupied "a few acres of ground on the
promontory of Sabino." Will he tell how many more acres were really
occupied at Jamestown or Plymouth the first six months of their
existence?

Then comes a repetition of the old traditionary story published
doubtingly by Williamson. A venerable New England writer says,
"tradition is the biggest liar in the world," and, in this case, I
certainly acquiesce in his assertion, and I doubt if any respectable
historian would think of repeating so questionable a tale. In speaking
of the end of the colony, by reason of the death of the two Pophams,
he says, "did it ever occur to 'Sabino' that his colony must have had
a slender foundation to have fallen into ruins at the death of two out
of a hundred and twenty persons?" Will he tell us how many more than
the death of the two most prominent persons at Plymouth would have
caused its abandonment during their extremity in the spring of 1621?
Certainly, not many. Then comes near a column of abuse on the Chief
Justice, with abundant extracts from his biographers which may all be
true; but, if so, his appointment and continuance on the bench was a
disgrace and shame to Queen Elizabeth and the leading men of her
reign. And then he comes to that cannon story again. Did it ever occur
to him, that, if the statement were true, the returning colonists
would have related it at home? For such things always come out; and
the Pophamites had as bitter enemies there as P. is, and so it would
have been a part of the authentic history of that expedition. Have
there not been much worse outrages on the poor Indian all over our
country since? And then he repeats his doubts about the arrival of
that pretty pinnace in England, of which there can be no more question
than of the return of many of the early emigrant ships which carried
back passengers who were known to have reached there, while there is
no mention of the ships.

But he states "Brief Relation says nothing about the arrival of
_either vessel_: it records simply the arrival of _these people_ here
in England." Well that out-Herods Herod: how does he expect they got
there? He certainly knows they embarked in both vessels, for Strachey
says, "Wherefore they all ymbarqued in this new arrived ship and in
the new pynnace, the Virginia, and set saile for England." Now, I
advise this learned pundit to look among his mass of newspapers; and,
if he finds the London Shipping List of that time, he may be
enlightened. And if he still doubts let him ask the opinion of any of
our best writers on New England history, and my word for it he will
not find one to indorse his views. One, certainly, whose opinion is of
the greatest weight, and as anti-Popham as himself, has given a
decided negative to his assertions.

And now comes a long dissertation on the blessings that have been
experienced in Maine, by Massachusetts extending its government over
it. Some of these moral reflections may be true, but many of the
inhabitants of that territory did not then see it. I certainly agree
with him in his appreciation of the energy and intelligence of the
settlers of Maine and their descendants. They are equal to, and very
much resemble, those of the other New England States; but what this
has to do with Popham, he don't tell us. And, finally, he undertakes
in a note to give the writer of that famous letter about the ship a
kick, by stating that a writer in a Portland paper has had his article
badly printed by having it done so far from home; and, when revised,
he will give it the attention it deserves. Very kind.

Having made a somewhat rapid survey of his three or four heavy
columns, "a mighty maze, and yet without a plan," I will look at his
famous first attack, or, as the writer in the Portland Advertiser
calls it, "the fire of his skirmish line;" and will now give his
assertions there a passing notice, glancing over his attack on the
Memorial Volume, the defence of Gorges, and his abuse of their
authors, who are perfectly able to defend themselves, and may do so
hereafter. He talks strongly about "historical verities:" let us see
how fairly he treats authentic history. And first, will he tell us
where he finds the colonists called "convicted felons," "cowards, Old
Bailey convicts and knaves?" and that "they had saved their necks by
emigrating," etc., etc.? Can he point to the book and the page for
these "historical verities"? He may it is true quote a writer who
says "many of them were endangered of the law." So were many of the
Plymouth colonists,--to their honor, when we consider what law was,
and what protection human rights had under James I.

Again, let us look at his assertions relative to that "pretty
pinnace." In his "first consideration," he argues that a sea-worthy
vessel was never built by the colonists; and, by inference, would make
us believe that it was not built at all, saying "there was not time
between the 15th of December and spring to build a sea-worthy
vessel,"--when not a person but himself who ever perused "Brief
Relation" or "Strachey" doubted the building and sailing for England
of such a ship. Next, "that they had no need of a vessel." As if they
did not know their own wants better than we do. Can there be much
doubt it was the intention of the projectors to have a vessel built,
and that for this purpose they sent over "Master Digby and the
carpenters"? And then he coolly states she was built of "green pine,"
and repeatedly calls her a "fishing boat," and implies that she went a
fishing. Will he also give his authority for these statements? Every
reader of history knows these assertions are untrue; and till he can
clear himself of this charge, let him not undertake to lecture others
on "historical verities."

It will be seen that I have not noticed his argument relative to the
craft built by the French at Port Royal, and which by almost a miracle
carried the survivors to their homes; for the reason that we were
considering English occupation of New England, and that alone. French
enterprise and colonization was an entirely different affair, and had
nothing to do with the subject under consideration; and the writer of
"the letter" could not fairly have anticipated that it could be made
to refer to any but Englishmen. It will also be noticed that I have
not undertaken to advocate or indorse the Popham enterprise and its
effects in general, but only to show up some of the errors of its
opponents. There is and will be a wide difference of opinion on that
point; but all will agree that it has been of great benefit to
printers, and that they have shed a larger quantity of ink in
elucidating these controversies than was lost in blood in "P.'s"
imaginary fights with the Indians at Sabino.

Having made a running review of "P.'s" long columns, I would in
conclusion offer him some advice, which, I trust, he will receive in
the same kind way in which it is given. First, do not fear that Popham
history will ever in the slightest way overshadow the lustre of Old
Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay. They stand too firm to be shaken:
their true glories will continue to brighten and expand through ages
yet to come, till they are appreciated and acknowledged throughout the
world. Don't look on the very worst side of history: much of it is bad
enough at best; and we can hardly read some of the annals of our own
ancestors, written by themselves, without a blush. Do not write so
ferociously: people are not frightened by ink, particularly
Pophamites. "A kind word turneth away wrath." Don't ruin that preface
to the reprint which you have had some two years in process of
incubation, by bringing Popham and Gorges into it, when there is no
occasion for it. And, as a general amnesty, even for the deepest
crimes, is the order of the day, you had better accept it on the
following cheap terms, viz., as hot weather is approaching, and, if
you have not killed out the Pophamites entirely,--and I don't really
think you have even ruffled a feather,--they will in August have their
picnic celebration at Sabino as usual, now let us both attend. Then,
after partaking of their chowder, we will smoke the calumet of peace;
drink inspiration--if we can--from that ancient well, but certainly
good cool water, and something in it, if you say so; and finally bury
the hatchet in the remains of that old ditch, and pledge ourselves to
everlasting peace.

     JUNE, 1866.                        SAGADAHOC.




BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE POPHAM COLONY.


DOCUMENTS CIRCULATED BEFORE AND AT THE FIRST CELEBRATION, AUGUST 29,
1862.

"English Colonization in America. | Public Celebration." A brief
sketch of the Colony, and of the proposed Celebration, by Mr. John A.
Poor; which was sent to invited guests. July, 1862.

"Historical Celebration at Fort Popham, August 29, 1862." Programme of
the Celebration.

"An Order for Morning Prayer" [read by Bishop Burgess]. 8vo, 8 pp.

[Thirty-Four] "Toasts | for the | Historical Celebration. | To be
arranged hereafter in appropriate order." 8vo, 4 pp.


CARDS (4-1/2 by 7-1/2 inches):--

1. Latin Inscription for the Memorial Stone. On the reverse, an
English Translation.

2. Latin Inscription as before. On the reverse, "The First Colony | on
the Shores of New England | was Founded here, | August 19th, O. S.,
1607 | under | George Popham."

A printed circular headed "Public Historical Celebration," dated
August 12, 1862; which was sent to invited guests, with a "Private
Explanatory Note," stating that the Celebration "is held under the
auspices of the Maine Historical Society, which proposes to print a
full report in the form of a Memorial Volume."


NEWSPAPER ARTICLES WITH REFERENCE TO THE FIRST CELEBRATION.

_Bath Sentinel and Times_, July 10, 1862. Mr. B. C. Bailey recommends
calling a public meeting, to make arrangements for a Celebration.

_The same_, July 22, 1862. The Mayor of Bath calls the meeting, for
Monday, July 28.

_The same_, July 29. Report of the meeting.

_Portland Press_, July 30. Report of the meeting, List of Committees,
etc.

_Daily Evening Globe_, St. John, N. B., August 23, 1862. "The First
English Settlement in New England;" by John Wilkinson.

_Portland Advertiser_, August 28, 1862. The Order of the Celebration.

_The same_, August 30. 1862. An Account of the Celebration; with Mr.
John A. Poor's Oration.

_The same_, September 3, 1862. Mr. Poor's Oration reprinted with
corrections. Mr. T. D. McGee's Address, and Mr. R. K. Sewall's
Response to a Toast.

_Bath Times_, September 1, 1862. An Account of the Celebration.

_Portland Press_, September 6. Mr. John Neal complains of the
arrangements of the Celebration.

_Portland Advertiser_, September 8. Mr. Charles J. Gilman, the Chief
Marshal, replies.

_Portland Transcript_, September 4. An account of the Celebration.

_Brunswick Telegraph_, September 6. An Account of the Celebration.

_Christian Mirror_, Portland, September 9. "A Sermon preached at
Phipsburg, Me., on the Sabbath after the Celebration, by Rev. Francis
Norwood."

_The same_, September 16. Mr. John A. Poor reviews Mr. Norwood's
Sermon.

_The same_, October 7. "Popham Discussion:" Mr. Norwood replies to Mr.
Poor; and "Popham Errata:" Mr. John Wingate Thornton reviews Mr.
Poor's article of September 16.

_New York Journal of Commerce_, November 6. Report of the October
Meeting of the New York Historical Society. Remarks concerning the
Popham Celebration by Mr. George Folsom and Mr. J. R. Brodhead.

_New York Christian Times_, November 20. Fuller report of the same.

_Boston Evening Traveller_, November 21. Correspondence of Rev.
William S. Bartlett, of Chelsea, and Prof. Emory Washburn, of
Cambridge, concerning the Speech of the latter at the Popham
Celebration.


_Congregational Quarterly_, Boston, April, 1863, Vol. v., p. 143-160.
"Colonial Schemes of Popham and Gorges. By John Wingate Thornton,
Esq., Boston." A Speech at the First Popham Celebration, with twelve
and a half pages of "Notes and Authorities appended as proofs."

A few copies of this article were printed, with the following title
page, as--

A PAMPHLET. "Colonial Schemes of Popham and Gorges. | Speech | of |
John Wingate Thornton, Esq., | at the | Fort Popham Celebration, |
August 29, 1862, | under the auspices of the | Maine Historical
Society. | Boston, 1863." 8vo, 20 pp. [This Speech is not contained in
the Popham "Memorial Volume."]

The above was noticed and discussed in--

_North American Review_, July 1863, Vol. xcvii., p. 288.

_Christian Examiner_, July 1863, Vol. lxxv., p. 143.

_Historical Collections of the Essex Institute_, August, 1863, Vol. v.
pp. 175-192; by Mr. A. C. Goodell.

_Boston Review_, November, 1863, Vol. iii, p. 641.

_Historical Magazine_, New York, 1863, Vol. vii., p. 231.

_Christian Mirror_, Portland, April 28, 1863.

_Boston Journal_, August 11, 1863.

_Boston Evening Transcript_, April 24, 1863.

_Portland Transcript_, May 9, 1863.


A PAMPHLET. "The Connection | of the | Church of England | with Early
| American Discovery | and | Colonization. | By the Rev. William
Stevens Perry, M. A. | Portland, Maine. | 1863." 8vo, 7 pp.


Messrs. Bailey and Noyes, of Portland, Publishers, in April, 1863,
issued a circular Prospectus for the publication of the "Memorial
Volume;" soliciting Subscriptions.


"MEMORIAL VOLUME | of the | Popham Celebration, | August 29, 1862: |
commemorative of the Planting of the | Popham Colony on the Peninsula
of Sabino, | August 19, O. S., 1607, | establishing the Title of
England to the Continent. | Published under the direction of the |
Rev. Edward Ballard, | Secretary of the Executive Committee of the
Celebration. | Portland: | Bailey and Noyes. | 1863." 8vo, 368 pp.

Bound with the same:--

"English Colonization in America. | A | Vindication of the Claims | of
| Sir Ferdinando Gorges, | as the | Father of English Colonization in
America. | By John A. Poor. | (Delivered before the Historical
Societies of Maine, and New York.) | New York: D. Appleton and
Company. | 1862." 8vo, [Address, 92 pp. Appendix, 52 pp.,] 144 pp.


"Popham Celebration | at | Sabino, | August, 1863." Programme in
broadside.

The Popham Celebration of August 29, 1863, Mr. George Folsom, Orator,
was reported in--

_Portland Daily Advertiser_, August 31, 1863.

_Portland Daily Press_, August 31, and September 3, 1863.

_Brunswick Telegraph_, September 4, 1863.

_Boston Witness and Advocate_, September 11, 1863.

_Boston Courier_, September 2, 1863.

_Portland Daily Press_, September 30, 1863:
"Popham--Settlement--Memorial and Celebrations." Signed "P." [Mr.
George Prince.]


A PAMPHLET. "The Beginning of America | A | Discourse | delivered
before the | New York Historical Society |on its Fifty-ninth
Anniversary | Tuesday November 17, 1863 | By | Erastus C. Benedict |
New York | 1864." 8vo, 64 pp.


_Portland Daily Press_, January 29, 1864. Notice of Meeting of the
Maine Historical Society, and of Judge Bourne's Reply to Mr.
Thornton's Pamphlet.


A PAMPHLET. "An | Address | on the | Character of the Colony | founded
by | George Popham, | at the | Mouth of the Kennebec River August
19th, [O. S.] 1607. | Delivered in Bath, | on the Two hundred and
fifty-seventh Anniversary | of that Event. | By Hon. Edward E. Bourne,
| of Kennebunk. | Delivered and Published at the request of the
Committee on the Commemoration. | Portland: | 1864." 8vo, 60 pp.


The above was noticed and discussed in--

_Christian Mirror_, Portland, February 21, 1865.

_Boston Evening Transcript_, February 13, 1865; by Rev. George E.
Ellis, D. D.

_Bath Daily Sentinel and Times_, August 30, 31, September 1, 1864.

_The same_, March 16, 1865. "Fort Popham Colony."

_The same_, March 16, 1865. "The Popham Settlement;" by Rev. Edward
Ballard.

_The same_, March 30, 1865.

_The same_, July 7, 1865.

_The same_, September 1, 1865.

_The same_, September 2, 1865; by Mr. George Prince.

_Brunswick Telegraph_, September, 1864.

_Boston Journal_, August 2, 1865.


_Bath Daily Sentinel and Times_, May 3, 1864. "The Fort Popham
Controversy," as to when and where Religious Services were first held
in New England. Signed "D. Q. C." [Rev. D. Cushman.]

_The same_, May 5, 1864. "The First Worship in Popham Colony;" by Rev.
Edward Ballard.

_The same_, September 2, 1864. "The First Sermon in New England."
Signed "Candid" [Mr. George Prince].

_The same_, September 8, 1864. Reply by Rev. Edward Ballard.

_The same_, August 16, 17, 18, 24, 1865. "The Virginia Company's
Northern Plantation;" by Mr. J. Wingate Thornton.

_The same_, August 23, 1865. Reply by Rev. Edward Ballard.


A PAMPHLET. "Remarks | on the | Popham Celebration | of the | Maine
Historical Society. | Read before the American Antiquarian Society, |
April 26, 1865. | By S. F. Haven. | Boston, | 1865." 8vo, 32 pp. [Mr.
Haven's Remarks previously appeared in the Proceedings of the American
Antiquarian Society, at the Semi-Annual Meeting held at Boston, April
26, 1865; pp. 31-60.]


The above was noticed and discussed in--

_Boston Daily Advertiser_, April 27, 1865.

_The same_, August 2, 1865. "Popham Exhumed and Re-interred"; by Rev.
Edward E. Hale.

_The same_, August 26, 1865: "The Popham Colony," by Mr. Charles F.
Dunbar.

_The same_, same date: "The Popham Celebration;" by Rev. Edward
Ballard.

_Portland Daily Press_, August 4, 1865.


The Celebration of August 29, 1865, was reported and discussed in--

_Portland Argus_, August 31, 1865.

_Portland Daily Press_, August 21, 30, 1865.

_Bath Daily Sentinel and Times_, August 23, 1865; by Rev. Edward
Ballard.

_The same_, August 24, 1865.

_The same_, August 30, 1865.

_Boston Journal_, August 4, 1865.

_Brunswick Telegraph_, September 1, 1865.


A PAMPHLET. "Responsibilities of the Founders of Republics: | An |
Address | on the | Peninsula of Sabino, | on the Two-Hundred and
Fifty-Eighth Anniversary | of the | Planting of the Popham Colony, |
August 29, 1865. | By Hon. James W. Patterson. | Delivered and
published at the request of the Committee on the | Commemoration. |
Boston: | John K. Wiggin, | 1865." 8vo, 38 pp.


The above was noticed and discussed in--

_Boston Daily Advertiser_, April 11, 1866: "The Last Popham Address;"
by Mr. William F. Poole.

_The same_, April 21, 1866: "'The Last Popham Address,'" by Rev.
Edward Ballard, D. D.

_Portland Advertiser_, April 26, 1866: "'The Last Popham Address;'" by
Mr. Frederic Kidder.

_Boston Daily Advertiser_, May 31, 1866: "Popham Again and Finally;"
by Mr. William F. Poole.

_The same_, July 28, 1866: "The Popham Colony, 'Finally;'" by Rev.
Edward Ballard, D. D.

_The same_, July 28, 1866: "A Running Review of the 'Popham Again and
Finally;'" by Mr. Frederic Kidder.

_Christian Era_, Boston, June 28, 1866; "The Popham Memorial;" by Rev.
J. D. Fulton.

_The Episcopalian_, New York, May 19, 1866.

_Boston Daily Advertiser_, August 4, 1866: Report of the Meeting of
the Maine Historical Society of August 2, containing a letter by Mr.
John A. Poor, with regard to new evidences found in Carayon's
Relations.


The Popham Celebration of August 29, 1866, was reported in--

_Boston Daily Advertiser_, September 1, 1866.

_Boston Journal_, September 1, 1866.

_New York Times_, September 4, 1866.

_New York Christian Intelligencer_, September, 1866.

_Brunswick Telegraph_, September 14, 1866.


A PAMPHLET. "The Popham Colony | A Discussion of its Historical Claims
| With a | Bibliography of the Subject | Boston | Wiggin and Lunt 13
School Street 1866." 8vo, 72 pp.


       *       *       *       *       *


Transcriber's Notes:

Obvious typographical errors were repaired, but older style spellings
retained.

Hyphenation variants were resolved to most frequently used.





End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Popham Colony, by
William Frederick Poole and Rev. Edward Ballard, D.D. and Frederick Kidder

*** 