Captain Bartholomew Gosnold Standing on the docks at Southampton, felt himself aggrieved. He had been reviled by the whole ship's company for the hungry days at the end of the voyage. He had finally gotten rid of his passengers. The gentlemen adventurers with their shares of sassafras had been transported to Southampton and were on their way to London. Then the blow fell. An agent of the Lord Admiral, from Southampton, intervened -- on information that a cargo of sassafras had been landed. He believed it to be a prize cargo taken from the French or other foreigners and therefore libal to the ten per cent levy due to the Lord Admiral on all prize goods landed. After some discussion, Gosnold got off with losing only part of his share of the sassafras -- keeping the logs intact.
As for Captain Bartholomew Gilbert, his final responsibility was to sail the Concord back to his home port of Dartmouth, which he did. There he turned the twenty-six cedar logs over to one Staplyne of that place, presumably a dealer in fine woods for cabinet work. Gilbert then went in search of his patron, Lord Cobham, who probably had previously known nothing of Gilbert's latest employment: the transportation of Gosnold and his company. Lord Cobham -- Henry Brooke, brother-in-law of Sir Robert Cecil -- was at the time an intimate friend of Sir Walter Ralegh, at least on the surface. One would have thought that if Cobham had known of Gosnold's intention to "settle" in northern Virginia he would have talked the matter over with Ralegh before Gosnold started, in which case much misunderstanding would have been averted. (A year later Cobham was accused of conspiring with Ralegh against King James, tried, and condemned with Ralegh to death, but with sentence for both remitted to life imprisonment in the Tower of London.)
Cobham took Gilbet to Weymouth, where he knew that Ralegh would presently appear. Sir Walter had to attend to the cargo of sassafras, china root and other commodities from "southern Virginia" brought back by Captain Samuel Mace of Weymouth. Ralegh had employed Mace to look for his lost colony, without necessarily sacrificing any profitable trade that might be forthcoming.
When the three met in Weymouth, Gilbert, doubtless with Cobham's help, apparently obtained from Ralegh the promise of employment in another voyage to be sent to Virginia, the voyage which he commanded the following year in the Elizabeth of London and which cost him his life. And for the more immediate present he got employment as bearer of an important letter which Ralegh wrote in haste to Sir Robert Cecil, Secretary of State.
This letter is one of those annoying documents which raise more questions than they answer. As it is the primary importance in the study of Gosnold's expedition of 1602, it is here printed in full.
Sir,
Wheras as I wrate unto yow in my last that I was gonn to Weymouth, to speake with a pinnance of myne arived from Virginia, I found this beareer, Captayne Gilbert, ther also, who went on the same voyage. Butt myne fell 40 leaugs to the west of it [Roanoke], and this bearer as much to the east; so as neather of them spake with the peopell [of the colony]. Butt I do sende both the barks away agayne, having saved the charg in sassafras woode; butt this bearer bringing some 2200 waight [2200 lb.] to [Sout] Hampton, his Adventurers have taken away their parts, and brought it [all] to London.
I do therefore humblie pray yow to deale withe my Lord Admirall for a letter to make seasure of all that which is come to London, eigher by his Lordships auithority or by the Judge: because I have a patent that all shipps and goods are confiscate that shall trade ther, without my leave. And wheras sassafras was worth 10s., 12s., and 20s. a pound before Gilbert returned, hiscloying of the market will ovethrow all myne, and his owne also, Hee is contented to have all stayde; not only for this present: butt, being to go agayne, others will also go and distroy the trade, which, other wize would yeild 8 or 10 for one, in certenty, and a returne in xx [20] weekes.
I desire but right herein; and my Lord Admirall, I hipe, will not be a hinderance to the matter of trade graunted by the Great Seale of Inglande; his Lordship havinge also freedome and an interest in the countrye. A man of my Lord's, of Hampton, arested part of Gilbert's, for the tenths. I hipe my Lord will not take it; [it] belonging not unto hyme; having also hyme self power to trade ther [in Virginia] by his interest. And it were pitty to overthrow the enterprize; for I shall yet live to see it an Inglishe nation.
Ther was also brought 26 cedar trees by Gilbert, which one Staplyne of Dartmouth hath. If my Lord will vouchsaf to write to C[hristopher] Harris to seize them, we will part them in three parts -- to cecil [line] cabinets, and make boards [e.g., chessboards, for book-covers, etc.] and many other delicate things. I beseech yow vouchsafe to speak to my Lord [Admiral]. I know his Lordship will do mee right herein. I, for haste, have not written. For, if a stay be not made, it will be spent, and sold into many hands.
This bearer, Captayne Gilbert -- who is my Lord Cobhame's man -- will find out wher it is. Hee came to mee with your post letter. It is he, -- by a good token [sign], -- that he the great diamonde.
I beseech yow, favor our right; and yow shall see what a prety, honorabell, and safe trade we will make.
Your's ever to serve yow,
W. Ralegh.
[Postscript.] I hope yow will excuse my cumbersome letters and suits. It is your destiny to be trobled with your friends, and so must all men bee. Butt what yow thinck unfitt to be dun for mee shall never be a quarrell, cannot be effected, farewell [to] it! If wee cannot have what we would, in his friend's cause in whatsoever, -- as this world fareth.
Weymouth, this 21 of August [1602].
[Second postscript.] Gilbert went without my leave, and therefore all is confiscate; and he shall have his part agayne.
This letter stands alone -- that is, there are no letters on the same subject preceding it or following it -- from either Ralegh or Cecil. Its intrepretation, apart from certain statements that can be accepted as objective fact, is largely a matter of conjecture. Deductive reasoning sheds some light, but the letter itself raises questions. It is strangely silent on some matters, and seems to betray remarkable ignorance on others. Why was Bartholomew Gosnold's connection with the voyage not mentioned? Why did Ralegh not say that it was a voyage intending to make a settlement, which only by chance turned out to be a trading voyage? Why was there no mention by name of those who were to suffer financial loss through the confiscation of the cargo. Did Ralegh not know that the Earl of Southampton had invested in the voyage, or that the adventurers, Brereton and Salterne, were friends of Hakluyt?
Merely asking these questions brings a choice of three possiblilities, all containing their portion of the truth. The first deduction is that Gilbert had given Ralegh only a partial and naturally one-sided account of the circumstances surrounding the voyage. The second is that Ralegh suspected that Cecil knew more about the voyage than he had chosen to reveal. And the third is that Ralegh was not entirely frank with Cecil, which seems "unthinkable", yet,in an age of fine deception, is not to be ruled out. In short, Ralegh's letter, based on the not entirely veracious Gilbert's tale of the why's and wherefore's of the voyage, was probably a mixture of sincere ignorance, perhaps intentionally beclouded by Gilbert, and hesitant or "tactful" probing into what Cecil knew about the matter.
Turning to the more positive side of the letter, it appears that Ralegh was primarily concerned with not suffering a financial loss because of the unauthorized voyage -- unauthorized by him, and he held the patent. Ralegh was apparently not on too close terms with the Lord Admiral and therefore asked Cecil, whom he did know intimately, to intervene, so that the argument about the sassafras could be settled quickly and informally as a civil action in the Admiralty Court. It is not a question of "politics" in this aspect of Ralegh's letter at all.
Another point that is fairly clear in the letter is that Ralegh did not want the Lord Admiral to seize any part of the cargo, because it was not his to seize. The cargo was not "prize goods", but trade goods. Furthermore, the Lord Admiral himself had an interest in such overseas trade matters -- he was an adventurer in Ralegh's earlier Virginia venture. In other words, without knowing all about the details of Gosnold's voyage as yet, Ralegh seemed to be trying to clarify the picture, and to keep the Lord Admiral as much out of it as possible -- with the tactful insinuation that the latter himself was interested in just such projects as Gilbert was now returning from.
The matter seems, in fact, to have been more serious to Ralegh from the point of view of the Lord Admirl's possible moves than from the point of view of what Gilbert (and Gosnold) had done, in violation of his patent. For that aspect of the story was cleared up in less than two months after the letter was written. Sir Walter was pleased to acept the following dedication of Brereton's Relation:
Honorable sir, being earnestly requested by a deere friend, to put downe in writing, some true relatin of our late performed voyage to the North parts of Virginia; at length I resolved to satisfie his request, who also emboldened me to direct the same to your honourable consideration; to whom indeed of duetie in per teineth. [The narrative proper folows immeddiately.]
Furthermore, on the title page of the litle volume there also appeared the information that the voyage of "Captaine Bartholomew Gosnold, Captaine Bartholomew Gilbert, and divers other gentlemen their associats" was made "by the permission of the honourable knight, Sir Walter Ralegh, &c."
The story of the voyage, the Lord Admiral, and Ralegh's letter becomes twice confounded when, of necessity, another element is introduced. This was a plot that would involve Ralegh, and in bringing about his downfall by association, contribute a tragedy of errors to England's dramatic "Elizabethan" history.
Precisely in the month when Bartholomew Gosnold sailed for America (March, 1602), an unpleasant gentleman named Lord Henry Howard (the second son of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, the Lord Admiral's first cousin), for a multiplicity of reasons was drafting a letter to James VI, King of Scots, outlining the steps of a plot for ruining Sir Walter Ralegh and Henry Brooke, Barron Cobham. Howard, "in whom the truth idd not dwell", had in mind to involve Ralegh and Cobham in treasonable association with Spain, and so to bring about Ralegh's dismissal from high office by Queen Elizabeth. The plot was not set in motion, however, while Elizabeth lay dying, but was ready to be used as soon as James came to the throne of England. Howard's poison worked. James I succeeded Elizabeth on March 24th, 1603, and on May 7th he arrived in London. On May 8th, the new King dismissed Ralegh as Captain of the Guard; on June 7th he sent a peremptory note to Ralegh to vacate Durham House granted to Ralegh by Queen Elizabeth in 1584. By mid-July Ralegh had been arrested, along with Cobham, and sent to the Tower, accused of high treason. Lord Henry Howard's star was rising rapidly at Jame's Court, and the trial and conviction of Ralegh and Cobham followed inevitably.
Gosnold's voyage of 1602 was not a mere incident of maritime history -- a voyage by a man of no significance or importance in English politics -- but was somehow connected, at a critical time, with the vital question of Ralegh's prestige in the minds of the Queen and the public. Unfortunately, it would seem impossible to tie together the ravelled threads of this situation, but the general picture is reasonably clear. Ralegh was inno position, when he learned the names of the important personages back of Gosnold, to antagonize them by persecuting his potential rival in colonization. In the end he was obviously glad to take to himself such credit as he could for furthering Gosnold's voyage.
The question must be asked, therefore, as to whether Ralegh did or did not give permission in advance for the voyage. Ever since Edward Edwards published Ralegh's letter on "Gilbert's" voyage, nearly a hundred years ago, historians have accepted Ralegh's words in the letter as final evidence that he did not give permission, and that in consequence the information printed on the title page of Brereton's Relation was a fabrication.
There is something to be said, however, on the other side. It is quite possible that givbert's sisreqresentation of the voyage as a trading venture under his won command failed to call to Ralegh's memory his permission given some years previously, for a colonization effort by a person or persons not mentioned by Gilbert in his plea for a return of his sassafras. The changed attitude on Ralegh's part, therefore, as it appears in Brereton's Relation, may have been merely a correction of the record to Ralegh's advantage.
There two sound reasons for thinking that Ralegh had given his permission for the voyage, in spite of his hasty denial. To begin with, it is to say the least extremely doubtful that the Rev. John Brereton would have lent himself to a bare-faced misrepresentation in the publication of his Relation. This becomes stronger if it is admitted that Richard Hakluyt, Brereton's friend and neighbor among the Suffolk clergy, was the "dear friend" who urged Brereton to write the book, who persuaded Brereton to dedicate it to Sir Walter, and who became the un-named "editor" responsible for seeing the narrative with its added documents through the press. Hakluyt would have been the last man in all England who would delibertely lend himself to a falsification of a fital fact in the record of a significant overseas voyage.
A second and weightier consideration is the difficulty in believing that Bartholoomew Gosnold would have started out on a voyage to America without Ralegh's permission. Gosnold was a well-educated and well-informed young man, in contact with important people and fully aware of the provileges conferred by a royal patent. He must certainly have known the reprecussions that would follow upon the discovery that he had made an unauthorized voyage to the region included in Ralegh's exclusive right to colonization and trade.
Such a proceeding on Gosnold's part would have been more than a mere trespassing on Ralegh's trade preserves. Ralegh was under severe censure for having lost English lives in his colonization ventures. If Gosnold had succeeded in planting a small colony for a year or more without loss of life, Ralegh would have been made to seem in public opinion a blunderer in his chosen field of activity. The success of a young man without Ralegh's resources would have stood out in painful contrast to Ralegh's failure. While it might be sypothesized that someone put Gosnold up to accomplish this result as a first step in the plot against Ralegh, on the whole the hypothesis would seem ill-founded. It seems therefore untenable that Gosnold would have defied the thunder-bolt of justice by makeing an unauthorized voyage, in defiance of Sir Walter.
Under what circumstances, then, might Ralegh have given a forgotten permission for a voyage, taken by Gosnold to be an authorization of his expedition to northern Virginia? Before suggesting an answer, it may be well to point out, using the only available analogy, that Gosnold himself would have had little or nothing to do with obtaining his permission -- his part being merely to accept appointment under the permission as Captain of the expedition. The analogy is in the record of Martin Pring's voyage from Bristol the following year. The record of that voyage reveals that young Robert Salterne, with a companion named John Angell, and accompanied by the Rev. Richard Hakluyt -- all three representing the merchants of the city of Bristol -- waited upon Sir Walter and obtained his permission to send out an expedition. Martin Pring did not enter into the picture, except as the experienced Captain selected to lead the venture. No doubt any other equally capable mairner would have done so well.
This voyage has come down in the records with the short title of "Pring's Voyage", but if the opening paragraph of the narrative he wrote had been omitted in the printing the question would be when and how Ralegh's permission had been obtained. So in Gosnold's case, while one may be justified in assuming, on the evidence furnished in Brereton's Relation, that Gosnold did sail under a permission granted by Ralegh, it does not necessarily follow that Gosnold himself had anything to do with obtaining that permission.
After long consideration and rejection of several alternative hypotheses, it is suggested, without too much elaboration, that the permission under which Gosnold's company sailed was one granted to Captain Edward Hayes, some time previously. Hayes had been a loyal subordinate to Ralegh's half-brother, Sir Humphrey Gilbert, and had been rewarded by Gilbert's expressed desire that Hayes lead an expedition to search for the bay and Indian kingdom described by Verrazzano -- a project abandoned in 1584. Hayes therefore is by all odds the most likely one to have secured Ralegh's permission for a revival of the project. The appearance of Hayes; Treatise in the little volume called Brereton's Relation, together with the convincing evidence that Gosnold used the Treatise as his prospectus, bears witness to a kind of follow-up character in Gosnold's voyage and ties it to Gilbert's. On that slim basis, then, the assumption is that Ralegh had recognized his half-brother's wishes, had granted Hayes permission for a voyage, had never revoked it, and had quite forgotten about it until it was recalled to him sometime between the date of his letter to Cecil and the date of the publication of Brereton's book. This pure surmise at least is plausible, and it has certain basis in known facts.
There is little more to be said about Sir Walter Ralegh's famous letter, except to call attention to its most famous phrase: "I shall yet live to see it [Virginia] an Inglishe nation." Unwittingly, however, with the same pen and on the same sheet of paper, Ralegh nevertheless demanded financial ruin of the very man who was to be so vital a factor in the realization of Ralegh's prophecy.
In Gosnold's letter to his father, dated September 7th, Bartholomew intimated that he was too busy in London ta take time to visit him. Ralegh had made a good point in his note to Cecil, when he protested that the unrestrained sale of the Concord's sassafras would cloy the market. It may therefore be that when the matter of "permission" and customs duties was settled to everybody's satisfaction, Gosnold and Sir Walter joined forces in restraint of trade to keep up the price of the rare panacea. Otherwise how explain the sassafras continued to be a profitable commodity for import?
Ralegh's first postscript expressed a touching but vain reliance on Cecil's friendship: "methinks it is a great bonde to finde a friend that will strayne hyme self in his friend's cause in whatsoever ..." A year or so later Ralegh was in the Tower of London, under sentence of death. Cecil had not strained himself in his friend's cause -- perhaps quite the opposite. Was it that, like Brutus, he loved his country more?
Within the year following Ralegh's incarceration, Bartholomew Gosnold had begun the talks with nobles, merchants and gentry which won him the sistinction of being called "the First Mover" of the plantation of southern Virginia -- the settlement of Jamestown.
