Henry Wriothesley was a youth of high intelligence, but inclined to be impetuous and heady. His friends and mentorys found it necessary to spend a great deal of time in getting him out of trouble. Through the death of his father in 1581, Henry became the third Earl of Southampton when he was eight years old. He was straightway made a ward of the Crown and placed in the "close custody" of William Cecil, Lord Burghley, the strong , man among Queen Elizabeth's Ministers and Master of her Wards. The relationship was probably a bit trying for both of them.
When Henry was twelve he was sent off to the University of Cambridge, where he took his degree at the age of sixteen, the age when many boys of his generation were about to enter the University. He travelled abroad to complete his education, until he was presented at Court in his seventeenth year.
One of the happiest results of lod Lord Burghley's guardianship of the young Earl was that the lad was brought into intimate contact with Lord Burghley's son, Robert Cecil. Robert had brains -- more than enough to offset the deformity caused by a very early fall from his nurse's arms -- and what is more, he had a pleasing personality, a gentle and patient manner. We can picture Robert Cecil, barely twenty-one, welcoming the eight-year-old Earl to his father's household, and becoming very fond of the lad. This was fortunate for Henry, because in the course of the years Robert Attained a position which enabled him to restrain the Queen's rage when Henry's impetuosity involved him in grievous offenses against the Crown.
A typical and well-known anecdote about the young Earl, then aged twenty-four, tells of a gambling game in which he, Sir Walter Ralegh, and another gentleman participated, playing in the Presence Chamber of the Queen after the Queen had retired for the night. Unable to sleep, she sent one of her squires to ask the gentlemen to desist and depart. They paid no heed to him. The squire then threatened to call the guard, and Sir Walter Ralegh got up and left, breaking up the game. The next day the Early met this squire between the tennis-courts and the garden and, in a flare of temper, struck the man. The squire retaliated by pulling out some of the young Earl's shoulder-length hair. When Queen Elizabeth heard of the incident she thanked the squire and briefly banished the Earl from Court.
This happened just before Southampton left for Paris with his friend Cecil, by then knighted and Secretary of State, who had been entrusted with the delicate mission of representing the Queen in pending negotiations for peace between France and Spain. The Earl at the time had been having an affair with one of the Queen's Maids of Honor. While he was in Paris, he heard that she had borne him a son, and he hurried back to marry her -- without the Queen's permission. He then returned to Paris, hoping that the Queen would not hear about his presence in London and the reason for it. The Queen, however, could not but learn the whole story. She sent for Southampton and had him committed to the Fleet Prision for a few days for behaving himself "to the dishonour" of her Court.
Southampton had been a devoted admirer and follower from his fifteenth year of Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, seven years his senior. He was constantly at Essex's side. By the time he was twenty-three he obtained command of the Garland, one of the ships of Essex's expedition to the Azores. Two years later, in 1599, Essex appointed him Lord General of the Horse in Ireland -- against the Queen's express command. Southampton was not yet twenty-six.
The tragic story of Essex's revolt against the Queen two years thereafter is too well-known to need retelling here. Suffice it to say that he dragged Southampton into the mess as his chief co-conspirator. Both were tried, condemned to death, and sent to the Tower. Essex was executed, but Robert Cecil persuaded the Queen, despite ""Southampton's "record", to commute the sentence to life-imprisonment.
While he was in the Tower Southampton conceived the idea of bettering his financial fortunes through a considerable investment in the voyage planned by Bartholomew Gosnold -- a voyage intended to start a settlement among Indians who, according to Verrazzano, were plentifully supplied with gold.
The phase of the story is told in language typical of the times by a contemporary named William Strachey, writing about 1611-1612. After discoursing on Sir Walter Ralegh's failures in colonization, Strachey had this to say:
[The colony] lay neglected, untill yt pleased god at length to move againe the heart of a great and right noble Earle amongst us. 'Candidus, et talos a vertice pulcher ad imos'
["Shinning, yea handsome from the head to toe" Horace] Henrye Earle of Southampton to take yt in consideracion and seriously advise how to receat and dippe yt anew into spirrit and life, who therefore (yt being so the will of the eternall wisdome, and so lett all Christian and Charitable hearts much scrutiny after the Country to examyne the former proceedings togither with the Lawfulnes and pious end thereof, and then having well weyed the greatnes and goodnes of the Cause, he lardgly contrybuted to the furnishing out of shippe to be Comaunded by Captayne Bartlemew Gosnoll and Capt Bartlemew Gilbert and accompanied with divers other Gentlemen, to discover a convenient place for a new Colony to be sent thither who accordingly in March anno 1602 from Flamouth in a Bark of Dartmouth called the Concord sett forward holding a Course for the North-parte of Virginia."
William Strachey was a "second-generation gentleman" (like his contemporary, William Shakespeare, whose Tempest was based on Strachey letter) who went out to join the colony at Jamestown, Virginia, arriving there after being wrecked on the reefs of Bermuda in May, 1610. He served for a hear as Secretary and recorder of the colony, succeeding Gosnold's friend Archer, who died during the winter 1609-1610, as Recorder. Between the fall of 1611 and the end of 1612, Strachey prepared the manuscript but it remained incomplete and unpublished when he died in 1621.
Strachey had no comopunction about using the wording of other men's reports as his own, but there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of his statement about the part played by the Earl of Southampton in the sending forth of Gosnold's voyage. In the first place, Strachey had opportunity in Virginia to talk with young Anthony Gosnold, the son of Bartholomew's first cousin, and probably with others closely associated with Gosnold -- per haps even with some who had been with Gosnold on the 1602 expedition. In the second place, Strachey made three known copies of his manuscript, each dedicated to a different person, which undoubtedly were seen by people who could easily confirm or deny the facts during Southampton's lifetime. In the third place, Strachey's chapter on Gosnold's voyage used, in large part, the wording of Brereton's Relation -- in other words, Strachey had in his hands that printed work of 1602, which, on its title page in its dedication, mentioned only Sir Walter Ralegh, with no reference whatever to the Earl. Nevertheless, in the last copy of his manuscript, presented to Sir Francis Bacon in 1618, the chapter on Gosnold has this heading: "The success of the good ship called the Concord, set forth by the Earl of Southampton, and commanded by Capt. Bartholomew Gosnoll, for discovery upon a right line, falling about Sachadehoc."
There can be no doubt that Strachey intended this chapter heading to be a supplement to the information found in Brereton's Relation. A reasonable inference would been to be that Southampton's name had been omitted in the publication of 1602 because he was then under condemnation as a traitor, imprisioned in the Tower under sentence of death.
At this point another of those startling coincidences that have come into light in the study of the small world of Bartholomew Gosnold's environment must be noted. During the year in which the Earl ofSouthampton, a prisoner, was apparently making up his mind "to set forth" the expeditionof Bartholomew Gosnold, Gosnold's cousin-by-marriage, Thomas Smythe, was also in the Tower, accused of complicity in the same "revolt.". (Essex had obviously relied upon him for assistance, as one of the two sheriffs of London.) Smythe was soon exonerated, but it is quite possible that he and the Earl, fifteen years his junior, met and talked inside the Tower walls. Smythe's financial resources were not affected by his brief imprisonment -- Southampton's were. The possibility exists that Gosnold's 1602 voyage came of meetings between Smythe and Southampton. If so, the link must hav e been the Earl of Essex.
At the time of Essex's mad act, Smythe was Sheriff of London, Essex is reported to have been under the impression that Smythe would provide him with a thousand men to help him carry through his plot. The Sheriff,however, was much too sensible a man to do anything of the sort. Instead, he tried to persuade the Earl to surrender himself to the Lord Mayor of London. When ths was proven, Smythe was released.
Why did Essex expect such help? There were business connections of a sort, but Smythe had resisted Essex's attempts to insinuate "distinguished friends" into purely mercantile matters -- that is, Smythe and his associates, for he was not yet the magnate he later became. More likely the tie was a slim family connection, through marriages. In one way, Essex's wife was a daughter of Sir Francis Walsingham by his second marriage, and Sir Francis, by his first marriage was brother-in-law to Smythe's aunt. In another way, Essex's stepfather was Sir Christopher Blount and Thomas Smythe's third wife as Sarah Blount. Sir Christopher was sifficiently involved in the "revolt" to be beheaded on the Tower Hill also. Nevertheless, nothing may be proven by this. There is not enough documentary evidence , and a blood-relationship between Sarah and Sir Christopher is uncertain. There is , however, considerable reason for postulating some sort of tie between Smythe and Essex, and by virtue of that, some sort of tie between Smythe and the young Earl of Southampton whose idol was Essex.
Granted, on admittedly slight grounds, that the Earl and Sheriff had opportunity and reason to confer during their imprisonment, the matter of improving Southampton's postion would surely have come up -- Smythe's release being clearly a matter of letting the law take its course. Putting the cart in front of the horse for the moment, the result was that the Earl, inveterate gambler that he was, resloled to gamble on an expedition in search of wealth or fame in America. Then, it may be suspected, Smythe told the Earl about Bartholomew Gosnold, who was to be in charge of an expedition originally promoted by Captain Edward Hayes -- or who might be put in charge, if such an expedition got beyond the planning stage. Furthermore, Richard Hakluyt (here it is recalled that Southampton was far from illiterate!), whose geographical counsel had aided Thomas Smythe in his newly organized East India Company, was also interested in Gosnold's voyage to America. Somehow, for somebody's benefit, it seemed fitting that the Earl of Southampton should be associated with the overseas project, still very much sub rosa, involving Gosnold.
Even discounting Smythe's participation in the planning of Gosnold's voyage, Southampton's circumstances undoubtedly constrained him to lay the whole matter before his mentor and savior, Sir Robert Cecil. Further, the Rev. Richard Hakluyt was at the time Cecil's Chaplain, as well as his intimate advisor on geography and English overseas expansion. Cecil, indeed, must have given his unofficial approval, otherwise the Earl would not have dared to go ahead with the project.
On the title page of that small book called Brereton's Relation, printed immediately after the return of the voyagers, is the statement that Sir Walter Ralegh had given permission for the expedition, which may or may not be true. In the short dedication to Sir Walter, Brereton intimated that because of his high station, a report on the voyage was due him; but nothing was said to indicate in any way that Ralegh had anything to do with "setting forth" the voyage.
The omissdion of any reference to the earl of Southampton is understandable, as it would have been most impolitic to reveal to the public this praiseworthy activity on the part of the prisioner in the Tower. But when Strachey wrote his account ten years later, the situation was reversed. Southampton was a free man, enjoying high favors from King James. It was Sir Walter Ralegh who was in the Tower then. Strachey found no reason, therefore, to magnify SirWalter's part in Gosnold's expedition, even assuming -- which is highly doubtful -- that he had any part whatsoever, or had even given him permission to go. (It must be remembered that Sir Walter had cetain rights in North America.)
If it is true, as it appears, that Southampton (although openly conforming with the Chruch of England) harbored only the friendliest feelings for the "old Faith", it may be that Southampton's interest in Gosnold's project was motivated by the hope of a colony in which persecuted Catholics might find refuge. On the whole, however, it seems more likely that he was moved by the expectation of an immediate return of gold from the region described by Verrazzano, which was to be from the region described by Verrazzano, which was to be Gosnold's destination. To make this clear, it seems desirable to run ahead of this story, and beyond its scope as a study of Gosnold, to tell about the Earl's later adventures.
Shortly after Kings James; accession to the throne of England, he not only released Southampton from the Tower, but appointed him Governor of the Isle of Wright for life. About ten years later, having deferred action for reasons entirely unknown to us, Southampton decided to have a further investigation made of the island discovered by Bartholomew Gosnold. He fitted out a ship of the Isle of Wright commanded by a Captain Edward Harlow and sent it out, according to a very brief report made by Captain John Smith, to search for this island supposed to be somewhere about Cape Cod.
It would appear that the Earl had harbored a doubt all these years as to whether Gosnold had made a thorough search for gold, as expected for him. It is also evident that the Earl had not been furnished with precise sailing directions for reaching the island named Martha's Vineyard by Gosnold, which Brereton had discribed as being four miles in compas. Harlow found no such island -- which is not surprising, because there is every reason to believe that Brereton's report had purposely been made misleading. But Harlow did, somehow, get into Nantucket Sound where he found a large island which the Indians called "Ca;awack". This was in fact the island that Gosnold had named Martha's Vineyard.
Harlow's only accomplishment was to capture Indians at various places, whom he took with one exception, back to England for interrogation. Among them was one named Epenow, made prisioner at Capawack. After the voyagers returned to England, Epenow was taken to London. The story is told both by Sir Ferdinando Gorges and, more briefly, by Captain John Smith. In the words of Smith, Epenow was "a man of so great stature, he was shewed up and downe London for money as a wonder." Gorges himself interrogated Epenow as well as other Indians, but his account appears to be confused. In any event, by 1613 or 1614 all Plymouth andother West Country men associated with Gorges knew that Capawack and Martha's Vineyard were the same island.
The presistent questioning of Epenow had finally given this native an idea as to ow to get himself taken back home. He told his captors that there was indeed gold on his home island, Capawack -- Martha's Vineyard -- which he would gladly show them if they would return him to his own place. He would not reveal where, however, until he was actually on his own soil. At last the gold to be had in the region south of Cape Cod was within Southampton's grasp! For the third time, the Earl decided to risk his money in a gamble to get gold.
With the help of Sir Ferninando Gores, Southampton fitted out a ship under the command of a Captain Hobson and sent him, in the words of John Smith, "in search for the Mine of Gold about an Ile called Capawuck, South-wards from the Shoules of Cape James -- Smith had renamed Cape Cod to win some slight favor form the King. The ship was provided with a small troop of soldiers from the Isle of Wright.
When the ship anchored in the harbor at Capawack, some time in June, 1614, the people of Epenow's tribe came out to the ship to engage in what seemed to be the usual friendly bartering. Taking advantage of this, Epenow, although firmly held by several English guards, was able to arrange with his people for escape. On the following day the natives again came out in their canoes. As they approached the ship, Epenow broke away and leaped overboard. The Englishmen were immediately assailed with showers of arrows and their return fire was ineffectual. The ship was forced to give up the battle, departed in haste, and returned to England with nothing to show for the large expenditure except the wounds of the members of the expedition. This ended Southampton's attempts to get gold from Gosnsold's Martha's Vineyard.
Meanwhile, in 1605, a broad farce called Eastward Hoe had been written and played in London, ridiculing those who sailed to America for gold. One character says: "Who would not sell away competent certainties to purchase, with any danger, excellent uncertainties? Your true knight venturer wver does it. In a later scene, the expectation of easily-found wealth across the ocean is caricatured in the following passage, a parody in part of fanciful report made by David Ingram in 1582:
I tell thee, gold is more plentiful there than copper is with us; and for as much red copper as I can bring, I'll have thrice the weight in gold. Why, many, all their dripping-pans and their chamber-pots are pure gold; and all the chains with which they chain up their streets are massy gosl; all the prisioners they take are fettered in gold . . ."
