The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-09-10


wards states the fact, makes the correctloh,
and gives the authority for both the state ;,
meut and tho correction. But MI. Nelti
Intends 10 prove an untruth on Smith ny
showing that both statements were laisc.
He SAYS: "In 1922, latter midsummer, the
Virginia Company OF London, IN pnpliG''-
lion prcparcd by its secretary, conveys thc
/ immersion that the population was not
large. Bya census taken In Fepfuai. y
1923, q. S., there were only l,2'., n HIn
women and children in the colony. u, :
Nei.l has not given US the style OF .nc pe?.
lication referred to, much less where IL Is
to he found; so L cannot examine II.
Thn fact. however, that the company
doomed the number not large, il undlspu-
led. provcs no untruth on Smith, as the cX-
preston is too indefinite to prove anything.
we cannot tell what number the company
considered large Fortunately, however, l
am not entirely in the dark. l lind one
authority which goes far to sustain Smith.
It is MIR. Neil's History OF the London
! COMPANY. At page 336, in publication
made in IG22 by Edward Watcrhouse. under
the auspices OF the company. find the tol-
| lowing: "In the three last years OF 1913,
1920, and 1921 there hath beene provided
and sent to Virginia AZ sale OF ships, 1910
men and women for plantation" DC. AS
the company had shipt to Virginia supplies
Of men regularly since its settlement IN
| 1907, OF whom no accurate account had
| been kept, they or some. OF them, mlght
well have supposed in 1922 that there were
seven or eight thousand there. At page
| 4oj OF the same volume ind III paper
presented by the company in 1923 to the
| King the following: .sThey say also that
Notwithstanding the late massacre and the
great mortality which hath since ensued oc-
c,sioncd BY the effects OF said massacre,
there are vet remayningc alive in that Col
| ony OF Virginia to the number OF aboutc
$500 persons whereof good proofc Is to be
made" 1t would thus seem that year
later the company had reduced its estimate,
and adopted the figures Smith says the
| Council furnished, still claiming, however,
about double what the census is said to
have shown taken in 1925.
The next complaint against Smith Is that
he wrote in 1851 these words: ''Now, be-
cause | sent not their ships fulirauSht nome
with these commodities (sllk, ralslns'
pruncS, flax, &c.) they (thc London Compa'
NV write me il we failed the next return,
they would leave Us there as banlshed
men," Smith was made President in Sep.
tcnber, 1908. Captain Newport arrived
with the second supply for the Colony in
1909, and returned carrying the intelligence
OF Smiths election, and the next ships that
came brought news OF Il change in the gov
crnment, resulting in the appointment OF 4
President or Governor in England.
MI. Neill says it is improbable that the
company ever wrote this threat TO Smith
while acting as president. The lcttcroi the
company was evidently sent by Captain
| Newport when lie came IN 1G0S with the
second supply. 1t was probably directed
simply to the President OF the Colony, as
that officer was changed every year, and
they did not know who he would be when
| their lettcrarriyed. When Newport arrived
with this supply he found Smith had been
elected President, and OF course delivered
the letter 10 him. Hence Smith speaks OF
the letter uS sent to him. His reply 10 1t Is
ciycn in full at y. 200, vol. l, OF the General
History, edition of 1929. 1t commences
thus, Fright Honorable" &c.
Il received your letter wherein you write
that our minds are so set upon faction ana
idle conceits in dividing the country With
out yoIlr consents and that we
must expressly follow your instructions
sent us by Captain Newport, the charge OF
whose voyage amounts to nearc TWO tnou-
sand pounds, the which il we cannot ac-
fray by the ships rcturne we are aliKc TO
remain as banished menu Further on ne
saws he sends with the letter "mappe OF
the Bay and Rivers, with an annexed rela-
ton OF the countries and nations that III
habit them" This letter was sent ny New
Dort on his return in 1900, and The map,
&c. were published in 1912, rs part OF
what is called 1.-THE Oxford Tract" VI
course the freight complained OF by the
London Company was that sent back on the
return OF the ships which brought over the
first supply to the Colony. At pages 40
and 172 it will be seen that Smith had caused
one OF these ships to be loaded With CEDAR
on its return. ,...,
AS to the fling ut Smith, conveyed in the
foljowium words and italics Of Mr.. Ncill-
.sSmith was elected President, as he says,
at the request OF the company u need
only cite Ptuchas, vol. 4, p. ZIG, where,
in quoting from tie writings OF Richard
pots and William birthplace, he says !:
..Thc 10th September, lGOS, by the election
Of the Counce!l and request OF the company,
| Cantajn Smith received the Letters Iatcncs
and tooke upon him the place OF president,
which till then by no means he would ac-
cent, though he were often impoftuhcd
thcreunto."
Mr.. Neill attempts TO show inconsistency
in Smith, in that lie said III lG0S that kat
cjifc, the President, had hurt his hand,
which was not yet recovered; WINE III loo9
he saws he (Smith) went to England because
there was "neither chlrurgeon nor ch'Iuf'
pery IL the Fort to cure his hurt Can All.
Neill say that Radcliffe was rs Dadiy hlrt as
Smith. or that the same chirurgeon was in
Jamestown in 1909 that was therein zoos! Ii
he means to insinuate that Smith was moi
hurt. rs he states, would refer him to Pur.
chas again, at page 1880, where upon the
same authority, Pots and birthplace, the cir
cImstanccs OF his injury are given. This
writer also gives the reasons for Smiths
lpoyino the Colony-one Of which was THAI
there was "neither chirurgeon nor chlrur
gerry in the Fort to cure his hurt, and "sc
9rieyo,,s was his wounds, and so crucll his
torments few expected he could live" DIR
Neill can make no case against SMITH Dy
reason OF the fact that Archer, his enemy
who aided in trumping up the frivolous
charges against him, mentions no other rea
son for his return to England than those
charges. We find that others have related
the circumstances leading to his return, ano
that these charges were gotten up by MS
enemies after he had determined to go bach
TO England.
In Conclusion Mr. Neill makes remark
able statement. He says: wv. w. Ii
always quotes from Smith, the man I'M
Deached, or from Purchas, whose state
ments were made on the authority OF smith,
I need only say to any one who has rcau m!
letters that the fact is exactly otherwise
Instead OF quoting from Smith to prove
Smiths statements, | have only quoted IRON
him to show that he was not inconsistent
as has been charged on him. have, besides
quoted from the writers Of the oxford tract