The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-03-22


A Repu, % nv. Alexandra Browns
Comnsents ON Mr.. IGsnry's Lecture.
IFor the DispaHh.I
" YOUR issue Of Mare, 9th Mr.. Alexaii-
dc z Brown makes an attack upon the paper
e,n Captain John smith and Pocahontas
read by Hon. William Writ Henry before
orr Historical Society at liz last annual
meeting. Mr.. Brown states that ne mas
mndc the early history OF Virginia an espe-
cial study for years. but he has evidcn'i!
not vet exhausted the subject, and when
he has an opportunity OF reading Mr..
Henry's lecture (which he did not
hearl he will no doubt derive much
information from the numerous autbori-
ties cited In support oil the statements
therein advanced. In noting the attacks
Of Mr.. Deane and the Rev. Mr.. Neil upon
smith, Mr.. Henry did not detract from the
"rcal and valuable services" rendered TO
Virginia historians by their publications.
Indeed. Mr.. II0nry quoted from the pre-
face to the "True Relation as reprinted
by Mr.. Dcane, 60 prove that SMITHS ac-
count OF his rescue by Pocahontas was not
mentioned by him for the first time after
her DEATH In that preface TO the edition
Of IGOS its publisher, who signs himself
81. H." SAYS that " somewhat more was
by him written, which being thought I'M
to be privatel i would not adventure TO
make public" -,
In his letter to the Queen In 1916 Smith
states that his rescue had already been
mentioned in approved histories, and llntll
Mr.. Brown and the other detractors OF
Smith can find these missing pages OF the
"True Relation" they cannot justly call
L. Ntrla1 i.h
1924, "latter-day statements
Edward Maria Wingfeld, whose Dis
course on Virginia" was reprinted by Mr.
Dcane, appears 60 Mr.. Brown to be "man
Of Standing, and entitled TO a hearing and
resnecffuI considerations" As far as Smith
was concerned, Ningfield does not deserve
this character, since he himself admits
that he was fned G2O0 for SANDER OF
smith. At Smiths instance, and by
the apparently unanimous vote OF the
Council, he was deposed from the
presidency OF the colony, and sent back TO
England, where he wrote his book to dc
fend himself from the charges brought
against him. This c200, by the way. smith
did not appropriate TO his own use, but
gave in support OF the colony, which had
been left in deplorablc condition 10y the
Encouragement of its former president.
Had the Rev. Mr.. Neil been content
with simply copying the manuscripts in
publishing the "Virginia Company Of
London" his contributions 10 Virginia
history would have met with unreserved
praise; but his o~n composition is 80 filed
with inaccurate statements about smith
the real founder of Virginia, whoever else
continued TO nourish and support the feeble
colony after his final departurc-t.at Mr.
Henry might well take up the lance in his
defence. The Rev. William Stith. so far
from attacking Smiths yeracity. distinctly
states in the preface to his book that he be-
lieves every statement made by smith on
his own authority to he true.
Mr.. Brown thinks it is doubtful whether
smith wrote the letter TO the Queen in
1910, and says it was supcruous. Us Poca-
hontas was in better condition TO aid
Smith than he to aid her. When he reads
Mr.. Henry's paper he will be satisfied that
the letter was genuine. and he will find by
again looking ut Smiths history that when
he wrote the letter he was expecting 10
leave England for New England, and did
not expect to meet Pocahontas, and that so
far from needing help. he was in the en-
ploy OF a company OF merchants who were
endeavoring to settle New England.
Dir. Brown is mistaken in saying that
smith did not leave the company in pros
porous condition, as he will find by con-
sulting the "OXford Tract" OF 1912, which
is q compilation Of the writings OF the colo
nistS. The bad condition Of the colony
came by the Encouragement after Smiths
departure, and il was then that the attempt
was made to abandon the settlement. which
was stopped by the arrival OF Lord La
war;. better known as Lord Delaware.
Mr.. Brown had no authority for saying
that Smiths claims for services rendered
were not allowed by the Virginia Company
of London. The dissolution Of that COM
pany soon after the claims were preferred
prevented their payment, but a speech Of
Smith before the company, given by Rev.
Mr. Neil, goes far to prove that the claims
were allowed. Dir. Browns efforts to i'm
peach the veracity OF Smiths companions,
because they wrote bad poetry, may show
him to be an aesthetic, but add nothing TO
his laurels as historian. He will also
find from Mr.. MurTy's paper that he docs
full Justice to Lord Lawarr, whom Mr..
Brown claims to have been the "real
founder" OF Virginia, but who only built
upon the foundations laid by Captain
Smith. Il.
RICHMOND, March IL.