Dec. 6. 1851.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



449 



sail of vessels, " in his prosperous returne from 

 the sacking of Saint Domingo." Sir Francis gave 

 the colonists, who had suffered severely from 

 " scarsitv," the means of returning to England, 

 which they did, leaving Virginia on the 18th of 

 June, and arriving at Portsmouth on the '28th of 

 July, 1586. Governor Lane was greatly blamed 

 for his precipitate desertion of the colony. Hariot 

 wrote a description of the country, which occupies 

 fifteen folio pages of Hakluyt. Hallam (in the 

 passage quoted by Me. Breen) is correct in de- 

 scribing Hariot as the companion of Raleigh ; for 

 that he was, and very much esteemed by him : but 

 he is wrong in making it appear that they were 

 together in Virginia. 



In the meantime Raleigh at home was far from 

 being forgetful of his colonists, although they 

 seemed so little inclined to depend upon him. He 

 got ready no less than four vessels: various delays, 

 however, occurred to retard their sailing ; and 

 Raleigh at last getting anxious started off one of 

 them as a " bark of aviso," or despatch boat, ns it 

 is called in one of the old accounts. It arrived at 

 the site of the colony " immediately after the de- 

 parting of our English colony out of this paradise 

 of the world;" and "after some time spent in 

 seeking our colony up in the countrey, and not 

 [of course] finding them, it returned with all the 

 aforesaid provision into England." Thus Hakluyt, 

 page 265., who also states that it was " sent and 

 set forth at the charges of Sir Walter Raleigh and 

 his direction ; " expressions surely inconsistent 

 with any supposition that ho was on board of this 

 bark of aviso; and yet it would appear, from the 

 Introduction of Sir Robert Schomburgk, already 

 referred to, that this was the identical occasion on 

 which Raleigh was erroneously supposed to liave 

 visited Virginia. As what Sir Robert says is very 

 important, and bears very directly on the question, 

 I quote his words : 



'■It lias been asserted by Theobald and others, that 

 Sir Walter Raleigh himself accompanied this vessel, 

 which he sent for the relief of the young colony ; such 

 may have been his intention, as Captain Smith states 

 in the first book of his General History of ^'iryinia ; 

 but we have so many proofs that Sir Walter did not 

 leave England in that year, tliat we are surprised tliat 

 such an erroneous statement has found credence up to 

 the present day." 



This is a strong opinion of Sir Robert, and if 

 borne out by evidimce, wimld be conclusive ; but, 

 in the first place, his reference to Smith's Virginia 

 is incorrect; and besides. Smith, for anything he 

 relates prior to 1606, i« only second.ary evidence. 

 His book was published in 1624, and is reprinted 

 in Pinkerton's Votja<res {\fi\'l). On reference to 

 it there I can find no such intention attributed to 

 Raleigh ; and in fact Smith's account is tnanifestly 

 taken from Hakluyt (1599), who, it is well known, 

 had his information on these voyages chiefly fiom 



Raleigh himself* In the second place, it would 

 have been well if Sir Robert had mentioned some 

 distinct proof that Raleigh was in England on 

 some one day that the vessel was absent, rather 

 than generally stating that he did not leave 

 England during 1586. Unfortunately, there is a 

 want of precision as to the exact dates when the 

 vessel left and returned to England : enough is 

 said, however, to fix upon the two months at least 

 from the iOth of May to the 20th of July as being 

 embraced in the period during which she was on 

 her voyage. In Hakluyt it is stated that she did 

 not sail until "after Easter:" in 1586 Easter 

 Sunday was, by my calculation, on the 3rd April. 

 The 20th of May is therefore a liberal meaning to 

 attac'n to the expression "after Easter." She 

 arrived in Virginia "immediately after" Drake 

 sailed, on the 18th of June. Say then that she 

 even arrived on the 19th June; only spent one 

 day in searching for the colony ; and took thirty 

 days to go home ; this would bring us to the 20th 

 July. It will be noticed that I narrow the time 

 as much as possible, to strengthen the evidence 

 that would be gained by proving an alibi for Sir 

 AValter. If it can be shown that he was in England 

 on any one day between the 20th May and the 

 20th July, the supposition that he went on this 

 occasion to Virginia must be given up as unte- 

 nable. I have therefore directed my inquiries to 

 this point. In the sketch of the life of George 

 Clifford, Earl of Cumberland, given in Lodge's 

 Portraits, a work certainly not of indisputable 

 authority, but tolerably correct notwithstanding, 

 I find the following statement : 



" His [Cumberland's] fleet consisted of three ships, 

 and a pinnace, the litter commimded by Sir Walter 

 Raleigh. ... It sailed from Gravesend on the 26th of 

 June, 1586; but was repeatedly driven back by con- 

 trary winds, and could not finally leave England till 

 the end of August." 



Now, if this were quite correct, it would be 

 conclusive, that if Sir AValter Raleigh sailed from 

 Gravesend on the 26th June, he could not have 

 started from Virginia to return to England on the 

 20th of the same month. I thought it well, how- 

 ever, to verify this statement of Mr. Lodge, and 

 had recourse to my old friend Hakluyt as usual. 

 I there found (vol. iii. pp. 769. et seq.) that on 

 starting from Gravesend, there were oidy two 

 vessels called respectively the Red Dragon and 

 the Clifford ; these vessels arrived at Plymouth 

 on the 24th of July, and were there detained by 

 westerly winds until the 17th of Autrust, when 

 they — 



• What Smith really says is, speaking generally of 

 all the V!)yagi's, that llalelgh's occasions and employ- 

 inents weie such that he could not go hiirusclf ; but he 

 says nothing about his intentions specially as to this 

 particular voyage. 



