Chap VI.} 1651 |
1652 Mar. |
Chap VI.} 1651 |
1652 Mar. |
1 Let the reader consult the instructions themselves, in Thurloe, i. 197, 198, or in Hazard, i. 556—558, rather than the commentary of Chalmers.
2 Clarendon, b. XIII. 466, 467. It is strange how much error has been introduced into Virginia history, and continued, even when means of correcting it were abundant and easy of access. Clarendon relates the matter rightly. See also Strong's Babylon's Fall, 2, 3, and Langford's Refutation, 6, 7. These are all contemporary authorities. Compare also the journals of the Long Parliament for August 31, 1652. So, too, the Act of Surrender, in Hening, i. 363—365, which agrees with the instructions from the Long Parliament. Compare also Ludlow, 149: ‘This news being brought to Virginia, they submitted also,’&c. Clarendon, Strong, Langford, the public acts, Ludlow, all contemporary, do not disagree. Beverley wrote in the next century; and his account is, therefore, less to be relied on. Besides, it is in itself improbable. How could Dutch merchantmen have awaited an English squadron? The Netherlands had no liberty to trade with Virginia; and Dutch ships would at once have been seized as prizes. Virginia had doubtless been ‘whole for monarchy;’ but monarchy in England seemed at an end. Of modern writers, Godwin, History of the Commonwealth, III. 280, discerned the truth.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.