The Popham Colony, in fine, was a scandalous and complete failure. The thing, as an historical event, was dead and buried. The grass, for more than two centuries and a half, had kindly grown over it, obliterating even from the memory of man the spot where those disgraceful scenes were enacted. In the year 1849, the Hakluyt Society of London printed Strachey's narration, and furnished a clew to the burial place. Nothing would satisfy a few excellent people in Maine but to dig up the sickening remains, and flaunt them under the nostrils of the community. Here was an offense against decency and sanitary regulations, indictable at common law. In cholera times the proceeding is insufferable.

No one imagines that the Popham investigators commenced operations with any other than the amiable motive of contributing to the historic glories of their native State. But they knew not for what they were digging. Their first mistake was, that, when they came to the putrid mass, they did not carefully replace the sod, and say nothing about it. Instead of this, every man shouted "Eureka!" They arranged a monster gathering, and invited all creation to celebrate with them the Two-hundred and Fiftieth Popham Anniversary. People came from the ends of the earth; enjoyed a generous Eastern hospitality; "drank water, if not inspiration, out of the existent Popham well" (Query—Is "Sabino" quite sure that the inspiration came from the well?), believed as much as they could, and had a good time generally. Perhaps history manufactured in this way will stand; but we think not.

Because historical writers have presumed to examine and question their theory, they have grown sullen and morose. They abuse Massachusetts; they spit at Plymouth Rock; they berate the Puritans; they eulogize Sir John Popham; and they sigh for a system of mediæval barbarism which Popham and Gorges could not plant on New England soil, because God, in his mercy to the human race, had decreed otherwise.

The true historic glory of the noble State of Maine seems to have been lost sight of, in the antiquarian researches of her zealous sons,—which is, that the State sprang from the loins of Massachusetts. To this fact, the State to-day is indebted for every one of those distinctive elements of general intelligence, enterprise and thrift that make her what she is,—a New England State, instead of a feudal Virginia or a South Carolina. The Massachusetts Puritans came in early, and took possession of the land, under a technical construction they gave to their own charter, organized municipalities, set up their churches and schools, and put down with a strong hand all opposition to their authority. The historian of New Hampshire has given a faithful picture of the social condition of the Gorges plantation on the Agamenticus (York) River, when the Puritans commenced their missionary operations.

"The people were without order or morals, and it is said of some of them, that they had as many shares in a woman, as they had in a fishing-boat.... No provision was made for public institutions, schools were unknown, and they had no ministers, till, in pity of their deplorable state, two went thither from Boston on a voluntary mission." Belknap's American Biography, i. p. 387-8. See also Hutchinson's Collections, p. 424.

The appearance of the Puritans among them did not to the Gorges men seem joyous, but grievous; nevertheless afterward it yielded the peaceable fruit of civilization and godliness unto them who were exercised thereby. The territory was thus saved from the ethics of Popham, the prelacy of Laud and the Stuarts, and the barbarism of a colony of outlaws. The civilization of the District of Maine, during the colonial period, was as essentially Puritan, as that of Massachusetts Bay; and the District was represented in the General Court at Boston, from the year 1653. This close political and social union continued till the admission of the State into the Union in 1820.

It is the privilege, therefore, of the historical writers of Maine, to turn from the unpleasant topic that of late has engaged their attention, to the more congenial theme we have suggested. Let them, with filial affection, recount the virtues and deeds of their Puritan ancestors; and, if they must have an event to celebrate, let it be the landing on Plymouth Rock in 1620, or the arrival of Winthrop and the Charter in 1630,—events which are theirs to celebrate, as well as ours.

P.

P.S.—We ought perhaps to acknowledge Mr. Kidder's kindness in sending to us a corrected copy of his article in the Portland Advertiser, in reply to our notice of Prof. Patterson's Address. The article still has so many literary and historical errors, that it would be unkindness to its author to review it in its present condition. We can imagine the inconvenience of having one's writings printed so far from home. If Mr. Kidder will furnish us with another copy, still further revised, we promise to give it all the attention it deserves.

P.

[Boston Daily Advertiser, July 28, 1866.]
THE POPHAM COLONY, "FINALLY."

To his criticisms, both merited and unmerited, I desire to bow in meek thankfulness. They are merited only as the imperfections were the result of haste in writing on the eve of a journey. Though they may injure the advocate, the cause stands as impregnable as ever. The unmerited are to be attributed to the indistinctness of my rapid penmanship. If our articles shall have the fortune to come to a second edition, he will not be sorry to see that his sagacity has been made useful in aid of my argument.

As to the pervading personalities in the communication, I have but little to say. Of my position and acts in connection with the commemorations of the colony, it asserts matters which never existed, and attributes to me motives which I have never entertained. These allegations do not change the facts of history. It is because of this personal phase of the discussion, that I propose to make no farther reply to your correspondent, even if he should attempt a sur-rejoinder. I do not know him. But he seems to know me, in this connection, more than well,—more than I know of myself, or any one knows or can know of me.

In ascribing to me the origination of the celebrations of the Popham Colony, the communication ignores the fact, that the "founding" thereof (and I use the word in its dictionary sense) was commemorated, in "a bi-centenary celebration," by the Rev. Dr. Jenks, "with a party of gentlemen, in 1807." So that, if there could be claimed any virtue for an Episcopal origination of the commemorative visit to Sabino,—which has never been claimed by any one acquainted with the facts,—this early act by this lover of the olden days would take it all away. Indeed, I have had nothing to do with the later celebrations, as their "original inventor and patentee," in any sense whatever. Its suggestion even was not Episcopal, but simply historical. I have been only auxiliary.

The communication has not a little to say about the bad traits of character in Chief Justice Popham, as displayed in a portion of his early manhood. But it wholly neglects testimony—elsewhere cited—to traits of an opposite kind, appearing in his more matured years. This evidence appears in the writings of his cotemporaries, who speak of him in terms of high commendation. Whatever might have been his earlier life, the path of repentance and amendment was open for his entrance. After his marriage, he changed his early courses; and by his diligence in his legal studies qualified himself for his later eminent position. When Strachey, Smith, Croke and Mather, writing after his death, and of course after his character was completed, call him "the upright and noble gentleman," "that honorable pattern of virtue," "a person of great learning and integrity," "the noble lord," with other words of approval, and none of censure, a reader of the paper cannot but wonder that the better part of his later life was not noticed as well as the worse parts of his earlier. Fuller has placed him among the "Worthies," and says: "If Quicksilver could really be fixed, to what a treasure would it amount! Such is wild youth seriously reduced to gravity, as by this young man did appear."

The opinion of Lord Campbell in his favor should not be neglected by an impartial seeker for truth. He is severe on most of the Chief Justices, not sparing even the good Sir Matthew Hale. His commendations are therefore the more valuable. In his "Life" of this Chief Justice, he describes the particular traits to his discredit, when, with other young men, he entered on his illegal acts on the highway; and then says, "We must remember that this calling was not then so discreditable as it became afterwards." He speaks of the change in his purposes; his diligence as a student; and, after some quotations, presented in this discussion, he says, "He held the office (of Chief Justice) fifteen years, and was supposed to conduct himself in it very creditably." "Many of his judgments in civil cases are preserved, showing that he well deserved the reputation which he enjoyed." "On the trial of actions between party and party, he is allowed to be strictly impartial, and to have expounded the law clearly and soundly." "I believe that no charge could justly be made against his purity as a judge."

And then, as to the reasons why censures were brought against him, this biographer says, "Yet, from the recollection of his early history, some suspicion always hung about him, and stories, probably quite groundless, were circulated to his disadvantage." "Of these we have a specimen" about "Littlecote Hall." It is "unfair to load the memory of a judge with the obloquy of so great a crime, upon such unsatisfactory testimony." A distinguished ruler—more exalted than Popham, whom Palfrey calls "that eminent person"—once wrote, "Remember not the sins of my youth."

If he was called "the hanging judge," it was because criminals were to be punished. Lloyd says, to his credit, that "the deserved death of some scores preserved the lives and livelihood of some thousands; travellers owing their safety to this judge's severity many years after his death." Aubrey says the same.

But, if all were true, as alleged to the disparagement of the Chief Justice, is there so necessary a connection between him and the colonists at Sabino as that they, except the ten men in office, must therefore have been "villains and convicts"? He certainly has on all sides the praise of having been the earliest and the most active promoter of colonization on our wild New England shores. In this relation he gained the distinct commendation of Hubbard, as "the first that ever procured men or means to possess New England,"—"the main pillar" of the enterprise, with not the remotest allusion to any such acts in its accomplishment as are mentioned by your correspondent. His statement leads one to think, that he regarded these early movements as preparatory to the settlements in Massachusetts. He certainly has said nothing that can lead us to suppose he connected "convicts" with Popham's efforts.

There is a statement made, derived from Strachey's use of the word "prepared," in two instances, as though this preparation consisted chiefly in furnishing convicts for transportation to Sagadahoc. Where is the proof? There is not a word in the context to warrant any such application, and indeed no where else. One of the "prepared" expeditions was captured by a Spanish fleet, and the men held in a kind of piratical duress. The communication proceeds to say, in condemnation of the old historians and Popham, that "no word of sympathy was expressed by the old writers for the persons enslaved by the Spaniards; nor did Popham, so far as we know, make any attempts to rescue them from their hard fate." Alas! where is the proof of this sweeping assertion? Exactly opposite was the fact. His humane regard for the captives was forthwith put into action. It would have been well for the furtherance of history, if one well versed in "the old writers" against Popham had also seen and produced a single testimony in his favor. Take one sentence from Gorges, relating to this Spanish capture: "The affliction of the captain and his company put the Lord Chief Justice to charge and myself to trouble in procuring their liberties, which was not soon obtained." This citation is enough to show his efforts for their release, and proves great humanity on the part of this "noble patron of justice and virtue," as he has been well described; and that he was not herein "a heartless wretch," as your correspondent writes, and furnishes no proof of his allegation.

The quotations from Lloyd—himself mostly valuable for his quotations—are prominently presented, as bearing on the character of the colonists. He says that Popham "provided for malefactors." But that is no certain proof that he sent them to Sagadahoc. The plan and its completion are different things, and its completion was not necessarily here. "He first set up the discovery of New England to maintain and employ those that could not honestly live in the Old." But this proposal, this "setting up," if made in regard to Sagadahoc, does not prove that the suggestion was ever carried out. With the singularly imperfect knowledge of foreign geography, that has always characterized English education, all Virginia seems to have been New England, and vice versa. New England was North and South Virginia. We admit the plan. We demand the proof that convicts were banished to this region. Besides, where is the inhumanity of the proposal, or its fulfilment? It was intended to save the lives of criminals, who otherwise would have been hung, according to evidence and the laws of their time; and doubtless the culprits condemned would have deemed the provision merciful, that by banishment allowed them to live.

The quotation from Sir William Alexander has been often made; and it is valuable, as coinciding accurately with the views expressed in my communications. His book is rare; and I take his words from your columns:—

"Those that went thither being pressed to that enterprize, as endangered by the Law, or their own necessities, (no enforced thing prouing pleasant, discontented persons suffering while they act can seldom have good success and neuer satisfaction) they after a Winter stay dreaming of new hopes at home returned back with the first occasion."

Here we are accurately taught that the people—that is, the laborers in the colony—went "as endangered by the law, or their own necessities." How were they "endangered"? By what "law"? By what "necessity"? A writer of that time furnishes the reply,—in the crowded population, the poverty of the working class, and the encroachments of their rich neighbors; and urges emigration as the relief. He writes the following:—

"Look seriously into the land, and see whether there bee not just cause, if not a necessity to seek abroad. The people do swarme in the land as young bees in a hive in June: insomuch that there is hardly room for one man to live by another. The mightier, like old strong bees, thrust the weaker, as younger out of their hives. Lords of manors convert townships, in which were a hundredth or two hundredth communicants, to a shepheard and his dog. The true laboring husbandman, that sustaineth the prince by the plow, who was wont to feed many poore, to set many people on work, and pay twice as much subsidie and fifteenes to the king for his proportion of earth, as his landlord did for ten times as much; that was wont to furnish the church with saints, the musters with able persons to fight for their soveraigne, is now turned laborer, and can hardly scape the statutes of rogues and vagrants.... The poore metall man worketh his bones out and swelteth himself in the fire; yet for all his labor, having charge of wife and children, he can hardly keep himselfe from the almes box.... The poor man receiveth very neere four pence for every sixepeny worth of work. The thoughtfull poore woman that hath her small children standing at her side and hanging on her breast, she worketh with her needle and laboureth with her fingers, her candle goeth not out by night, she is often deluding the bitterness of her life with sweete songs, that she singeth to a heavy heart.... I warrant you her songs want no passion; she never saith, O Lord, but a salt teare droppeth from her sorrowfull heart, that weepeth with the head for company with teares of sweetest bloud. And when all the week is ended, she can hardly earn salt enough for her water gruel to feede on upon the Sunday."

Surely here is a picture of extreme poverty,—fully corroborated by a document in Mather,—showing how "the land grew weary of her inhabitants;" and how "children, neighbors and friends, especially the poor, were counted the greatest burdens." It tells us how the honest yeomanry and worthy laborers of that day were harassed by the encroachments of their "mightier" neighbors, and the rigid oppression of the civil law. They were "endangered" through no fault of their own. One cannot but recall a part of the petition of Agur,—"lest I be poor, and steal" to support life. But are we to consider such men as "rascals and villains"? And were any such men, sentenced, as men of guilt, to go forth as a part of the colony? Symonds here gives a full and sufficient interpretation to the meaning of Lloyd and Alexander.

Let us now see who had the power to sentence and fix the place of exile. The Statute of 39 Elizabeth c. iv, 1597-8, to which your correspondent refers as being ample enough to cover "the plan of colonizing by banishment of convicts," authorizes this penalty for "dangerous rogues," who "shall and may lawfully be banished out of this Realme and all other the Domynions thereof." This was to be done "by the Justices of the Peace" at the "Quarter Sessions." Not a word is said about the Chief Justice. The place to which they were to be sent was to be decided "by the Privie Council;" and thus, certainly, not by Popham alone. So that, if there were shame in the transaction, the most honored men of the nation were equally involved in the disgrace. It is unfair and ungenerous to single him out to meet a purpose, as the sole object of obloquy and rebuke.

And now, as to the return of these persons to England. Your correspondent, assuming that a part of them were convicts, truly says, in agreement with his assumption, that they would not be "over-anxious to revisit their native land. They had saved their necks once by emigrating, and were not in haste to put them again into the halter." And so he invents the story about a second pinnace, with which they could "lead generally a wild and free life, such as was congenial to their character and dispositions." This is a precious statement; but it happens to be directly opposite to the citation fearlessly made from Sir William Alexander, which declares that "Those that went thither,—as endangered by the laws,—dreaming of new hopes of home, returned thither with the first occasion." None were left behind. If they had been convicts, they would have pursued some such plan as is intimated by your correspondent, and not have gone back to the hazard of certain death. For the statute last quoted enacts, "if any such Rogues, so banished as aforesaid, shall returne againe into any part of this Realme or Dominion of Wales without lawful Lycence or Warrant so to do, that in every such case such offence shall be Fellony, and the Party offending therein shall suffer Death as in case of Fellony." This was but poor encouragement for convicts to seek their native shores. The winter had been hard. But Captain Davies, who had borne news of the "success" of the enterprise to England, had come back to Sagadahoc in the spring, "with a shipp laden full of vitualls" and other useful things, so that starvation had no horrors; and the summer was at hand. Sir William testifies that they had "new hopes" inviting them to go home. But, if they were condemned criminals, what "new hopes" could have been cherished by men who had nothing to expect but certain detection, by the letter R "branded in the left shoulder," for identification, as soon as they stepped on their native shores; and penal death as its sequel? These "hopes" must have been "new" indeed, if they rested only on a halter, a hangman, and a gallows! Here your correspondent and one of his chief witnesses entirely disagree. The former says, they "were not over-anxious to revisit their native land," fearing the halter. The witness says, that "they returned back with the first occasion"—hasting, and hopeful of a better condition than the one they had left. The one says, that, as liberated jail-birds, they led a roving life here, fearing death at home. The other, in effect, says they had a happy voyage to England, with bright anticipations of a more prosperous life!

We may now look at the kind of men who were to go as settlers to the early colonies on our coast. The Charter of James, April 10, 1606, under which this colony was formed, gives the information. It proves that the specially enumerated patentees, "they and every one of them, shall and may, at all and every time and times hereafter, have, take, and lead in the said voyage, and for and towards the said Plantations, and Colonies, and to travel thitherward, and to abide and inhabit there, in every the said Colonies and Plantations, such and so many of our subjects as shall willingly accompany them or any of them, in the said voyages and Plantations."

The reader will note the sole condition annexed, as to the persons selected to go: "such and so many of our subjects, as shall willingly accompany" any or all of the patentees. Can any language be plainer? Force by the sentence of the civil law is not here thought of. The "willingness" of the "honest," hard pressed yeomanry, seeking to better their livelihood, is here provided for. The "willing" ones are allowed to go, except such as, by the royal power might "be specially restrained." So that the real rogues, however "willing" to go, might thus be forbidden, lest they should contaminate the honest men, described by Gorges, who, "not liking to be hired out as servants to foreign states, thought it better became them to put in practice the reviving resolution of those free spirits, that rather chose to spend themselves in seeking a new world, than servilely to be hired out but as slaughterers in the quarrels of strangers." The same provision existed in the patents to Gilbert and Raleigh. Yet no one has supposed that these leaders took convicts.

Yet this is not all. The same Charter of 1606 expressly provides: "that all and every the Persons being our subjects, which shall dwell and inhabit within every or any of the said several Colonies or Plantations, and every of their Children, which shall happen to be born within any of the Limits and Precincts of the said several Colonies and Plantations, shall have and enjoy all Liberties, Franchises and Immunities, within any of our other Dominions, to all Intents and Purposes, as if they had been abiding and born, within this our Realm of England, or any other of our said Dominions." Now, if the Popham Colony was composed of convicts, how enviable their condition! The sentence of the law did not touch them, except in words! They still had all the "Liberties" of the most innocent Englishman on his native soil! They were "subjects,"—"loving subjects," as the same class of "willing" emigrants were called in the Charter of 1609. What "convicts" ever had such "Franchises and Immunities" since the world began? Their state was nothing less than perfect freedom! They were, therefore, no convicts at all; and so could return home safely, and with "new hopes," just as soon as they deemed the change desirable.

In double confirmation of this fact, we may go to the Charter of 18 James, Nov. 3, 1620, which speaks of the efforts made in divers years past, in the Northern Colony, by former grantees, who had "taken actual possession of the Continent," and had "settled already some of our People in Places agreeable to their Desires in those parts." This, certainly, is very far from sustaining the opinion, that the occupants of Sagadahoc were convicts. For they were settled in a place "agreeable to their Desires," until calamities darkened all their prospects. It is worth noting here, that Lord Campbell says nothing about Popham in connection with convicts and the colony. This omission is significant.

A question is proposed, with an air of confidence, as if its answer must demolish the positions of my former article. It is this: "Will 'Sabino' please point out the 'law' under which James sent off a hundred convicts in 1619, that did not exist in 1606?" The demand is adroitly made, but not pertinently. To make it touch the point, it should have been 1607. My reply is readily given.

The statute for the punishment of rogues by banishment, already noted, (39 Eliz. ch. iv.,) expired by its own limitation, in 1601; when it was renewed, to continue till the end of the first session of the next Parliament, which was held in 1603-4. It was then re-enacted, (1 James, ch. iv. and xxv.,) when the additional provision was made, that persons condemned under its sanctions should be branded on the left shoulder with "a greate Romane R," for their detection in case of their unlicensed return, so as to secure the death of the offender, "as in case of Felonie." This statute was to continue "until the end of the first session of the next Parliament" (ch. xxv.). I have no means at hand of knowing the precise date when this session closed; but the Parliament itself ended on May 27, 1606, and the statute was not revived. The temper of the king and that body was shown in the statute (3 James ch. xxvii.) entitled, "An acte for the King's most gracious generall and free Pardon." The next Parliament began Nov. 18, 1606, and ended July 4, 1607. Such was the forbearance of the supreme legislature in relation to the transportation of condemned criminals, that the session passed away, and the law, that had expired by its own limitation, was allowed to remain in this state of its natural death. Transportation seems not to have been in favor.

Therefore, from "the end of the firste session" of the Parliament whose final session was terminated May 27, 1606, till after the Popham Colony sailed, May 31, 1607, there was no statute of transportation in existence.

A re-enactment of the law, or rather a law for punishing rogues by the workhouse, and not by transportation, was not made until the Parliament beginning Feb. 9, 1609. This was four days more than a year after George Popham's death, and a year and a half after the death of the Chief Justice. So that here was at least an interval of more than two years and three-fourths, when there was no law for the exile of convicts from the royal dominions. In this space of time, the Popham Colony had its beginning, its continuance and its end,—beginning more than a year after the law had died; continuing through the larger part of the year; and ending nearly another year before it was revived, in a very different form, and with a milder penalty. During this period, no law appears in the "Statutes of the Realm" for the transportation of convicts; and it is perfectly incredible that any persons were so sentenced by the justices of the peace, and sent to Sagadahoc under any sanction of the highest judicial authority in the realm, with the specific designation of the place by the Privy Council.

The preamble of the statute of 1609 for "punishing rogues" makes known the inactivity of the magistrates in the enforcement of former provisions, and the desuetude into which this law had fallen. It declares that the earlier "Statutes had not been duly and severely putt in execution." Therefore the requisitions are made stronger, to bind the proper officers to their more stringent execution, in regard to "Houses of Correction." Transportation is not even hinted at. This previous easy state of affairs on this topic shows that the rigor of expulsion, ascribed to Popham, is a thought of later times.

It is also to be noted, that the Charter of 1606 is in strict harmony with the fact that the expired law had not been revived. Among the twenty-seven Acts of 3, 4 James, 1605-6, and the thirteen of 4, 5 James, 1606-7, no one appears on the pages to authorize the exportation of criminals. Those who went to either of the Virginias were to go "willingly," and enjoy their "liberties." If, in any other book of laws besides the "Statutes of the Realm," if there be such, or by any new and singular interpretation of any provision there can be found a rule requiring the transportation of convicts, it will not thence follow that any were sent to Sagadahoc. For the Charter will still say that only volunteers were to go, who should be free men as long as they remained in connection with the company.

I did not refer to Ogilby and Chalmers as original authorities, but as good investigators. The former has been long known. My favorable opinion of the latter is drawn from the Preface to his "Introduction to the History of the Revolt in the American Colonies." Your correspondent seems to undervalue him. But to sustain my estimate, I may quote the expressions of the American editor of the above-named volumes. "His works are deemed to possess much merit as the result of profound research and a discriminating judgment."—"His official station gave him access to all state papers."—"He took advantage of this opportunity, to investigate in its original sources the history of the colonies."—"His work (Political Annals) has ever been quoted with entire confidence and respect; and this circumstance speaks clearly in favor of the author's candor and honesty." When he speaks of no earlier transportation than 1619, I have been ready to give him credit. Your correspondent refers to him as writing, "that the policy of sending convicts to the plantations originated with King James, and that in the year 1619 he issued an order to send a hundred dissolute persons to Virginia." I am content with this statement. Bancroft thinks "some of them were convicts: but it must be remembered that the crimes of which they were convicted were chiefly political;" and political felons, as well as those whom in the same volume he calls "the Puritan felons that freighted the fleet of Winthrop," were "endangered by the law;" and yet not for this reason to be regarded as tainted in the least with moral guilt. His opinion, too, is that there was never sent to South Virginia—for he seems not to have heard of the accusations brought against the northern colony—any "considerable number" of persons convicted of "social crimes;" "certainly not enough to affect its character." This statement may be taken as a sufficient reply to the charge that Popham "stockt" the plantations out of "all the gaoles of England." Indeed, all that Bacon, nearly twenty years after his colony had ceased, and other far later writers have said, on the topic contained in the quotation from him, relates to the later affairs in the southern colony; and can be connected with Popham only as he was a prime mover in the enterprise of colonization, carried on after his death. It cannot be shown that they had Sagadahoc in mind. Weber, as "revised and corrected" by Professor Bowen, adheres to 1619.

Against a remark of mine, the communication states, that there was "no later occupancy of New England till the Pilgrims arrived in 1620." I said "the Popham Colony was followed by a succession of occupancies, that proved title." I say so still. I did not mean that all these occupancies were colonies. They were at Monhegan, by Sir Francis Popham and Captain John Smith; at Pemaquid, by the annual visits of the English from Virginia; at Mount Desert, by Argall; at Saco, by Vines; at Plymouth, by the Pilgrims and by numerous others, after that great and memorable event in our national history. They were made under the protection of the Charter of James in 1606; energetically promoted in the outset by Popham, "the first to procure men and means to possess New England;" and sustained for years at great expense by Sir Ferdinando Gorges. In this connection I wish to supply an omission noticed by your correspondent, where I said, that the colony "proved title as against the former and never-revived claims of France." "West of the Kennebec" was in my mind, but not written. I thank him for the correction, as it strengthens my position. It would have been better to have said, "the French never had any possession on the coast, west of the Kennebec."

As to the settlement of Gosnold, I have before shown that it was not a "chartered colony." It was deserted on the day when its small house was scarcely fitted for a permanent dwelling. It was "undertaken on private account;" asserted no general claim; proved no title; and was not renewed.

The powder and cannon stories appear to be singularly confused by Williamson. His misplaced footnote referring to the History of King Philip's War has misled us both. It is made as authority for the latter, when it should be for the former, and the tradition (I quote from memory) is from "an ancient mariner." As it is unsupported, it can hardly be claimed as history. As to the cannon story, one of our best antiquarians thinks that it has had no earlier mention than is found in Morse and Parish, about two centuries after its alleged occurrence, as derived from the Norridgewock Indians. Such a tradition is of very little account. If these stories had been true, it is marvellous that the "speechifying" Indians round about Arrowsic should not have told their prowess and their sufferings to the listening Jesuits in 1611. It may be well to know that a valued New Hampshire historian locates the narrative about the cannon at Dover, N. H., in the time of Waldron, when a large number of Indians were captured by stratagem. If the servants of the colony set dogs on the meddlesome Indians, the wise men in council in a later colony in New England, as Hazard gives it, decided to employ "mastiffe-dogs" to hunt down Indians in 1656. Why not blame both?

That portions of the population in Maine were corrupt, after settlements were dotted along the coast, is true. Deterioration often follows colonization. For all the influence for good that Massachusetts has spread, here and elsewhere, all ought to be glad, though here it was somewhat irregularly introduced. The celebrations at Sabino Head are not intended to detract from the merits of Plymouth Rock. They were many. It is no harm to wish that they had been more.

The letter of Mr. Kidder relative to the "pretty pynnace of about thirty tonne," is again referred to by your correspondent. What are we to understand by the few notices of her history? Simply this, that on "August 28," "the carpenters labored about the building of a small pinnace." Their first act was to prepare the timber from the surrounding forest,—not necessarily of "green pine," where the ridge bears oak, maple and spruce now, and perhaps did then,—and put it into shape for future use. It was left to season during the autumnal months. Then, after Captain Davies returned to England, with an account of the "forwardness of their plantation," on the 15th of December, the seasoned timber was "framed," and the craft completed, as the "Brief Relation" says, "notwithstanding the coldness of the season and the small help they had." For reasons satisfactory to the leaders of the colony, after Captain Davies returned to them, Strachey says "they all ymbarqued in the new arrived shipp and in the new pynnace, the Virginia, and sett saile for England." Gorges says they "all resolved to quit the place, and with one consent to [go] away." Sir William Alexander says, "Those that went thither ... returned back with new hopes." The "Briefe Relation" says the news from home "made the whole company to resolve upon nothing but their return with their ships; ... having built a pretty bark of their own, which served them to good purpose, as easing them in their returning;" and asserts "the arrival of these people here in England,"—of course, the same "people" who embarked, and in the same "ships" in which they commenced the voyage. Any other interpretation will be a violent perversion of language. As to any persons of the colony remaining to be rovers on the coast in another supposed pinnace, it will be time enough to consider that conjecture, when proof shall be brought to change it into history. It will be "credulity" to answer such a "demand" on our faith, as long as it is unsupported by evidence; and we shall still believe that "The Virginia" was not, perhaps the first craft of the Northmen, French, Basques, Dutch, or Indians, of whom we were not thinking—but was the pioneer ship of the English people in the new world, and was a striking proof of the skill and enterprise of the laboring colonists, with Digby, the London shipwright, as their head in her construction.

But, whatever may be said of the enterprise or its details, whether favorable or unfavorable, the true and single point for grave consideration is the prominent fact, that a colony was founded at the mouth of the Kennebec under the charter of James, 1606, which Popham "certainly was a chief instrument in procuring," and that this was the first thus laid in New England under English sway.

No personalities, no imputation of sinister and never existing motives, no disparagement of the character of the prime movers and later advocates,—for Gorges has been blamed as well as Popham,—no reproaches thrown upon the laboring colonists, and no finger of derision pointed at the failure of their purpose, should turn the reader of history away from this path. The leading minds in England, with the King as their friend, were actuated by the desire to turn to good account the discoveries of the early navigators; the reports of fishermen returning from our coast, and the more systematic researches of Gosnold, who, Strachey says, came "for discovery;" and Weymouth, whose narrative, and Pring, whose exact description pointed out the Kennebec as the place for speedy occupation. Emphasis was given to the determination of the associates, by their bearing with them a charter and a constituent code of laws, carrying out the principles of the English Constitution. An expedition of that nature, and at that time, required relatively much more of thought, energy and means than one of ten times its numbers and power would do at the present day. The fact, that it came directly to the Kennebec, shows that its course and destination did not depend on any capricious views of its commander; but were in accordance with a previously matured plan "for the seizing such a place as they were directed unto by the council of the colony." Its approach near to the claimed territory of France implies a previous knowledge of the coast, and a purpose to take possession within the chartered limits, fully up the undisputed boundary line. This occupation, and those made in the few following years, were called in the patent of 18 James, Nov. 3, 1620, the "actual possession of the continent;" thus showing how exalted a value was placed on these incipient, though feeble measures, by the highest authority in the mother land. The commercial purposes of the undertaking at Sagadahoc were not all. A religious purpose was connected therewith, and carried on during its continuance. Its great purpose was to secure title within the territory granted to the company. Signal disasters attended the later part of its life; and, though it failed commercially, Gorges "had no reason greatly to despair of means." In its historic influence, and in its opening the way for immediate and successive efforts, it was, in the words of Maine's most worthy and distinguished living historian, "one of the steps in the grand march of civilization."

As such, and as the first chartered "step" on our rock-bound coast by "English hearts and hands," we have thought it proper to do it honor; and this too as persons united in no one single denomination of Christians. We have taken pleasure in aiding to bring before the appreciative mind of the community "this initial point in the history of the settlement of New England," and its bearing on subsequent settlements along our shores. We have thought that the Charter of 1606 gave life to this and other enterprises. It was in harmony with its design and privileges, that "the King's Majesty and the bishops consented" to the wishes of the people at Leyden to remove to this land; and so far gave them the aid of the Church, which Mather says was not possessed with the spirit of persecution against them, though some of its members indulged that folly. The several documents following this leading instrument of title and occupation, such as the enlarged charters, "The First Plymouth Patent," and the patents issued for the benefit of Maine and Massachusetts, are traceable to this source, and to the able men concerned in its origination and provisions. So that, in a pure and great historical fact and its sequences, we have had enough to warrant our past commemorations. It is no fault of ours, that other colonies came earlier and later, and did not build a sea-going vessel in this northern latitude in the first year of their stay. We rejoice where they were successful, permanent, and a blessing to the world. But why cannot we be allowed to celebrate an event, one of the greatest of its times, without being taunted with sayings, which, while bearing bitterness, need the support of evidence; and with words which, however amiably they may have been intended, boldly represent us as culprits, "indictable at common law"?

In taking my leave of your columns, courteously allowed for this discussion, I regret that I have been compelled to occupy so much space. But much more would have been needed to rectify all the applications of the quotations from the old writers, who, so far as the colony of Sagadahoc is concerned, must be explained in harmony with the Charter of 1606, which provided only for "willing" men to join in the enterprise, and continued to them all the franchises of Englishmen at home. I wish now only to add, that I stand not alone in my opinions about the Popham Colony. Persons of the highest historical authority in the State and elsewhere support the same view. One of these, the late Bishop Burgess, had designed to write at length on this debated subject. He had been in correspondence with the present Duke of Somerset for information on one part of its history. He had already said, and patriotically too, of the chaplain of the colony, "Seymour was the first preacher of the Gospel in the English tongue, within the borders of New England, and of the free, loyal and unrevolted portion of these United States. Had he inherited all the honors of his almost royal grandsire, they would have given him a far less noble place than this, in the history of mankind." But the fatal illness of this eminent historical scholar has prevented the intended gift of his deliberate and final testimony in defence of the claims here set forth in behalf of "that northerne colony uppon the Sagadahoc."

Sabino.

[Boston Daily Advertiser, July 28, 1866.]
A RUNNING REVIEW OF THE "POPHAM AGAIN AND FINALLY."

By referring to the Supplement of the Daily Advertiser of the 31st of May, I see that "pool" has again overflowed, and the result is a wishy-washy everlasting flood of nearly four columns in small type, some of which seem to be a reply to the fairly-written statements and comments of "Sabino;" but the most of it reads very much like one of Van Buren's old messages with which we were served annually, some twenty-five years ago, while in barefaced effrontery it much resembles the speeches of Jeff. Davis and Wigfall, at the commencement of the late rebellion. Let us wade through this mass of matter which reaches from the voyage of Noah to the latest raid on the Pophamites; and here let me remark, that the writer handles that ancient navigator's character very much as he does Chief Justice Popham's, looking only at its worst side. Why does he not assert that his ark was built of "green pine," and no one would embark in it, or, if they did, they went a fishing, and never arrived at Mount Ararat; for there is just as much evidence of this as there is in his assertions relative to the vessel built at Sabino. But let us follow the writer, and see how he replies to "Sabino." First, he finds great difficulty in understanding what all others clearly appreciate, and this accounts for many of his misstatements, for if a man cannot understand the truth, how can he communicate it? Secondly, he gives us a short lesson on style; but finally concludes "that, after all, it is greatly a matter of taste for which there is no accounting." I agree with him on this point; and, as evidence of what his taste is, let me make an extract from his description of the discovery of the locality of the Popham Colony. "Nothing would satisfy a few excellent people of Maine, but to dig up the sickening remains, and flaunt them under the nostrils of the community. Here was an offense against decency and sanitary regulations, indictable at common law. In cholera times the proceeding is insufferable. Their first mistake was, that when they came to the putrid mass they did not carefully replace the sod." Does this read like a review from a student of history? Does it not more likely resemble the report of a city scavenger, when the cholera is expected? Then, next, comes a quotation from Lord Bacon's essays on plantations in general, published about twenty years after the Popham expedition; and it is difficult to see what it has to do with the Popham Colony. If it could be referred to any one in particular, it must have been the then transporting of such people as he talks of to Virginia. Next, he asserts that the Colony only occupied "a few acres of ground on the promontory of Sabino." Will he tell how many more acres were really occupied at Jamestown or Plymouth the first six months of their existence?

Then comes a repetition of the old traditionary story published doubtingly by Williamson. A venerable New England writer says, "tradition is the biggest liar in the world," and, in this case, I certainly acquiesce in his assertion, and I doubt if any respectable historian would think of repeating so questionable a tale. In speaking of the end of the colony, by reason of the death of the two Pophams, he says, "did it ever occur to 'Sabino' that his colony must have had a slender foundation to have fallen into ruins at the death of two out of a hundred and twenty persons?" Will he tell us how many more than the death of the two most prominent persons at Plymouth would have caused its abandonment during their extremity in the spring of 1621? Certainly, not many. Then comes near a column of abuse on the Chief Justice, with abundant extracts from his biographers which may all be true; but, if so, his appointment and continuance on the bench was a disgrace and shame to Queen Elizabeth and the leading men of her reign. And then he comes to that cannon story again. Did it ever occur to him, that, if the statement were true, the returning colonists would have related it at home? For such things always come out; and the Pophamites had as bitter enemies there as P. is, and so it would have been a part of the authentic history of that expedition. Have there not been much worse outrages on the poor Indian all over our country since? And then he repeats his doubts about the arrival of that pretty pinnace in England, of which there can be no more question than of the return of many of the early emigrant ships which carried back passengers who were known to have reached there, while there is no mention of the ships.

But he states "Brief Relation says nothing about the arrival of either vessel: it records simply the arrival of these people here in England." Well that out-Herods Herod: how does he expect they got there? He certainly knows they embarked in both vessels, for Strachey says, "Wherefore they all ymbarqued in this new arrived ship and in the new pynnace, the Virginia, and set saile for England." Now, I advise this learned pundit to look among his mass of newspapers; and, if he finds the London Shipping List of that time, he may be enlightened. And if he still doubts let him ask the opinion of any of our best writers on New England history, and my word for it he will not find one to indorse his views. One, certainly, whose opinion is of the greatest weight, and as anti-Popham as himself, has given a decided negative to his assertions.

And now comes a long dissertation on the blessings that have been experienced in Maine, by Massachusetts extending its government over it. Some of these moral reflections may be true, but many of the inhabitants of that territory did not then see it. I certainly agree with him in his appreciation of the energy and intelligence of the settlers of Maine and their descendants. They are equal to, and very much resemble, those of the other New England States; but what this has to do with Popham, he don't tell us. And, finally, he undertakes in a note to give the writer of that famous letter about the ship a kick, by stating that a writer in a Portland paper has had his article badly printed by having it done so far from home; and, when revised, he will give it the attention it deserves. Very kind.

Having made a somewhat rapid survey of his three or four heavy columns, "a mighty maze, and yet without a plan," I will look at his famous first attack, or, as the writer in the Portland Advertiser calls it, "the fire of his skirmish line;" and will now give his assertions there a passing notice, glancing over his attack on the Memorial Volume, the defence of Gorges, and his abuse of their authors, who are perfectly able to defend themselves, and may do so hereafter. He talks strongly about "historical verities:" let us see how fairly he treats authentic history. And first, will he tell us where he finds the colonists called "convicted felons," "cowards, Old Bailey convicts and knaves?" and that "they had saved their necks by emigrating," etc., etc.? Can he point to the book and the page for these "historical verities"? He may it is true quote a writer who says "many of them were endangered of the law." So were many of the Plymouth colonists,—to their honor, when we consider what law was, and what protection human rights had under James I.

Again, let us look at his assertions relative to that "pretty pinnace." In his "first consideration," he argues that a sea-worthy vessel was never built by the colonists; and, by inference, would make us believe that it was not built at all, saying "there was not time between the 15th of December and spring to build a sea-worthy vessel,"—when not a person but himself who ever perused "Brief Relation" or "Strachey" doubted the building and sailing for England of such a ship. Next, "that they had no need of a vessel." As if they did not know their own wants better than we do. Can there be much doubt it was the intention of the projectors to have a vessel built, and that for this purpose they sent over "Master Digby and the carpenters"? And then he coolly states she was built of "green pine," and repeatedly calls her a "fishing boat," and implies that she went a fishing. Will he also give his authority for these statements? Every reader of history knows these assertions are untrue; and till he can clear himself of this charge, let him not undertake to lecture others on "historical verities."

It will be seen that I have not noticed his argument relative to the craft built by the French at Port Royal, and which by almost a miracle carried the survivors to their homes; for the reason that we were considering English occupation of New England, and that alone. French enterprise and colonization was an entirely different affair, and had nothing to do with the subject under consideration; and the writer of "the letter" could not fairly have anticipated that it could be made to refer to any but Englishmen. It will also be noticed that I have not undertaken to advocate or indorse the Popham enterprise and its effects in general, but only to show up some of the errors of its opponents. There is and will be a wide difference of opinion on that point; but all will agree that it has been of great benefit to printers, and that they have shed a larger quantity of ink in elucidating these controversies than was lost in blood in "P.'s" imaginary fights with the Indians at Sabino.

Having made a running review of "P.'s" long columns, I would in conclusion offer him some advice, which, I trust, he will receive in the same kind way in which it is given. First, do not fear that Popham history will ever in the slightest way overshadow the lustre of Old Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay. They stand too firm to be shaken: their true glories will continue to brighten and expand through ages yet to come, till they are appreciated and acknowledged throughout the world. Don't look on the very worst side of history: much of it is bad enough at best; and we can hardly read some of the annals of our own ancestors, written by themselves, without a blush. Do not write so ferociously: people are not frightened by ink, particularly Pophamites. "A kind word turneth away wrath." Don't ruin that preface to the reprint which you have had some two years in process of incubation, by bringing Popham and Gorges into it, when there is no occasion for it. And, as a general amnesty, even for the deepest crimes, is the order of the day, you had better accept it on the following cheap terms, viz., as hot weather is approaching, and, if you have not killed out the Pophamites entirely,—and I don't really think you have even ruffled a feather,—they will in August have their picnic celebration at Sabino as usual, now let us both attend. Then, after partaking of their chowder, we will smoke the calumet of peace; drink inspiration—if we can—from that ancient well, but certainly good cool water, and something in it, if you say so; and finally bury the hatchet in the remains of that old ditch, and pledge ourselves to everlasting peace.

Sagadahoc.

June, 1866.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE POPHAM COLONY.

A printed circular headed "Public Historical Celebration," dated August 12, 1862; which was sent to invited guests, with a "Private Explanatory Note," stating that the Celebration "is held under the auspices of the Maine Historical Society, which proposes to print a full report in the form of a Memorial Volume."

NEWSPAPER ARTICLES WITH REFERENCE TO THE FIRST CELEBRATION.

Bath Sentinel and Times, July 10, 1862. Mr. B. C. Bailey recommends calling a public meeting, to make arrangements for a Celebration.

The same, July 22, 1862. The Mayor of Bath calls the meeting, for Monday, July 28.

The same, July 29. Report of the meeting.

Portland Press, July 30. Report of the meeting, List of Committees, etc.

Daily Evening Globe, St. John, N. B., August 23, 1862. "The First English Settlement in New England;" by John Wilkinson.

Portland Advertiser, August 28, 1862. The Order of the Celebration.

The same, August 30. 1862. An Account of the Celebration; with Mr. John A. Poor's Oration.

The same, September 3, 1862. Mr. Poor's Oration reprinted with corrections. Mr. T. D. McGee's Address, and Mr. R. K. Sewall's Response to a Toast.

Bath Times, September 1, 1862. An Account of the Celebration.

Portland Press, September 6. Mr. John Neal complains of the arrangements of the Celebration.

Portland Advertiser, September 8. Mr. Charles J. Gilman, the Chief Marshal, replies.

Portland Transcript, September 4. An account of the Celebration.

Brunswick Telegraph, September 6. An Account of the Celebration.

Christian Mirror, Portland, September 9. "A Sermon preached at Phipsburg, Me., on the Sabbath after the Celebration, by Rev. Francis Norwood."

The same, September 16. Mr. John A. Poor reviews Mr. Norwood's Sermon.

The same, October 7. "Popham Discussion:" Mr. Norwood replies to Mr. Poor; and "Popham Errata:" Mr. John Wingate Thornton reviews Mr. Poor's article of September 16.

New York Journal of Commerce, November 6. Report of the October Meeting of the New York Historical Society. Remarks concerning the Popham Celebration by Mr. George Folsom and Mr. J. R. Brodhead.

New York Christian Times, November 20. Fuller report of the same.

Boston Evening Traveller, November 21. Correspondence of Rev. William S. Bartlett, of Chelsea, and Prof. Emory Washburn, of Cambridge, concerning the Speech of the latter at the Popham Celebration.

Congregational Quarterly, Boston, April, 1863, Vol. v., p. 143-160. "Colonial Schemes of Popham and Gorges. By John Wingate Thornton, Esq., Boston." A Speech at the First Popham Celebration, with twelve and a half pages of "Notes and Authorities appended as proofs."

A few copies of this article were printed, with the following title page, as—

A Pamphlet. "Colonial Schemes of Popham and Gorges. | Speech | of | John Wingate Thornton, Esq., | at the | Fort Popham Celebration, | August 29, 1862, | under the auspices of the | Maine Historical Society. | Boston, 1863." 8vo, 20 pp. [This Speech is not contained in the Popham "Memorial Volume."]

The above was noticed and discussed in—

North American Review, July 1863, Vol. xcvii., p. 288.

Christian Examiner, July 1863, Vol. lxxv., p. 143.

Historical Collections of the Essex Institute, August, 1863, Vol. v. pp. 175-192; by Mr. A. C. Goodell.

Boston Review, November, 1863, Vol. iii, p. 641.

Historical Magazine, New York, 1863, Vol. vii., p. 231.

Christian Mirror, Portland, April 28, 1863.

Boston Journal, August 11, 1863.

Boston Evening Transcript, April 24, 1863.

Portland Transcript, May 9, 1863.

A Pamphlet. "The Connection | of the | Church of England | with Early | American Discovery | and | Colonization. | By the Rev. William Stevens Perry, M. A. | Portland, Maine. | 1863." 8vo, 7 pp.

Messrs. Bailey and Noyes, of Portland, Publishers, in April, 1863, issued a circular Prospectus for the publication of the "Memorial Volume;" soliciting Subscriptions.

"Memorial Volume | of the | Popham Celebration, | August 29, 1862: | commemorative of the Planting of the | Popham Colony on the Peninsula of Sabino, | August 19, O. S., 1607, | establishing the Title of England to the Continent. | Published under the direction of the | Rev. Edward Ballard, | Secretary of the Executive Committee of the Celebration. | Portland: | Bailey and Noyes. | 1863." 8vo, 368 pp.

Bound with the same:—

"English Colonization in America. | A | Vindication of the Claims | of | Sir Ferdinando Gorges, | as the | Father of English Colonization in America. | By John A. Poor. | (Delivered before the Historical Societies of Maine, and New York.) | New York: D. Appleton and Company. | 1862." 8vo, [Address, 92 pp. Appendix, 52 pp.,] 144 pp.

"Popham Celebration | at | Sabino, | August, 1863." Programme in broadside.

The Popham Celebration of August 29, 1863, Mr. George Folsom, Orator, was reported in—

Portland Daily Advertiser, August 31, 1863.

Portland Daily Press, August 31, and September 3, 1863.

Brunswick Telegraph, September 4, 1863.

Boston Witness and Advocate, September 11, 1863.

Boston Courier, September 2, 1863.

Portland Daily Press, September 30, 1863: "Popham—Settlement—Memorial and Celebrations." Signed "P." [Mr. George Prince.]

A Pamphlet. "The Beginning of America | A | Discourse | delivered before the | New York Historical Society |on its Fifty-ninth Anniversary | Tuesday November 17, 1863 | By | Erastus C. Benedict | New York | 1864." 8vo, 64 pp.

Portland Daily Press, January 29, 1864. Notice of Meeting of the Maine Historical Society, and of Judge Bourne's Reply to Mr. Thornton's Pamphlet.

A Pamphlet. "An | Address | on the | Character of the Colony | founded by | George Popham, | at the | Mouth of the Kennebec River August 19th, [O. S.] 1607. | Delivered in Bath, | on the Two hundred and fifty-seventh Anniversary | of that Event. | By Hon. Edward E. Bourne, | of Kennebunk. | Delivered and Published at the request of the Committee on the Commemoration. | Portland: | 1864." 8vo, 60 pp.

The above was noticed and discussed in—

Christian Mirror, Portland, February 21, 1865.

Boston Evening Transcript, February 13, 1865; by Rev. George E. Ellis, D. D.

Bath Daily Sentinel and Times, August 30, 31, September 1, 1864.

The same, March 16, 1865. "Fort Popham Colony."

The same, March 16, 1865. "The Popham Settlement;" by Rev. Edward Ballard.

The same, March 30, 1865.

The same, July 7, 1865.

The same, September 1, 1865.

The same, September 2, 1865; by Mr. George Prince.

Brunswick Telegraph, September, 1864.

Boston Journal, August 2, 1865.

Bath Daily Sentinel and Times, May 3, 1864. "The Fort Popham Controversy," as to when and where Religious Services were first held in New England. Signed "D. Q. C." [Rev. D. Cushman.]

The same, May 5, 1864. "The First Worship in Popham Colony;" by Rev. Edward Ballard.

The same, September 2, 1864. "The First Sermon in New England." Signed "Candid" [Mr. George Prince].

The same, September 8, 1864. Reply by Rev. Edward Ballard.

The same, August 16, 17, 18, 24, 1865. "The Virginia Company's Northern Plantation;" by Mr. J. Wingate Thornton.

The same, August 23, 1865. Reply by Rev. Edward Ballard.

A Pamphlet. "Remarks | on the | Popham Celebration | of the | Maine Historical Society. | Read before the American Antiquarian Society, | April 26, 1865. | By S. F. Haven. | Boston, | 1865." 8vo, 32 pp. [Mr. Haven's Remarks previously appeared in the Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, at the Semi-Annual Meeting held at Boston, April 26, 1865; pp. 31-60.]

The above was noticed and discussed in—

Boston Daily Advertiser, April 27, 1865.

The same, August 2, 1865. "Popham Exhumed and Re-interred"; by Rev. Edward E. Hale.

The same, August 26, 1865: "The Popham Colony," by Mr. Charles F. Dunbar.

The same, same date: "The Popham Celebration;" by Rev. Edward Ballard.

Portland Daily Press, August 4, 1865.

The Celebration of August 29, 1865, was reported and discussed in—

Portland Argus, August 31, 1865.

Portland Daily Press, August 21, 30, 1865.

Bath Daily Sentinel and Times, August 23, 1865; by Rev. Edward Ballard.

The same, August 24, 1865.

The same, August 30, 1865.

Boston Journal, August 4, 1865.

Brunswick Telegraph, September 1, 1865.

A Pamphlet. "Responsibilities of the Founders of Republics: | An | Address | on the | Peninsula of Sabino, | on the Two-Hundred and Fifty-Eighth Anniversary | of the | Planting of the Popham Colony, | August 29, 1865. | By Hon. James W. Patterson. | Delivered and published at the request of the Committee on the | Commemoration. | Boston: | John K. Wiggin, | 1865." 8vo, 38 pp.

The above was noticed and discussed in—

Boston Daily Advertiser, April 11, 1866: "The Last Popham Address;" by Mr. William F. Poole.

The same, April 21, 1866: "'The Last Popham Address,'" by Rev. Edward Ballard, D. D.

Portland Advertiser, April 26, 1866: "'The Last Popham Address;'" by Mr. Frederic Kidder.

Boston Daily Advertiser, May 31, 1866: "Popham Again and Finally;" by Mr. William F. Poole.

The same, July 28, 1866: "The Popham Colony, 'Finally;'" by Rev. Edward Ballard, D. D.

The same, July 28, 1866: "A Running Review of the 'Popham Again and Finally;'" by Mr. Frederic Kidder.

Christian Era, Boston, June 28, 1866; "The Popham Memorial;" by Rev. J. D. Fulton.

The Episcopalian, New York, May 19, 1866.

Boston Daily Advertiser, August 4, 1866: Report of the Meeting of the Maine Historical Society of August 2, containing a letter by Mr. John A. Poor, with regard to new evidences found in Carayon's Relations.

The Popham Celebration of August 29, 1866, was reported in—

Boston Daily Advertiser, September 1, 1866.

Boston Journal, September 1, 1866.

New York Times, September 4, 1866.

New York Christian Intelligencer, September, 1866.

Brunswick Telegraph, September 14, 1866.

A Pamphlet. "The Popham Colony | A Discussion of its Historical Claims | With a | Bibliography of the Subject | Boston | Wiggin and Lunt 13 School Street 1866." 8vo, 72 pp.