Bacon evidently here suggests the institution of a Permanent Commission, or "Council in England," for the affairs of Ireland, standing in the same relation to the King in Council as did a referee in chancery to the Chancellor,—that is, having the duty to ascertain and report the facts in each case of complaint or request from the colonists or any persons interested in the colonies, and their conclusions on the facts, for the information of the King and the Privy Council.

In this there would have been implied a criticism upon the plan of American government contained in the Virginia Charter of 1606, had he not differentiated America from Ireland, since the "Council in England for Virginia" was, as has been said, in no sense a mere referee of the Privy Council, but was itself an Imperial Administrative Council,-that is, a body with greater powers than the Privy Council, without the concurrence of the King, could exercise. That he did differentiate the case of America and Ireland shows his remarkable sagacity. Ireland was a dependency destined by nature for ultimate incorporation into the body of the Realm of England. America was a dependency destined by nature never to be so incorporated. The affairs of Ireland, though essentially affairs of the Empire, were so closely connected with the affairs of the Realm, that Bacon thought they should be managed by the King in Council assisted by a referee body. The affairs of America were strictly affairs of the Empire, and, as such, were, as he thought, properly in the hands of a Council separate from the Privy Council, and which could act in the first instance, subject to the superintendence of the King.

The kernel of the whole matter lay in the last sentence: "And it will be likewise a comfort and satisfaction to some principal undertakers, if they may be admitted of that Council." In order to appreciate this proposition, it is necessary to consider the circumstances under which

colonization, at that time, had to be carried on. Emigration was then a new idea, and when it was broached, the dangers of the enterprise deterred all except those persons of small means who were willing to undergo the risk in order to better their financial condition, or who were influenced by religious or missionary motives. Such emigration had to be encouraged by pecuniary assistance. King James had not money enough to pay for the luxuries he insisted upon having. The House of Commons could not be asked to grant taxes for colonization purposes, to be expended, necessarily, under the King's supervision,-when it was already objecting to his requests for money. It was necessary, therefore, to adopt a plan which would attract private contributions. There were two classes of persons who would be likely to be interested in colonization,-one made up of those who had capital to invest for the sake of profit, and the other of those who were willing to contribute for the public good or for religious or missionary reasons, without regard to return or profit. The character of colonial administration had, as it then appeared to Bacon, to be adjusted to the existing circumstances so as to allow capitalists and religious and missionary enthusiasts to share in it with the public authorities. This required that the enterprise should be partly private and partly public, and the form which naturally and inevitably suggested itself for the purpose was that of a guild or privileged private company, the members of which, when it was organized for objects external to its own membership, were called undertakers."

66

Although privileged private corporations are little known at the present day, being used almost entirely for colonizing operations in uncivilized regions, they were very common at that period, and their rights and status were well and even commonly understood. The guilds practically controlled the city of London. The accepted

66

definition of a guild is," a voluntary association for mutual protection, for common mercantile aims, or for religious. worship." In the mercantile guilds of the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, these three objects were combined. The characteristic of a guild was that it might admit or exclude any persons it saw fit. It was this characteristic which distinguished a guild from a municipal corporation. A guild could not exercise any jurisdiction outside its own membership except by way of protection of its members. By grant from the King or the Parliament, it could, however, receive any governmental privileges whatever, but it did not, by so doing, lose its power to admit persons to the freedom of the company and exclude persons from its freedom. The members of the guild were called brethren" or "freemen"; its meetings were called "Courts." The officers were originally elective by the members, and were called by various names-the head officer being more usually called" the Master" and his Council being called Wardens." The law-making body was composed of the Master and Wardens and representatives of the whole membership called "Assistants." The meetings at which all the guild-associates were present, as, for instance, for the purpose of election of officers, were called "the General Courts." The English mercantile and trading guilds organized for colonizing purposes were exactly like the French privileged companies which began to be formed at about the same time. Any governmental privileges conferred by royal charter to exercise jurisdiction beyond the membership of the guild were, in contemplation of law, held at the will of the King, and could be resumed by him at any time without his showing special cause, and the long continuance of the guilds in the use of these privileges did not interfere with the King's rights. It mattered not with how great governmental privileges they were endowed, they were essentially private

corporations and, in the exercise of their governmental privileges, were under the immediate control of the officers of the district, province, county, or municipality in which they were situated. They could exist without incorporation, but could not hold real estate till they were incorporated.

The guild, endowed by royal charter with limited governmental privileges, was a convenient instrumentality for the management of colonizing operations which required the raising of money by private subscription, even when the freemen of the guild elected its presiding officer and board of directors, since, in case of contumacy or mismanagement, the King could immediately resume all the governmental powers which it held in trust. When the King appointed the board of directors of a guild, as James I. did whenever he could after his contests with the people began, his control over it was, theoretically, complete. The great London guilds succeeded in keeping the election of their governing boards in their own hands, in spite of all efforts to the contrary, for many years after the granting of the Virginia Charters.

When the Virginia enterprise was reorganized in 1609, the new organization was, therefore, given the form of a guild. That this should have been done appears the more natural when it is remembered that the Virginia Company of 1609 and the Ulster colonization scheme of the same year were both, under the precept of the King, promoted and very largely contributed to by the London guilds, and that of the seven hundred and twenty-eight persons and corporations (among them Sir Francis Bacon) named as adventurers" of the guild incorporated by the name of "The Treasurer and Company of the Adventurers and Planters of the City of London, for the First Colony in Virginia," fifty-six were London guilds.

The Charter of 1609 followed the usual form of guild

charters. It created a private corporation, located in England, to own land and carry on farming and trading operations in Virginia. The Imperial Administrative Council and the Council in Virginia created by the Charter of 1606 were both abolished, as it was quite within the discretion of the King to do, since no private corporate rights had been created by that Charter. The whole enterprise, theretofore public, became essentially private, but with a public aspect.

It was, of course, entirely consistent with the management of the colonizing, trading, and missionary operations in Virginia being in the hands of a guild, that there should be a Council in England for Virginia, wholly public in its nature and distinct from the guild, though containing among its members" undertakers" of the guild; and this is evidently what Sir Francis Bacon meant when he recommended, in reference to the Ulster Colony, that some of the principal undertakers" should "be admitted of" the Council in England for Ulster. The Charter of 1609 went beyond this, and provided a Council in England for Virginia which was wholly composed of "undertakers" in the enterprise.

"

The Board of Directors of the guild was composed of fifty-two persons and was called "Our Council for the Company of Adventurers and Planters in Virginia." It was appointed by the King and was self-perpetuating. All the members of the Council were adventurers in the Company-that is, those who held the Company's "bills of adventure." It was both a Board of Directors for the private Company and the Imperial Administrative Council in Charge of the Affairs of Virginia. Among the members of this Board were the Earl of Southampton, Sir Francis Bacon, and Sir Edwin Sandys. The Charter proceeded upon the assumption that there would be General Assemblies or General Courts of the whole membership of the Company which would control the Council in