Colonial Records of Virginia | Page 2

of the State were removed from that building, and at the same
time four of the nine volumes and the portfolio of maps above
mentioned. Nothing has been heard from any of them since. In 1870,
the question of the boundary line being again before the Legislature of
Virginia, the Governor sent the Hon. D.C. De Jarnette upon the same
errand that Colonel McDonald had so well performed, and the result
was the obtaining of such papers as he could find relating to the subject
under consideration, including duplicates of some of those which
though useful in this connection, are included in the five volumes
remaining of those collected by Col. McDonald; also, charters of great
length, but which are to be found in print in the histories and statutes of
the State, and many of the miscellaneous papers which Colonel
McDonald had copied under the circumstances above named. Among
the latter is the account of the first meeting of the Assembly at
Jamestown in 1619. When Colonel McDonald visited the State Paper
Office (as it was then called) in 1860, this great repository of historical
materials had not been thrown open to the public, and he tells us in his
report that it was "twenty days after his arrival in London before he
could obtain permission to examine the archives of the State Paper
Office." A year or two afterwards all of the restrictions which had
existed were removed, the papers arranged chronologically, and an
index made by which they could be referred to. Farther, W. Noel
Sainsbury, Esq., one of the officers of what is now called the Public
Record Office, had published a calendar of all the papers relating to the
British colonies in North America and the West Indies, from the first
discoveries to 1660 (soon be followed by another coming down to the

period of the independence of the United States), which contains a brief
abstract of every paper included in the above named period, so that
enquirers upon subjects embraced in this calendar can by reference see
what the office has on file relating to it, and obtain copies of the
documents required, at a much less cost than a voyage to England.
Acting upon this knowledge, the Library Committee of the Virginia
Legislature has made a contract with Mr. Sainsbury for copies of the
titles and copious abstracts of every paper in the Public Record Office,
and other repositories, which relates to the history of Virginia while a
Colony. All of which he proposes to furnish for about £250, being less
than one-half the cost of either of the missions sent, which have
obtained only a small fraction of the papers which we are to receive. He
is performing his work in a most satisfactory manner; so much is he
interested in the task that he has greatly exceeded his agreement by
furnishing gratuitously full and complete copies of many documents of
more than ordinary interest. Yet notwithstanding the known facilities
afforded by the British Government and its officials, Mr. De Jarnette
complains that he was refused permission to examine the Rolls Office
and the State Paper Office (see his report, Senate Documents Session
1871-'2, p. 12); and further, on page 15, he informs us that the papers
which he obtained "had to be dug from a mountain of Colonial records
with care and labor." His troubles were further increased by the fact
that "the Colonial papers are not arranged under heads of respective
Colonies, but thrown promiscuously together and constitute an
immense mass of ill kept and badly written records," ib. p. 22.
The reader will infer from the preceding remarks that the State has two
complete copies of the record of the proceedings of the first Assembly
which met at Jamestown, viz: the McDonald and the De Jarnette copies,
and also an abstract furnished by Mr. Sainsbury. Bancroft, the historian,
obtained a copy of this paper, which was printed in the collections of
the New York Historical Society for 1857. We have therefore been
enabled to compare three different versions, and in a measure, a fourth.
The De Jarnette copy being in loose sheets, written on one side only,
was selected as the most convenient for the printer, and the text is
printed from it. Where this differs from either of the others the foot
notes show the differences, and, when no reference is made it is

because all of them correspond.
When these papers were submitted as a part of the report of the
Commissioners on the Boundary Line a joint resolution was adopted by
both houses of the Legislature authorizing the Committee on the
Library to print such of the papers as might be selected, provided the
consent of the Commission could be obtained. Application was made to
allow the first