13 the Virginia Company had leaned heavily on
the missionary appeal in its efforts to encourage continued support of
the colony, and it may well have been the company itself which prompted
the bishops of the Church of England in the year of Pocahontas' death
to sponsor a collection of funds for an Indian mission in Virginia. In
any case, the approximately L1,500 raised for the purpose were turned
over to the company, which in 1618 ordered Yeardley to set aside 10,000
acres at Henrico for the support of an Indian college.

The adventurers in 1618 also decreed certain legal and political
reforms that were helpful in giving Virginia a better name than it had
enjoyed for several years past. Disgruntled colonists returning from
Jamestown had brought exaggerated stories of Dale's discipline, with
the result that Virginia had gained the reputation almost of a penal
colony. The company's renewed guarantee that the settlers would enjoy
the full common law rights of Englishmen at home was coupled with
provision for a general assembly of the colonists, a body which first
met at Jamestown in 1619. In short, the company had the benefit in
1618, as so frequently in the past, of leadership of the highest
quality.

Sir Thomas Smith was still the governor of the company in 1618, and
without question his leadership must be considered to be a major factor
shaping the new life then being infused into the colony. But a
factional strife that would soon help to destroy the company already
had made its appearance. The sources of this factionalism were varied,
and some of them had little to do with the affairs of Virginia. Thus,
at this time Sir Thomas found a determined enemy in the Rich family,
headed by the wealthy Earl of Warwick and represented most ably by Sir
Nathaniel Rich, who for many years was an active leader in the House of
Commons. Warwick had a way of investing in voyages which bordered
closely on piracy, and as a result of one such investment had become
involved in a long and bitter conflict with Smith as the governor of
the East India Company. Unquestionably of more fundamental importance
was a growing opposition to Smith that was based upon discontent with
the former management of the Virginia project. It seems almost as
though the Virginia adventurers, before they could place full
confidence in the new program for the colony's development, had to find
some more satisfying explanation for the company's previous failures by
c