dmission, either direct or by inference, that the Indians possessed
a superior claim to the land. When such an implication was made in a
land grant to Barkham in 1621, the company reacted with bitter
resentment. Governor Yeardley, striving to maintain peace with the
natives, made the grant conditional upon the consent of the Indian chief
Opechancanough. According to stated practice under the company, the
grant then had to be approved in England by a quarter court of the
company's stockholders. When Barkham's petition was presented for
ratification, the members of the court held the provision concerning the
Indian chief to be "verie dishonorable and prejudiciall" for it
infringed upon the company's title by acknowledging sovereignty in that
"heathen infidell."

Disregard for the aboriginal occupants of Virginia called forth anew the
question of "right and title," a problem subject to discussion in
England even before Jamestown. To allay these attacks, several
proponents of colonial expansion attempted to justify the policy of the
crown and the London Company.

Sir George Peckham in _A true reporte of the late discoveries_ pointed
out as early as 1583, relating to the discoveries of Sir Humphrey
Gilbert, that it was "lawfull and necessary to trade and traficke with
the savages." In a series of subsequent arguments, he then expounded
the right of settlement among the natives and the mutual benefit to
them and to England. This theme was later extended by the author of
_Nova Britannia_, who maintained that the object of the English was to
settle in the Indian's country, "yet not to supplant and roote them
out, but to bring them from their base condition to a farre better" by
teaching them the "arts of civility." The author of _Good Speed to
Virginia_ added that the "Savages have no particular propertie in any
part or parcell of that countrey, but only a generall residencie there,
as wild beasts have in the forests." This last opinion, according to
Philip A. Bruce, prevailed to a great extent and was held by a majority
of the members of the London Company in regard to the appropriations of
lands.

In spite of these views entertained by the company, there were several
instances in which the natives were compensated for their territory.
This was done primarily through the initiative of local authorities, for
they were usually better informed concerning Indian affairs. They were
in much closer contact with the natives than th