Project Gutenberg's England in America, 1580-1652, by Lyon Gardiner Tyler

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net


Title: England in America, 1580-1652

Author: Lyon Gardiner Tyler

Release Date: July 14, 2005 [EBook #16294]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ASCII

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ENGLAND IN AMERICA, 1580-1652 ***




Produced by Suzanne Shell, Gary Houston and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net





ENGLAND IN AMERICA

1580-1652

By

Lyon Gardiner Tyler, LL.D.

J. & J. Harper Editions
Harper & Row, Publishers
New York and Evanston

1904 by Harper & Brothers.

[Illustration: SIR WALTER RALEIGH (1552-1618). From an engraving by
Robinson after a painting by Zucchero.]


CONTENTS

CHAP.                                                         PAGE

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION                                         xiii

AUTHOR'S PREFACE                                               xix

    I. GENESIS OF ENGLISH COLONIZATION (1492-1579)               3

   II. GILBERT AND RALEIGH COLONIES (1583-1602)                 18

  III. FOUNDING OF VIRGINIA (1602-1608)                         34

   IV. GLOOM IN VIRGINIA (1608-1617)                            55

    V. TRANSITION OF VIRGINIA (1617-1640)                       76

   VI. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF VIRGINIA (1634-1652)  100

  VII. FOUNDING OF MARYLAND (1632-1650)                        118

 VIII. CONTENTIONS IN MARYLAND (1633-1652)                     134

   IX. FOUNDING OF PLYMOUTH (1608-1630)                        149

    X. DEVELOPMENT OF NEW PLYMOUTH (1621-1643)                 163

   XI. GENESIS OF MASSACHUSETTS (1628-1630)                    183

  XII. FOUNDING OF MASSACHUSETTS (1630-1642)                   196

 XIII. RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS (1631-1638)    210

  XIV. NARRAGANSETT AND CONNECTICUT SETTLEMENTS (1635-1637)    229

   XV. FOUNDING OF CONNECTICUT AND NEW HAVEN (1637-1652)       251

  XVI. NEW HAMPSHIRE AND MAINE (1653-1658)                     266

 XVII. COLONIAL NEIGHBORS (1643-1652)                          282

XVIII. THE NEW ENGLAND CONFEDERATION (1643-1654)               297

  XIX. EARLY NEW ENGLAND LIFE                                  318

   XX. CRITICAL ESSAY ON AUTHORITIES                           328

INDEX                                                          341


MAPS

ROANOKE ISLAND, JAMESTOWN, AND ST. MARY'S
(1584-1632)                                            _facing_ 34

CHART OF VIRGINIA, SHOWING INDIAN AND
EARLY ENGLISH SETTLEMENTS IN 1632                               76

VIRGINIA IN 1652                                                99

MARYLAND IN 1652                                               133

NEW ENGLAND (1652)                                    _facing_ 196

MAINE IN 1652                                                  265

NEW SWEDEN AND NEW NETHERLAND                                  296


[Transcriber's Note: This text retains original spellings. Also,
superscripted abbreviations or contractions are indicated by the
use of a caret (^), such as w^th (with).]


EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

Some space has already been given in this series to the English and
their relation to the New World, especially the latter half of
Cheyney's _European Background of American History_, which deals with
the religious, social, and political institutions which the English
colonists brought with them; and chapter v. of Bourne's _Spain in
America_, describing the Cabot voyages. This volume begins a detailed
story of the English settlement, and its title indicates the
conception of the author that during the first half-century the
American colonies were simply outlying portions of the English nation,
but that owing to disturbances culminating in civil war they had the
opportunity to develop on lines not suggested by the home government.

The first two chapters deal with the unsuccessful attempts to plant
English colonies, especially by Gilbert and Raleigh. These beginnings
are important because they proved the difficulty of planting colonies
through individual enterprise. At the same time the author brings out
clearly the various motives for colonization--the spirit of adventure,
the desire to enjoy a new life, and the intent to harm the commerce of
the colonies of Spain.

In chapters iii. to vi. the author describes the final founding of the
first successful colony, Virginia, and emphasizes four notable
characteristics of that movement. The first is the creation of
colonizing companies (a part of the movement described in its more
general features by Cheyney in his chapters vii. and viii.). The
second is the great waste of money and the awful sacrifice of human
life caused by the failure of the colonizers to adapt themselves to
the conditions of life in America. That the people of Virginia should
be fed on grain brought from England, should build their houses in a
swamp, should spend their feeble energies in military executions of
one another is an unhappy story made none the pleasanter by the
knowledge that the founders of the company in England were spending
freely of their substance and their effort on the colony. The third
element in the growth of Virginia is the introduction of the staple
crop, always in demand, and adapted to the soil of Virginia. Tobacco,
after 1616, speedily became the main interest of Virginia, and without
tobacco it must have gone down. A fourth characteristic is the early
evidence of an unconquerable desire for self-government, brought out
in the movements of the first assembly of 1619 and the later colonial
government: here we have the germ of the later American system of
government.

The founding of the neighboring colony of Maryland (chapters vii. and
viii.) marks the first of the proprietary colonies; it followed by
twenty-five years and had the advantage of the unhappy experience of
Virginia and of very capable management. The author shows how little
Maryland deserves the name of a Catholic colony, and he develops the
Kent Island episode, the first serious boundary controversy between
two English commonwealths in America.

To the two earliest New England colonies are devoted five chapters
(ix. to xiii.), which are treated not as a separate episode but as
part of the general spirit of colonization. Especial attention is paid
to the development of popular government in Massachusetts, where the
relation between governor, council, and freemen had an opportunity to
work itself out. Through the transfer of the charter to New England,
America had its first experience of a plantation with a written
constitution for internal affairs. The fathers of the Puritan
republics are further relieved of the halo which generations of
venerating descendants have bestowed upon them, and appear as human
characters. Though engaging in a great and difficult task, and while
solving many problems, they nevertheless denied their own fundamental
precept of the right of a man to worship God according to the dictates
of his own conscience.

Chapters xiv. to xvi. describe the foundation of the little
settlements in Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Haven, New Hampshire,
and Maine; and here we have an interesting picture of little towns for
a time standing quite independent, and gradually consolidating into
commonwealths, or coalescing with more powerful neighbors. Then follow
(chapters xvii. and xviii.) the international and intercolonial
relations of the colonies, and especially the New England
Confederation, the first form of American federal government.

A brief sketch of the conditions of social life in New England
(chapter xix.) brings out the strong commercial spirit of the people
as well as their intense religious life and the narrowness of their
social and intellectual status. The bibliographical essay is
necessarily a selection from the great literature of early English
colonization, but is a conspectus of the most important secondary
works and collections of sources.

The aim of the volume is to show the reasons for as well as the
progress of English colonization. Hence for the illustration Sir
Walter Raleigh has been chosen, as the most conspicuous colonizer of
his time. The freshness of the story is in its clear exposition of the
terrible difficulties in the way of founding self-sustaining
colonies--the unfamiliar soil and climate, Indian enemies, internal
dissensions, interference by the English government, vague and
conflicting territorial grants. Yet out of these difficulties, in
forty-five years of actual settlement, two southern and six or seven
northern communities were permanently established, in the face of the
opposition and rivalry of Spain, France, and Holland. For this task
the editor has thought that President Tyler is especially qualified,
as an author whose descent and historical interest connect him both
with the northern and the southern groups of settlements.


AUTHOR'S PREFACE

This book covers a period of a little more than three-quarters of a
century. It begins with the first attempt at English colonization in
America, in 1576, and ends with the year 1652, when the supremacy of
Parliament was recognized throughout the English colonies. The
original motive of colonization is found in English rivalry with the
Spanish power; and the first chapter of this work tells how this
motive influenced Gilbert and Raleigh in their endeavors to plant
colonies in Newfoundland and North Carolina. Though unfortunate in
permanent result, these expeditions familiarized the people of England
with the country of Virginia--a name given by Queen Elizabeth to all
the region from Canada to Florida--and stimulated the successful
settlement at Jamestown in the early part of the seventeenth century.
With the charter of 1609 Virginia was severed from North Virginia, to
which Captain Smith soon gave the name of "New England"; and the story
thereafter is of two streams of English emigration--one to Virginia
and the other to New England. Thence arose the Southern and Northern
colonies of English America, which, more than a century beyond the
period of this book, united to form the great republic of the United
States.

The most interesting period in the history of any country is the
formative period; and through the mass of recently published original
material on America the opportunity to tell its story well has been of
late years greatly increased. In the preparation of this work I have
endeavored to consult the original sources, and to admit secondary
testimony only in matters of detail. I beg to express my indebtedness
to the authorities of the Harvard College Library and the Virginia
Library for their courtesy in giving me special facilities for the
verification of my authorities.

LYON GARDINER TYLER.




ENGLAND IN AMERICA

CHAPTER I

GENESIS OF ENGLISH COLONIZATION

(1492-1579)


Up to the last third of the sixteenth century American history was the
history of Spanish conquest, settlement, and exploration. Except for
the feeble Portuguese settlements in Brazil and at the mouth of the La
Plata, from Florida and the Gulf of Mexico, around the eastern and
western coasts of South America, and northward to the Gulf of
California, all was Spanish--main-land and islands alike. The subject
of this volume is the bold assertion of England to a rivalry in
European waters and on American coasts.

How came England, with four millions of people, to enter into a
quarter of a century of war with the greatest power in Europe? The
answer is that Spain was already decaying, while England was instinct
with the spirit of progress and development. The contrast grew
principally out of the different attitude of the two nations towards
the wealth introduced into Europe from America, and towards the
hitherto established religion of the Christian world. While the
treasure from Mexico and Peru enabled Charles V. and Philip II. to
carry on great wars and to establish an immense prestige at the
different courts of Europe, it created a speculative spirit which drew
their subjects away from sober employment. For this reason
manufacturing and agriculture, for which Spain was once so
distinguished, were neglected; and the kingdom, thinned of people and
decreasing in industry, grew dependent for supplies upon the
neighboring countries.[1]

On the other hand, the treasures which destroyed the manufactures of
Spain indirectly stimulated those of England. Without manufactures,
Spain had to employ her funds in buying from other countries her
clothing, furniture, and all that was necessary for the comfort of her
citizens at home or in her colonies in America. In 1560 not above a
twentieth part of the commodities exported to America consisted of
Spanish-manufactured fabrics: all the rest came through the foreign
merchants resident in Spain.[2]

Similar differences arose from the attitude of the two kingdoms to
religion. Philip loved to regard himself as the champion of the
Catholic church, and he encouraged it to extend its authority in Spain
in the most absolute manner. Spain became the favored home of the
Inquisition, and through its terrors the church acquired complete
sovereignty over the minds of the people. Since free thought was
impossible, private enterprise gave way to mendicancy and indolence.
It was not long before one-half of the real estate of the realm fell
into the hands of the clergy and monastic orders.[3]

In England, on the other hand, Henry VIII.'s quarrel with the pope in
1534 gave Protestantism a foothold; and the suppression of the
convents and monasteries in 1537-1539 put the possibility of the
re-establishment of papal power out of question. Thus, while the body
of the people remained attached to the Catholic church under Edward
VI. and Queen Mary, the clergy had no great power, and there was
plenty of room for free speech. Under Elizabeth various causes
promoted the growth of Protestantism till it became a permanent ruling
principle. Since its spirit was one of inquiry, private enterprise,
instead of being suppressed as in Spain, spread the wings of
manufacture and commerce.[4]

Thus, collision between the two nations was unavoidable, and their
rivalry enlisted all the forces of religion and interest. Under such
influences thousands of young Englishmen crossed the channel to fight
with William of Orange against the Spaniards or with the Huguenots
against the Guises, the allies of Spain. The same motives led to the
dazzling exploits of Hawkins, Drake, and Cavendish, and sent to the
sea scores of English privateers; and it was the same motives which
stimulated Gilbert in 1576, eighty-four years after the Spaniards had
taken possession, in his grand design of planting a colony in America.
The purpose of Gilbert was to cut into Spanish colonial power, as was
explained by Richard Hakluyt in his _Discourse on Western Planting_,
written in 1584: "If you touche him [the king of Spain] in the Indies,
you touche the apple of his eye; for take away his treasure, which is
_neruus belli_, and which he hath almoste oute of his West Indies, his
olde bandes of souldiers will soone be dissolved, his purposes
defeated, his power and strengthe diminished, his pride abated, and
his tyranie utterly suppressed."[5]

Still, while English colonization at first sprang out of rivalry with
Spain and was late in beginning, England's claims in America were
hardly later than Spain's. Christopher Columbus at first hoped, in his
search for the East Indies, to sail under the auspices of Henry VII.
Only five years later, in 1497, John Cabot, under an English charter,
reached the continent of North America in seeking a shorter route by
the northwest; and in 1498, with his son Sebastian Cabot, he repeated
his visit. But nothing important resulted from these voyages, and
after long neglect their memory was revived by Hakluyt,[6] only to
support a claim for England to priority in discovery.

Indeed, England was not yet prepared for the work of colonization. Her
commerce was still in its infancy, and did not compare with that of
either Italy, Spain, or Portugal. Neither Columbus nor the Cabots were
Englishmen, and the advantages of commerce were so little understood
in England about this period that the taking of interest for the use
of money was prohibited.[7] A voyage to some mart "within two days'
distance" was counted a matter of great moment by merchant
adventurers.[8]

During the next half-century, only two noteworthy attempts were made
by the English to accomplish the purposes of the Cabots: De Prado
visited Newfoundland in 1527 and Hore in 1535,[9] but neither of the
voyages was productive of any important result. Notwithstanding,
England's commerce made some advancement during this period. A
substantial connection between England and America was England's
fisheries on the banks of Newfoundland; though used by other European
states, over fifty English ships spent two months in every year in
those distant waters, and gained, in the pursuit, valuable maritime
experience. Probably, however, the development of trade in a different
quarter had a more direct connection with American colonization, for
about 1530 William Hawkins visited the coast of Guinea and engaged in
the slave-trade with Brazil.[10]

Suddenly, about the middle of the century, English commerce struck out
boldly; conscious rivalry with Spain had begun. The new era opens
fitly with the return of Sebastian Cabot to England from Spain, where
since the death of Henry VII. he had served Charles V. In 1549, during
the third year of Edward VI., he was made grand pilot of England with
an annual stipend of L166 13s. 4d.[11] He formed a company for the
discovery of the northeast and the northwest passages, and in 1553 an
expedition under Sir Hugh Willoughby and Richard Chancellor penetrated
the White Sea and made known the wonders of the Russian Empire.[12]
The company obtained, in 1554, a charter of incorporation under the
title of the "Merchant Adventurers for the Discovery of Lands,
Territories, Isles, Dominions, and Seignories Unknown or Frequented by
Any English." To Russia frequent voyages were thereafter made. A few
days after the departure of Willoughby's expedition Richard Eden
published his _Treatyse of the Newe India_; and two years later
appeared his _Decades of the New World_, a book which was very popular
among all classes of people in England. Cabot died not many years
later, and Eden, translator and compiler, attended at his bedside, and
"beckons us with something of awe to see him die."[13]

During Mary's reign (1553-1558) the Catholic church was restored in
England, and by the influence of the queen, who was married to King
Philip, the expanding commerce of England was directed away from the
Spanish colonial possessions eastward to Russia, Barbary, Turkey, and
Persia. After her death the barriers against free commerce were thrown
down. With the incoming of Elizabeth, the Protestant church was
re-established and the Protestant refugees returned from the
continent; and three years after her succession occurred the first of
those great voyages which exposed the weakness of Spain by showing
that her rich possessions in America were practically unguarded and
unprotected.

In 1562 Sir John Hawkins, following in the track of his father William
Hawkins, visited Guinea, and, having loaded his ship with negroes,
carried them to Hispaniola, where, despite the Spanish law restricting
the trade to the mother-country, he sold his slaves to the planters,
and returned to England with a rich freight of ginger, hides, and
pearls. In 1564 Hawkins repeated the experiment with greater success;
and on his way home, in 1565, he stopped in Florida and relieved the
struggling French colony of Laudonniere, planted there by Admiral
Coligny the year before, and barbarously destroyed by the Spaniards
soon after Hawkins's departure.[14] The difference between our age and
Queen Elizabeth's is illustrated by the fact that Hawkins, instead of
being put to death as a pirate for engaging in the slave-trade, was
rewarded by the queen on his return with a patent for a coat of arms.

In 1567 Hawkins with nine ships revisited the West Indies, but this
time ill-fortune overtook him. Driven by bad weather into the harbor
of San Juan de Ulloa, he was attacked by the Spaniards, several of his
ships were sunk, and some of his men were captured and later put to
torture by the Inquisition. Hawkins escaped with two of his ships, and
after a long and stormy passage arrived safe in England (January 25,
1569).[15] Queen Elizabeth was greatly offended at this conduct of the
Spaniards, and in reprisal detained a squadron of Spanish treasure
ships which had sought safety in the port of London from some Huguenot
cruisers.

In this expedition one of the two ships which escaped was commanded by
a young man named Francis Drake, who came to be regarded as the
greatest seaman of his age. He was the son of a clergyman, and was
born in Devonshire, where centred for two centuries the maritime skill
of England. While a lad he followed the sea, and acquired reputation
for his courage and sagacity. Three years after the affair at San
Juan, Drake fitted out a little squadron, and in 1572 sailed, as he
himself specially states, to inflict vengeance upon the Spaniards. He
had no commission, and on his own private account attacked a power
with which his country was at peace.[16]

Drake attacked Nombre de Dios and Cartagena, and, as the historian
relates, got together "a pretty store of money," an evidence that his
purpose was not wholly revenge. He marched across the Isthmus of
Panama and obtained his first view of the Pacific Ocean. "Vehemently
transported with desire to navigate that sea," he fell upon his knees,
and "implored the Divine Assistance, that he might at some time or
other sail thither and make a perfect discovery of the same."[17]
Drake reached Plymouth on his return Sunday, August 9, 1573, in sermon
time; and his arrival created so much excitement that the people left
the preacher alone in church so as to catch a glimpse of the famous
sailor.[18]

Drake contemplated greater deeds. He had now plenty of friends who
wished to engage with him, and he soon equipped a squadron of five
ships. That he had saved something from the profits of his former
voyage is shown by his equipment. The _Pelican_, in which he sailed,
had "expert musicians and rich furniture," and "all the vessels for
the table, yea, many even of the cook-room, were of pure silver."[19]
Drake's object now was to harry the coast of the ocean which he had
seen in 1573. Accordingly, he sailed from Plymouth (December 13,
1577), coasted along the shore of South America, and, passing through
the Straits of Magellan, entered the Pacific in September, 1578.

The _Pelican_ was now the only one of his vessels left, as all the
rest had either returned home or been lost. Renaming the ship the
_Golden Hind_, Drake swept up the western side of South America and
took the ports of Chili and Peru by surprise. He captured galleons
carrying quantities of gold, silver, and jewelry, and acquired plunder
worth millions of dollars.[20] Drake did not think it prudent to go
home by the way he had come, but struck boldly northward in search of
a northeast passage into the Atlantic. He coasted along California as
far as Oregon, repaired his ship in a harbor near San Francisco, took
possession of the country in the name of Queen Elizabeth and called it
Nova Albion. Finding no northeast passage, he turned his prow to the
west, and circumnavigated the globe by the Cape of Good Hope, arriving
at Plymouth in November, 1580.[21]

The queen received him with undisguised favor, and met a request from
Philip II. for Drake's surrender by knighting the freebooter and
wearing in her crown the jewel he offered her as a present. When the
Spanish ambassador threatened that matters should come to the cannon,
she replied "quietly, in her most natural voice," writes Mendoza,
"that if I used threats of that kind she would throw me into a
dungeon." The revenge that Drake had taken for the affair at San Juan
de Ulloa was so complete that for more than a hundred years he was
spoken of in Spanish annals as "the Dragon."

His example stimulated adventure in all directions, and in 1586 Thomas
Cavendish, of Ipswich, sailed to South America and made a rich plunder
at Spanish expense. He returned home by the Cape of Good Hope, and was
thus the second Englishman to circumnavigate the globe.[22]

In the mean time, another actor, hardly less adventurous but of a far
grander purpose, had stepped upon the stage of this tremendous
historic drama. Sir Humphrey Gilbert was born in Devonshire, schooled
at Eton, and educated at Oxford. Between 1563 and 1576 he served in
the wars of France, Ireland, and the Netherlands, and was therefore
thoroughly steeped in the military training of the age.[23] The first
evidence of Gilbert's great purpose was the charter by Parliament, in
the autumn of 1566, of a corporation for the discovery of new trades.
Gilbert was a member, and in 1567 he presented an unsuccessful
petition to the queen for the use of two ships for the discovery of a
northwest passage to China and the establishment of a traffic with
that country.[24]

Before long Gilbert wrote a pamphlet, entitled "A Discourse to Prove a
Passage by the Northwest to Cathaia and the East Indies," which was
shown by Gascoigne, a friend of Gilbert, to the celebrated mariner
Martin Frobisher, and stimulated him to his glorious voyages to the
northeast coast of North America.[25] Before Frobisher's departure on
his first voyage Queen Elizabeth sent for him and commended him for
his enterprise, and when he sailed, July 1, 1576, she waved her hand
to him from her palace window.[26] He explored Frobisher's Strait and
took possession of the land called Meta Incognita in the name of the
queen. He brought back with him a black stone, which a gold-finder in
London pronounced rich in gold, and the vain hope of a gold-mine
inspired two other voyages (1577, 1578). On his third voyage Frobisher
entered the strait known as Hudson Strait, but the ore with which he
loaded his ships proved of little value. John Davis, like Frobisher,
made three voyages in three successive years (1585, 1586, 1587), and
the chief result of his labors was the discovery of the great strait
which bears his name.[27]

Meanwhile, the idea of building up another English nation across the
seas had taken a firm hold on Gilbert, and among those who communed
with him were his half-brother Sir Walter Raleigh, his brothers Adrian
and John Gilbert, besides Richard Hakluyt, Sir Philip Sydney, Sir
Richard Grenville, Sir George Peckham, and Secretary of State Sir
Francis Walsingham. The ill success of Frobisher had no influence upon
their purpose; but four years elapsed after Gilbert's petition to the
crown in 1574 before he obtained his patent. How these years preyed
upon the noble enthusiasm of Gilbert we may understand from a letter
commonly attributed to him, which was handed to the queen in November,
1577: "I will do it if you will allow me; only you must resolve and
not delay or dally--the wings of man's life are plumed with the
feathers of death."[28]

At length, however, the formalities were completed, and on June 11,
1578, letters to Gilbert passed the seals for planting an English
colony in America.[29] This detailed charter of colonization is most
interesting, since it contains several provisions which reappear in
many later charters. Gilbert was invested with all title to the soil
within two hundred leagues of the place of settlement, and large
governmental authority was given him. To the crown were reserved only
the allegiance of the settlers and one-fifth of all the gold and
silver to be found. Yet upon Gilbert's power two notable limitations
were imposed: the colonists were to enjoy "all the privileges of free
denizens and persons native of England"; and the protection of the
nation was withheld from any license granted by Gilbert "to rob or
spoil by sea or by land."

Sir Humphrey lost no time in assembling a fleet, but it was not till
November 19, 1578, that he finally sailed from Plymouth with seven
sail and three hundred and eighty-seven men, one of the ships being
commanded by Raleigh. The subsequent history of the expedition is only
vaguely known. The voyagers got into a fight with a Spanish squadron
and a ship was lost.[30] Battered and dispirited as the fleet was,
Gilbert had still Drake's buccaneering expedient open to him; but,
loyal to the injunctions of the queen's charter, he chose to return,
and the expedition broke up at Kinsale, in Ireland.[31]

In this unfortunate voyage Gilbert buried the mass of his fortune,
but, undismayed, he renewed his enterprise. He was successful in
enlisting a large number of gentlemen in the new venture, and two
friends who invested heavily--Sir Thomas Gerard, of Lancaster, and Sir
George Peckham, of Bucks--he rewarded by enormous grants of land and
privileges.[32] Raleigh adventured L2000 and contributed a ship, the
_Ark Raleigh_;[33] but probably no man did more in stirring up
interest than Richard Hakluyt, the famous naval historian, who about
this time published his _Divers Voyages_, which fired the heart and
imagination of the nation.[34] In 1579 an exploring ship was sent out
under Simon Ferdinando, and the next year another sailed under John
Walker. They reached the coast of Maine, and the latter brought back
the report of a silver-mine discovered near the Penobscot.[35]

[Footnote 1: Cf. Bourne, _Spain in America_, chap. xvi.]

[Footnote 2: Cf. Cheyney, _European Background of American History_,
chap. v.]

[Footnote 3: Prescott, _Hist. of the Reign of Philip II._, III., 443.]

[Footnote 4: Ibid., chaps, xi., xii.]

[Footnote 5: Maine Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 2d series, II., 59.]

[Footnote 6: Hakluyt, _Discourse on Western Planting_.]

[Footnote 7: Robertson, _Works_ (ed. 1818), XI., 136.]

[Footnote 8: _Nova Britannia_ (Force, _Tracts_, I., No. vi.).]

[Footnote 9: Purchas, _Pilgrimes_ (ed. 1625), III., 809; Hakluyt,
_Voyages_ (ed. 1809), III., 167-174.]

[Footnote 10: Hakluyt, _Voyages_, III., 171; IV., 198.]

[Footnote 11: Purchas, _Pilgrimes_, III., 808; Hakluyt, _Voyages_,
III., 31.]

[Footnote 12: Hakluyt, _Voyages_, I., 270.]

[Footnote 13: Winsor, _Narrative and Critical History_, III., 7.]

[Footnote 14: Hakluyt, _Voyages_, III., 593, 618.]

[Footnote 15: Ibid., 618-623.]

[Footnote 16: Hakluyt, _Voyages_, IV., 1; Winsor, _Narrative and
Critical History_, III., 59-84.]

[Footnote 17: Camden, _Annals_, in Kennet, _England_, II., 478.]

[Footnote 18: Harris, _Voyages and Travels_, II., 15.]

[Footnote 19: Harris, _Voyages and Travels_, II., 15.]

[Footnote 20: Camden, _Annals_, in Kennet, _England_, II., 478, 479.]

[Footnote 21: Camden, _Annals_, in Kennet, _England_, II., 479, 480;
Hakluyt, _Voyages_, IV., 232-246.]

[Footnote 22: Ibid., 316-341.]

[Footnote 23: Edwards, _Life of Raleigh_, I., 77.]

[Footnote 24: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1513-1616, p. 8.]

[Footnote 25: Hakluyt, _Voyages_, III., 32-46; Edwards, _Life of
Raleigh_, I., 77; Doyle, _English in America_, I., 60.]

[Footnote 26: Hakluyt, _Voyages_, III., 53.]

[Footnote 27: Hakluyt, _Voyages_, III., 52-104, 132.]

[Footnote 28: Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, I., 9.]

[Footnote 29: Hakluyt, _Voyages_, III., 174-176.]

[Footnote 30: Hakluyt, _Voyages_, III., 186.]

[Footnote 31: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1674, p. 17.]

[Footnote 32: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1674, pp. 8-10.]

[Footnote 33: Edwards, _Life of Raleigh_, I., 82, 83.]

[Footnote 34: Stevens, _Thomas Hariot_, 40.]

[Footnote 35: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, p. 2.]




CHAPTER II

GILBERT AND RALEIGH COLONIES

(1583-1602)


Preparations for Gilbert's second and fateful expedition now went
forward, and public interest was much aroused by the return of Drake,
in 1580, laden with the spoils of America. Gilbert invited Raleigh to
accompany him as vice-admiral, but the queen would not let him
accept.[1] Indeed, she seemed to have a presentiment that all would
not go well, and when the arrangements for the voyage were nearing
completion she caused her secretary of state, Walsingham, to let
Gilbert also know that, "of her special care" for him, she wished his
stay at home "as a man noted of no good hap by sea."[2] But the
queen's remark only proved her desire for Gilbert's safety; and she
soon after sent him word that she wished him as "great goodhap and
safety to his ship as if herself were there in person," and requested
his picture as a keepsake.[3] The fleet of Sir Humphrey Gilbert,
consisting of five ships bearing two hundred and sixty men, sailed
from Plymouth June 11, 1583, and the "mishaps" which the queen feared
soon overtook them. After scarcely two days of voyage the ship sent by
Raleigh, the best in the fleet, deserted. Two more ships got
separated, and the crew of one of them, freed from Gilbert's control,
turned pirates and plundered a French ship which fell in their way.
Nevertheless, Gilbert pursued his course, and on August 3, 1583, he
reached the harbor of St. John's in Newfoundland, where he found the
two missing ships. Gilbert showed his commission to the fishing
vessels, of which there were no fewer than thirty-six of all nations
in port, and their officers readily recognized his authority. Two days
later he took possession of the country in the name of Queen
Elizabeth, and as an indication of the national sovereignty to all men
he caused the arms of England engraved on lead to be fixed on a pillar
of wood on the shore side.

Mishaps did not end with the landing in Newfoundland. The emigrants
who sailed with Gilbert were better fitted for a crusade than a
colony, and, disappointed at not at once finding mines of gold and
silver, many deserted; and soon there were not enough sailors to man
all the four ships. Accordingly, the _Swallow_ was sent back to
England with the sick; and with the remainder of the fleet, well
supplied at St. John's with fish and other necessaries, Gilbert
(August 20) sailed south as far as forty-four degrees north latitude.
Off Sable Island a storm assailed them, and the largest of the
vessels, called the _Delight_, carrying most of the provisions, was
driven on a rock and went to pieces.

Overwhelmed by this terrible misfortune, the colonists returned to
Newfoundland, where, yielding to his crew, Gilbert discontinued his
explorations, and on August 31 changed the course of the two ships
remaining, the _Squirrel_ and _Golden Hind_, directly for England. The
story of the voyage back is most pathetic. From the first the sea was
boisterous; but to entreaties that he should abandon the _Squirrel_, a
little affair of ten tons, and seek his own safety in the _Hind_, a
ship of much larger size, Gilbert replied, "No, I will not forsake my
little company going homeward, with whom I have passed so many storms
and perils." Even then, amid so much danger, his spirit rose supreme,
and he actually planned for the spring following two expeditions, one
to the south and one to the north; and when some one asked him how he
expected to meet the expenses in so short a time, he replied, "Leave
that to me, and I will ask a penny of no man."

A terrible storm arose, but Gilbert retained the heroic courage and
Christian faith which had ever distinguished him. As often as the
_Hind_, tossed upon the waves, approached within hailing distance of
the _Squirrel_, the gallant admiral, "himself sitting with a book in
his hand" on the deck, would call out words of cheer and
consolation--"We are as near heaven by sea as by land." When night
came on (September 10) only the lights in the riggings of the
_Squirrel_ told that the noble Gilbert still survived. At midnight the
lights went out suddenly, and from the watchers on the Hind the cry
arose, "The admiral is cast away." And only the _Golden Hind_ returned
to England.[4]

The mantle of Gilbert fell upon the shoulders of his half-brother Sir
Walter Raleigh, whose energy and versatility made him, perhaps, the
foremost Englishman of his age. When the _Hind_ returned from her
ill-fated voyage Raleigh was thirty-one years of age and possessed a
person at once attractive and commanding. He was tall and well
proportioned, had thick, curly locks, beard, and mustaches, full, red
lips, bluish gray eyes, high forehead, and a face described as "long
and bold."

By service in France, the Netherlands, and Ireland he had shown
himself a soldier of the same fearless stamp as his half-brother Sir
Humphrey Gilbert; and he was already looked upon as a seaman of
splendid powers for organization. Poet and scholar, he was the patron
of Edmund Spenser, the famous author of the _Faerie Queene_; of
Richard Hakluyt, the naval historian; of Le Moyne and John White, the
painters; and of Thomas Hariot, the great mathematician.

Expert in the art of gallantry, Raleigh won his way to the queen's
heart by deftly placing between her feet and a muddy place his new
plush coat. He dared the extremity of his political fortunes by
writing on a pane of glass which the queen must see, "Fain would I
climb, but fear I to fall." And she replied with an encouraging--"If
thy heart fail thee, climb not at all." The queen's favor developed
into magnificent gifts of riches and honor, and Raleigh received
various monopolies, many forfeited estates, and appointments as lord
warden of the stannaries, lieutenant of the county of Cornwall,
vice-admiral of Cornwall and Devon, and captain of the queen's guard.

The manner in which Raleigh went about the work of colonization showed
remarkable forethought and system. In order to enlist the active
cooperation of the court and gentry, he induced Richard Hakluyt to
write for him, in 1584, his _Discourse on Western Planting_, which he
circulated in manuscript.[5] He not only received from the queen in
1584 a patent similar to Gilbert's,[6] but by obtaining a confirmation
from Parliament in 1585 he acquired a national sanction which
Gilbert's did not possess.[7]

In imitation of Gilbert he sent out first an exploring expedition
commanded by Arthur Barlow and Philip Amidas; but, warned by his
brother's experience, he directed them to go southward. They left the
west of England April 27, 1584, and arrived upon the coast of North
Carolina July 4, where they passed into Ocracoke Inlet south of Cape
Hatteras. There, landing on an island called Wokokon--part of the
broken outer coast--Barlow and Amidas took possession in the right of
the queen and Sir Walter Raleigh.[8]

Several weeks were spent in exploring Pamlico Sound, which they found
dotted with many small islands, the largest of which, sixteen miles
long, called by the Indians Roanoke Island, was fifty miles north of
Wokokon. About the middle of September, 1584, they returned to England
and reported as the name of the new country "Wincondacoa," which the
Indians at Wokokon had cried when they saw the white men, meaning
"What pretty clothes you wear!" The queen, however, was proud of the
new discovery, and suggested that it should be called, in honor of
herself, "Virginia."

Pleased at the report of his captains, Sir Walter displayed great
energy in making ready a fleet of seven ships, which sailed from
Plymouth April 9, 1585. They carried nearly two hundred settlers, and
the three foremost men on board were Sir Richard Grenville, the
commander of the fleet; Thomas Cavendish, the future circumnavigator
of the globe; and Captain Ralph Lane, the designated governor of the
new colony. The fleet went the usual way by the West Indies, and June
20 "fell in with the maine of Florida," and June 26 cast anchor at
Wokokon.

After a month the fleet moved out again to sea, and passing by Cape
Hatteras entered a channel now called New Inlet. August 17, the colony
was landed on Roanoke Island, and eight days later Grenville weighed
anchor for England. On the way back Grenville met a Spanish ship
"richly loaden," and captured her, "boording her with a boate made
with boards of chests, which fell asunder, and sunke at the ships
side, as soone as euer he and his men were out of it." October 18,
1585, he arrived with his prize at Plymouth, in England, where he was
received with great honor and rejoicing.[9]

The American loves to connect the beginnings of his country with a
hero like Grenville. He was one of the English admirals who helped to
defeat the Spanish Armada, and nothing in naval warfare is more
memorable than his death. In an expedition led by Lord Charles Howard
in 1591 against the Spanish plate-fleet, Grenville was vice-admiral,
and he opposed his ship single-handed against five great Spanish
galleons, supported at intervals by ten others, and he fought them
during nearly fifteen hours. Then Grenville's vessel was so battered
that it resembled rather a skeleton than a ship, and of the crew few
were to be seen but the dead and dying. Grenville himself was captured
mortally wounded, and died uttering these words, "Here die I, Richard
Grenville, with a joyful and quiet mind, for that I have ended my
life, as a true soldier ought to do, fighting for his country, queen,
religion, and honor."[10]

Of the settlers at Roanoke during the winter after their landing
nothing is recorded, but the prospect in the spring was gloomy. Lane
made extensive explorations for gold-mines and for the South Sea, and
found neither. The natives laid a plot to massacre the settlers, but
Lane's soldierly precaution saved the colonists. Grenville was
expected to return with supplies by Easter, but Easter passed and
there was no news. In order to get subsistence, Lane divided his men
into three parties, of which one remained at Roanoke Island and the
other two were sent respectively to Hatteras and to Croatoan, an
island just north of Wokokon.

Not long after Sir Francis Drake, returning from sacking San Domingo,
Cartagena, and St. Augustine, appeared in sight with a superb fleet of
twenty-three sail. He succored the imperilled colonists with supplies,
and offered to take them back to England. Lane and the chief men,
disheartened at the prospects, abandoned the island, and July 28,
1586, the colonists arrived at Plymouth in Drake's ships, having lost
but four men during the whole year of their stay.[11]

A day or two after the departure of the colonists a ship sent by
Raleigh arrived, and about fourteen or fifteen days later came three
ships under Sir Richard Grenville, Raleigh's admiral. Grenville spent
some time beating up and down Pamlico Sound, hunting for the colony,
and finally returned to England, leaving fifteen men behind at Roanoke
to retain possession.[12] This was the second settlement.

The colonists who returned in Drake's ships brought back to Raleigh
two vegetable products which he speedily popularized. One was the
potato,[13] which Raleigh planted on his estate in Ireland, and the
other was tobacco, called by the natives "uppowoc," which he taught
the courtiers to smoke.

Most of the settlers who went with Lane were mere gold-hunters, but
there were two who would have been valuable to any society--the
mathematician Thomas Hariot, who surveyed the country and wrote an
account of the settlement; and John White, who made more than seventy
beautiful water-colors representing the dress of the Indians and their
manner of living. When the engraver De Bry came to England in 1587 he
made the acquaintance of Hakluyt, who introduced him to John White,
and the result was that De Bry was induced to turn Hariot's account of
Virginia into the first part of his celebrated _Peregrinations_,
illustrating it from the surveys of Hariot and the paintings of John
White.[14]

If Raleigh was disappointed with his first attempt at colonization he
was encouraged by the good report of Virginia given by Lane and
Hariot, and in less than another year he had a third fleet ready to
sail. He meant to make this expedition more of a colony than Lane's
settlement at Roanoke, and selected as governor the painter John
White, who could appreciate the natural productions of the country.
And among the one hundred and fifty settlers who sailed from Plymouth
May 8, 1587, were some twenty-five women and children.

The instructions of Raleigh required them to proceed to Chesapeake
Bay, of which the Indians had given Lane an account on his previous
voyage, only stopping at Roanoke for the fifteen men that Grenville
had left there; but when they reached Roanoke Simon Ferdinando, the
pilot, refused to carry them any farther, and White established his
colony at the old seating-place. None of Grenville's men could be
found, and it was afterwards learned that they had been suddenly
attacked by the Indians, who killed one man and so frightened the rest
as to cause them to take to sea in a row-boat, which was never heard
of again.

Through Manteo, a friendly Indian, White tried to re-establish
amicable relations with the natives, and for his faithful services
Manteo was christened and proclaimed "Lord of Roanoke and
Dasamon-guepeuk"; but the Indians, with the exception of the tribe of
Croatoan, to which Manteo belonged, declined to make friends. August
18, five days after the christening of Manteo, Eleanor Dare, daughter
to the governor and wife of Ananias Dare, one of White's council, was
delivered of a daughter, and this child, Virginia, was the first
Christian born in the new realm.[15]

When his granddaughter was only ten days old Governor White went to
England for supplies. He reached Hampton November 8, 1587.[16] He
found affairs in a turmoil. England was threatened with the great
Armada, and Raleigh, Grenville, Lane, and all the other friends of
Virginia were exerting their energies for the protection of their
homes and firesides.[17] Indeed, the rivalry of England and Spain had
reached its crisis; for at this time all the hopes of Protestant
Christendom were centred in England, and within her borders the
Protestant refugees from all countries found a place of safety and
repose. In 1585 the Dutch, still carrying on their struggle with
Spain, had offered Queen Elizabeth the sovereignty of the Netherlands,
and, though she declined it, she sent an army to their assistance. The
French Huguenots also looked to her for support and protection. Spain,
on the other hand, as the representative of all Catholic Europe, had
never appeared so formidable. By the conquest of Portugal in 1580 her
king had acquired control over the East Indies, which were hardly less
valuable than the colonies of Spain; and with the money derived from
both the Spanish and Portuguese possessions Philip supported his
armies in Italy and the Netherlands, and was the mainstay of the pope
at Rome, the Guises in France, and the secret plotters in Scotland and
Ireland of rebellion against the authority of Elizabeth.

This wide distribution of power was, however, an inherent weakness
which created demands enough to exhaust the treasury even of Philip,
and he instinctively recognized in England a danger which must be
promptly removed. England must be subdued, and Philip, determining on
an invasion, collected a powerful army at Bruges, in Flanders, and an
immense fleet in the Tagus, in Spain. For the attack he selected a
time when Amsterdam, the great mart of the Netherlands, had fallen
before his general the duke of Palma; when the king of France had
become a prisoner of the Guises; and when the frenzied hatred of the
Catholic world was directed against Elizabeth for the execution of
Mary, queen of Scots.

How to meet and repel this immense danger caused many consultations on
the part of Elizabeth and her statesmen, and at first they inclined to
make the defence by land only. But Raleigh, like Themistocles at
Athens under similar conditions, urgently advised dependence on a
well-equipped fleet, and after some hesitation his advice was
followed. Then every effort was strained to bring into service every
ship that could be found or constructed in time within the limits of
England, so that in May, 1588, when Philip's huge Armada set sail from
the Tagus, a numerous English fleet was ready to dispute its onward
passage. A great battle was fought soon after in the English Channel,
and there Lord Charles Howard of Effingham, and Raleigh and Drake and
Hawkins joined with Grenville and Cavendish and Frobisher and Lane,
and all the other glorious heroes of England, in the mighty overthrow
of the Spanish enemy.[18]

Under the inspiration of this tremendous victory the Atlantic Ocean
during the next three years swarmed with English cruisers, and more
than eight hundred Spanish ships fell victims to their attacks. So
great was the destruction that the coast of Virginia abounded in the
wreckage.[19] But the way to a successful settlement in America was
not entirely opened until eight years later, when the English fleet,
under Howard, Raleigh, and Essex, completed the destruction of the
Spanish power by another great naval victory won in the harbor of
Cadiz.

Amid all this excitement and danger Raleigh did not forget his colony
in Virginia. Twice he sent relief expeditions; but the first was
stopped because in the struggle with Spain all the ships were demanded
for government service; and the second was so badly damaged by the
Spanish cruisers that it could not continue its voyage. Raleigh had
spent L40,000 in his several efforts to colonize Virginia, and the
burden became too heavy for him to carry alone. As Hakluyt said, "It
required a prince's purse to have the action thoroughly followed out."
He therefore consented, in 1589, to assign a right to trade in
Virginia to Sir Thomas Smith, John White, Richard Hakluyt, and others,
reserving a fifth of all the gold and silver extracted, and they
raised means for White's last voyage to Virginia.[20]

It was not until March, 1591, that Governor White was able to put to
sea again. He reached Roanoke Island August 17, and, landing, visited
the point where he had placed the settlement. As he climbed the sandy
bank he noticed, carved upon a tree in Roman letters, "CRO," without a
cross, and White called to mind that three years before, when he left
for England, it had been agreed that if the settlers ever found it
necessary to remove from the island they were to leave behind them
some such inscription, and to add a cross if they left in danger or
distress. A little farther on stood the fort, and there White read on
one of the trees an inscription in large capital letters, "Croatoan."
This left no doubt that the colony had moved to the island of that
name south of Cape Hatteras and near Ocracoke Inlet. He wished the
ships to sail in that direction, but a storm arose, and the captains,
dreading the dangerous shoals of Pamlico Sound, put to sea and
returned to England without ever visiting Croatoan.[21] White never
came back to America, and his separation from the colony is heightened
in tragic effect by the loss of his daughter and granddaughter.

What became of the settlers at Roanoke has been a frequent subject of
speculation. When Jamestown was established, in 1607, the search for
them was renewed, but nothing definite could be learned. There is,
indeed, a story told by Strachey that the unfortunate colonists,
finally abandoning all hope, intermixed with the Indians at Croatoan,
and after living with them till about the time of the arrival at
Jamestown were, at the instigation of Powhatan, cruelly massacred.
Only seven of them--four men, two boys, and a young maid--were
preserved by a friendly chief, and from these, as later legends have
declared, descended a tribe of Indians found in the vicinity of
Roanoke Island in the beginning of the eighteenth century and known as
the Hatteras Indians.[22]

Sir Walter Raleigh will always be esteemed the true parent of North
American colonization, for though the idea did not originate with him
he popularized it beyond any other man. Just as he made smoking
fashionable at the court of Elizabeth, so the colonization of
Virginia--that is, of the region from Canada to Florida--was made
fashionable through his example. His enterprise caused the advantages
of America's soil and climate to be appreciated in England, and he was
the first to fix upon Chesapeake Bay as the proper place of
settlement.

When James I succeeded Elizabeth on the throne Raleigh lost his
influence at court, and nearly all the last years of his life were
spent a prisoner in the Tower of London, where he wrote his _History
of the World_. In 1616 he was temporarily released by the king on
condition of his finding a gold-mine in Guiana. When he returned
empty-handed he was, on the complaint of the Spanish ambassador,
arrested, sentenced to death, and executed on an old verdict of the
jury, now recognized to have been based on charges trumped up by
political enemies.[23]

Raleigh never relinquished hope in America. In 1595 he made a voyage
to Guiana, and in 1602 sent out Samuel Mace to Virginia--the third of
Mace's voyages thither. In 1603, just before his confinement in the
Tower, he wrote to Sir Robert Cecil regarding the rights which he had
in that country, and used these memorable words, "I shall yet live to
see it an English nation."[24]

[Footnote 1: Edwards, _Life of Raleigh_, I., 81, II., 10.]

[Footnote 2: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1674, p. 17.]

[Footnote 3: Edwards, _Life of Raleigh_, I., 82.]

[Footnote 4: Hakluyt, _Voyages_, III., 184-208.]

[Footnote 5: Stevens, _Thomas Hariot_, 43-48.]

[Footnote 6: For the patent, see Hakluyt, _Voyages_, III., 297-301.]

[Footnote 7: Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, I., 13.]

[Footnote 8: Hakluyt, _Voyages_, III., 301.]

[Footnote 9: Hakluyt, _Voyages_, III., 302-310.]

[Footnote 10: Edwards, _Life of Raleigh_, I., 144-145.]

[Footnote 11: Hakluyt, _Voyages_, III., 322, IV., 10.]

[Footnote 12: Hakluyt, _Voyages_, III., 323, 340.]

[Footnote 13: Edwards, _Life of Raleigh_, I., 106.]

[Footnote 14: Stevens, _Thomas Hariot_, 55-62.]

[Footnote 15: Hakluyt, _Voyages_, III., 340-345.]

[Footnote 16: Ibid., 346, 347.]

[Footnote 17: Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, I., 19.]

[Footnote 18: Edwards, _Life of Raleigh_, I., 111.]

[Footnote 19: Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, I., 20.]

[Footnote 20: Stebbins, _Life of Raleigh_, 47.]

[Footnote 21: Hakluyt, _Voyages_, III., 350-357.]

[Footnote 22: Strachey, _Travaile into Virginia_, 26, 85.]

[Footnote 23: Edwards, _Life of Raleigh_, I., 706, 721.]

[Footnote 24: Ibid., 91.]

[Illustration: ROANOKE ISLAND, JAMESTOWN AND ST. MARY'S 1584-1632]




CHAPTER III

FOUNDING OF VIRGINIA

(1602-1608)


Though a prisoner in the Tower of London who could not share in the
actual work, Sir Walter Raleigh lived to see his prediction regarding
Virginia realized in 1607. He had personally given substance to the
English claim to North America based upon the remote discovery of John
Cabot, and his friends, after he had withdrawn from the field of
action, were the mainstay of English colonization in the Western
continent.

Bartholomew Gosnold and Bartholomew Gilbert, son of Sir Humphrey, with
Raleigh's consent and under the patronage of Henry Wriothesley, the
brilliant and accomplished earl of Southampton, renewed the attempt at
colonization. With a small colony of thirty-two men they set sail from
Falmouth March 26, 1602, took an unusual direct course across the
Atlantic, and seven weeks later saw land at Cape Elizabeth, on the
coast of Maine. They then sailed southward and visited a headland
which they named Cape Cod, a small island now "No Man's Land," which
they called Martha's Vineyard (a name since transferred to the larger
island farther north), and the group called the Elizabeth Islands. The
colonists were delighted with the appearance of the country, but
becoming apprehensive of the Indians returned to England after a short
stay.[1]

In April, 1603, Richard Hakluyt obtained Raleigh's consent, and, aided
by some merchants of Bristol, sent out Captain Martin Pring with two
small vessels, the _Speedwell_ and _Discovery_, on a voyage of trade
and exploration to the New England coast. Pring was absent eight
months, and returned with an account of the country fully confirming
Gosnold's good report. Two years later, in 1605, the earl of
Southampton and his brother-in-law, Lord Thomas Arundell, sent out
Captain George Weymouth, who visited the Kennebec and brought back
information even more encouraging.[2]

Meanwhile, Queen Elizabeth died March 24, 1603, and was succeeded by
King James I. In November Raleigh was convicted of high-treason and
his monopoly of American colonization was abrogated. By the peace
ratified by the king of Spain June 15, 1605, about a month before
Weymouth's return, the seas were made more secure for English voyages,
although neither power conceded the territorial claims of the
other.[3]

Owing to these changed conditions and the favorable reports of
Gosnold, Pring, and Weymouth, extensive plans for colonization were
considered in England. Since the experiment of private colonization
had failed, the new work was undertaken by joint-stock companies, for
which the East India Company, chartered in 1600, with the eminent
merchant Sir Thomas Smith at its head, afforded a model. Not much is
known of the beginnings of the movement, but it matured speedily, and
the popularity of the comedy of _Eastward Ho!_ written by Chapman and
Marston and published in the fall of 1605, reflected upon the stage
the interest felt in Virginia. The Spanish ambassador Zuniga became
alarmed, and, going to Lord Chief-Justice Sir John Popham, protested
against the preparations then making as an encroachment upon Spanish
territory and a violation of the treaty of peace. Popham, with true
diplomatic disregard of truth, evaded the issue, and assured Zuniga
that the only object of the scheme was to clear England of "thieves
and traitors" and get them "drowned in the sea."[4]

A month later, April 10, 1606, a charter was obtained from King James
for the incorporation of two companies, one consisting of "certain
knights, gentlemen, merchants" in and about London, and the other of
"sundry knights, gentlemen, merchants" in and about Plymouth. The
chief patron of the London Company was Sir Robert Cecil, the secretary
of state; and the chief patron of the Plymouth Company was Sir John
Popham, chief-justice of the Queen's Bench, who presided at the trial
of Raleigh in 1603.

The charter claimed for England all the North American continent
between the thirty-fourth and forty-fifth degrees north latitude, but
gave to each company only a tract fronting one hundred miles on the
sea and extending one hundred miles inland. The London Company was
authorized to locate a plantation called the First Colony in some fit
and convenient place between thirty-four and forty-one degrees, and
the Plymouth Company a Second Colony somewhere between thirty-eight
and forty-five degrees, but neither was to plant within one hundred
miles of the other.

The charter contained "not one ray of popular rights," and neither the
company nor the colonists had any share in the government. The company
must financier the enterprise, but could receive only such rewards as
those intrusted with the management by the home government could win
for them in directing trade, opening mines, and disposing of lands. As
for the emigrants, while they were declared entitled "to all
liberties, franchises, and immunities of British subjects," they were
to enjoy merely such privileges as officers not subject to them in any
way might allow them. The management of both sections of Virginia,
including the very limited grants to the companies, was conferred upon
one royal council, which was to name a local council for each of the
colonies in America; and both superior and subordinate councils were
to govern according to "laws, ordinances, and instructions" to be
given them by the king.[5]

Two days after the date of the charter these promised "laws," etc.,
were issued, and, though not preserved in their original form, they
were probably very similar to the articles published during the
following November.[6] According to these last, the superior council,
resident in England, was permitted to name the colonial councils,
which were to have power to pass ordinances not repugnant to the
orders of the king and superior council; to elect or remove their
presidents, to remove any of their members, to supply their own
vacancies; and to decide all cases occurring in the colony, civil as
well as criminal, not affecting life or limb. Capital offences were to
be tried by a jury of twelve persons, and while to all intents and
purposes the condition of the colonists did not differ from soldiers
subject to martial law, it is to the honor of King James that he
limited the death penalty to tumults, rebellion, conspiracy, mutiny,
sedition, murder, incest, rape, and adultery, and did not include in
the number of crimes either witchcraft or heresy. The articles also
provided that all property of the two companies should be held in a
"joint stock" for five years after the landing.[7]

The charter being thus secured, both companies proceeded to procure
emigrants; and they had not much difficulty, as at this time there
were many unemployed people in England. The wool culture had converted
great tracts of arable land in England into mere pastures for
sheep,[8] and the closure of the monasteries and religious houses
removed the support from thousands of English families. Since 1585
this surplus humanity had found employment in the war with Spain, but
the return of peace in 1605 had again thrown them upon society, and
they were eager for chances, no matter how remote, of gold-mines and
happy homes beyond the seas.[9]

Hence, in three months' time the Plymouth Company had all things in
readiness for a trial voyage, and August 12, 1606, they sent out a
ship commanded by Henry Challons with twenty-nine Englishmen and two
Indians brought into England by Weymouth the year before. Two months
later sailed another ship (of which Thomas Hanham was captain and
Martin Pring master), "with all necessary supplies for the seconding
of Captain Challons and his people." Unfortunately, Captain Challons's
vessel and crew were taken by the Spaniards in the West Indies, and,
though Hanham and Pring reached the coast of America, they returned
without making a settlement.[10] Nevertheless, they brought back, as
Sir Ferdinando Gorges wrote many years after, "the most exact
discovery of that coast that ever came to my hands since," which
wrought "such an impression" on Chief-Justice Popham and the other
members of the Plymouth Company that they determined upon another and
better-appointed attempt at once.[11]

May 31, 1607, this second expedition sailed from Plymouth with one
hundred and twenty settlers embarked in two vessels--a fly boat called
the _Gift of God_ and a ship called _Mary and John_. August 18, 1607,
the company landed on a peninsula at the mouth of the Sagadahoc, or
Kennebec River, in Maine. After a sermon by their preacher, Richard
Seymour, the commission of government and ordinances prepared by the
authorities at home were read. George Popham was therein designated
president; and Raleigh Gilbert, James Davis, Richard Seymour, Richard
Davis, and Captain Harlow composed the council. The first work
attempted was a fort, which they intrenched and fortified with twelve
pieces of ordnance. Inside they erected a church and storehouse and
fifteen log-cabins. Then a ship-builder constructed a pinnace, called
the _Virginia_, which afterwards was used in the southern colony. But
the colonists were soon discouraged, and more than half their number
went back to England in the ships when they returned in December.

The winter of 1607-1608 was terrible to the forty-five men who
remained at Kennebec, where land and water were locked in icy fetters.
Their storehouse took fire and was consumed, with a great part of the
provisions, and about the same time President George Popham died. The
other leader, Captain Raleigh Gilbert, grew discouraged when, despite
an industrious exploration of the rivers and harbors, he found no
mines of any kind. When Captain James Davis arrived in the spring,
bringing news of the death of Chief-Justice Popham and of Sir John
Gilbert, Raleigh Gilbert's brother, who had left him his estate, both
leader and colonists were so disenchanted of the country that they
with one accord resolved upon a return. Wherefore they all embarked,
as we are told, in their newly arrived ship and newly constructed
pinnace and set sail for England. "And this," says Strachey, "was the
end of that northerne colony upon the river Sagadahoc."[12]

To the London Company, therefore, though slower in getting their
expedition to sea, belongs the honor of the first permanent English
colony in America. December 10, 1606, ten days before the departure of
this colony, the council for Virginia set down in writing regulations
deemed necessary for the expedition. The command of the ships and
settlers was given to Captain Christopher Newport, a famous seaman,
who in 1591 had brought into the port of London the treasure-laden
carrack the _Madre de Dios_, taken by Raleigh's ship the _Roe Buck_.
He was to take charge of the commissions of the local council, and not
to break the seals until they had been upon the coast of Virginia
twenty-four hours. Then the council were to elect their president and
assume command of the settlers; while Captain Newport was to spend two
months in discovery and loading his ships "with all such principal
commodities and merchandise there to be had."[13]

With these orders went a paper, perhaps drawn by Hakluyt, giving
valuable advice concerning the selection of the place of settlement,
dealings with the natives, and explorations for mines and the South
Sea.[14] In respect to the place of settlement, they were especially
advised to choose a high and dry situation, divested of trees and up
some river, a considerable distance from the mouth. The emigrants
numbered one hundred and twenty men--no women. Besides Captain
Newport, the admiral, in the _Sarah Constant_, of a hundred tons, the
leading persons in the exploration were Bartholomew Gosnold, who
commanded the _Goodspeed_, of forty tons; Captain John Ratcliffe, who
commanded the _Discovery_, of twenty tons; Edward Maria Wingfield;
George Percy, brother of the earl of Northumberland; John Smith;
George Kendall, a cousin of Sir Edwin Sandys; Gabriel Archer; and Rev.
Robert Hunt.

Among these men John Smith was distinguished for a career combining
adventure and romance. Though he was only thirty years of age he had
already seen much service and had many hairbreadth escapes, his most
remarkable exploit having been his killing before the town of Regal,
in Transylvania, three Turks, one after another, in single combat.[15]
The ships sailed from London December 20, 1606, and Michael Drayton
wrote some quaint verses of farewell, of which perhaps one will
suffice:

  "And cheerfully at sea
  Success you still entice,
    To get the pearl and gold,
    And ours to hold
  Virginia,
  Earth's only paradise!"

The destination of the colony was Chesapeake Bay, a large gulf opening
by a strait fifteen miles wide upon the Atlantic at thirty-seven
degrees, and reaching northward parallel to the sea-coast one hundred
and eighty-five miles. Into its basin a great many smooth and placid
rivers discharge their contents. Perhaps no bay of the world has such
diversified scenery. Among the rivers which enter the bay from the
west, four--the Potomac, Rappahannock, York, and James--are
particularly large and imposing. They divide what is called tide-water
Virginia into long and narrow peninsulas, which are themselves
furrowed by deep creeks making numerous necks or minor peninsulas of
land. Up these rivers and creeks the tide ebbs and flows for many
miles. In 1607, before the English arrived, the whole of this
tide-water region, except here and there where the Indians had a
cornfield, was covered with primeval forests, so free from undergrowth
that a coach with four horses could be driven through the thickest
groups of trees.

The numerous tribes of Indians who inhabited this region belonged to
the Algonquin race, and at the time Captain Newport set sail from
England they were members of a confederacy, of which Powhatan was head
war chief or werowance. There were at least thirty-four of these
tribes, and to each Powhatan appointed one of his own friends as
chief. Powhatan's capital, or "werowocomoco," was on York River at
Portan Bay (a corruption for Powhatan), about fourteen miles from
Jamestown; and Pochins, one of his sons, commanded at Point Comfort,
while Parahunt, another son, was werowance at the falls of the James
River, one hundred and twenty miles inland. West of the bay region,
beyond the falls of the rivers, were other confederacies of Indians,
who carried on long wars with Powhatan, of whom the most important
were the Monacans, or Manakins, and Massawomekes.[16]

Powhatan's dominions extended from the Roanoke River, in North
Carolina, to the head of Chesapeake Bay, and in all this country his
will was despotic. He had an organized system of collecting tribute
from the werowances, and to enforce his orders kept always about him
fifty armed savages "of the tallest in his kingdom." Each tribe had a
territory defined by natural bounds, and they lived on the rivers and
creeks in small villages, consisting of huts called wigwams, oval in
shape, and made of bark set upon a framework of saplings. Sometimes
these houses were of great length, accommodating many families at
once; and at Uttamussick, in the peninsula formed by the Pamunkey and
Mattapony, were three such structures sixty feet in length, where the
Indians kept the bodies of their dead chiefs under the care of seven
priests, or medicine-men.

The religion of these Chesapeake Bay Indians, like that of all the
other Indians formerly found on the coast, consisted in a belief in a
great number of devils, who were to be warded off by powwows and
conjurations. Captain Smith gives an account of a conjuration to which
he was subjected at Uttamussick when a captive in December, 1607. At
daybreak they kindled a fire in one of the long houses and by it
seated Captain Smith. Soon the chief priest, hideously painted,
bedecked with feathers, and hung with skins of snakes and weasels,
came skipping in, followed by six others similarly arrayed. Rattling
gourds and chanting most dismally, they marched about Captain Smith,
the chief priest in the lead and trailing a circle of meal, after
which they marched about him again and put down at intervals little
heaps of corn of five or six grains each. Next they took some little
bunches of sticks and put one between every two heaps of corn. These
proceedings, lasting at intervals for three days, were punctuated with
violent gesticulations, grunts, groans, and a great rattling of
gourds.[17]

Another custom of the Indians is linked with a romantic incident in
Virginia history. Not infrequently some wretched captive, already
bound, to be tortured to death, has owed his life to the interference
of some member of the tribe who announced his or her desire to adopt
him as a brother or son. The motives inducing this interference
proceeded sometimes from mere business considerations and sometimes
from pity, superstition, or admiration. It was Captain Smith's fortune
during his captivity to have a personal experience of this nature.
After the conjuration at Uttamussick Smith was brought to Werowocomoco
and ushered into a long wigwam, where he found Powhatan sitting upon a
bench and covered with a great robe of raccoon skins, with the tails
hanging down like tassels. On either side of him sat an Indian girl of
sixteen or seventeen years, and along the walls of the room two rows
of grim warriors, and back of them two rows of women with faces and
shoulders painted red, hair bedecked with the plumage of birds, and
necks strung with chains of white beads.

At Smith's entrance those present gave a great shout, and presently
two stones were brought before Powhatan, and on these stones Smith's
head was laid. Next several warriors with clubs took their stand near
him to beat out his brains, whereupon Powhatan's "dearest daughter,"
Pocahontas, a girl of about twelve years old, rushed forward and
entreated her father to spare the prisoner. When Powhatan refused she
threw herself upon Smith, got his head in her arms, and laid her own
upon his. This proved too much for Powhatan. He ordered Smith to be
released, and, telling him that henceforth he would regard him as his
son, sent him with guides back to Jamestown.[18]

The credibility of this story has been attacked on the ground that it
does not occur in Smith's _True Relation_, a contemporaneous account
of the colony, and appears first in his _Generall Historie_, published
in 1624. But the editor of the _True Relation_ expressly states that
the published account does not include the entire manuscript as it
came from Smith. Hence the omission counts for little, and there is
nothing unusual in Smith's experience, which, as Dr. Fiske says, "is
precisely in accord with Indian usage." About 1528 John Ortiz, of
Seville, a soldier of Pamfilo de Narvaez, captured by the Indians on
the coast of Florida, was saved from being roasted to death by the
chief's daughter, a case very similar to that of John Smith and
Pocahontas. Smith was often inaccurate and prejudiced in his
statements, but that is far from saying that he deliberately mistook
plain objects of sense or concocted a story having no foundation.[19]

Still another incident illustrative of Indian life is given by Smith.
In their idle hours the Indians amused themselves with singing,
dancing, and playing upon musical instruments made of pipes and small
gourds, and at the time of another visit to Werowocomoco Smith was
witness to a very charming scene in which Pocahontas was again the
leading actor. While the English were sitting upon a mat near a fire
they were startled by loud shouts, and a party of Indian girls came
out of the woods strangely attired. Their bodies were painted, some
red, some white, and some blue. Pocahontas carried a pair of antlers
on her head, an otter's skin at her waist and another on her arm, a
quiver of arrows at her back, and a bow and arrow in her hand. Another
of the band carried a sword, another a club, and another a pot-stick,
and all were horned as Pocahontas. Casting themselves in a ring about
the fire, they danced and sang for the space of an hour, and then with
a shout departed into the woods as suddenly as they came.[20]

On the momentous voyage to Virginia Captain Newport took the old route
by the Canary Islands and the West Indies, and they were four months
on the voyage. In the West Indies Smith and Wingfield quarrelled, and
the latter charged Smith with plotting mutiny, so that he was arrested
and kept in irons till Virginia was reached. After leaving the West
Indies bad weather drove them from their course; but, April 26, 1607,
they saw the capes of Virginia, which were forthwith named Henry and
Charles, after the two sons of King James.

Landing at Cape Henry, they set up a cross April 29, and there they
had their first experience with the Indians. The Chesapeakes assaulted
them and wounded two men. About that time the seals were broken, and
it was found that Edward Maria Wingfield, who was afterwards elected
president for one year, Bartholomew Gosnold, Christopher Newport, John
Smith, John Ratcliffe, John Martin, and George Kendall were
councillors.

For more than two weeks they sought a place of settlement, and they
named the promontory at the entrance of Hampton Roads "Point Comfort,"
and the broad river which opened beyond after the king who gave them
their charter. At length they decided upon a tract of land in the
Paspahegh country, distant about thirty-two miles from the river's
mouth; and though a peninsula they called it an island, because of the
very narrow isthmus (long worn away) connecting it with the main-land.
There they landed May 14, 1607 (May 24 New Style), and at the west
end, where the channel of the river came close to the shore, they
constructed a triangular fort with bulwarks in each corner, mounting
from three to five cannon, and within it marked off the beginnings of
a town, which they called Jamestown.[21]

The colonists were at first in high spirits, for the landing occurred
in the most beautiful month of all the year. In reality, disaster was
already impending, for their long passage at sea had much reduced the
supplies, and the Paspaheghs bitterly resented their intrusion.
Moreover, the peninsula of Jamestown was not such a place as their
instructions contemplated. It was in a malarious situation, had no
springs of fresh water, and was thickly covered with great trees and
tall grass, which afforded protection to Indian enemies.

May 22 Captain Newport went up in a shallop with twenty others to look
for a gold-mine at the falls of James River. He was gone only a week,
but before he returned the Indians had assaulted the fort, and his
assistance was necessary in completing the palisades. When Newport
departed for England, June 22, he left one hundred and four settlers
in a very unfortunate condition:[22] they were besieged by Indians; a
small ladle of "ill-conditioned" barley-meal was the daily ration per
man; the lodgings of the settlers were log-cabins and holes in the
ground, and the brackish water of the river served them for drink.[23]
The six weeks following Newport's departure were a time of death and
despair, and by September 10 of the one hundred and four men only
forty-six remained alive.

Under such circumstances dissensions might have been expected, but
they were intensified by the peculiar government devised by the king.
In a short time Gosnold died, and Kendall was detected in a design to
desert the colony and was shot. Then (September 10) Ratcliffe, Smith,
and Martin deposed Wingfield from the government and elected as
president John Ratcliffe.

In such times men of strong character take the lead. When the cape
merchant Thomas Studley, whose duty it was to care for the supplies
and dispense them, died, his important office was conferred on Smith.
In this capacity Smith showed great abilities as a corn-getter from
the Indians, whom he visited at Kecoughtan (Hampton), Warascoyack, and
Chickahominy. At length, during the fall of 1607, the Indians stopped
hostilities, and for a brief interval health and plenty prevailed.[24]

In December Smith went on an exploring trip up the Chickahominy, but
on this occasion his good luck deserted him--two of his men were
killed by the Indians and he himself was captured and carried from
village to village, but he was released through the influence of
Pocahontas, and returned to Jamestown (January 2, 1608) to find more
dangers. In his absence Ratcliffe, the president, admitted Gabriel
Archer, Smith's deadly enemy, into the council; and immediately upon
his arrival these two arrested him and tried him under the Levitical
law for the loss of the two men killed by the Indians. He was found
guilty and condemned to be hanged the next day; but in the evening
Newport arrived in the _John and Francis_ with the "First Supply" of
men and provisions, and Ratcliffe and Archer were prevented from
carrying out their plan.[25] Newport found only thirty or forty
persons surviving at Jamestown, and he brought about seventy more. Of
the six members of the council living at the time of his departure in
June, 1607, two, Gosnold and Kendall, were dead, Smith was under
condemnation, and Wingfield was a prisoner. Now Smith was restored to
his seat in council, while Wingfield was released from custody.[26]

Five days after Newport's arrival at Jamestown a fire consumed nearly
all the buildings in the fort.[27] The consequence was that, as the
winter was very severe, many died from exposure while working to
restore the town. The settlers suffered also from famine, which
Captain Newport partially relieved by visiting Powhatan in February
and returning in March with his "pinnace well loaden with corne,
wheat, beanes, and pease," which kept the colony supplied for some
weeks.[28]

Newport remained in Virginia for more than three months, but things
were not improved by his stay. His instructions required him to return
with a cargo, and the poor colonists underwent the severest sort of
labor in cutting down trees and loading the ship with cedar, black
walnut, and clapboard.[29] Captain Martin thought he discovered a
gold-mine near Jamestown, and for a time the council had busied the
colonists in digging worthless ore, some of which Newport carried to
England.[30] These works hindered others more important to the
plantation, and only four acres of land was put in corn during the
spring.[31] Newport took back with him the councillors Wingfield and
Archer, and April 20, ten days after Newport's departure, Captain
Francis Nelson arrived in the _Phoenix_ with about forty additional
settlers. He stayed till June, when, taking a load of cedar, he
returned to England, having among his passengers Captain John Martin,
another of the council.

During the summer Smith spent much time exploring the Chesapeake Bay,
Potomac, and Rappahannock rivers,[32] and in his absence things went
badly at Jamestown. The mariners of Newport's and Nelson's ships had
been very wasteful while they stayed in Virginia, and after their
departure the settlers found themselves on a short allowance again.
Then the sickly season in 1608 was like that of 1607, and of
ninety-five men living in June, 1608, not over fifty survived in the
fall. The settlers even followed the precedent of the previous year in
deposing an unpopular president, for Ratcliffe, by employing the men
in the unnecessary work of a governor's house, brought about a mutiny
in July, which led to the substitution of Matthew Scrivener. At
length, September 10, 1608, Captain Ratcliffe's presidency definitely
expired and Captain Smith was elected president.

[Footnote 1: Purchas, _Pilgrimes_, IV., 1647-1651; Strachey, _Travaile
into Virginia_, 153-158; John Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.), 332-340.]

[Footnote 2: Purchas, _Pilgrimes_, IV., 1654-1656, 1659-1667.]

[Footnote 3: Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, I., 27.]

[Footnote 4: Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, I., 46.]

[Footnote 5: Hening, _Statutes_, I., 57-66; see also Cheyney,
_European Background of American History_, chap. viii.]

[Footnote 6: Brown, _First Republic_, 8.]

[Footnote 7: Hening, _Statutes_, I., 67-75.]

[Footnote 8: Ashley, _English Economic History_, II., 261-376.]

[Footnote 9: Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, I., 50.]

[Footnote 10: Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, I., 127-139.]

[Footnote 11: Gorges, _Briefe Narration_ (Mass. Hist. Soc.,
_Collections_, 3d series., VI. 53).]

[Footnote 12: Strachey, _Travaile into Virginia_, 162-180; Brown,
_Genesis of the United States_, I., 190-194.]

[Footnote 13: Neill, _Virginia Company_, 4-8.]

[Footnote 14: Ibid., 8-14.]

[Footnote 15: Purchas, _Pilgrimes_, II., 1365.]

[Footnote 16: On the American Indians, Farrand, _Basis of American
History_, chaps, vi.-xiv.]

[Footnote 17: For accounts of aboriginal Virginia, see Strachey,
_Travaile into Virginia_; Spelman, in Brown, _Genesis of the United
States_, I., 483-488; Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.), 47-84.]

[Footnote 18: Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.), 400.]

[Footnote 19: Cases of rescue and adoption are numerous. See the case
of Conture, in Parkman, _Jesuits_, 223; Fiske, _Old Virginia and Her
Neighbors_, I., 113.]

[Footnote 20: Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.), 436.]

[Footnote 21: Percy, _Discourse_, in Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.),
lvii.-lxx.]

[Footnote 22: Percy, _Discourse_, in Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.),
lxx.]

[Footnote 23: _Breife Declaration_, in Virginia State Senate
_Document_, 1874.]

[Footnote 24: Percy, _Discourse_, in Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.),
lxxiii.]

[Footnote 25: Wingfield, _Discourse_, in Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.),
lxxiv.-xci.]

[Footnote 26: Wingfield, _Discourse_, in Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.),
lxxxvi.]

[Footnote 27: Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, I., 175.]

[Footnote 28: Wingfield, _Discourse_, in Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.),
lxxxvii.]

[Footnote 29: _Breife Declaration_.]

[Footnote 30: Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.), 104.]

[Footnote 31: _Breife Declaration_.]

[Footnote 32: Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.), 109-120.]




CHAPTER IV

GLOOM IN VIRGINIA

(1608-1617)


When Newport arrived with the "Second Supply," September 29, 1608, he
brought little relief. His seventy passengers, added to the number
that survived the summer, raised the population at Jamestown to about
one hundred and twenty. Among the new-comers were Richard Waldo, Peter
Wynne (both added to the council), Francis West, a brother of Lord
Delaware; eight Poles and Germans, sent over to begin the making of
pitch and soap ashes; a gentlewoman, Mrs. Forrest, and her maid, Anne
Burras, who were the first of their sex to settle at Jamestown. About
two months later there was a marriage in the church at Jamestown
between John Laydon and Anne Burras,[1] and a year later was born
Virginia Laydon, the first white child in the colony.[2]

The instructions brought by Newport expressed the dissatisfaction of
the council with the paltry returns made to the company for their
outlay, and required President Smith to aid Newport to do three
things[3]--viz., crown Powhatan; discover a gold-mine and a passage to
the South Sea; and find Raleigh's lost colony. Smith tells us that he
was wholly opposed to all these projects, but submitted as best he
might.

The coronation of Powhatan was a formality borrowed from Sir Walter
Raleigh's peerage for Manteo, and duly took place at Werowocomoco.
Powhatan was presented with a basin, ewer, bed, bed-cover, and a
scarlet cloak, but showed great unwillingness to kneel to receive the
crown. At last three of the party, by bearing hard upon his shoulders,
got him to stoop a little, and while he was in that position they
clapped it upon his head. Powhatan innocently turned the whole
proceeding into ridicule by taking his old shoes and cloak of raccoon
skin and giving them to Newport.

To seek gold-mines and the South Sea, Newport, taking all the strong
and healthy men at the fort, visited the country of the Monacans
beyond the falls of the James. In this march they discovered the vein
of gold that runs through the present counties of Louisa, Goochland,
Fluvanna, and Buckingham; but as the ore was not easily extracted from
the quartz they returned to Jamestown tired and disheartened. The
search for Raleigh's lost colony was undertaken with much less
expense--several small parties were sent southward but learned nothing
important.

In December, 1608, Newport returned to England, taking with him a
cargo of pitch, tar, iron ore, and other articles provided at great
labor by the overworked colonists. Smith availed himself of the
opportunity to send by Newport an account of his summer explorations,
a map of Chesapeake Bay and tributary rivers, and a letter in answer
to the complaints signified to him in the instructions of the home
council. Smith's reply was querulous and insubordinate, and spiteful
enough against Ratcliffe, Archer, and Newport, but contained many
sound truths. He ridiculed the policy of the company, and told them
that "it were better to give L500 a ton for pitch, tar, and the like
in the settled countries of Russia, Sweden, and Denmark than send for
them hither till more necessary things be provided"; "for," said he,
"in overtaxing our weake and unskillful bodies, to satisfie this
desire of present profit, we can scarce ever recover ourselves from
one supply to another." Ratcliffe returned to England with Newport,
after whose departure Smith was assisted for a short time by a council
consisting of Matthew Scrivener, Richard Waldo, and Peter Wynne. The
two former were drowned during January, 1609, and the last died not
long after. Smith was left sole ruler, and, contrary to the intention
of the king, he made no attempt to fill the council.[4]

The "Second Supply" had brought provisions, which lasted only two
months,[5] and most of Smith's time during the winter 1608-1609 was
occupied in trading for corn with the Indians on York River. In the
spring much useful work was done by the colonists under Smith's
directions. They dug a well for water, which till then had been
obtained from the river, erected some twenty cabins, shingled the
church, cleared and planted forty acres of land with Indian-corn,
built a house for the Poles to make glass in, and erected two
block-houses.

Smith started to build a fort "for a retreat" on Gray's Creek,
opposite to Jamestown (the place is still called "Smith's Fort"), but
a remarkable circumstance, not at all creditable to Smith's vigilance
or circumspection, stopped the work and put the colonists at their
wits' end to escape starvation. On an examination of the casks in
which their corn was stored it was found that the rats had devoured
most of the contents, and that the remainder was too rotten to eat.[6]

To avoid starvation, President Smith, like Lane at Roanoke Island, in
May, 1609, dispersed the whole colony in three parties, sending one to
live with the savages, another to Point Comfort to try for fish, and
another, the largest party, twenty miles down the river to the
oyster-banks, where at the end of nine weeks the oyster diet caused
their skins "to peale off from head to foote as if they had been
flead."[7]

While the colony was in this desperate condition there arrived from
England, July 14, 1609, a small bark, commanded by Samuel Argall, with
a supply of bread and wine, enough to last the colonists one month. He
had been sent out by the London Company to try for sturgeon in James
River and to find a shorter route to Virginia. He brought news that
the old charter had been repealed, that a new one abolishing the
council in Virginia had been granted, and that Lord Delaware was
coming, at the head of a large supply of men and provisions, as sole
and absolute governor of Virginia.[8]

The calamities in the history of the colony as thus far outlined have
been attributed to the great preponderance of "gentlemen" among these
early immigrants; but afterwards when the company sent over mechanics
and laborers the story of misfortune was not much changed. The
preceding narrative shows that other causes, purposely underestimated
at the time, had far more to do with the matter. Imported diseases and
a climate singularly fatal to the new-comers, the faction-breeding
charter, the communism of labor, Indian attack, and the unreasonable
desire of the company for immediate profit afford explanations more
than sufficient. Despite the presence of some unworthy characters,
these "gentlemen" were largely composed of the "restless, pushing
material of which the pathfinders of the world have ever been made."

The ships returning from the "Second Supply" reached England in
January, 1609, and the account that they brought of the dissensions at
Jamestown convinced the officers of the London Company that the
government in Virginia needed correction. It was deemed expedient to
admit stockholders into some share of the government, and something
like a "boom" was started. Broadsides were issued by the managers,
pamphlets praising the country were published, and sermons were
delivered by eminent preachers like Rev. William Simonds and Rev.
Daniel Price. Zuniga, the Spanish minister, was greatly disturbed, and
urgently advised his master, Philip III., to give orders to have
"these insolent people in Virginia quickly annihilated." But King
Philip was afraid of England, and contented himself with instructing
Zuniga to keep on the watch; and thus the preparations of the London
Company went on without interruption.[9]

May 23, 1609, a new charter was granted to the company, constituting
it a corporation entirely independent of the North Virginia or
Plymouth Company. The stockholders, seven hundred and sixty-five in
number, came from every rank, profession, or trade in England, and
even included the merchant guilds in London.[10] The charter increased
the company's bounds to a tract fronting on the Atlantic Ocean, "from
the point of land called Cape, or Point, Comfort all along the
sea-coast to the northward two hundred miles, and from the point of
Cape Comfort all along the sea-coast to the southward two hundred
miles," and extending "up into the land, throughout from sea to sea,
west and northwest,"[11] a clause which subsequently caused much
dispute.

The governing power was still far from taking a popular form, being
centred in a treasurer and council, vacancies in which the company had
the right to fill. For the colonists it meant nothing more than change
of one tyranny for another, since the local government in Virginia was
made the rule of an absolute governor. For this office the council
selected one of the peers of the realm, Thomas West, Lord Delaware,
but as he could not go out at once they commissioned Sir Thomas Gates
as first governor of Virginia,[12] arming him with a code of martial
law which fixed the penalty of death for many offences.

All things being in readiness, the "Third Supply" left Falmouth, June
8, 1609, in nine ships, carrying about six hundred men, women, and
children, and in one of the ships called the _Sea Venture_ sailed the
governor, Sir Thomas Gates, and the two officers next in command, Sir
George Somers and Captain Christopher Newport.

When within one hundred and fifty leagues of the West Indies they were
caught in the tail of a hurricane, which scattered the fleet and sank
one of the ships. To keep the _Sea Venture_ from sinking, the men
bailed for three days without intermission, standing up to their
middle in water. Through this great danger they were preserved by
Somers, who acted as pilot, without taking food or sleep for three
days and nights, and kept the ship steady in the waves till she
stranded, July 29, 1609, on one of the Bermuda Islands, where the
company, one hundred and fifty in number, landed in safety. They found
the island a beautiful place, full of wild hogs, which furnished them
an abundance of meat, to which they added turtles, wild fowl, and
various fruits. How to get away was the question, and though they had
not a nail they started promptly to build two small ships, the
_Patience_ and _Deliverance_, out of the cedar which covered the
country-side. May 10, 1610, they were ready to sail with the whole
party for Jamestown, which they reached without accident May 23.[13]

At Jamestown a sad sight met their view. The place looked like "some
ancient fortification" all in ruins; the palisades were down, the
gates were off their hinges, and the church and houses were in a state
of utter neglect and desolation. Out of the ruins tottered some sixty
wretches, looking more like ghosts than human beings, and they told a
story of suffering having hardly a parallel.[14]

The energetic Captain Argall, whose arrival at Jamestown has been
already noticed, temporarily relieved the destitution there, first by
supplies which he brought from England and afterwards by sturgeon
which he caught in the river.[15] August 11, 1609, four of the
storm-tossed ships of Gates's fleet entered Hampton Roads, and not
long after three others joined them. They set on land at Jamestown
about four hundred passengers, many of them ill with the London
plague; and as it was the sickly season in Virginia, and most of their
provisions were spoiled by rain and sea-water, their arrival simply
aggravated the situation.

To these troubles, grave enough of themselves, were added dissensions
among the chief men. Ratcliffe, Martin, and Archer returned at this
time, and President Smith showed little disposition to make friends
with them or with the new-comers, and insisted upon his authority
under the old commission until Gates could be heard from. In the
wrangles that ensued, nearly all the gentlemen opposed Smith, while
the mariners on the ships took his side, and it was finally decided
that Smith should continue in the presidency till September 10, when
his term expired.[16]

Thus having temporarily settled their differences, the leaders divided
the immigrants into three parties, retaining one under Smith at
Jamestown, and sending another under John Martin to Nansemond, and a
third under Francis West to the falls of the James River. The Indians
so fiercely assailed the two latter companies that both Martin and
West soon returned. Smith was suspected of instigating these attacks,
and thus fresh quarrels broke out. About the time of the expiration of
his presidency Smith was injured by an explosion of gunpowder, and in
this condition, exasperated against Martin, Archer, and Ratcliffe of
the former council, he would neither give up the royal commission nor
lay down his office; whereupon they deposed him and elected George
Percy president.[17] When the ships departed in October, 1609, Smith
took passage for England, and thus the colony lost its strongest
character. Whatever qualifications must be made in his prejudiced
account of the colony, the positions of trust which he enjoyed after
reaching home prove that his merit does not rest solely upon his own
opinions.

Under Percy the colony went from bad to worse. Sickness soon
incapacitated him, and his advisers, Martin, Archer, Ratcliffe, and
West, were not men of ability. Probably no one could have accomplished
much good under the conditions; and though it became fashionable
afterwards in England to abuse the emigrants as a "lewd company" and
"gallants packed thither by their friends to escape worse destinies at
home," the broadsides issued by the company show that the emigrants of
the "Third Supply" were chiefly artisans of all sorts.[18] The Rev.
William Croshaw perhaps stated the case fairly in a sermon which he
preached in 1610,[19] when he said that "those who were sent over at
the company's expense were, for aught he could see, like those that
were left behind, even of all sorts, better and worse," and that the
gentlemen "who went on their own account" were "as good as the
scoffers at home, and, it may be, many degrees better."

The colonists at first made various efforts to obtain supplies; and at
President Percy's command John Ratcliffe, in October, 1609,
established a fort called Algernourne and a fishery at Point Comfort,
and in the winter of 1609-1610[20] went in a pinnace to trade with
Powhatan in York River; but was taken off his guard and slain by the
Indians with twenty-seven of his men.[21] Captain West tried to trade
also, but failing in the attempt, sailed off to England.[22] Matters
reached a crisis when the Indians killed and carried off the hogs,
drove away the deer, and laid ambushes all around the fort at
Jamestown.[23]

Finally came a period long remembered as the "Starving Time," when
corn and even roots from the swamps failed. The starving settlers
killed and ate the dogs and horses and then the mice and snakes found
about the fort. Some turned cannibals, and an Indian who had been
slain was dug out of the ground and devoured. Others crazed with
hunger dogged the footsteps of their comrades; and one man cut his
wife into pieces and ate her up, for which barbarous act he was
executed. Even religion failed to afford any consolation, and a man
threw his Bible into the fire and cried out in the market-place,
"There is no God in heaven."

Only Daniel Tucker, afterwards governor of Bermuda, seemed able to
take any thought. He built a boat and caught fish in the river, and
"this small relief did keep us from killing one another to eat," says
Percy. Out of more than five hundred colonists in Virginia in the
summer of 1609 there remained about the latter part of May, 1610, not
above sixty persons--men, women, and children--and even these were so
reduced by famine and disease that had help been delayed ten days
longer all would have perished.[24]

The arrival of Sir Thomas Gates relieved the immediate distress, and
he asserted order by the publication of the code of martial law drawn
up in England.[25] Then he held a consultation with Somers, Newport,
and Percy, and decided to abandon the settlement. As the provisions
brought from the Bermudas were only sufficient to last the company
sixteen days longer, he prepared to go to Newfoundland, where, as it
was the fishing season, he hoped to get further supplies which might
enable them to reach England.[26] Accordingly, he sent the pinnace
_Virginia_ to Fort Algernourne to take on the guard; and then embarked
(June 7, 1610) the whole party at Jamestown in the two cedar vessels
built in the Bermudas. Darkness fell upon them at Hog Island, and the
next morning at Mulberry Island they met the _Virginia_ returning up
the river, bearing a letter from Lord Delaware announcing his arrival
at Point Comfort, and commanding him to take his ships and company
back to Jamestown; which order Gates obeyed, landing at Jamestown that
very night.[27]

It seems that the reports which reached the council of the company in
England in December, of the disappearance of Sir Thomas Gates and the
ill condition of things at Jamestown, threw such a coldness over the
enterprise that they had great difficulty in fitting out the new
fleet. Nevertheless, March 2, 1610, Lord Delaware left Cowes with
three ships and one hundred and fifty emigrants, chiefly soldiers and
mechanics, with only enough "knights and gentlemen of quality" to
furnish the necessary leadership.[28]

He arrived at Point Comfort June 6; and, following Gates up the river,
reached Jamestown June 10. His first work was to cleanse and restore
the settlement, after which he sent Robert Tindall to Cape Charles to
fish, and Argall and Somers to the Bermuda Islands for a supply of hog
meat. Argall missed his way and went north to the fishing banks of
Newfoundland, while Somers died in the Bermudas.

Delaware next proceeded to settle matters with the Indians. The policy
of the company had been to treat them justly, and after the first
summer the settlers bought Jamestown Island from the Paspaheghs for
some copper,[29] and during his presidency Captain Smith purchased the
territory at the Falls.[30] For their late proceedings the Indians had
incurred the penalties of confiscation, but Lord Delaware did not like
harsh measures and sent to Powhatan to propose peace. His reply was
that ere he would consider any accommodation Lord Delaware must send
him a coach and three horses and consent to confine the English wholly
to their island territory.[31] Lord Delaware at once ordered Gates to
attack and drive Powhatan's son Pochins and his Indians from
Kecoughtan; and when this was done he erected two forts at the mouth
of Hampton River, called Charles and Henry, about a musket-shot
distance from Fort Algernourne.

No precautions, however, could prevent the diseases incident to the
climate, and during the summer no less than one hundred and fifty
persons perished of fever. In the fall Delaware concentrated the
settlers, now reduced to less than two hundred, at Jamestown and
Algernourne fort. Wishing to carry out his instructions, he sent an
expedition to the falls of James River to search for gold-mines; but,
like its predecessor, it proved a failure, and many of the men were
killed by the Indians.[32] Delaware himself fell sick, and by the
spring was so reduced that he found it necessary to leave the colony.
When he departed, March 28, 1611, the storehouse contained only enough
supplies to last the people three months at short allowance; and
probably another "Starving Time" was prevented only by the arrival of
Sir Thomas Dale, May 10, 1611.[33]

From this time till the death of Lord Delaware in 1618 the government
was administered by a succession of deputy governors, Sir Thomas
Gates, Sir Thomas Dale, Captain George Yardley, and Captain Samuel
Argall. For five years--1611-1616--of this period the ruling spirit
was Sir Thomas Dale, who had acquired a great reputation in the army
of the Netherlands as a disciplinarian. His policy in Virginia seemed
to have been the advancement of the company's profit at the expense of
the settlers, whom he pretended to regard as so abandoned that they
needed the extreme of martial law. In 1611 he restored the settlements
at forts Charles and Henry; in 1613 he founded Bermuda Hundred and
Bermuda City (otherwise called Charles Hundred and Charles City, now
City Point), and in 1614 he established a salt factory at Smith Island
near Cape Charles.[34]

In laboring at these works the men were treated like galley-slaves and
given a diet "that hogs refused to eat." As a consequence some of them
ran away, and Dale set the Indians to catch them, and when they were
brought back he burned several of them at the stake. Some attempted to
go to England in a barge, and for their temerity were shot to death,
hanged, or broken on the wheel. Although for the most part the men in
the colony at this time were old soldiers, mechanics, and workmen,
accustomed to labor, we are told that among those who perished through
Dale's cruelty were many young men "of Auncyent Houses and born to
estates of L1000 by the year,"[35] persons doubtless attracted to
Virginia by the mere love of adventure, but included by Dale in the
common slavery. Even the strenuous Captain John Smith testified
concerning Jeffrey Abbott, a veteran of the wars in Ireland and the
Netherlands, but put to death by Dale for mutiny, that "he never saw
in Virginia a more sufficient soldier, (one) less turbulent, a better
wit, (one) more hardy or industrious, nor any more forward to cut them
off that sought to abandon the country or wrong the colony."[36]

To better purpose Dale's strong hand was felt among the Indians along
the James and York rivers, whom he visited with heavy punishments. The
result was that Powhatan's appetite for war speedily diminished; and
when Captain Argall, in April, 1613, by a shrewd trick got possession
of Pocahontas, he offered peace, which was confirmed in April, 1614,
by the marriage of Pocahontas to a leading planter named John Rolfe.
The ceremony is believed to have been performed at Jamestown by Rev.
Richard Buck, who came with Gates in 1610, and it was witnessed by
several of Powhatan's kindred.[37]

Dale reached out beyond the territory of the London Company, and
hearing that the French had made settlements in North Virginia, he
sent Captain Samuel Argall in July, 1613, to remove them. Argall
reached Mount Desert Island, captured the settlement, and carried some
of the French to Jamestown, where as soon as Dale saw them he spoke of
"nothing but ropes" and of gallows and hanging "every one of them." To
make the work complete, Argall was sent out on a second expedition,
and this time he reduced the French settlements at Port Royal and St.
Croix River.[38] On his return voyage to Virginia he is said to have
stopped at the Hudson River, where, finding a Dutch trading-post
consisting of four houses on Manhattan Island, he forced the Dutch
governor likewise to submit by a "letter sent and recorded" in
Virginia. Probably in one of these voyages the Delaware River was also
visited, when the "atturnment of the Indian kings" was made to the
king of England.[39] It appears to have received its present name from
Argall in 1610.[40]

Towards the end of his stay in Virginia, Dale seemed to realize that
some change must be made in the colony, and he accordingly abolished
the common store and made every man dependent on his own labor. But
the exactions he imposed upon the settlers in return made it certain
that he did not desire their benefit so much as to save expense to his
masters in England. The "Farmers," as he called a small number to whom
he gave three acres of land to be cultivated in their own way, had to
pay two and a half barrels of corn per acre and give thirty days'
public service in every year; while the "Laborers," constituting the
majority of the colony, had to slave eleven months, and were allowed
only one month to raise corn to keep themselves supplied for a year.
The inhabitants of Bermuda Hundred counted themselves more fortunate
than the rest because they were promised their freedom in three years
and were given one month in the year and one day in the week, from May
till harvest-time, "to get their sustenance," though of this small
indulgence they were deprived of nearly half by Dale. Yet even this
slender appeal to private interest was accompanied with marked
improvement, and in 1614 Ralph Hamor, Jr., Dale's secretary of state,
wrote, "When our people were fed out of the common store and labored
jointly in the manuring of ground and planting corn, ... the most
honest of them, in a general business, would not take so much faithful
and true pains in a week as now he will do in a day."[41]

These were really dark days for Virginia, and Gondomar, the Spanish
minister, wrote to Philip III. that "here in London this colony
Virginia is in such bad repute that not a human being can be found to
go there in any way whatever."[42] Some spies of King Philip were
captured in Virginia, and Dale was much concerned lest the Spaniards
would attack the settlement, but the Spanish king and his council
thought that it would die of its own weakness, and took no hostile
measure.[43] In England the company was so discouraged that many
withdrew their subscriptions, and in 1615 a lottery was tried as a
last resort to raise money.[44]

When Dale left Virginia (May, 1616) the people were very glad to get
rid of him, and not more than three hundred and fifty-one
persons--men, women, and children--survived altogether.[45] Within a
very short time the cabins which he erected were ready to fall and the
palisades could not keep out hogs. A tract of land called the
"company's garden" yielded the company L300 annually, but this was a
meagre return for the enormous suffering and sacrifice of life.[46]
Dale took Pocahontas with him to England, and Lady Delaware presented
her at court, and her portrait engraved by the distinguished artist
Simon de Passe was a popular curiosity.[47] While in England she met
Captain John Smith, and when Smith saluted her as a princess
Pocahontas insisted on calling him father and having him call her his
child.[48]

It was at this juncture that in the cultivation of tobacco, called
"the weed" by King James, a new hope for Virginia was found. Hamor
says that John Rolfe began to plant tobacco in 1612 and his example
was soon followed generally. Dale frowned upon the new occupation, and
in 1616 commanded that no farmer should plant tobacco until he had put
down two acres of his three-acre farm in corn.[49] After Dale's
departure Captain George Yardley, who acted as deputy governor for a
year, was not so exacting. At Jamestown, in the spring of 1617, the
market-place and even the narrow margin of the streets were set with
tobacco. It was hard, indeed, to suppress a plant which brought per
pound in the London market sometimes as much as $12 in present money.
Yardley's government lasted one year, and the colony "lived in peace
and best plentye that ever it had till that time."[50]

[Footnote 1: Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.), 114, 130.]

[Footnote 2: Hotten, _Emigrants to America_, 245; Brown, _First
Republic_, 114.]

[Footnote 3: Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.), 121.]

[Footnote 4: Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.), 23, 125, 442, 449, 460.]

[Footnote 5: _Breife Declaration_.]

[Footnote 6: Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.), 133-147, 154.]

[Footnote 7: _Breife Declaration_.]

[Footnote 8: Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.), 159; Brown, _Genesis of the
United States_, I., 343.]

[Footnote 9: Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, I., 250-321.]

[Footnote 10: Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, I., 228.]

[Footnote 11: Hening, _Statutes_, I., 80-98; Brown, _Genesis of the
United States_, I., 206-224.]

[Footnote 12: _True and Sincere Declaration_, in Brown, _Genesis of
the United States_, I., 345.]

[Footnote 13: Purchas, _Pilgrimes_, IV., 1734-1754; _Plain Description
of the Barmudas_ (Force, _Tracts_, III., No. iii.); Brown, _Genesis of
the United States_, I., 346, 347.]

[Footnote 14: Purchas, _Pilgrimes_, IV., 1749.]

[Footnote 15: _Breife Declaration_; Brown, _Genesis of the United
States_, I., 404-406.]

[Footnote 16: Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, I., 330-332.]

[Footnote 17: Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.), 480-485; Archer's letter,
in Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, I., 331-332; Ratcliffe's
letter, ibid., 334-335; Brown, _First Republic_, 94-97.]

[Footnote 18: Brown, _First Republic_, 92.]

[Footnote 19: Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, I., 364.]

[Footnote 20: Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.), 497.]

[Footnote 21: Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, I., 483-488.]

[Footnote 22: _True Declaration_ (Force, _Tracts_, III., No. i.).]

[Footnote 23: Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.), 498.]

[Footnote 24: _Breife Declaration_; Percy, _Trewe Relacyon_, quoted by
Brown, _First Republic_, 94, and by Eggleston, _Beginners of a
Nation_, 39; _The Tragical Relation_, in Neill, _Virginia Company_,
407-411; _True Declaration_ (Force, _Tracts_, III., No. i.).]

[Footnote 25: _Laws Divine, Morall and Martiall_ (Force, _Tracts_,
III., No. ii.).]

[Footnote 26: Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, I., 401-415.]

[Footnote 27: Ibid., 407.]

[Footnote 28: Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, I., 400-415;
Purchas, _Pilgrimes_, IV., 1734-1756; _True Declaration_ (Force,
_Tracts_, III., No. i.).]

[Footnote 29: _True Declaration_ (Force, _Tracts_, III., No. i.).]

[Footnote 30: Spelman, in Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, I.,
483-488.]

[Footnote 31: Purchas, _Pilgrimes_, IV., 1756.]

[Footnote 32: Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, I., 490.]

[Footnote 33: _Breife Declaration_.]

[Footnote 34: Hamor, _True Discourse_, 29-31; Brown, _Genesis of the
United States_, I., 501-508.]

[Footnote 35: _The Tragical Relation_, in Neill, _Virginia Company_,
407-411.]

[Footnote 36: Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.), 508.]

[Footnote 37: Hamor, _True Discourse_, 11.]

[Footnote 38: Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, I., 709-725.]

[Footnote 39: _A Description of the Province of New Albion_ (1648)
(Force, _Tracts_, II., No. vii.).]

[Footnote 40: Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, I., 438.]

[Footnote 41: Hamor, _True Discourse_, 17; _Breife Declaration_.]

[Footnote 42: Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, II., 739, 740.]

[Footnote 43: Ibid., 657.]

[Footnote 44: Ibid., 760, 761.]

[Footnote 45: John Rolfe, _Relation_, in _Va. Historical Register_,
I., 110.]

[Footnote 46: Virginia Company, _Proceedings_ (Va. Hist. Soc.,
_Collections_, new series, VII.), I., 65.]

[Footnote 47: Neill, _Virginia Company_, 98.]

[Footnote 48: Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.), 533.]

[Footnote 49: Rolfe, _Relation_, in _Va. Historical Register_, I.,
108.]

[Footnote 50: _Breife Declaration_.]

[Illustration: CHART OF VIRGINIA SHOWING INDIAN AND EARLY ENGLISH
SETTLEMENTS IN 1632]




CHAPTER V

TRANSITION OF VIRGINIA

(1617-1640)


During the period of Dale's administration the constitution of the
London Company underwent a change, because the stockholders grew
restless under the powers of the treasurer and council and applied for
a third charter, limiting all important business to a quarterly
meeting of the whole body.

As they made the inclusion of the Bermuda Islands the ostensible
object, the king without difficulty signed the paper, March 12, 1612;
and thus the company at last became a self-governing body.[1] On the
question of governing the colony it soon divided, however, into the
court party, in favor of continuing martial law, at the head of which
was Sir Robert Rich, afterwards earl of Warwick; and the "country," or
"patriot party," in favor of ending the system of servitude. The
latter party was led by Sir Thomas Smith, who had been treasurer ever
since 1607, Sir Edwin Sandys, the earl of Southampton, Sir John
Danvers, and John and Nicholas Ferrar.[2] Of the two, the country
party was more numerous, and when the joint stock partnership expired,
November 30, 1616, they appointed Captain Samuel Argall, a kinsman of
Treasurer Smith, to be deputy governor of Virginia, with instructions
to give every settler his own private dividend of fifty acres and to
permit him to visit in England if he chose.[3]

Argall sailed to Virginia about the first part of April, 1617, taking
with him Pocahontas's husband, John Rolfe, as secretary of state.
Pocahontas was to go with him, but she sickened and died, and was
buried at Gravesend March 21, 1617. She left one son named Thomas, who
afterwards resided in Virginia, where he has many descendants at this
day.[4] Argall, though in a subordinate capacity he had been very
useful to the settlers, proved wholly unscrupulous as deputy governor.
Instead of obeying his instructions he continued the common slavery
under one pretence or another, and even plundered the company of all
the servants and livestock belonging to the "common garden." He
censured Yardley for permitting the settlers to grow tobacco, yet
brought a commission for himself to establish a private tobacco
plantation, "Argall's Gift," and laid off two other plantations of the
same nature.

In April, 1618, the company, incensed at Argall's conduct, despatched
the Lord Governor Delaware with orders to arrest him and send him to
England, but Delaware died on the way over, and Argall continued his
tyrannical government another year. He appropriated the servants on
Lord Delaware's private estates, and when Captain Edward Brewster
protested, tried him by martial law and sentenced him to death; but
upon the petitions of the ministers resident in the colony commuted
the punishment to perpetual banishment.[5]

Meanwhile, Sandys, who had a large share in draughting the second and
third charters, was associated with Sir Thomas Smith in preparing a
document which has been called the "Magna Charta of America." November
13, 1618, the company granted to the residents of Virginia the "Great
charter or commission of priviledges, orders, and laws"; and in
January, 1619, Sir George Yardley was sent as "governor and
captain-general," with full instructions to put the new government
into operation. He had also orders to arrest Argall, but, warned by
Lord Rich, Argall fled from the colony before Yardley arrived. Argall
left within the jurisdiction of the London Company in Virginia, as the
fruit of twelve years' labor and an expenditure of money representing
$2,000,000, but four hundred settlers inhabiting some broken-down
settlements. The plantations of the private associations--Southampton
Hundred, Martin Hundred, etc.--were in a flourishing condition, and
the settlers upon them numbered upward of six hundred persons.[6]

Sir George Yardley arrived in Virginia April 19, 1619, and made known
the intentions of the London Company that there was to be an end of
martial law and communism. Every settler who had come at his own
charge before the departure of Sir Thomas Dale in April, 1616, was to
have one hundred acres "upon the first division," to be afterwards
augmented by another hundred acres, and as much more for every share
of stock (L12 6s.) actually paid by him. Every one imported by the
company within the same period was, after the expiration of his
service, to have one hundred acres; while settlers who came at their
own expense, after April, 1616, were to receive fifty acres apiece. In
order to relieve the inhabitants from taxes "as much as may be," lands
were to be laid out for the support of the governor and other
officers, to be tilled by servants sent over for that purpose. Four
corporations were to be created, with Kecoughtan, Jamestown, Charles
City, and Henrico as capital cities in each, respectively; and it was
announced that thereafter the people of the colony were to share with
the company in the making of laws.[7]

Accordingly, July 30, 1619, the first legislative assembly that ever
convened on the American continent met in the church at Jamestown. It
consisted of the governor, six councillors, and twenty burgesses, two
from each of ten plantations. The delegates from Brandon, Captain John
Martin's plantation, were not seated, because of a particular clause
in his patent exempting it from colonial authority. The assembly,
after a prayer from Rev. Richard Buck, of Jamestown, sat six days and
did a great deal of work. Petitions were addressed to the company in
England for permission to change "the savage name of Kecoughtan," for
workmen to erect a "university and college," and for granting the
girls and boys of all the old planters a share of land each, "because
that in a new plantation it is not known whether man or woman be the
more necessary." Laws were made against idleness, drunkenness, gaming,
and other misdemeanors, but the death penalty was prescribed only in
case of such "traitors to the colony" as sold fire-arms to the
Indians. To prevent extravagance in dress parish taxes were "cessed"
according to apparel--"if he be unmarried, according to his own
apparel; if he be married, according to his own and his wife's or
either of their apparel." Statutes were also passed for encouraging
agriculture and for settling church discipline according to the rules
of the church of England.[8]

Another significant event during this memorable year was the
introduction of negro slavery into Virginia. A Dutch ship arrived at
Jamestown in August, 1619, with some negroes, of whom twenty were sold
to the planters.[9]

A third event was the arrival of a ship from England with ninety
"young maidens" to be sold to the settlers for wives, at the cost of
their transportation--viz., one hundred and twenty pounds of tobacco
(equivalent to $500 in present currency).[10] Cargoes of this
interesting merchandise continued to arrive for many years.

It was fortunate that with the arrival of Yardley the supervision of
Virginia affairs in England passed into hands most interested in
colonial welfare. Sir Thomas Smith had been treasurer or president of
the company for twelve years; but as he was also president of four
other companies some thought that he did not give the proper attention
to Virginia matters. For this reason, and because he was considered
responsible for the selection of Argall, the leaders of his party
determined to elect a new treasurer; and a private quarrel between
Smith and the head of the court party, Lord Rich, helped matters to
this end. To gratify a temporary spleen against Smith, Lord Rich
consented to vote for Sir Edwin Sandys, and April 28, 1619, he was
accordingly elected treasurer with John Ferrar as his deputy. Smith
was greatly piqued, abandoned his old friends, and soon after began to
act with Rich in opposition to Sandys and his group of supporters.[11]

Sandys threw himself into his work with great ardor, and scarcely a
month passed that a ship did not leave England loaded with emigrants
and cattle for Virginia. At the end of the year the company would have
elected him again but for the interference of King James, who regarded
him as the head of the party in Parliament opposed to his prerogative.
He sent word to "choose the devil if you will, but not Sir Edwin
Sandys." Thereupon Sandys stepped aside and the earl of Southampton,
who agreed with him in all his views, was appointed and kept in office
till the company's dissolution; and for much of this time Nicholas
Ferrar, brother of John, acted as deputy to the earl.[12] The king,
however, was no better satisfied, and Count Gondomar, the Spanish
minister, took advantage of the state of things to tell James that he
had "better look to the Virginia courts which were kept at Ferrar's
house, where too many of his nobility and gentry resorted to accompany
the popular Lord Southampton and the dangerous Sandys. He would find
in the end these meetings would prove a _seminary for a seditious
parliament_."[13] These words, it is said, made a deep impression upon
the king, always jealous for his prerogatives.

For two years, however, the crown stayed its hand and the affairs of
Virginia greatly improved. Swarms of emigrants went out and many new
plantations sprang up in the Accomack Peninsula and on both sides of
the James. The most striking feature of these settlements was the
steady growth of the tobacco trade. In 1619 twenty thousand pounds
were exported, and in 1622 sixty thousand pounds. This increasing
importation excited the covetousness of the king, as well as the
jealousy of the Spanish government, whose West India tobacco had
hitherto monopolized the London market. Directly contrary to the
provision of the charter which exempted tobacco from any duty except
five per cent., the king in 1619 levied an exaction of one shilling a
pound, equal to twenty per cent. The London Company submitted on
condition that the raising of tobacco in England should be prohibited,
which was granted. In 1620 a royal proclamation limited the
importation of tobacco from Virginia and the Bermuda Islands to
fifty-five thousand pounds, whereupon the whole of the Virginia crop
for that year was transported to Flushing and sold in Holland. As this
deprived the king of his revenue, the Privy Council issued an order in
1621 compelling the company to bring all their tobacco into
England.[14]

Nevertheless, these disturbances did not interfere with the prosperity
of the settlers. Large fortunes were accumulated in a year or two by
scores of planters;[15] and soon in the place of the old log-cabins
arose framed buildings better than many in England. Lands were laid
out for a free school at Charles City (now City Point) and for a
university and college at Henrico (Dutch Gap). Monthly courts were
held in every settlement, and there were large crops of corn and great
numbers of cattle, swine, and poultry. A contemporary writer states
that "the plenty of those times, unlike the old days of death and
confusion, was such that every man gave free entertainment to friends
and strangers."[16]

This prosperity is marred by a story of heart-rending sickness and
suffering. An extraordinary mortality due to imported epidemics, and
diseases of the climate for which in these days we have found a remedy
in quinine, slew the new-comers by hundreds. One thousand people were
in Virginia at Easter, 1619, and to this number three thousand five
hundred and seventy more were added during the next three years,[17]
yet only one thousand two hundred and forty were resident in the
colony on Good Friday, March 22, 1622, a day when the horrors of an
Indian massacre reduced the number to eight hundred and
ninety-four.[18]

Since 1614, when Pocahontas married John Rolfe, peace with the Indians
continued uninterruptedly, except for a short time in 1617, when there
was an outbreak of the Chickahominies, speedily suppressed by Deputy
Governor Yardley. In April, 1618, Powhatan died,[19] and the chief
power was wielded by a brother, Opechancanough, at whose instance the
savages, at "the taking up of Powhatan's bones" in 1621, formed a plot
for exterminating the English. Of this danger Yardley received some
information, and he promptly fortified the plantations, but
Opechancanough professed friendship. Under Sir Francis Wyatt for some
months everything went on quietly; but about the middle of March,
1622, a noted Indian chief, called Nemmattanow, or Jack o' the
Feather, slew a white man and was slain in retaliation. Wyatt was
alarmed, but Opechancanough assured him that "he held the peace so
firme that the sky should fall ere he dissolved it," so that the
settlers again "fed the Indians at their tables and lodged them in
their bedchambers."[20]

Then like lightning from a clear sky fell the massacre upon the
unsuspecting settlers. The blow was terrible to the colonists: the
Indians, besides killing many of the inhabitants, burned many houses
and destroyed a great quantity of stock. At first the settlers were
panic-stricken, but rage succeeded fear. They divided into squads, and
carried fire and sword into the Indian villages along the James and
the York. In a little while the success of the English was so complete
that they were able to give their time wholly to their crops and to
rebuilding their houses.[21]

To the company the blow was a fatal one, though it did not manifest
its results immediately. So far was the massacre from affecting the
confidence of the public in Southampton and his friends at the head of
the company that eight hundred good settlers went to Virginia during
the year 1622, and John Smith wrote, "Had I meanes I might have choice
of ten thousand that would gladly go."[22] But during the summer the
members of the company were entangled in a dispute, of which advantage
was taken by their enemies everywhere. At the suggestion of the crafty
earl of Middlesex, the lord high treasurer of England, they were
induced to apply to the king for a monopoly of the sale of tobacco in
England; and it was granted on two conditions--viz., that they should
pay the king L20,000 (supposed to be the value of a third of the total
crop of Virginia tobacco) and import at least forty thousand pounds
weight of Spanish tobacco. Though this last was a condition demanded
by the king doubtless to placate the Spanish court, with whom he was
negotiating for the marriage of his son Charles to the infanta, the
contract on the whole was displeasing to Count Gondomar, the Spanish
minister. He fomented dissensions in the company over the details, and
Middlesex, the patron of the measure, being a great favorer of the
Spanish match, changed sides upon his own proposition.[23]

In April, 1623, Alderman Robert Johnson, deputy to Sir Thomas Smith
during the time of his government, brought a petition to the king for
the appointment of a commission in England to inquire into the
condition of the colony, which he declared was in danger of
destruction by reason of "dissensions among ourselves and the massacre
and hostility of the natives." This petition was followed by a
scandalous paper, called _The Unmasking of Virginia_, presented to the
king by another tool of Count Gondomar, one Captain Nathaniel
Butler.[24] The company had already offended the king, and these new
developments afforded him all the excuse that he wanted for taking
extreme measures. He first attempted to cow the company into a
"voluntary" surrender by seizing their books and arresting their
leading members. When this did not avail, the Privy Council, November
3, 1623, appointed a commission to proceed to Virginia and make a
report upon which judicial proceedings might be had. The company
fought desperately, and in April, 1624, appealed to Parliament, but
King James forbade the Commons to interfere.

In June, 1624, the expected paper from Virginia came to hand, and the
cause was argued the same month at Trinity term on a writ of _quo
warranto_ before Chief-Justice James Ley of the King's Bench. The
legal status of the company was unfavorable, for it was in a hopeless
tangle, and the death record in the colony was an appalling fact.
When, therefore, the attorney-general, Coventry, attacked the company
for mismanagement, even an impartial tribune might have quashed the
charter. But the case was not permitted to be decided on its merits.
The company made a mistake in pleading, which was taken advantage of
by Coventry, and on this ground the patent was voided the last day of
the term (June 16, 1624).[25]

Thus perished the great London Company, which in settling Virginia
expended upward of L200,000 (equal to $5,000,000 in present currency)
and sent more than fourteen thousand emigrants. It received back from
Virginia but a small part of the money it invested, and of all the
emigrants whom it sent over, and their children, only one thousand two
hundred and twenty-seven survived the charter. The heavy cost of the
settlement was not a loss, for it secured to England a fifth kingdom
and planted in the New World the germs of civil liberty. In this
service the company did not escape the troubles incident to the
mercenary purpose of a joint-stock partnership, yet it assumed a
national and patriotic character, which entitles it to be considered
the greatest and noblest association ever organized by the English
people.[26] However unjust the measures taken by King James to
overthrow the London Company, the incident was fortunate for the
inhabitants of Virginia. The colony had reached a stage of development
which needed no longer the supporting hand of a distant corporation
created for profit.

In Virginia, sympathy with the company was so openly manifested that
the Governor's council ordered their clerk, Edward Sharpless, to lose
his ears[27] for daring to give King James's commissioners copies of
certain of their papers; and in January, 1624, a protest, called _The
Tragical Relation_, was addressed to the king by the General Assembly,
denouncing the administration of Sir Thomas Smith and his faction and
extolling that of Sandys and Southampton. The sufferings of the colony
under the former were vigorously painted, and they ended by saying,
"And rather (than) to be reduced to live under the like government we
desire his ma^tie y^t commissioners may be sent over w^th authoritie
to hang us."

Although Wyatt cordially joined in these protests, and was a most
popular governor, the General Assembly about the same time passed an
act[28] in the following words: "The governor shall not lay any taxes
or ympositions upon the colony, their lands or commodities, other way
than by authority of the General Assembly to be levied and ymployed as
the said assembly shall appoynt." By this act Virginia formally
asserted the indissoluble connection of taxation and representation.

The next step was to frame a government which would correspond to the
new relations of the colony. June 24, 1624, a few days after the
decision of Chief-Justice Ley, the king appointed a commission of
sixteen persons, among whom were Sir Thomas Smith and other opponents
of Sandys and Southampton, to take charge, temporarily, of Virginia
affairs; and (July 15) he enlarged this commission by forty more
members. On their advice he issued, August 26, 1624, authority to Sir
Francis Wyatt, governor, and twelve others in Virginia, as councillors
to conduct the government of the colony, under such instructions as
they might receive from him or them.

In these orders it is expressly stated that the king's intention was
not to disturb the interest of either planter or adventurer; while
their context makes it clear that he proposed to avoid "the
popularness" of the former government and to revive the charter of
1606 with some amendments. King James died March 27, 1625, and by his
death this commission for Virginia affairs expired.[29]

Charles I. had all the arbitrary notions of his father, but
fortunately he was under personal obligations to Sir Edwin Sandys and
Nicholas Ferrar, Jr., and for their sake was willing to be liberal in
his dealing with the colonists.[30] Hence, soon after his father's
death, he dismissed the former royal commissioners and intrusted
affairs relating to Virginia to a committee of the Privy Council, who
ignored the Smith party and called the Sandys party into
consultation.[31] These last presented a paper in April, 1625, called
_The Discourse of the Old Company_, in which they reviewed fully the
history of the charter and petitioned to be reincorporated. Charles
was not unwilling to grant the request, and in a proclamation dated
May 13, 1625, he avowed that he had come to the same opinion as his
father, and intended to have a "royal council in England and another
in Virginia, but not to impeach the interest of any adventurer or
planter in Virginia."

Still ignorant of the death of King James, Governor Sir Francis Wyatt
and his council, together with representatives from the plantations
informally called, sent George Yardley to England with a petition,
dated June 15, 1625, that they be permitted the right of a general
assembly, that worthy emigrants be encouraged, and that none of the
old faction of Sir Thomas Smith and Alderman Johnson have a part in
the administration; "for rather than endure the government of these
men they were resolved to seek the farthest part of the world."

Yardley reached England in October; and the king, when informed of
Wyatt's desire to resign the government of Virginia on account of his
private affairs, issued a commission, dated April 16, 1626, renewing
the authority of the council in Virginia and appointing Yardley
governor.[32] The latter returned to Virginia, but died in 1627. After
his death the king sent directions to Acting Governor Francis West to
summon a general assembly; and March 26, 1628, after an interval of
four years, the regular law-making body again assembled at Jamestown,
an event second only in importance to the original meeting in
1619.[33]

Other matters besides the form of government pressed upon the
attention of the settlers. Tobacco entered more and more into the life
of the colony, and the crop in the year 1628 amounted to upward of
five hundred thousand pounds.[34] King Charles took the ground of
Sandys and Southampton, that the large production was only temporary,
and like his father, subjected tobacco in England to high duties and
monopoly. He urged a varied planting and the making of pitch and tar,
pipe-staves, potashes, iron, and bay-salt, and warned the planters
against "building their plantation wholly on smoke." It was observed,
however, that Charles was receiving a large sum of money from customs
on tobacco,[35] and it was not likely that his advice would be taken
while the price was 3s. 6d. a pound. Indeed, it was chiefly under the
stimulus of the culture of tobacco that the population of the colony
rose from eight hundred and ninety-four, after the massacre in 1622,
to about three thousand in 1629.[36]

In March, 1629, Captain West went back to England, and a new
commission was issued to Sir John Harvey as governor.[37] He did not
come to the colony till the next year, and in the interval Dr. John
Pott acted as his deputy. At the assembly called by Pott in October,
1629, the growth of the colony was represented by twenty-three
settlements as against eleven ten years before. As in England, there
were two branches of the law-making body, a House of Burgesses, made
up of the representatives of the people, and an upper house consisting
of the governor and council. In the constitution of the popular branch
there was no fixed number of delegates, but each settlement had as
many as it chose to pay the expenses of, a custom which prevailed
until 1660, when the number of burgesses was limited to two members
for each county and one member for Jamestown.[38]

In March, 1630, Harvey arrived, and Pott's former dignity as governor
did not save him from a mortifying experience. The council was not
only an upper house of legislation, but the supreme court of the
colony, and in July, 1630, Pott was arraigned before this tribunal for
stealing cattle, and declared guilty. Perhaps Harvey realized that
injustice was done, for he suspended the sentence, and on petition to
the king the case was re-examined in England by the commissioners for
Virginia, who decided that "condemning Pott of felony was very
rigorous if not erroneous."[39]

The year 1630 was the beginning of a general movement of emigration
northward, and in October Chiskiack, an Indian district on the south
side of the York, about twenty-seven miles below the forks of the
river where Opechancanough resided, was occupied in force. So rapid
was the course of population that in less than two years this first
settlement upon the York was divided into Chiskiack and York. One year
after Chiskiack was settled, Kent Island in Chesapeake Bay was
occupied by a company under William Claiborne, the secretary of state;
and in 1632 Middle Plantation (afterwards Williamsburg) was laid out
and defended by a line of palisades from tide-water to tide-water.[40]

Meanwhile, the old colonial parties did not cease to strive with one
another in England. Harvey had been appointed by the vacillating
Charles to please the former court party, but during the quarrel with
his Parliament over the Petition of Right he became anxious again to
conciliate the colonists and the members of the old company; and in
May, 1631, he appointed[41] a new commission, consisting of the earls
of Dorset and Danby, Sir John Danvers, Sir Dudley Digges, John Ferrar,
Sir Francis Wyatt, and others, to advise him upon "some course for
establishing the advancement of the plantation of Virginia." This
commission had many consultations, and unanimously resolved to
recommend to the king the renewal of the charter of 1612 with all its
former privileges--except the form of government, which was to be
exercised by the king through a council in London and a governor and
council in Virginia, both appointed by him.

In June, 1632, Charles I. so vacillated as to grant Maryland, within
the bounds of "their ancient territories," to Lord Baltimore,
regardless of the protest of the Virginians; and April 28, 1634, he
revoked the liberal commission of 1631, and appointed another, called
"the Commission for Foreign Plantations," composed almost entirely of
opponents of the popular course of government, with William Laud,
archbishop of Canterbury, at the head. This commission had power to
"make laws and orders for government of English colonies planted in
foreign parts, to remove governors and require an account of their
government, to appoint judges and magistrates, to establish courts, to
amend all charters and patents, and to revoke those surreptitiously
and unduly obtained."[42]

Harvey's conduct in Virginia reflected the views of the court party in
England. He offended his council by acting in important matters
without their consent, contrary to his instructions; and showed in
many ways that he was a friend of the persons in England who were
trying to make a monopoly of the tobacco trade. He attempted to lay
taxes, but the assembly, in February, 1632, re-enacted the law of 1624
asserting their exclusive authority over the subject.[43] At the head
of the opposition to Harvey was William Claiborne, the secretary of
state, who opposed Lord Baltimore's claim to Maryland, and, in
consequence, was in the latter part of 1634 turned out of office by
Harvey, to make way for Richard Kempe, one of Lord Baltimore's
friends.

The people of Virginia began in resentment to draw together in little
groups, and talked of asking for the removal of the governor; and
matters came to a crisis in April, 1635, when Harvey suppressed a
petition addressed to the king by the assembly regarding the tobacco
contract, and justified an attack by Lord Baltimore's men upon a
pinnace of Claiborne engaged in the fur trade from Kent Island. At
York, in April, 1635, a meeting of protest was held at the house of
William Warren.

Harvey was enraged at the proceeding and caused the leaders to be
arrested. Then he called a council at Jamestown, and the scenes in the
council chamber are interestingly described in contemporary letters.
Harvey demanded the execution of martial law upon the prisoners, and
when the council held back he flew into a passion and attempted to
arrest George Menifie, one of the members, for high-treason. Captain
John Utie and Captain Samuel Matthews retorted by making a similar
charge against Harvey, and he was arrested by the council, and
confined at the house of Captain William Brocas. Then the council
elected Captain John West, of Chiskiack, brother of Lord Delaware, as
governor, and summoned an assembly to meet at Jamestown in May
following. This body promptly ratified the action of the council, and
Harvey was put aboard a ship and sent off to England in charge of two
members of the House of Burgesses.[44]

This deposition of a royal governor was a bold proceeding and mightily
surprised King Charles. He declared it an act of "regal authority,"
had the two daring burgesses arrested, and on the complaint of Lord
Baltimore, who befriended Harvey, caused West, Utie, Menifie,
Matthews, and others of the unfriendly councillors to appear in
England to answer for their crimes. Meanwhile, to rebuke the dangerous
precedent set in Virginia, he thought it necessary to restore Harvey
to his government.[45]

Harvey did not enjoy his second lease of power long, for the king, in
the vicissitudes of English politics, found it wise to turn once more
a favorable ear to the friends of the old company, and in January,
1639, Sir Francis Wyatt, who had governed Virginia so acceptably once
before, was commissioned to succeed Harvey. The former councillors in
Virginia were restored to power, and in the king's instructions to
Wyatt the name of Captain West was inserted as "Muster-Master-General"
in Charles's own handwriting.[46]

[Footnote 1: Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, II., 543-554;
_First Republic_, 165-167.]

[Footnote 2: Brown, _English Politics in Early Virginia History_,
24-33.]

[Footnote 3: Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, II., 775-779,
797-799.]

[Footnote 4: Ibid., 967.]

[Footnote 5: Virginia Company, _Proceedings_ (Va. Hist. Soc.,
_Collections_, new series, VII., VIII.), I., 65, II., 198.]

[Footnote 6: _Discourse of the Old Company_, in _Va. Magazine_, I.,
157.]

[Footnote 7: Instructions to Yardley, 1618, ibid., II., 154-165.]

[Footnote 8: _Assembly Journal_, 1619, in Va. State Senate
_Documents_, 1874.]

[Footnote 9: Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.), 541.]

[Footnote 10: Virginia Company, _Proceedings_ (Va. Hist. Soc.,
_Collections_, new series, VII.), I., 67.]

[Footnote 11: Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, II., 1014;
Bradford, _Plymouth_, 47.]

[Footnote 12: Virginia Company, _Proceedings_ (Va. Hist. Soc.,
_Collections_, new series, VII.), I., 78.]

[Footnote 13: Peckard, _Ferrar_, 115.]

[Footnote 14: _Discourse of the Old Company_, in _Va. Magazine_, I.,
161.]

[Footnote 15: Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.), 562.]

[Footnote 16: _Breife Declaration_; Neill, _Virginia Company_,
395-406.]

[Footnote 17: Neill, _Virginia Company_, 334.]

[Footnote 18: Brown, _First Republic_, 464, 467.]

[Footnote 19: Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.), 539.]

[Footnote 20: _William and Mary Quarterly_, IX., 203-214; Neill,
_Virginia Company_, 293, 307-321; Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.),
572-594.]

[Footnote 21: Neill, _Virginia Company_, 364, 366.]

[Footnote 22: Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.), 263.]

[Footnote 23: _Discourse of the Old Company_, in _Va. Magazine_, I.,
291-293.]

[Footnote 24: Neill, _Virginia Company_, 395-407.]

[Footnote 25: Peckard, _Ferrar_, 145; _Discourse of the Old Company_,
in _Va. Magazine_, I., 297.]

[Footnote 26: Brown, _First Republic_, 615.]

[Footnote 27: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, 74; Neill,
_Virginia Company_, 407.]

[Footnote 28: Hening, _Statutes_., I., 124.]

[Footnote 29: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1674, p. 64, 1574-1660,
p. 62.]

[Footnote 30: Brown, _English Politics in Early Virginia History_,
89.]

[Footnote 31: Brown, _First Republic_, 640, 641].

[Footnote 32: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, pp. 73, 74, 79.]

[Footnote 33: Ibid., 86, 88; Neill, _Virginia Carolorum_, 55.]

[Footnote 34: Hening, _Statutes_, I., 134.]

[Footnote 35: In 1624 the crop was three hundred thousand pounds, the
total importations from Virginia, Bermuda, and Spain four hundred and
fifty thousand pounds, and the profit in customs to the crown was
L93,350.]

[Footnote 36: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, p. 89.]

[Footnote 37: Ibid., 88.]

[Footnote 38: Hening, _Statutes_, I., 147, II., 20.]

[Footnote 39: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, p. 133.]

[Footnote 40: Hening, _Statutes_, I., 208, 257; Mass. Hist. Soc.,
_Collections_, 4th series, IX., III.]

[Footnote 41: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, p. 130.]

[Footnote 42: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, pp. 136, 177.]

[Footnote 43: Hening, _Statutes_, I., 171.]

[Footnote 44: _Va. Magazine_, I., 416, 425, VIII., 299-306; Neill,
_Virginia Carolorum_, 118-120.]

[Footnote 45: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, pp. 216, 217.]

[Footnote 46: Wyatt's commission, in _Va. Magazine_, XI., 50-54; _Cal.
of State Pap., Col_., 1574-1674, p. 83.]

[Illustration: VIRGINIA IN 1652. Showing the Counties and Dates of
their Formation.]




CHAPTER VI

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF VIRGINIA

(1634-1652)


During the vicissitudes of government in Virginia the colony continued
to increase in wealth and population, and in 1634 eight counties were
created;[1] while an official census in April, 1635, showed nearly
five thousand people, to which number sixteen hundred were added in
1636. The new-comers during Harvey's time were principally servants
who came to work the tobacco-fields.[2] Among them were some convicts
and shiftless people, but the larger number were persons of
respectable standing, and some had comfortable estates and influential
connections in England.[3] Freed from their service in Virginia, not a
few attained positions as justices of the peace and burgesses in the
General Assembly.[4]

The trade of Virginia was become so extensive that Dutch as well as
English ships sought the colony. The principal settlements were on the
north side of James River, and as the voyager in 1634 sailed from
Chesapeake Bay he passed first the new fort at Point Comfort lately
constructed by Captain Samuel Matthews. About five miles farther on
was Newport News, chiefly remarkable for its spring, where all the
ships stopped to take in water, at this time the residence of Captain
Daniel Gookin, a prominent Puritan, who afterwards removed to
Massachusetts. Five miles above Newport News, at Deep Creek, was
Denbeigh, Captain Samuel Matthews's place, a miniature village rather
than plantation, where many servants were employed, hemp and flax
woven, hides tanned, leather made into shoes, cattle and swine raised
for the ships outward bound, and a large dairy and numerous poultry
kept.

A few hours' sail from Denbeigh was Littletown, the residence of
George Menifie. He had a garden of two acres on the river-side, which
was full of roses of Provence, apple, pear, and cherry trees, and the
various fruits of Holland, with different kinds of sweet-smelling
herbs, such as rosemary, sage, marjoram, and thyme. Growing around the
house was an orchard of peach-trees, which astonished his visitors
very much, for they were not to be seen anywhere else on the coast.[5]

About six miles farther was Jamestown, a village of three hundred
inhabitants, built upon two streets at the upper end of the island.
There the governor resided with some of his council, one of whom,
Captain William Pierce, had a garden of three or four acres, from
which his wife a few years before obtained a hundred bushels of
figs.[6] The houses there as elsewhere were of wood, with brick
chimneys, but architecture was improving.

In 1637 the General Assembly offered a lot to every person who should
build a house at Jamestown Island; and in pursuance of the
encouragement given, "twelve new houses and stores were built in the
town," one of brick by Richard Kempe, "the fairest ever known in this
country for substance and uniformity." About the same time money was
raised for a brick church and a brick state-house.[7] As to the
general condition of the colony in 1634, Captain Thomas Young reported
that there was not only a "very great plentie of milk, cheese, and
butter, but of corn, which latter almost every planter in the colony
hath."[8]

Such a "plentie of corn" must be contrasted with the scarcity in 1630,
for the current of prosperity did not run altogether smoothly. The
mortality still continued frightful, and "during the months of June,
July, and August, the people died like cats and dogs,"[9] a statement
especially true of the servants, of whom hardly one in five survived
the first year's hardships in the malarial tobacco-fields along the
creeks and rivers.[10] In 1630 tobacco tumbled from its high price of
3s. 6d. to 1d. per pound, and the colony was much "perplexed" for want
of money to buy corn, which they had neglected to raise. To relieve
the distress, Harvey, the next year, sent several ships to trade with
the Indians up Chesapeake Bay and on the coast as far south as Cape
Fear.[11]

Tobacco legislation for the next ten years consisted in regulations
vainly intended to prevent further declines. Tobacco fluctuated in
value from one penny to sixpence, and, as it was the general currency,
this uncertainty caused much trouble. Some idea of the general
dependency upon tobacco may be had from a statute in 1640, which,
after providing for the destruction of all the bad tobacco and half
the good, estimated the remainder actually placed upon the market by a
population of eight thousand at one million five hundred thousand
pounds.[12]

The decline in the price of tobacco had the effect of turning the
attention of the planters to other industries, especially the supply
of corn to the large emigration from England to Massachusetts. In 1631
a ship-load of corn from Virginia was sold at Salem, in Massachusetts,
for ten shillings the bushel.[13] In 1634 at least ten thousand
bushels were taken to Massachusetts, besides "good quantities of
beeves, goats, and hogs";[14] and Harvey declared that Virginia had
become "the granary of all his majesty's northern colonies,"[15] Yet
from an imported pestilence, the year 1636 was so replete with misery
that Samuel Maverick, of Massachusetts, who visited the colony,
reported that eighteen hundred persons died, and corn sold at twenty
shillings per bushel.[16]

Sir Francis Wyatt arrived in the colony, November, 1639, and
immediately called Harvey to account for his abuse of power. The
decree against Panton was repealed, and his estate, which had been
seized, was returned to him, while the property of Harvey was taken to
satisfy his numerous creditors.[17] The agitation for the renewal of
the charter still continued, and Wyatt called a general assembly
January, 1640, at which time it was determined to make another effort.
George Sandys was appointed agent of the colony in England, and
petitions reached England probably in the autumn of 1640. The breach
between the king and Parliament was then complete, and Charles had
thrown himself entirely into the arms of the court party. Sandys,
despairing of success from the king, appealed to Parliament in the
name of the "Adventurers and Planters in Virginia," and "the Virginia
patent was taken out again under the broad seal of England."[18] To
what extent the new charter established the boundaries of Virginia
does not appear, and the subsequent turn of affairs in Virginia made
the action of Parliament at this time a nullity.

To offset these proceedings, the king commissioned[19] Sir William
Berkeley, a vehement royalist, as successor to the popular Wyatt, and
he arrived in Virginia in January, 1642, where he at once called an
assembly to undo the work of Sandys. A petition to the king protesting
against the restoration of the company was adopted, but although it
was signed by the council and burgesses, as well as by Berkeley, the
preamble alludes to strong differences of opinion.[20] The change of
position was doubtless brought about by the issue made in England
between loyalty and rebellion; and, while desirous of a recharter, the
majority of the people of Virginia did not care to desert the king.
The petition was presented July 5, 1642, to Charles at his
headquarters at York, who returned a gracious reply that "he had not
the least intention to consent to the introduction of any
company."[21]

While loyal to the king, the people of Virginia had never been wedded
to the views of the high-church party in England. Among the ministers
the surplice was not usual, and there was a Puritan severity about the
laws in regard to the Sabbath and attendance at church. As the strife
in England became more pronounced, the people in Nansemond and lower
Norfolk counties, on the south of the James, showed decided leanings
towards Parliament and to the congregational form of worship.

Soon they began to think of separating from the church of England
altogether, and they sent for ministers to New England in 1642. In
response, the elders there despatched three of their number, who,
arriving in Virginia, set zealously to work to organize the
congregations on the Nansemond and Elizabeth rivers. According to
their own account, these ministers met with much success till they
were suddenly stopped in the work by Berkeley, who persuaded the
assembly, in March, 1643, to pass severe laws against Nonconformists;
and under this authority drove them out of the land in 1644.[22]

In the same year occurred an Indian attack which these preachers and
John Winthrop, the governor of Massachusetts, thought to be a special
visitation of Providence. After the massacre in 1622 the war with the
Indians had continued in a desultory way for over twelve years. Year
after year squads of soldiers were sent in various directions against
the different tribes, and by 1634 the Indians were so punished that
the whites thought it safe to make peace. Now, after a repose of ten
years, the fierce instincts of the savages for blood were once more
excited.

April 18, 1644, was Good Friday, and Governor Berkeley ordered it to
be kept as a special fast day to pray for King Charles; instead, it
became a day of bloodshed and mourning.[23] The chief instigator of
the massacre of 1622 was still alive, old Opechancanough, who, by the
death of his brother Opitchapam, was now head chief of the Powhatan
Confederacy. Thinking the civil war in England a favorable occasion to
repeat the bloody deeds of twenty-two years before, on the day before
Good Friday he attacked the settlers, and continued the assault for
two days, killing over three hundred whites. The onslaught fell
severest on the south side of James River and on the heads of the
other rivers, but chiefly on the York River, where Opechancanough had
his residence.[24]

The massacre of 1622 shook the colony to its foundation, and it is
surprising to see how little that of 1644 affected the current of life
in Virginia. Berkeley seemed to think so little of the attack that
after making William Claiborne general of an expedition against the
Pamunkey tribe he left the colony in June, 1645.[25] He was gone a
whole year, and on his return found that Claiborne had driven the
Indians far away from the settlements. In 1646 he received information
which enabled him to close the war with dramatic effect. At the head
of a body of cavalry he surprised old Opechancanough in an encampment
between the falls of the Appomattox and the James, and brought him,
aged and blind, to Jamestown, where, about three weeks later, one of
his guards shot him to death.[26] A peace was made not long after with
Necotowance, his successor, by which the Indians agreed to retire
entirely from the peninsula between the York and James rivers.[27]

One of the most remarkable results of the massacre was the change it
produced in Rev. Thomas Harrison, Berkeley's chaplain at Jamestown,
who had used his influence with the governor to expel the
Nonconformist ministers of New England. He came to the belief of John
Winthrop that the massacre was a Providential visitation and turned
Puritan himself. After a quarrel with Berkeley he left Jamestown and
took charge of the churches on the Elizabeth and Nansemond rivers with
their Puritan congregations. Berkeley would probably have set the
law-officers upon him at once, but among his councillors was Richard
Bennett, himself of Harrison's congregation, and his influence held
the governor back for a time.

Three years passed, and at length Harrison and his elder, William
Durand, were peremptorily directed to leave the colony. Harrison went
first to New England and then to old England, while William Durand
emigrated to Maryland, where, aided by Bennett, he made terms with
Governor William Stone for the emigration of his flock; and in the
year 1649 more than one thousand persons left Virginia and settled on
the Severn and Patuxent rivers. The settlement was called Providence,
and was destined to play a remarkable part in the history of
Maryland.[28]

When the civil war in England was fairly on, emigration to Virginia
was much improved in material, and for many years was very large. The
new-comers came to make homes, not merely to make tobacco, and they no
longer consisted of servants, but of the merchants and yeomanry of
England. "If these troublous times hold long amongst us," wrote
William Hallam, a salter of Burnham, in Essex County, England, "we
must all faine come to Virginia."[29]

Hitherto the uncertainty resulting from the overthrow of the charter
made it difficult to secure a good class of ministers. Those who came
had been "such as wore black coats and could babble in a pulpet, and
roare in a tavern, exact from their parishioners, and rather by their
dissolutenesse destroy than feed their flocks." Now these "wolves in
sheep's clothing" were by the assembly forced to depart the country
and a better class of clergymen arrived.[30] In 1649 there were twenty
churches and twenty ministers who taught the doctrines of the church
of England and "lived all in peace and love";[31] and at the head of
them was a roan of exemplary piety, Rev. Philip Mallory, son of Dr.
Thomas Mallory, Dean of Chester.[32]

The condition of things about 1648 is thus summed up by Hammond, a
contemporary writer: "Then began the gospel to flourish; civil,
honorable, and men of great estates flocked in; famous buildings went
forward; orchards innumerable were planted and preserved; tradesmen
set to work and, encouraged, staple commodities, as silk, flax,
potashes attempted on.... So that this country, which had a mean
beginning, many back friends, two ruinous and bloody massacres, hath
by God's grace outgrown all, and is become a place of pleasure and
plenty."

Later, after the beheading of King Charles in 1649, there was a large
influx of cavaliers, who, while they raised the quality of society,
much increased the sympathy felt in Virginia for the royal cause.
Under their influence Sir William Berkeley denounced the murder of
King Charles I., and the General Assembly adopted an act making it
treason to defend the late proceedings or to doubt the right of his
son, Charles II., to succeed to the crown.[33] Parliament was not long
in accepting the challenge which Berkeley tendered. In October, 1650,
they adopted an ordinance prohibiting trade with the rebellious
colonies of Virginia, Barbadoes, Antigua, and Bermuda Islands, and
authorizing the Council of State to take measures to reduce them to
terms.[34]

In October, 1651, was passed the first of the navigation acts, which
limited the colonial trade to England, and banished from Virginia the
Dutch vessels, which carried abroad most of the exports. About the
same time, having taken measures against Barbadoes, the Council of
State ordered a squadron to be prepared against Virginia. It was
placed under the command of Captain Robert Dennis; and Thomas Stegge,
Richard Bennett, and William Claiborne, members of Berkeley's council,
were joined with him in a commission[35] to "use their best endeavors
to reduce all the plantations within the Bay of Chesopiack." Bennett
and Claiborne were in Virginia at the time, and probably did not know
of their appointment till the ships arrived in Virginia.

The fleet left England in October, 1651, carrying six hundred men, but
on the way Captain Dennis and Captain Stegge were lost in a storm and
the command devolved on Captain Edmund Curtis.[36] In December they
reached the West Indies, where they assisted Sir George Ayscue in the
reduction of Barbadoes. In January, 1652, they reached Virginia, where
Curtis showed Claiborne and Bennett his duplicate instructions.
Berkeley, full of fight, called out the militia, twelve hundred
strong, and engaged the assistance of a few Dutch ships then trading
in James River contrary to the recent navigation act.

The commissioners acted with prudence and good sense. They did not
proceed at once to Jamestown, but first issued a proclamation intended
to disabuse the people of any idea that they came to make war.[37] The
result was that in March, 1652, when they appeared before the little
capital, the council and burgesses overruled Berkeley, and entered
into an agreement with Curtis, Claiborne, and Bennett, which proves
the absence of hard feelings on both sides. The Virginians recognized
the authority of the commonwealth of England, and promised to pass no
statute contrary to the laws of Parliament. On the other hand, the
commissioners acknowledged the submission of Virginia, "as a voluntary
act not forced nor constrained by a conquest upon the countrey"; and
conceded her right "to be free from all taxes, customs, and
impositions whatever, not enforced by the General Assembly." In
particular it was stipulated that "Virginia should have and enjoy the
antient bounds and lymitts granted by the charters of the former
kings."

The articles were signed March 12, 1652, and the commissioners soon
after sailed to St. Mary's and received the surrender of Maryland.
They returned in time to be present at a new meeting of the assembly
held at Jamestown in April, at which it was unanimously voted that
until the further pleasure of Parliament was known Richard Bennett
should be governor and William Claiborne secretary of state. To the
burgesses, as the representatives of the people, was handed over the
supreme power of thereafter electing all officers of the colony.[38]
Then Virginia, the last of the British dominions to abandon the king,
entered upon eight years of almost complete self-government, under the
protection of the commonwealth of England.

In 1652 the settlements in Virginia were embraced in thirteen
counties, of which Northampton, on the Accomack Peninsula, extended to
the southern boundary of Maryland. On the James River were nine
counties: Henrico, Charles City, James City, Surry, Warwick,
Warascoyack, or Isle of Wight, Elizabeth City, Nansemond, and Lower
Norfolk. On York River were York County on the south side and
Gloucester on the north side.[39] On the Rappahannock was Lancaster
County, extending on both sides of the river from Pianketank to
Dividing Creek in the Northern Neck; and on the Potomac was the county
of Northumberland, first settled about 1638 at Chicacoan and
Appomattox on the Potomac, by refugees from Maryland.[40]

Towards the south the plantations, following the watercourses, had
spread to the heads of the creeks and rivers, tributaries of the
James, and some persons more adventurous than the rest had even made
explorations in North Carolina.[41] Westward the extension was, of
course, greatest along the line of the James, reaching as far as the
Falls where Richmond now stands. The population was probably about
twenty thousand, of whom as many as five thousand were white servants
and five hundred were negroes.

The houses throughout the colony were generally of wood, a story and a
half high, and were roofed with shingles. The chimneys were of brick,
and the wealthier people lived in houses constructed wholly of
home-made brick.[42] "They had, besides, good English furniture" and a
"good store of plate." By ordinary labor at making tobacco any person
could clear annually L20 sterling, the equivalent of $500 to-day. The
condition of the servants had greatly improved, and their labor was
not so hard nor of such continuance as that of farmers and mechanics
in England. Thefts were seldom committed, and an old writer asserts
that "he was an eye-witness in England to more deceits and villanies
in four months than he ever saw or heard mention of in Virginia in
twenty years abode there."[43]

The plenty of everything made hospitality universal, and the health of
the country was greatly promoted by the opening of the forests.
Indeed, so contented were the people with their new homes that the
same writer declares, "Seldom (if ever) any that hath continued in
Virginia any time will or do desire to live in England, but post back
with what expedition they can, although many are landed men in
England, and have good estates there, and divers wayes of preferments
propounded to them to entice and perswade their continuance."

In striking contrast to New England was the absence of towns, due
mainly to two reasons--first, the wealth of watercourses, which
enabled every planter of means to ship his products from his own
wharf; and, secondly, the culture of tobacco, which scattered the
people in a continual search for new and richer lands. This rural
life, while it hindered co-operation, promoted a spirit of
independence among the whites of all classes which counteracted the
aristocratic form of government. The colony was essentially a
democracy, for though the chief offices in the counties and the colony
at large were held by a few families, the people were protected by a
popular House of Burgesses, which till 1736 was practically
established on manhood suffrage. Negro slavery tended to increase this
independence by making race and not wealth the great distinction; and
the ultimate result was seen after 1792, when Virginia became the
headquarters of the Democratic-Republican party--the party of popular
ideas.[44]

Under the conditions of Virginia society, no developed educational
system was possible, but it is wrong to suppose that there was none.
The parish institutions introduced from England included educational
beginnings; every minister had a school, and it was the duty of the
vestry to see that all poor children could read and write. The county
courts supervised the vestries and held a yearly "orphans' court,"
which looked after the material and educational welfare of all
orphans.[45]

The benevolent design of a free school in the colony, frustrated by
the massacre of 1622, was realized in 1635, when--three years before
John Harvard bequeathed his estate to the college near Boston which
bears his name--Benjamin Syms left "the first legacy by a resident of
the American plantations of England for the promotion of
education."[46] In 1659 Thomas Eaton established[47] a free school in
Elizabeth City County, adjoining that of Benjamin Syms; and a fund
amounting to $10,000, representing these two ancient charities, is
still used to carry on the public high-school at Hampton, Virginia. In
1655 Captain John Moon left a legacy for a free school in Isle of
Wight County; and in 1659 Captain William Whittington left two
thousand pounds of tobacco for a free school in Northampton County.

[Footnote 1: Hening, _Statutes_, I., 224.]

[Footnote 2: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, pp. 201, 231,
268.]

[Footnote 3: _William and Mary Quarterly_, IV., 173-176, V., 40.]

[Footnote 4: _Virginia's Cure_ (Force, _Tracts_, III., No. xv.).]

[Footnote 5: De Vries, _Voyages_ (N.Y. Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 2d
series, III., 34).]

[Footnote 6: Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.), 887.]

[Footnote 7: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, p. 288. In 1639
Alexander Stonar, brickmaker, patented land on Jamestown Island "next
to the brick-kiln," Tyler, _Cradle of the Republic_, 46, 99.]

[Footnote 8: Mass. Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 4th series, IX., 108.]

[Footnote 9: De Vries, _Voyages_ (N.Y. Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 2d
series, III., 37)]

[Footnote 10: _William and Mary Quarterly_, VII., 66, 114.]

[Footnote 11: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, p. 117.]

[Footnote 12: Hening, _Statutes_, I., 225.]

[Footnote 13: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 67.]

[Footnote 14: Mass. Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 4th series, IX., 110.]

[Footnote 15: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, p. 184.]

[Footnote 16: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 228.]

[Footnote 17: _Va. Magazine_, V., 123-128.]

[Footnote 18: _Virginia and Maryland, or the Lord Baltimore's Printed
Case, uncased and answered_ (Force, _Tracts_, II, No. ix.).]

[Footnote 19: _Va. Magazine_, II., 281-288.]

[Footnote 20: Hening, _Statutes_, I., 230-235.]

[Footnote 21: _Manuscript Collection of Annals relating to Virginia_
(Force, _Tracts_, II., No. vi.).]

[Footnote 22: Latane, _Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia_
(_Johns Hopkins University Studies_, XIII., Nos. iii. and iv.).]

[Footnote 23: Winthrop, _New England_, III, 198, 199].

[Footnote 24: Ibid.; Beverley, _Virginia_, 48.]

[Footnote 25: _Va. Magazine_, VIII., 71-73.]

[Footnote 26: _A Perfect Description of Virginia_ (Force, _Tracts_,
II., No. viii.); Beverley, _Virginia_, 49.]

[Footnote 27: Hening, _Statutes_, I., 323-326.]

[Footnote 28: Latane, _Early Relations_ (_Johns Hopkins University
Studies_, XIII.).]

[Footnote 29: _William and Mary Quarterly_, VIII., 239.]

[Footnote 30: Hammond, _Leah and Rachel_ (Force, _Tracts_, III., No.
xiv.).]

[Footnote 31: _Perfect Description_ (ibid., II., No. viii.).]

[Footnote 32: Neill, _Virginia Carolorum_, 238; Tyler, _Cradle of the
Republic_, 90.]

[Footnote 33: Hening, _Statutes_, I., 359-361.]

[Footnote 34: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, p. 343.]

[Footnote 35: _Md. Archives_, III., 265-267.]

[Footnote 36: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, p. 393.]

[Footnote 37: See report of the commissioners, _Va. Magazine_, XI.,
32.]

[Footnote 38: Hening, _Statutes_, I., 363, 371.]

[Footnote 39: Virginia Land Grants, _MSS_.]

[Footnote 40: _Md. Archives_, IV., 268, 315.]

[Footnote 41: Bancroft, _United States_ (22d ed.), II, 134.]

[Footnote 42: Tyler, "Colonial Brick Houses," in _Century Magazine_,
February, 1896.]

[Footnote 43: Hammond, _Leah and Rachel_ (Force, _Tracts_, III., No.
xiv.).]

[Footnote 44: Tyler, "Virginians Voting in the Colonial Period," in
_William and Mary Quarterly_, VI., 9.]

[Footnote 45: "Education in Colonial Virginia," _William and Mary
Quarterly_, V., 219-223, VI., 1-7, 71-86, 171-186, VII., 1-9, 65, 77.]

[Footnote 46: Neill, _Virginia Carolorum_, 112.]

[Footnote 47: "Eaton's Deed," in _William and Mary Quarterly_, XI,
19.]




CHAPTER VII

FOUNDING OF MARYLAND

(1632-1650)


The founding of Maryland was due chiefly to the personal force of
George Calvert, first Lord Baltimore, son of Leonard Calvert. He was
born near Kiplin, in Yorkshire, about 1580, and graduated at Trinity
College, Oxford, 1597. After making a tour of Europe he became the
private secretary of Sir Robert Cecil, who rapidly advanced his
fortunes. He served upon several missions to investigate the affairs
of Ireland, was knighted in 1617, and in 1619 succeeded Sir Thomas
Lake as principal secretary of state.

In this office he began to revolve plans of colonization in America,
to which his attention was directed as a member of the Virginia
Company since 1609. In 1620 he bought from Sir William Vaughan the
southeastern peninsula of Newfoundland, known as Ferryland, and the
next year sent some colonists thither. He supported the Spanish match;
and when Charles changed his policy he obtained from the king in 1623
a charter for his province, which he called Avalon. In 1625 he
resigned his secretaryship and openly avowed his adherence to the
church of Rome; but the king, as a mark of favor, raised him to the
Irish peerage, with the title of Baron of Baltimore, after a small
town of that name in Ireland.[1]

Baltimore returned to his plans of colonization, and in 1627 went to
Newfoundland with his wife and children. But the country proved too
cold for him and he determined to "shift" to a warmer climate.
Accordingly, in August, 1629, he wrote to the king for a "grant of a
precinct of land in Virginia," with the same privileges as those which
King James gave him in Newfoundland.[2] Without waiting for a reply he
left Avalon, and in October, 1629, arrived in Virginia, where the
governor, Dr. John Pott, and his council received him politely but
coldly. Neither his religion nor his past career as a court favorite,
nor the design which he made known of establishing an independent
state within the confines of Virginia, commended him to the people of
Jamestown.

Naturally, they wished to get rid of him, and the council tendered him
the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, which, in the various
instructions from the king, they were strictly enjoined to require of
all new-comers. The oath of allegiance occasioned no difficulty, but
the oath of supremacy, which required Baltimore to swear that he
believed the king to be "the only supreme governor in his realm in all
spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes," was repugnant to him as
a Catholic, and he declined to take it, but offered to subscribe to a
modified form. This was refused, and after several weeks' sojourn Lord
Baltimore sailed away to England to press his suit in person before
the king.[3]

So far as the law of England stood at that time, the effect of the
dissolution of the London Company was to extinguish the debts of the
corporation and vest all its property undisposed of in the crown. On
the other hand, there were the repeated official pledges of Charles
and his father not to disturb the interest of either planter or
adventurer in any part of the territory formerly conveyed by the
charter of 1609.[4] Nevertheless, the king preferred law to equity,
and October 30, 1629, granted to Sir Robert Heath the province of
Carolana in the southern part of Virginia, between thirty-one and
thirty-six degrees.[5] But there was a clause in this charter
excepting any land "actually granted or in possession of any of his
majesty's subjects."

About the same time Cottington, the secretary of state, was directed
to answer Lord Baltimore's letter written from Newfoundland and
promise him "any part of Virginia not already granted." Lord Baltimore
arrived in London soon after this letter was written, and in December,
1629, petitioned to be permitted to "choose for his part" a tract
south of James River and north of Carolana. A charter was made out for
him in February, 1631, and would have passed the seals but for the
intervention of William Claiborne, one of those Virginia councillors
who had offered the oath to Baltimore.[6]

William Claiborne, the second son of Sir Edward Claiborne, of
Westmoreland County, England, went over to Virginia with Governor
Wyatt in 1621 as surveyor-general of the colony. Shortly afterwards he
was made a councillor, and in 1625 secretary of state of the colony.
In the Indian war, which began with the massacre in 1622, he was
appointed general, and in 1629 received lands in the Pamunkey Neck for
valuable military service. Active and fearless, he engaged with great
success in the trade for furs in the bay, and was recognized as the
foremost man in Virginia. Sent in May, 1630, by the Virginia council
to watch the movements of Lord Baltimore, he co-operated in England
with ex-Governor Francis West, of Virginia, Sir John Wolstenholme, and
other gentlemen who wished the restoration of the London Company.

Aided by these friends, Claiborne defeated the proposed grant, but
Baltimore persevered, and, in April, 1632, received from the crown a
patent for a portion of the Virginia territory lying north of Point
Comfort, and having for bounds the ocean, the fortieth parallel of
north latitude, the meridian of the western fountain of the Potomac,
the southern bank of the Potomac River, and a line drawn east from
Watkins Point. In the grant the land was described as "hitherto
unsettled and occupied only by barbarians ignorant of God." The king
first proposed to call it Mariana, in honor of his wife, Henrietta
Maria, but on Baltimore objecting that it was the name of a Spanish
historian who had written against the doctrine of passive obedience,
Charles modified the appellation, and said, "Let it be called Terra
Mariae--Maryland."[7]

April 15, 1632, George Calvert died, and the charter was made out in
the name of his eldest son, Cecilius, and was signed by the king, June
20, 1632. Cecilius Calvert, named after Sir Robert Cecil, was born in
1605, and in 1621 entered Trinity College, Oxford University. He
married Anne Arundel, daughter of Lord Thomas Arundel, of Wardour. As
Cecilius, unlike his father, never held public positions in England,
his character is best revealed by his conduct of his province in
America, which shows him to have been a man of consummate prudence and
tact.

Baltimore's grant called forth a strong remonstrance from members of
the Virginia Company and all the leading planters in Virginia,
including Claiborne. The matter was referred by the king to the
Commissioners for Foreign Plantations, who heard the complaint, and
July 3, 1633, decided to "leave Lord Baltimore to his patent" and "the
other partie to the course of the law."[8] This certainly meant a
decision against the wholesale claim of Virginia to the ancient
limits, and was deemed by Lord Baltimore as authorizing him to go on
with his settlement; and his patent authorized a form of government
entirely different from anything yet tried in America.

The English colonies of Virginia and Massachusetts were founded by
joint-stock companies really or ostensibly for profit. After the
suppression of the London Company in 1624, the powers of government in
Virginia devolved upon the king, and the government was called a crown
government. Had Charles been a Spanish or French king he would have
appointed an absolute governor who would have tyrannized over the
people. But Charles, as an English king, admitted the colonists into a
share of the government by permitting them to elect one of the
branches of the law-making body. This concession effectually secured
the liberties of the people, for the House of Burgesses, possessing
the sole right to originate laws, became in a short time the most
influential factor of the government.

Baltimore's government for Maryland, on the other hand, was to be a
palatinate similar to the bishopric of Durham, in England, which took
its origin when border warfare with Scotland prevailed, and the king
found it necessary to invest the bishop, as ruler of the county, with
exceptionally high powers for the protection of the kingdom. Durham
was the solitary surviving instance in England of the county
palatinate, so called because the rulers had in their counties _jura
regalia_ as fully as the king had in his palace. In Durham the bishop
had the sole power of pardoning offences, appointing judges and other
officers, coining money, and granting titles of honor and creating
courts. In the other counties of England all writs ran in the king's
name, but in Durham they ran in the bishop's. The county had no
representation in the House of Commons, and were it not that the
bishop was a member of the House of Lords, an officer of the church,
paid taxes into the national treasury, and had to submit to appeals to
the court of exchequer in London, in cases to which he was a party, he
was, to all intents and purposes, a king, and his county an
independent nation.

Baltimore by his charter was made even more independent of the king of
England than the bishop, for neither he nor his province had any taxes
to pay into the British treasury, and he held his territory in free
and common socage by the delivery of two Indian arrows yearly at the
palace of Windsor and a promise of the fifth part of all gold and
silver mined. In legislation the bishop had decidedly the advantage,
for his power to make law was practically uncontrolled, while the
proprietor of Maryland could only legislate "with the advice, assent,
and approbation of the freemen or the greater part of them or their
representatives."[9]

One cardinal feature of Lord Baltimore's colony found no expression
either in the government of Durham or in his own charter. On their
liberality in the question of religion the fame of both George and
Cecilius Calvert most securely rests. While neither realized the
sacredness of the principle of religious freedom, there is no doubt
that both father and son possessed a liberality of feeling which
placed them ahead of their age. Had policy been solely their motive,
they would never have identified themselves with a persecuted and
powerless sect in England. In the charter of Maryland, Baltimore was
given "the patronage and advowsons of all churches which, with the
increasing worship and religion of Christ within the said region,
hereafter shall happen to be built, together with the license and
faculty of erecting and founding churches, chapels, and places of
worship in convenient and suitable places within the premises, and of
causing the same to be dedicated and consecrated according to the
ecclesiastical laws of England." This clause was far from establishing
religious freedom; but while it permitted Baltimore to found Anglican
churches, it did not compel him to do so or prohibit him from
permitting the foundation of churches of a different stamp.

About the middle of October, 1633, Baltimore's two ships got under way
for America--the _Ark_, of three hundred tons, and the _Dove_, of
sixty tons. The emigrants consisted of twenty gentlemen and about
three hundred laborers; and, while most of the latter were
Protestants, the governor, Leonard Calvert, brother of Lord Baltimore,
was a Catholic, as were Thomas Cornwallis and Gabriel Harvey, the two
councillors associated with him in the government, and the other
persons of influence on board. Among the latter were two Jesuit
priests, to one of whom, Father Andrew White, we owe a charming
account of the voyage. Baltimore, in his written instructions to his
brother, manifested his policy of toleration, by directing him to
allow no offence to be given to any Protestant on board, and to cause
Roman Catholics to be silent "upon all occasions of discourse
concerning matters of religion."[10]

The expedition did not get away from England without trouble. The
attempt to divide the territory of Virginia was not popular, and
Catholics were looked upon as dangerous persons. The effort of the
emigrants to sail without subscribing the necessary oaths caused the
ships to be brought back by Admiral Pennington.[11] It was not until
November 22, 1633, that they got off, and the ships took the old route
to Virginia--by way of the West Indies.

February 27, 1634, they reached Point Comfort, where the king's letter
addressed to Sir John Harvey insured them a kind reception. Here they
learned that the Indians of the Potomac were excited over a rumor that
they were Spaniards coming to subdue the country. After a stay of
eight or nine days for fresh provisions the emigrants set sail up
Chesapeake Bay and soon entered the Potomac River, "in comparison with
which the Thames seemed a rivulet." At its mouth they saw natives on
shore in arms, and at night their watch-fires blazed throughout the
country.

March 25 the settlers landed on St. Clement's Island and erected a
cross. Then leaving the _Ark_ with most of the passengers, Governor
Calvert, with the _Dove_, and a pinnace bought at Point Comfort,
explored the river and made friends with the Indians. He found that
they all acknowledged the sovereignty of the "emperor of Piscataqua,"
who, relieved of his apprehensions, gave them permission to settle in
the country. The final choice of a seating-place was due to Captain
Henry Fleet, a well-known member of the Virginia colony, who guided
them up St. George's River, about nine miles from its juncture with
the Potomac; and there, on its north bank, March 27, 1634, Leonard
Calvert laid out the city of St. Mary's.[12]

Though we have little record of the early social and economic
conditions of the settlers, the colony appears to have been remarkably
free from the sufferings and calamities that befell the Virginians.
This exemption was probably due to the following causes: there was no
common stock, but the property was held in severalty; there was a
proper proportion of gentlemen and laborers, few of one class and many
of the other; Virginia was near at hand and provisions and cattle
could be easily secured; and they had immediate use of Indian-cleared
fields, because when they arrived at St. Mary's, the Yaocomocos,
harassed by the Susquehannas, were on the point of removing across the
Potomac to Virginia, and were glad to sell what they had ceased to
value. It seems, too, that Maryland was healthier than Virginia.

Hence, the very first year they had an excellent crop of corn, and
sent a ship-load to New England to exchange for salt fish and other
provisions.[13] Imitating the example of the Virginians, they began
immediately to plant tobacco, which, as in Virginia, became the
currency and leading product. Its cultivation caused the importation
of a great number of servants, "divers of very good rank and
quality,"[14] who, after a service of four or five years, became
freemen. In the assembly of 1638 several of the servants in the first
emigration took their seats as burgesses. As the demand for houses and
casks for tobacco was great, a good many carpenters and coopers came
out at their own expense and received shares of land by way of
encouragement.

A state of society developed similar in many respects to that in
Virginia. Baltimore, accustomed to the type of life in England,
expected the settlements in Maryland to grow into towns and cities;
and, under this impression, in January, 1638, he erected the
population on the south side of St. George's River into a "hundred,"
and afterwards created other hundreds in other parts of the colony.
But the wealth of watercourses and the cultivation of tobacco caused
the population to scatter, and made society from the first distinctly
agricultural and rural. St. Mary's and St. George's Hundred, in
Maryland, shared the fate of Jamestown and Bermuda Hundred, in
Virginia, and no stimulus of legislation could make them grow.

The application of the powers of the palatinate intensified these
conditions by creating an agricultural and landed aristocracy. There
was a council like that in Durham, whose members, appointed by the
lord proprietor, held all the great offices of state.

Outside of the council the most important officer was the sheriff,
who, like the sheriff of Durham, executed the commands of the governor
and the courts, of which there were (in addition to the council) the
county court and the manorial courts, answering respectively to the
court of quarter-sessions and the courts baron and leet in Durham. As
for the manorial courts, feudal relicts transplanted to America, they
sprang from Lord Baltimore's attempt to build up an aristocracy like
that which attended upon the bishop in his palace in Durham. In his
"Conditions for Plantations," August 8, 1636, after providing
liberally for all who brought emigrants to the colony, he directed
that every one thousand acres or greater quantity so given to any
adventurer "should be erected into a manor with a court-baron and
court-leet to be from time to time held within every such manor
respectively."

There were many grants of one thousand acres or more, and Maryland
"lords of the manor" became quite common. These "lords" were the
official heads of numerous tenants and leaseholders who were settled
on their large estates. Yet the manor, as a free-governing community,
was a stronghold of liberty. At the courts baron and leet the tenants
elected the minor officers, tried offences, and made by-laws for their
own government. Later, when negroes substituted white laborers, these
feudal manors changed to plantations worked by slaves instead of free
tenants.[15]

Even great office-holders and a landed aristocracy were insufficient
to sustain the regal dignity to which Lord Baltimore aspired.
Apparently, his right of initiating legislation and dictating the
make-up of the assembly ought to have been sufficient. But political
and social equality sprang from the very conditions of life in the New
World; and despite the veneering of royalty, Maryland came soon to be
a government of the people. The struggle began in the assembly which
met in February, 1635, but not much is known of the proceedings of
this assembly beyond the fact that it assumed the initiative and drew
up a code to which Lord Baltimore refused his assent.

Of subsequent assemblies the record is copious enough. Lord Baltimore
had the right under his charter to summon "all the freemen, or the
greater part of them, or their representatives," and thus for a long
time there was a curious jumble of anomalies, which rendered the
assembly peculiarly sensitive to governmental influence. The second
assembly met at St. Mary's, January 25, 1638, and consisted of the
governor and council, freemen specially summoned, freemen present of
their own volition, and proxies.[16] Governor Calvert submitted a code
of laws sent from Lord Baltimore, and it was rejected by a vote of
thirty-seven to fourteen; but twelve of the minority votes were in two
hands, the governor and Secretary Lewger, an illustration of the
danger of the proxy system.

Not long after, in a letter August 21, 1638, the proprietor yielded by
authorizing Leonard in the future to consent to laws enacted by the
freemen, which assent should temporarily make them valid until his own
confirmation or rejection should be received. To the next assembly,
held February 25, 1639, Leonard Calvert, instead of summoning all the
freemen, issued writs to different hundreds for the election of
representatives.

Among the laws which they enacted was one limiting seats in the
assembly to councillors, persons specially summoned by the
proprietor's writ, and burgesses elected by the people of the
different hundreds. This law controlled the make-up of the next four
assemblies (October, 1640, August, 1641, March and July, 1642).
Nevertheless, in September, 1642, Baltimore reverted to the old
practice.

In 1649 Baltimore made another and last attempt for his initiative. He
sent over a learned and complicated code of sixteen laws which he
asked the assembly to adopt; but they rejected his work and sent him a
code of their own, begging him in their letter not to send them any
more such "bodies of laws, which served to little end than to fill our
heads with jealousies and suspicions of that which we verily
understand not." The next year, 1650, a constitutional system was
perfected not very different from the plan adopted in the
mother-country and Virginia. The assembly was divided into two
chambers, the lower consisting exclusively of burgesses representing
the different hundreds, and the upper of the councillors and those
specially summoned by the governor.[17]

[Footnote 1: Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, II., 841.]

[Footnote 2: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, pp. 83, 93, 100.]

[Footnote 3: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, p. 104; _Md.
Archives_, III., 17.]

[Footnote 4: _Md. Archives_, III., 19.]

[Footnote 5: Heath's grant, in _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1674,
p. 70.]

[Footnote 6: Neill, _Founders of Maryland_, 46, 47.]

[Footnote 7: Neill, _Terra Mariae_, 53; Ogilby, _America_, 183.]

[Footnote 8: _Md. Archives_, III., 21.]

[Footnote 9: Fiske, _Old Virginia and Her Neighbors_; Bassett,
_Constitutional Beginnings of North Carolina_; Lapsley, _County
Palatinate of Durham_.]

[Footnote 10: _Calvert Papers_ (Md. Hist. Soc., _Fund Publications_,
No. 28), p. 132.]

[Footnote 11: _Md. Archives_, III., 23.]

[Footnote 12: White, _Relation_ (Force, _Tracts_, IV., No. xii.);
letter of Leonard Calvert, _Calvert Papers_ (Md. Hist. Soc., _Fund
Publications_, No. 35), pp. 32-35; Baltimore, _Relation_ (London,
1635).]

[Footnote 13: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 166.]

[Footnote 14: Neill, _Founders of Maryland_, 80.]

[Footnote 15: Johnson, _Old Maryland Manors (Johns Hopkins University
Studies_, I., No. iii.).]

[Footnote 16: _Md. Archives_, I., 1-24.]

[Footnote 17: _Md. Archives_, I., 32, 74, 243, 272.]

[Illustration: MARYLAND IN 1652]




CHAPTER VIII

CONTENTIONS IN MARYLAND

(1633-1652)


The delay in the constitutional adjustment of Maryland, while mainly
attributable to the proprietors, was partially due to the prolonged
struggle with Virginia, which for years absorbed nearly all the
energies of the infant community. The decision of the Commissioners
for Foreign Plantations in July, 1633, disallowing the Virginia claim
to unoccupied lands, was construed by the Virginians to mean that the
king at any rate intended to respect actual possession. Now, prior to
the Maryland charter, colonization in Virginia was stretching
northward. In 1630, Chiskiack, on the York River, was settled; and in
August, 1631, Claiborne planted a hundred men on Kent Island, one
hundred and fifty miles from Jamestown.[1]

Though established under a license from the king for trade, Kent
Island had all the appearance of a permanent settlement. Its
inhabitants were never at any time as badly off as the settlers in the
early days at Jamestown and Plymouth, and the island itself was
stocked with cattle and had orchards and gardens, fields of tobacco,
windmills for grinding corn, and women resident upon it. Had it,
however, been only a trading-post, the extension over it of the laws
of Virginia made the settlement a legal occupation. And we are told of
Kent that warrants from Jamestown were directed there. "One man was
brought down and tried in Virginia for felony, and many were arrested
for debt and returned to appeare at James City."[2] In February, 1632,
Kent Island and Chiskiack were represented at Jamestown by a common
delegate, Captain Nicholas Martian.[3] The political existence of the
whole Virginia colony, and its right to take up and settle lands, the
king expressly recognized.

Accordingly, when Leonard Calvert, on his arrival at Point Comfort in
February, 1634, called upon Claiborne to recognize Baltimore's
paramount sovereignty over Kent Island, because of its lying within
the limits of his charter, the council of Virginia, at the request of
Claiborne, considered the claim, and declared that the colony had as
much right to Kent Island as to "any other part of the country given
by his majesty's patent" in 1609.[4] After this, acquiescence in
Baltimore's wishes would have been treason, and Claiborne declined to
acknowledge Lord Baltimore's authority in Kent Island, and continued
to trade in the bay as freely as formerly.

Calvert's instructions[5] had been, in case of such a refusal, not to
molest Claiborne for at least a year. But Captain Fleet, Claiborne's
rival in the fur trade, started a story that Claiborne was the
originator of the rumor which so greatly alarmed the Indians at the
time of the arrival of the emigrants at St. Mary's. Though Claiborne
promptly repelled the calumny, Baltimore, in September, 1634, sent an
order to his brother Leonard to seize Kent Island, arrest Claiborne,
and hold him prisoner.[6] As this mandate was contrary to the order in
July, 1633, of the lords commissioners, which enjoined the parties to
preserve "good correspondence one with another," Claiborne's partners
petitioned the king against it.

Thereupon the king, by an order[7] dated October 8, 1634, peremptorily
warned Lord Baltimore, or his agents, "not to interrupt the people of
Kent Island in their fur trade or plantation." Nevertheless, April 5,
1635, Thomas Cornwallis, one of the Maryland councillors, confiscated
a pinnace of Claiborne's for illegal trading, and this act brought on
a miniature war in which several persons on both sides were killed.[8]
Great excitement prevailed in both colonies, and in Virginia the
people arrested Harvey, their governor, who upheld Cornwallis's
conduct, and shipped him off to England; while two of the councillors
were sent to Maryland to protest against the violent proceedings
affecting Claiborne.[9]

These measures induced a truce, and for nearly three years there were
no further hostilities in the bay. Claiborne brought his case before
the king, who referred it to the Lords Commissioners for Plantations;
then, as his partners feared to take further risk, he carried on the
trade in the bay almost solely with his own servants and resources. In
December, 1636, these partners, becoming dissatisfied at their loss of
profit, made the capital mistake of sending, as their agent to Kent
Island, George Evelin, who pretended at first to be an ardent
supporter of Claiborne, but presently, under a power of attorney,
claimed control over all the partnership stock.

Claiborne, naturally indignant and not suspecting any danger, sailed
for England in May, 1637, to settle accounts with his partners, having
just previously established another settlement on Palmer's Island at
the mouth of the Susquehanna River, believed by him to be north of the
Maryland patent. After he was gone, Evelin tried to persuade the
inhabitants to disown Claiborne and submit to Lord Baltimore; and when
they declined he urged Governor Calvert to attempt the reduction of
the island by force. After some hesitation the latter consented, and
while the assembly was sitting at St. Mary's, in February, 1638,
Calvert made a landing at night with thirty men, and, taking the
inhabitants by surprise, succeeded in reducing the island to
submission.[10]

Calvert's after-conduct reflects little credit upon his reputation for
leniency. In March, 1638, he caused Claiborne to be attainted by the
assembly as a rebel and his property confiscated, and Thomas Smith,
who commanded one of Claiborne's pinnaces in the battles three years
before, was tried and hanged for murder and piracy.[11] In England, in
the mean time, Claiborne and Baltimore were contending zealously for
the favor of the king. Both had powerful interests behind them, but
Baltimore's were the stronger. At last the Commissioners for Foreign
Plantations rendered a report (April 4, 1638), giving Kent Island and
the right of trade in the bay wholly to Lord Baltimore, leaving all
personal wrongs to be redressed by the courts.

The question of title at least seemed settled, and in October, 1638,
Sir John Harvey, now restored as governor of Virginia, issued a
proclamation recognizing the validity of the decision. Claiborne
submitted, and, being left to "the course of the law," empowered
George Scovell to recover, if possible, some of the confiscated
property in Maryland; but Scovell was told that the law-courts of
Maryland were closed against such a rebel as Claiborne.[12] The
justice of the English decision depends on the impartiality of the
board which made it, and of any board with Bishop Laud at the head
only partisanship could be expected.

While these turbulent proceedings were going on, the Jesuit priests
introduced into the colony by Lord Baltimore were performing a work of
peace and love. They visited the Indian tribes and made many Christian
converts. Tayac, chief of the Piscataquas, received baptism, and his
example was followed by the chiefs and inhabitants of Port Tobacco.
The main trouble came from the Nanticokes on the eastern shore, and
the fierce Susquehannas to the north of the settlements, and at
different times armed expeditions were sent out against them; but
there was nothing like a war.

For sixteen years the only clergy in the colony were priests, who were
so zealous in their propaganda that nearly all the Protestants who
came in 1638 were converted to Catholicism and many later conversions
were made.[13] Nevertheless, the Catholic governor and council acted
up to the spirit of the instructions given by Baltimore to his brother
on the sailing of the first emigrants from the port of London, and
would permit no language tending to insult or breach of peace. Not
long after the arrival at St. Mary's a proclamation to this end was
issued, of which only two violations appear in the records; in both
cases the offenders were Roman Catholics, and they were arrested and
promptly punished.[14]

Baltimore would not even exempt the Jesuit priests in Maryland from
the ordinary laws as to lands and taxes, and by the "Conditions of
Plantations," published in 1648, he prohibited any society, temporal
or spiritual, from taking up land.[15] In 1643 his liberality carried
him so far as to induce him to extend, through Major Edward Gibbons,
an invitation to the Puritans of Massachusetts to emigrate to
Maryland, with a full assurance of "free liberty of religion"; but
Winthrop grimly writes, "None of our people had temptation that
way."[16]

In the year of this invitation the possibility of a new shuffle of the
political cards occurred through the breaking out of the war so long
brewing in England between the king and Parliament. The struggle of
party made itself strongly felt in Maryland, where, among the
Protestants, sympathy with Parliament was supplemented by hatred of
Catholics. In 1643, Governor Leonard Calvert repaired to England,
where he received letters of marque from the king at Oxford
commissioning him to seize ships belonging to Parliament. Accordingly,
when, three months later, in January, 1644, Captain Richard Ingle
arrived in his ship at St. Mary's and uttered some blatant words
against the king, he was arrested by Acting Governor Brent, for
treason. The charges were dismissed by the grand jury as unfounded,
but Brent treated Ingle harshly, and fined and exiled Thomas
Cornwallis for assisting the captain in escaping.[17]

In September, 1644, when Calvert returned to Maryland, there were
strong symptoms of revolt, which came to a head when Ingle came back
to St. Mary's with a commission from Parliament in February, 1645.
Chaotic times ensued, during which Catholics were made victims of the
cruel prejudices of the Protestants. The two Jesuit priests, Father
Andrew White and Father Philip Fisher, were arrested, loaded with
irons,[18] and sent prisoners into England, while Leonard Calvert
himself was driven from Maryland into Virginia.[19]

During these tumults so many persons went over from Virginia to
Maryland that the Virginia assembly sent Captain Edward Hill and
Captain Thomas Willoughby to compel the return of the absentees,[20]
with curious result. As the province was without a governor, some of
the council of Maryland issued, in the name of the refugee Calvert, a
commission to Hill to act as governor of Maryland. The revolutionists
flattered themselves that a stable government under a Protestant
governor was now at hand. But the unexpected came to pass, when, in
December, 1646, Governor Calvert suddenly appeared with a strong body
of soldiers furnished by Sir William Berkeley and re-established his
authority by capturing both Hill and the Protestant assembly then
sitting at St. Mary's.

These two years of civil war in Maryland are called the "plundering
time." Claiborne again appears, though there is no evidence that he
had any part in Ingle's spoliations.[21] He did visit Kent Island
about Christmas, 1645, and put Captain Brent, to whom Governor Calvert
had assigned his house and property, in a terrible fright. One year
later he visited the island a second time, when he offered to aid the
Kent Islanders in marching upon St. Mary's with a view of reinstating
Hill. When the men of Kent declined to take the risk, Claiborne
returned to Virginia, and Kent Island fell once more under the
government of Lord Baltimore.[22] On this visit Claiborne, instead of
posing as a friend of the Parliament, showed a commission and letter
from the king, by whom he appears to have stood till the king's death
in 1649. Charles I., in his turn, who deposed Lord Baltimore as a
"notorious parliamentarian," appointed Claiborne, in 1642, treasurer
of Virginia;[23] and Charles II. included his name among the list of
councillors in the commission issued by Sir William Berkeley in
1650.[24]

While Maryland was thus convulsed with civil war an ordinance settling
the Maryland government in Protestant hands passed the House of Lords.
Before the Commons could concur, Lord Baltimore appeared and asked for
time to inquire into the charges. This was after the battle of Marston
Moor, and perhaps marks the moment when Lord Baltimore, conceiving the
king's cause desperate, began to trim his sails to the parliamentary
side. His request was granted, and Parliament, diverted from immediate
action, left Baltimore's authority unaffected for several years.[25]

In this interval Baltimore busied himself in reorganizing his
government on a Protestant basis. Leonard Calvert died in June, 1647,
not long after his _coup d'etat_ at St. Mary's, and upon his deathbed
he appointed Thomas Greene, a Catholic and royalist, as his successor.
Lord Baltimore removed him and appointed in his stead a Protestant,
Captain William Stone, of Northampton County, Virginia, giving him a
Protestant secretary and a Protestant majority of councillors. Yet
Baltimore took care not to surrender the cardinal principle of his
government. Before Stone and his chief officers were allowed to take
office they were required to swear not to "molest any person in the
colony professing to believe in Jesus Christ for or in respect of his
or her religion, and in particular no Roman Catholic."[26]

The famous Toleration Act of 1649 was passed at the first assembly
succeeding Stone's appointment. It was very probably in great part a
copy of a bill in the code of sixteen laws which Baltimore sent over
at this time, and it very nearly repeated the provisions of the oath
required of Governor Stone. While the terms of the act did not place
the right on that broad plane of universal principle stated later in
the Virginia Declaration of Rights, it proclaimed toleration, even if
it was a toleration of a very limited nature.[27]

Stone had recommended himself to Calvert by promising to lead five
hundred persons of British or Irish descent[28] into Maryland; and
this engagement he was soon able to perform through the Puritans,
whose story of persecution in Virginia has been already related. The
new emigrants called the country where they settled "Providence," from
feelings akin to those which led Roger Williams to give that
comforting name to his settlement on Narragansett Bay. They were to
prove a thorn in Baltimore's flesh, but for the moment they seemed
tolerably submissive. In January, 1650, soon after their arrival,
Governor Stone called an assembly to meet at St. Mary's in April, and
to this assembly the colony at "Providence" sent two representatives,
one of whom was made speaker.

Apprehension of William Claiborne was still felt, and the assembly,
though dominated by the new-comers, declared their readiness to resist
any attempts of his to seize Kent Island.[29] Only in one particular
at this time did they oppose Lord Baltimore's policy. The oath of
fidelity required them to acknowledge Lord Baltimore as "absolute
lord" and his jurisdiction as "royal jurisdiction."[30] The Puritans,
having scruples about these words, struck them out and inserted a
proviso that the oath "be not in any wise understood to infringe or
prejudice liberty of conscience."[31] About this time Charles II.,
although a powerless exile, issued an order deposing Baltimore from
his government and appointing Sir William Davenant as his successor,
for the reason that Baltimore "did visibly adhere to the rebels in
England and admit all kinds of schismatics and sectaries and
ill-affected persons into the plantation."[32]

Thus when Parliament soon after took up his case again, Lord Baltimore
came full-handed with proofs of loyalty to the commonwealth. His
enemies produced evidence that Charles II., in 1649, was proclaimed in
Maryland, but Baltimore showed that it was done without his authority
by Thomas Greene, who acted as governor a second time during a brief
absence of Captain Stone from Maryland. When they accused him of being
an enemy of Protestants he produced the proclamation of Charles II.,
deposing him from the government on account of his adherence to them.
Finally, he exhibited a declaration in his behalf signed by many of
the Puritan emigrants from Virginia, among whom were William Durand,
their elder, and James Cox and Samuel Puddington, the two burgesses
from Providence in the assembly of 1650.[33]

Nevertheless, Baltimore played a losing game. At heart the Puritans in
England were unfriendly to him because of his religion; and, when
persistent rumors reached Maryland that Baltimore's patent was doomed,
some of the men of Providence appeared in England and urged that it be
revoked.[34] At length, October 3, 1650, Parliament passed an
ordinance authorizing the Council of State to reduce to obedience
Barbadoes, Antigua, Bermudas, and "Virginia," the last being a term
which in England was often used to include Maryland. Baltimore
struggled hard to have Maryland left out of the instructions drawn up
afterwards by the Council of State; but though he was apparently
successful, a descriptive phrase including his province was inserted,
for the commissioners, Curtis, Claiborne, and Bennett, with an armed
fleet, were instructed "to use their best endeavors to reduce _all the
plantations within the Bay of Chesopiack_ to their due obedience to
the Parliament of England."[35]

After the commissioners had reduced Virginia, they found even less
resistance in Maryland. The commissioners landed at St. Mary's, and,
professing their intention to respect the "just rights" of Lord
Baltimore, demanded that Stone should change the form of the writs
from the name of Lord Baltimore to that of Parliament. Stone at first
declined to comply, and the commissioners, March 29, 1652, put the
government into the hands of a council of leading Protestants. Stone
then reconsidered his action, and Claiborne and Bennett, returning to
St. Mary's, restored him to the government, June 28, 1652, in
conjunction with the councillors already appointed. The ascendency of
Claiborne seemed complete, but beyond renewing his property claim to
Kent and Palmer islands, he did not then further interfere.[36]

Maryland consisted at this time of four counties: St. Mary's, erected
in 1634, Kent, 1642, and Charles and Anne Arundelin 1650, and
contained a population perhaps of eight thousand. The settlements
reached on both sides of the bay, from the Potomac to the Susquehanna.
Society was distinctly democratic, for while there were favored
families there was no privileged class, and the existence of African
slavery and the temporary servitude of convicts and redemptioners
tended to place all freemen on an equality. As there was no state
church, educational opportunities in the province were small, but it
was a land of plenty and hospitality, and charity in religion made the
execution of the criminal law singularly mild. In spite of turmoils
and dissensions, Maryland prospered and flourished. A home feeling
existed, and there were many even among the recent exiles from
Virginia who looked with hope to its future and spoke of it as "a
country in which I desire to spend the remnant of my days, in which I
covet to make my grave."[37]

[Footnote 1: _Md. Archives_, III., 32.]

[Footnote 2: _Md. Archives_, V., 158.]

[Footnote 3: Hening, _Statutes_, I., 154. ]

[Footnote 4: _Md. Archives_, III., 33. ]

[Footnote 5: Browne, _George and Cecilius Calvert_, 49.]

[Footnote 6: _Md. Archives_, V., 164-168.]

[Footnote 7: Ibid., III., 29.]

[Footnote 8: Neill, _Founders of Maryland_, 51.]

[Footnote 9: _Md. Archives_ III., 37.]

[Footnote 10: Browne, _George and Cecilius Calvert_, 69.]

[Footnote 11: _Md. Archives_, V., 187.]

[Footnote 12: _Md. Archives_, III., 42-93.]

[Footnote 13: White, _Relation_ (Force, _Tracts_, IV., No. xii.).]

[Footnote 14: _Md. Archives_, I., 119, IV., 38.]

[Footnote 15: _Calvert Papers_ (Md. Hist. Soc., _Fund Publications_,
No. 35), 166, 216, 217; _Md. Archives_, III., 227.]

[Footnote 16: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 179.]

[Footnote 17: _Md. Archives_, IV., 246-249.]

[Footnote 18: Neill, _Founders of Maryland_, 75; _Md. Archives_, III.,
165, 177.]

[Footnote 19: Bozman, _Maryland_, II., 293.]

[Footnote 20: Hening, _Statutes_, I., 321.]

[Footnote 21: Bozman, _Maryland_, II., 296.]

[Footnote 22: _Md. Archives_, IV., 281, 435, 458, 459.]

[Footnote 23: Hazard, _State Papers_, I., 493.]

[Footnote 24: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, p. 340.]

[Footnote 25: _Md. Archives_, III., 164, 180, 187.]

[Footnote 26: _Md. Archives_, III., 211, 214.]

[Footnote 27: Ibid., I., 244-247.]

[Footnote 28: Ibid., III., 201.]

[Footnote 29: _Md. Archives_, I., 261, 287.]

[Footnote 30: Ibid., III., 196.]

[Footnote 31: Ibid., I., 305.]

[Footnote 32: Neill, _Terra Mariae_, 88.]

[Footnote 33: Bozman, _Maryland_, II., 672.]

[Footnote 34: _Md. Archives_, III., 259.]

[Footnote 35: _Md. Archives_, III., 265.]

[Footnote 36: Ibid., 271-277.]

[Footnote 37: Hammond, _Leah and Rachel_ (Force, _Tracts_, III., No.
xiv.).]




CHAPTER IX

FOUNDING OF PLYMOUTH

(1608-1630)


After the disastrous failure of the Popham colony in 1608 the Plymouth
Company for several years was inactive. Its members were lacking in
enthusiastic co-operation, and therefore did not attract, like the
London Company, the money and energy of the nation. After Sir John
Popham's death, in 1607, his son Francis Popham was chiefly
instrumental in sending out several vessels, which, though despatched
for trade, served to keep up interest in the northern shores of
America.

That coast threatened to be lost to Englishmen, for the French, in
1603, began to make settlements in Nova Scotia and in Mount Desert
Island, near the mouth of the Penobscot, while their ships sailed
southward along the New England shores. The Dutch, too, explored the
Hudson (1609) and prepared the way for a colony there. It was,
therefore, a great service to England when Captain Argall, under the
authority of Sir Thomas Dale, in 1613, dislodged the French at Mount
Desert, Port Royal, and St. Croix.

Shortly after Argall's visit John Smith sailed, in 1614, for the
northern coast, with two ships fitted out by some private adventurers.
While the ships were taking a freight of fish, Smith, with a view to
colonization, ranged the neighboring coast, collecting furs from the
natives, taking notes of the shores and the islands, and making
soundings of the water. Smith drew a map of the country, and was the
first to call it "New England" instead of North Virginia, Norumbega,
or Canada. This map he submitted to Prince Charles, who gave names to
some thirty points on the coast. Only Plymouth, Charles River, and
Cape Ann have permanently kept the names thus fastened upon them.
Boston, Hull, Cambridge, and some others were subsequently adopted,
but applied to localities different from those to which Prince Charles
affixed them.

While he was absent one day Thomas Hunt, master of one of his vessels,
kidnapped twenty-four savages, and, setting sail, carried them to
Spain, where he sold most of them. The outrage soured the Indians in
New England, but of the captives, one, named Squanto or Tisquantum,
was carried to England, and his later friendliness worked to the
benefit of subsequent English colonization.[1]

In 1615 Captain Smith entered into the service of the Plymouth Company
and was complimented with the title of "Admiral of New England." With
great difficulty they provided two ships and despatched them to effect
a settlement, but the result was the old story of misfortune. The ship
in which Smith sailed was captured by the French, and Smith himself
was detained in captivity for some time. Captain Dormer, with the
other vessel, proceeded on his voyage to New England, but did not
attempt anything beyond securing a cargo of furs.

Smith tried to stir up interest in another expedition, and travelled
about England in 1616, distributing his maps and other writings, but
he says "all availed no more than to hew rocks with oyster-shells."
Smith's connection with the American coast then ceased altogether; but
his plans of colonization were not without fruit, since his literary
works, making known the advantages of New England, kept the attention
of the public fastened upon that region.[2]

At this time the most prominent member of the Plymouth Company was Sir
Ferdinando Gorges, son of Edward Gorges, of Worcestershire, born about
1566. He served at Sluys in 1587, was knighted by Essex before Rouen,
in October, 1591, and in 1593 was made governor of the port of
Plymouth in England, which office he still held. Despite the
ill-fortune attending past efforts, he continued to send out vessels
under color of fishing and trade, which ranged the coast of New
England and brought news of a calamity to the natives unexpectedly
favorable to future colonization. In 1616-1617 the country from
Penobscot River to Narragansett Bay was almost left "void of
inhabitants" by a pestilence which swept away entire villages of
Indians. This information, together with the better knowledge due to
Gorges of the value of the fisheries, caused a revival of interest
regarding New England among the members of the Plymouth Company.[3]

Under the name of "the Council for New England," they obtained from
the king in 1620 a new charter,[4] granting to them all the territory
in North America extending "in breadth from forty degrees of northerly
latitude, from the equinoctial line, to forty-eight degrees of the
said northerly latitude, and in length by all the breadth aforesaid
throughout the main-land from sea to sea." In the new grant the number
of grantees was limited to forty, and all other persons enjoying
rights in the company's lands stood in the position of their tenants.
Thus, like the Plymouth Company, the new company proved defective in
co-operative power, and the first actual settlement of New England was
due to an influence little fancied by any of its members.

Religious opinions during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were
great political forces. The Christian church of Europe, before the
days of Luther, held the view that the pope of Rome was the only
infallible interpreter of the Holy Scriptures, and against this
doctrine Luther led a revolt denominated Protestantism, which insisted
upon the right of private judgment. Nevertheless, when the reformed
churches came to adopt articles and canons of their own they generally
discarded this fundamental difference, and, affirming infallibility in
themselves, enlisted the civil power in support of their doctrines.

Hence, in 1559, Queen Elizabeth caused her Parliament to pass two
famous statutes, the Act of Supremacy, which required all clergymen
and office-holders to renounce the spiritual as well as temporal
jurisdiction of all foreign princes and prelates; and the Act of
Uniformity, which forbade any minister from using any other liturgy or
service than that established by Parliament.[5]

These acts, though directed originally against the Roman Catholics,
were resented by many zealous English clergymen who, during the reign
of Queen Mary, had taken refuge in Switzerland and Germany, and
learned while there the spiritual and political doctrines of John
Calvin. These English refugees were the first Puritans, and in the
beginning the large majority had no desire of separating from the
church of which the sovereign was the head, but thought to reform it
from within, according to their own views of ecclesiastical policy.
They wanted, among other things, to discard the surplice and Book of
Common Prayer and to abolish the order of bishops. Queen Elizabeth
looked upon their opinions as dangerous, and harassed them before the
Court of High Commission, created in 1583 for enforcing the acts of
supremacy and uniformity. But her persecution increased rather than
diminished the opposition, and finally there arose a sect called
Independents, who flatly denied the ecclesiastical supremacy of the
queen and claimed the right to set up separate churches of their own.
The Scotch Calvinists worked out an elaborate form of Presbyterian
government, by synods and assemblies, which later played a great part
in England.

For a long time the "Separatists," as they were called, were as
unpopular with the great body of Puritans as with the churchmen.
Popular aversion was expressed by the derisive name of "Brownists,"
given them from Robert Browne, the first to set forth their doctrines
in a formal pamphlet, entitled _The Life and Manners of True
Christians_. Their meetings were broken up by mobs, and worshippers
were subjected to insults.[6]

Holland at that time was the only country enlightened enough to open
its doors to all religions professing Jesus Christ; and as early as
1593 a Separatist congregation, which had come into existence at
London, took refuge at Amsterdam, and they were followed by many other
persons persecuted under the laws of Queen Elizabeth. When she died,
in 1603, there were hopes at first of a milder policy from King James,
but they were speedily dispelled, and at a conference of Puritans and
High Churchmen at Hampton Court in 1604 the king warned dissenters, "I
will make them conform or I will harry them out of this land, or else
worse"; and he was as good as his word.[7]

Several congregations of Separatists were located in the northeastern
part of England, in some towns and villages in Nottinghamshire,
Lincolnshire, and Yorkshire. One held meetings, under Rev. John Smith,
a Cambridge graduate, at Gainsborough, and another, under Richard
Clifton as pastor and John Robinson as teacher, at the small village
of Scrooby. Persecuted by the king's officers, these congregations
began to consider the advisability of joining their brethren in
Holland. That of Gainsborough was the first to emigrate, and,
following the example of the London church, it settled at Amsterdam.

In the second, or Scrooby, congregation, destined to furnish the
"Pilgrim Fathers" of New England,[8] three men were conspicuous as
leaders. The first was John Robinson, a man, according to the
testimony of an opponent, of "excellent parts, and the most learned,
polished, and modest spirit" that ever separated from the church of
England. The second was the elder, William Brewster, like Robinson,
educated at Cambridge, who had served as one of the under-secretaries
of state for many years. After the downfall of his patron, Secretary
Davison, he accepted the position of postmaster and went to live at
Scrooby in an old manor house of Sir Samuel Sandys, the elder brother
of Sir Edwin Sandys, where, in the great hall, the Separatists held
their meetings.[9] The third character was William Bradford, born at
Austerfield, a village neighboring to Scrooby, and at the time of the
flight from England seventeen years of age, afterwards noted for his
ability and loftiness of character.

In 1607 the Scrooby congregation made their first attempt to escape
into Holland. A large party of them hired a ship at Boston, in
Lincolnshire, but the captain betrayed them to the officers of the
law, who rifled them of their money and goods and confined them for
about a month in jail. The next year another party made an attempt to
leave. The captain, who was a Dutchman, started to take the men
aboard, but after the first boat-load he saw a party of soldiers
approaching, and, "swearing his countries oath Sacramente, and having
the wind faire, weighed anchor, hoysted sayles & away." The little
band was thus miserably separated, and men and women suffered many
misfortunes; but in the end, by one means or another, all made good
their escape from England and met together in the city of Amsterdam.

They found there both the church of the London Separatists and that of
the Gainsborough people stirred up over theological questions, which
bid fair to tear them to pieces. Hence, Robinson determined to remove
his flock, and in May, 1609, they made the city of Leyden, twenty
miles distant, their permanent abode. Their pastor, Richard Clifton,
remained in Amsterdam, and the care of the congregation in their new
home was confided to John Robinson and William Brewster.[10]

In Leyden the Pilgrims were compelled to adapt themselves, as they had
in Amsterdam, to conditions of life very different from those to which
they had been trained in their own country. As far as they can be
traced, a majority seem to have found employment in the manufacture of
woollen goods, for which the city was famous. Their uprightness,
diligence, and sobriety gave them a good name and pecuniary credit
with their Dutch neighbors, who testified twelve years later that in
all their stay in Holland "we never had any suit or accusation against
any of them."[11]

To Robinson, Brewster, and Bradford the change was a decided gain. As
the site of a great university, Leyden furnished them intercourse with
learned men and access to valuable libraries. Robinson was admitted a
member of the university, and before long appeared as a disputant on
the Calvinist side in the public discussions. Brewster taught the
English language to the Dutch, and, opening a publishing house,
printed many theological books. Bradford devoted himself to the study
of the ancient languages, "to see with his own eyes the ancient
oracles of God in all their native beauty."[12]

Their stay at Leyden covered the period of the famous twelve years'
truce between Spain and Holland, and their number increased from one
hundred to three hundred. Among the new-comers from England were John
Carver, Robert Cushman, Miles Standish, and Edward Winslow. Towards
the end of the period the exiles began to think of a second
emigration, and this time it was not persecution that suggested the
thought. In expectation of the renewal of hostilities with Spain, the
streets of Leyden sounded with the beating of drums and preparations
of war. Although Holland afforded them religious freedom, they won
their subsistence at the price of unremitting toil, which might be
made even harder by renewal of hostilities. A more sentimental reason
was found in the desire to perpetuate their existence as a religious
body of Englishmen.

By the summer of 1617 the majority of the Scrooby congregation had
fully decided to emigrate, and it only remained to determine the new
place of residence. Some talked of Guiana, others of New York, but the
majority inclined to Virginia; and the conclusion was to emigrate as a
distinct body to a place under the London Company, but not so near
Jamestown as to be troubled by the Episcopalian planters there.

With this design they sent two of their number, John Carver and Robert
Cushman, to London, and Sir Edwin Sandys tried to obtain for them a
patent recognizing their religious rights. To aid him, Robinson and
Brewster drew up a confession of faith which, as it contains an
admission of the right of the state to control religion, seems
strangely at variance with the doctrines of the Separatists. But the
king was not easily persuaded, and he promised only that "he would
connive at them and not molest them, provided they carried themselves
peaceably."[13]

Sandys passed through the London Company two "particular patents" in
their behalf, one taken out in the name of John Wincop and the other
in that of John Pierce, two of their associates in England; under the
latter, granted in February, 1620, the Pilgrims prepared to leave
Holland.[14] Capital to the amount of L7000 was furnished by seventy
merchant adventurers in London, and it was agreed with them that for
several years everything was to be held in joint stock, the shares of
which were to be valued at L10 each and to be paid for in money or by
personal service.[15]

As they had not resources for all to go, the major part of the
congregation, with Robinson, stayed behind, promising to follow later.
The emigrants under Carver, Bradford, and Brewster started out from
Delft-Haven in July, 1620, in the leaky ship the _Speedwell_. At
Southampton, in England, they met the _Mayflower_ with friends from
London, and soon after both ships made an attempt to start to sea.
They had not sailed any distance before the _Speedwell_ let in so much
water that it was necessary to put in at Dartmouth for repairs. Again
they set sail, and this time they had left old England one hundred
leagues behind when the captain reported the _Speedwell_ in danger of
foundering. There was nothing to do but to bear up again and return to
England, where they put in at Plymouth. Upon examination the
_Speedwell_ was pronounced unseaworthy and sent to London with about
twenty of the company. With the rest, one hundred and two in number,
the _Mayflower_ cleared the port, September 6, for America.

Her destination was some point south of the Hudson River, within the
Virginia patent; but foul weather prevented any accurate calculation,
and November 9, 1620, the emigrants found themselves in the
neighborhood of Cape Cod. They tacked and sailed southward, but ran
into "dangerous shoals and roaring breakers," which compelled them to
turn back and seek shelter in the harbor now called Provincetown. The
anxiety of the sailors to be rid of the emigrants prevented any
further attempt southward, and forced them to make their permanent
habitation near this accidental lodgment.

As the patent under which they sailed had no force in the territory of
the Plymouth Company, they united themselves by the so-called
"Mayflower compact," November 11, 1620, into a "civill body politic,"
and promised "submission and obedience to all such ordinances as the
general good of the colony might require from time to time." Under the
patent John Carver had been chosen governor, and he was now confirmed
in that office under the new authority, which followed pretty nearly
the terms of the old.[16]

For five weeks they stayed in the ship, while Captain Miles Standish
with a small company explored the country. In the third expedition,
after an attack from the Indians and much suffering from snow and
sleet, Standish's men reached a landing nearly opposite to the point
of Cape Cod, which they sounded and "found fit for shipping." There
"divers cornfields" and an excellent stream of fresh water encouraged
settlement, and they landed, December 11 (Old Style), 1620, near a
large bowlder, since known as Plymouth Rock.

By the end of the week the Mayflower had brought over her company of
emigrants--seventy-three males and twenty-nine females--and December
25, 1620, they began to erect the first house "for the common use to
receive them and their goods." The Indian name of the place was
Patuxet, but the emigrants called it New Plymouth "after Plymouth, in
old England, the last town they left in their native country";[17] and
it was a curious coincidence that the spot had already received from
John Smith the name of Plymouth. Later the town was called simply
Plymouth, while the colony took the name of New Plymouth.

[Footnote 1: Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.), 699; Bradford, _Plimoth
Plantation_, 117.]

[Footnote 2: Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.), 699-701, 731-742, 745.]

[Footnote 3: Gorges, _Description of New England_ (Mass. Hist. Soc.,
_Collections_, 3d series, VI.), 57.]

[Footnote 4: Poore, _Charters and Constitutions_, I., 921. ]

[Footnote 5: Cf. Cheyney, _European Background of Am. Hist._, chap.
xi.]

[Footnote 6: Neal, _Puritans_, I., 149-151, 202; cf. Cheyney,
_European Background of Am. Hist._, chap. xii.]

[Footnote 7: Neal, _Puritans_, I., 232; Hart, _Source-Book_, No. 15.]

[Footnote 8: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 13.]

[Footnote 9: Hunter, _Founders of New Plymouth_.]

[Footnote 10: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 15-29.]

[Footnote 11: Ibid., 27.]

[Footnote 12: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 28, 488-493; Mather,
_Magnolia_, I., 113.]

[Footnote 13: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 29-38.]

[Footnote 14: Brown, _First Republic_, 424.]

[Footnote 15: Smith, _Works_ (Arber's ed.), 783; Bradford, _Plimoth
Plantation_, 56-58.]

[Footnote 16: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 90-110; Eggleston,
_Beginners of a Nation_, 184, note 4.]

[Footnote 17: Morton, _New England's Memorial_, 56.]




CHAPTER X

DEVELOPMENT OF NEW PLYMOUTH

(1621-1643)


During the winter of 1620-1621 the emigrants suffered greatly from
scurvy and exposure. More than half the company perished, and the
seamen on the _Mayflower_ suffered as much.[1] With the appearance of
spring the mortality ceased, and a friendly intercourse with the
natives began. These Indians were the Pokanokets, whose number had
been very much thinned by the pestilence. After the first hostilities
directed against the exploring parties they avoided the whites, and
held a meeting in a dark and dismal swamp, where the medicine-men for
three days together tried vainly to subject the new-comers to the
spell of their conjurations.

At last, in March, 1621, an Indian came boldly into camp, and, in
broken English, bade the strangers "welcome." It was found that his
name was Samoset, and that he came from Monhegan, an island distant
about a day's sail towards the east, where he had picked up a few
English words from the fishermen who frequented that region. In a
short time he returned, bringing Squanto, or Tisquantum, stolen by
Hunt seven years before, and restored to his country in 1620 by Sir
Ferdinando Gorges. Squanto, who could speak English, stated that
Massasoit was near at hand, and on invitation that chief appeared, and
soon a treaty of peace and friendship was concluded; after which
Massasoit returned to his town of Sowams, forty miles distant, while
Squanto continued with the colonists and made himself useful in many
ways.[2]

In the beginning of April, 1621, the _Mayflower_ went back to England,
and the colonists planted corn in the fields once tilled by Indians
whom the pestilence had destroyed. While engaged in this work the
governor, John Carver, died, and his place was supplied by William
Bradford, with Isaac Allerton as assistant or councilman. During the
summer the settlers were very busy. They fitted up their cabins,
amassed a good supply of beaver, and harvested a fair crop of corn. In
the fall a ship arrived, bringing thirty-five new settlers poorly
provided. It also brought a patent, dated June 1, 1621, from the
Council for New England, made out to John Pierce, by whom the original
patent from the London Company had been obtained. The patent did not
define the territorial limits, but allowed one hundred acres for every
emigrant and fifteen hundred acres for public buildings, in the same
proportion of one hundred acres to every workman.[3]

The ship tarried only fourteen days, and returned with a large cargo
of clapboard and beaver skins of the value of L500, which was,
however, captured on the way to England by a French cruiser. After the
departure the governor distributed the new-comers among the different
families, and because of the necessity of sharing with them, put
everybody on half allowance. The prospect for the winter was not
hopeful, for to the danger from starvation was added danger from the
Indians.

West of the Pokanokets were the Narragansetts, a tribe of two thousand
warriors, whose chief, Canonicus, sent to Plymouth in January, 1622, a
bundle of arrows tied with a snake's skin, signifying a challenge of
war. Bradford knew that it was fatal to hesitate or show fear, and he
promptly stuffed the snake's skin with bullets and returned it to the
sender with some threatening words. This answer alarmed Canonicus, who
thought that the snake's skin must be conjured, and he did not pursue
the matter further. But the colonists took warning, and the whole
settlement was enclosed with a paling, and strict military watch was
maintained. Thus the winter passed and the spring came, but without
the hoped-for assistance from the merchant partners in England.[4]

On the contrary, the arrival in May, 1622, "without a bite of bread,"
of sixty-seven other persons, sent out on his own account under a
grant from the Council for New England, by Thomas Weston, one of the
partners, plunged them into dire distress, from which they were
happily saved by a ship-captain, John Huddleston, from the colony on
James River, who shared his supplies with them, and thus enabled them
to "make shift till corn was ripe again." Weston's emigrants were a
loose set, and before they left in August they stole most of the green
corn, and thus Plymouth was threatened with another famine.
Fortunately, about this time another ship from Virginia, bearing the
secretary of state, John Pory, arrived, and sold the colonists a
supply of truck for trading; by which they bought from the Indians not
only corn, but beaver, which proved afterwards a source of much
profit.

Weston's people removed to Wessagusset (modern Weymouth), on
Massachusetts Bay, where they conducted themselves in so reckless a
manner that they ran the double risk of starvation and destruction
from savages. To save them, Bradford, in March, 1623, despatched a
company under Captain Miles Standish, who brought them corn and killed
several of the Indians. Then Standish helped Weston's "rude fellows"
aboard ship and saw them safely off to sea. Shortly after Weston came
over to look after his emigrants, fell into the hands of the Indians,
escaped to Plymouth, where the colonists helped him away, and returned
in October, 1623, to create more disturbance.

Weston was not the only one of the partners that gave the colonists
trouble. John Pierce took advantage of the prominence given him by the
patent issued in his name for the benefit of all, to get a new one
which made him sole actual owner of the territory. His partners
resented this injustice, and the Council for New England, in March,
1623, was induced to revoke the grant to Pierce.[5]

About this time Bradford made a great change in the industrial system
of the colony. At Plymouth, as at Jamestown, communism was found to
breed "confusion and discontent," and he tried the experiment of
assigning to every family, in proportion to its size, a tract of land.
In July, 1623, arrived sixty other settlers, and the old planters
feared another period of starvation. Nevertheless, when harvest-time
arrived, the wisdom of Bradford's appeal to private interest was
demonstrated, for instead of misery and scarcity there was joyfulness,
and "plentie of corn." Later experience was equally convincing, for,
as Bradford wrote many years after, "any general wante or famine hath
not been known amongst them since to this day."

While the Pilgrim fathers were overcoming their difficulties in
Massachusetts, the Council for New England were struggling with the
London Company to maintain the monopoly of fishing and fur trading on
the North Atlantic coast granted to them by their charter. The London
Company complained to the king in 1620 and to Parliament in 1621, but
the king refused any relief, and prevented Parliament from interfering
by dissolving it.[6] Thereupon, the Council for New England,
appreciating the danger, made a grand effort to accomplish something
in America. As a preliminary step they induced the king to publish a
proclamation, November 6, 1622, against all unlicensed trading and
other infringements upon the rights granted them,[7] and shortly
afterwards sent out Francis West as admiral to reduce the fishermen on
the coast to obedience. West came to America, but found them "stuberne
fellows,"[8] and he returned in about a year to England without
effecting anything.

During his absence the Council for New England set to work to send out
a colony under Robert Gorges, son of Sir Ferdinando; and, June 29,
1623, a division was made among twenty patentees, of the North
Atlantic coast from the Bay of Fundy to Narragansett Bay.[9] In
September, 1623, Gorges arrived at Plymouth attended by an Episcopal
minister, William Morell, and a company of settlers, whom he planted
at Wessagusset. He remained in New England throughout the winter, and
in the effort to exert his authority had a long wrangle with Weston.
In the spring of 1624 he received news from his father that
discouraged his further stay. It seems that in March, 1624, a
committee of Parliament, at the head of which was Sir Edward Coke, had
reported the charter of the Council for New England as a national
grievance, which so discouraged the patentees that most of them
abandoned the enterprise, and it became, in the language of the elder
Gorges, "a carcass in a manner breathless."[10] After Robert Gorges'
departure most of his party dispersed, some going to England and some
to Virginia, but a few remained at Wessagusset, which was never
entirely abandoned.

The relations between the colony and the London merchant adventurers,
never very pleasant, became more unsatisfactory as time went on. The
colonists naturally wanted to bring over their friends at Leyden, but
the partners regarded Robinson as the great leader of the
Independents, and London was already rife with rumors of the heretical
character of the rulers at Plymouth. It seemed to the partners
evidently for their interest to introduce settlers of a different
religious opinion from Bradford and Brewster, and to this was largely
due the fact that the emigrants who came over after the Mayflower's
return in 1621 had little in common with the original band of
Pilgrims.

In January, 1624, arrived another miscellaneous cargo, including a
minister named John Lyford. Upon his arrival he professed intense
sympathy with the settlers, and when they received him as a member of
their church he renounced, pursuant to the extreme tenets of
Separatism, "all universall, nationall, and diocessan churches."[11]
Nevertheless, he joined with John Oldham, who came the year before, in
a conspiracy to overturn the government; but was detected and finally
banished from the colony. In March, 1625, Lyford and Oldham went to
Wessagusset, from which they moved with Roger Conant and other friends
to Nantasket, where, in the mean time, a new settlement had sprung up.

In the division of 1623, the region around Cape Ann fell to Lord
Sheffield, and the same year he conveyed the country to Robert Cushman
and Edward Winslow in behalf of the colonists at Plymouth.[12] The
next year the new owners sent a party to establish a fishing stage at
Cape Ann, but they found other persons on the spot, for in 1623 some
merchants of Dorchester, England, who regularly sent vessels to catch
fish in the waters of New England, had conceived the idea of planting
a colony on the coast, and in the summer of that year landed fourteen
men at Cape Ann, soon increased to thirty-four.

For some months the two parties got along amicably together and fished
side by side. An element of discord was introduced in 1625 when the
Dorchester men invited Roger Conant and Rev. Mr. Lyford from
Nantasket, and made the former manager and the latter minister of
their settlement; while John Oldham was asked to become their agent to
trade with the Indians. A short time after, the crew of a vessel
belonging to the Dorchester adventurers, instigated, it is said, by
Lyford, took from the Plymouth men their fishing stage; whereupon
Miles Standish came with soldiers from Plymouth, and the rival parties
would have come to blows had not Conant interfered and settled the
matter.[13] The Plymouth settlers built a new stage, but, as the war
with Spain affected the sale of fish, they soon abandoned the
enterprise altogether. The Dorchester men had no better fortune, and
the discouraged merchants at home, in 1626, broke up their colony and
sold their shipping and most of their other property.[14] Lyford went
to Virginia, where he soon died, and all the other settlers, except
Conant and three others, returned to England.

The colony at Plymouth, in the mean time, was signally prospering, and
soon felt strong enough to dissolve the troublesome relations with the
merchant partners, who had fallen into dissensions among themselves.
For this purpose the colonists made, in 1627, an agreement by which
for L1800, to be paid in nine annual instalments of L200 each, the
colonists were relieved from all vassalage under their original
contract.[15]

Custodians of their own fortunes, they now established trading-posts
at several places on the coast--at Manomet, on Buzzard's Bay (1627),
at Kennebec (1628), and at Penobscot and Machias Bay (1629). In
addition they made arrangements for reunion with their friends in
Holland, one party of whom arrived in 1629 and another in 1630, though
Robinson, the Moses of the Pilgrims, was never permitted to join them,
having died March 1, 1626,[16] in Leyden.

They tried also to obtain a charter from the king, but they never
could get anything better than a fresh patent from the Council for New
England. This patent,[17] dated January 13, 1630, empowered Bradford
and his associates "to incorporate by some usual and fit name and
title him and themselves, or the people there inhabiting under him or
them, with liberty to them and their successors from time to time to
frame and make orders, ordinances, and constitutions" not contrary to
the laws of England or to any government established by the council.

The patent had the merit of defining the extent of territory belonging
to the Plymouth settlers, and granted "all that part of New England in
America aforesaid and Tracte and Tractes of Land that lye within or
betweene a certaine Reuolett or Runlett there commonly called
Coahassett alias Conahassett towards the North and the Riuer commonly
called Narragansett Riuer towards the South and the great Westerne
Ocean towards the East, and betweene, and within a Streight Line
directly Extending up Into the Maine Land towards the west from the
mouth of the said Riuer called Narragansett Riuer to the utmost bounds
of a Country or place in New England Commonly called Pokenacutt als
Sowamsett, westward, and another like Streight line Extending it Self
Directly from the mouth of the said Riuer called Coahassett als
Conahassett towards the West so farr up into the Main Land Westwards
as the Vtmost Limitts of the said place or Country Commonly called
Pokenacutt als Sowamsett Do Extend togeather with one half of the s^d
Riuer called Narragansett and the s^d Reuolett or Runlett called
Coahassett als Conahassett and all Lands Riuers waters hauens Ports
Creeks ffihings fowlings and all hereditaments Proffitts Commodityes
and Imoluments Whatsoeuer Scituate Lyeing and being or ariseing within
or betweene the said Limitts or bounds or any of them." For trading
purposes the patent also gave them a tract extending fifteen miles in
breadth on each bank of the Kennebec.

Among the "scattered beginnings" in the neighborhood of Plymouth, the
most interesting, because the most contrasted with the Puritan colony
at Plymouth, was Captain Wollaston's settlement, established in 1625 a
little north of Wessagusset. His men were, for the most part,
servants, and Wollaston finding, soon after his arrival, that they
could be used to better advantage in Virginia, transported some of
them to that colony.

During his absence one Thomas Morton, a lawyer of Clifford's Inn,
asserted his authority, freed the rest of the settlers, and engaged in
a successful traffic with the Indians for beaver and other skins. This
circumstance was itself calculated to excite the jealousy of the
Plymouth settlers, but the ceremonies and customs at "Merry Mount,"
which name Morton gave to the settlement in lieu of "Mount Wollaston,"
caused them to regard him with even greater disgust. He instituted the
Episcopal service and planted a May-pole eighty feet high, around
which, for many days together, the settlers "frisked" hand-in-hand
with the Indian girls.

As Morton was outside of the Plymouth jurisdiction, the colonists
there had no right to interfere except in self-defence. But the
Plymouth people asserted that Morton sold arms to the Indians and
received runaway servants. This made him dangerous, and all the other
"straggling settlements," though, like Morton's, of the church of
England, united with the people at Plymouth in suppressing Morton's
settlement. In June, 1628, a joint force under Captain Miles Standish
was sent against Merry Mount, and Morton was captured and shipped to
England in charge of John Oldham, who had made his peace with
Plymouth, and now took with him letters to the Council for New England
and to Sir Ferdinando Gorges, in which Morton's offences were duly set
forth.[18]

The settlements besides Plymouth which took part in the expedition
were Piscataqua (Portsmouth); Nantasket (now Hull), then the seat of
John Oldham; Naumkeag (now Salem); Winnisimmet (now Chelsea), where
Mr. Jeffrey and Mr. Burslem lived; Cocheco, on the Piscataqua, where
Edward Hilton lived; Thompson's Island, where the widow of David
Thompson lived; and Shawmut (now Boston), where Rev. William
Blackstone lived. Besides the settlements, there were in the
neighborhood of Plymouth plantations of some solitary settlers whose
names do not appear in this transaction. Thomas Walford lived at
Mishawum (now Charlestown), and Samuel Maverick on Noddle's Island;
Wessagusset also had probably a few inhabitants.

In 1627 De Rasieres, the secretary of state of the Dutch colony at New
Netherland, opened a correspondence with Governor Bradford and assured
him of his desire to cultivate friendly relations. Bradford gave a
kind reply, but questioned the right of the Dutch on the coast, and
invited Rasieres to a conference. He accepted the invitation, and in
1628 visited the Puritan settlement. A profitable exchange of
merchandise succeeded, and the Dutch taught the Plymouth men the value
of wampum in trading for furs, and sold them L50 worth of it. It was
found useful both as a currency and commodity, and afterwards the
settlers learned to make it from the shells on the sea-shore.[19] It
was not till five years later that this peaceful correspondence with
the Dutch was disturbed.

Unfriendliness characterized, from the first, the relations with the
French. They claimed that Acadia extended as far south as Pemaquid,
and one day in 1631, when the manager of the Penobscot factory was
away, a French privateer appeared in port and landed its crew. In the
story, as told by Bradford, the levity of the French and the solemn
seriousness of the Puritans afford a delightful contrast. The
Frenchmen were profuse in "compliments" and "congees," but taking the
English at a disadvantage forced them to an unconditional surrender.
They stripped the factory of its goods, and as they sailed away bade
their victims tell the manager when he came back "that the Isle of Rhe
gentlemen had been there."[20] In 1633, after Razilly's appointment as
governor-general, De la Tour, one of his lieutenants, attacked and
drove away the Plymouth men at Machias Bay,[21] and in 1635 D'Aulnay,
another lieutenant, dispossessed the English at Penobscot.

The Plymouth people, greatly incensed, sent two armed ships to punish
the French, but the expedition proved a failure. Then they appealed to
Massachusetts for help, but the great men of that colony, hoping, as
Bradford intimates, to arrange a trade with the French on their own
account, declined to be at any expense in the matter,[22] and so the
Penobscot remained in unfriendly hands for many years.

This appeal to Massachusetts showed that another power had stepped to
the front in New England. After John Winthrop set up his government in
1630 on Massachusetts Bay the history of the Plymouth colony ceased to
be of first importance, and therefore the remaining events in her
annals need not take much space. In 1633 the people of Plymouth
established a fort on Connecticut River above the Dutch post, so as to
intercept the Indian trade, and in 1639 they renewed the ancient
league with Massasoit.[23] In 1640 they had a dispute with
Massachusetts over the boundary-line, which was arranged by a
compromise, and in 1641 William Bradford deeded to the freemen of the
corporation of New Plymouth the patent of 1630, granted by the Council
for New England to him as trustee for the colony.[24] Finally, in
1643, Plymouth became a member of the New England confederation.

A survey of these twenty-three years (1620-1643) shows that during the
first eleven years the increase in population was very slow. In 1624
there were one hundred and eighty settlers and in 1630 but three
hundred. The emigration to Massachusetts, beginning in 1629, brought
about a great change. It overflowed into Plymouth, and in twelve years
more the population had increased to three thousand.[25] The new
settlers were a miscellaneous set, composed for the most part of
"unruly servants" and dissipated young men, whose ill conduct caused
the old rulers like Bradford to question "whether after twenty years'
time the greater part be not grown worser."[26] Nevertheless, the
people increased their "outward estate," and as they scattered in
search of fertile land, Plymouth, "in which they lived compactly till
now, was left very thin and in a short time almost desolate." In 1632
a separate church and town of the name of Duxbury was formed north of
Plymouth; and eleven years later the towns of the Plymouth colony were
ten in number: Plymouth, Duxbury, Scituate, Taunton, Sandwich,
Yarmouth, Barnstable, Marshfield, Seeconck, or Rehoboth, and
Nausett.[27]

At the first arrival the executive and judicial powers were exercised
by John Carver, without any authorized adviser. After his death, in
1621, the same powers were vested in William Bradford as governor and
Isaac Allerton as assistant.[28] In 1624 the number of assistants was
increased to five and in 1633 to seven, and the governor was given a
double voice.[29] The elective and legislative powers were vested in a
primary assembly of all the freemen, called the "General Court," held
at short intervals. One of these meetings was called the court of
elections, and at this were chosen the governor and other officers of
the colony for the ensuing year.

As the number of settlements increased, it became inconvenient for
freemen to attend the general courts in person, and in 1638 the
representative system was definitely introduced. Plymouth was allowed
four delegates, and each of the other towns two, and they, with the
governor and his council of assistants, constituted the law-making
body of the colony. To be entitled to hold office or vote at the court
of elections, the person had to be "a freeman"; and to acquire this
character, he had to be specially chosen one of the company at one of
the general courts. Thus suffrage was regarded as a privilege and not
a right.[30]

Although the first of the colonies to establish a Separatist church,
the Puritans of Plymouth did not make church-membership a condition of
citizenship; still, there can be no doubt that this restriction
practically prevailed at Plymouth, since up to 1643 only about two
hundred and thirty persons acquired the suffrage. In the general laws
of Plymouth, published in 1671, it was provided as a condition of
receiving the franchise that "the candidate should be of sober and
peaceable conversation, orthodox in the fundamentals of religion,"
which was probably only a recognition of the custom of earlier
times.[31] The earliest New England code of statutes was that of
Plymouth, adopted in 1636. It was digested under fifty titles and
recognized seven capital offences, witchcraft being one.[32]

In the Plymouth colony, as in other colonies of New England, the unit
of government was the town, and this town system was borrowed from
Massachusetts, where, as we shall see, the inhabitants of Dorchester
set the example, in 1633, of coming together for governmental
purposes. Entitled to take part in the town-meetings under the
Plymouth laws were all freemen and persons "admitted inhabitants" of a
town. They elected the deputies of the general court and the numerous
officers of the town, and had the authority to pass local ordinances
of nearly every description.[33]

During the early days, except for the short time of Lyford's service,
Elder William Brewster was the spiritual guide for the people. For a
long time they kept the place of minister waiting for Robinson, but
when he died they secured, in 1628, the services of Mr. Rogers, who
proved to "be crazed in his brain" and had to be sent back the
following year. Then, in 1629, Mr. Ralph Smith was minister, and Roger
Williams assisted him. Smith was a man of small abilities, and after
enduring him for eight years they persuaded him to resign. After
Smith's resignation the office of minister at Plymouth was filled by
Rev. John Rayner.[34]

The educational advantages of the Plymouth colony were meagre, and the
little learning that existed was picked up in the old English way by
home instruction. This deficiency was due to the stern conditions of a
farmer's life on Cape Cod Bay, where the soil was poor and the climate
severe, necessitating the constant labor of the whole family.

Nevertheless, the Plymouth colony was always an example to its
neighbors for thrift, economy, and integrity, and it influenced to
industry by proving what might be done on a barren soil. Its chief
claim to historical importance rests, of course, on the fact that, as
the first successful colony on the New England coast, it was the cause
and beginning of the establishment of the other colonies of New
England, and the second step in founding the great republic of the
United States.

[Footnote 1: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 112.]

[Footnote 2: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 114-117.]

[Footnote 3: Mass. Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 4th series, II.,
158-163.]

[Footnote 4: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 130-133; Winslow,
"Relation," in Young, _Chronicles of the Pilgrims_, 280-284.]

[Footnote 5: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 149-168; _Cal. of State
Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, p. 40.]

[Footnote 6: Gorges, _Description of New England_ (Mass. Hist. Soc.,
_Collections_, 3d series, VI., 80).]

[Footnote 7: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, p. 33.]

[Footnote 8: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 170.]

[Footnote 9: Maine Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 2d. series, VII.,
73-76.]

[Footnote 10: Adams, _Three Episodes of Mass. Hist._, I., 152.]

[Footnote 11: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 238.]

[Footnote 12: Palfrey, _New England_, I., 222, 285.]

[Footnote 13: Hubbard, _New England_ (Mass. Hist. Soc., _Collections_,
2d series, VI., 110).]

[Footnote 14: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 237; _Planters' Plea_
(Force, _Tracts_, II., No. iii.).]

[Footnote 15: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 237-258.]

[Footnote 16: Ibid., 248.]

[Footnote 17: Hazard, _State Papers_, I., 298.]

[Footnote 18: Bradford, _Letter-Book_ (Mass. Hist. Soc.,
_Collections_, 1st series, III., 63); _Plimoth Plantation_, 284-292.]

[Footnote 19: Bradford, _Letter-Book_ (Mass. Hist. Soc.,
_Collections_, 1st series, III., 53).]

[Footnote 20: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 350.]

[Footnote 21: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 139.]

[Footnote 22: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 395-401.]

[Footnote 23: _Plymouth Col. Records_, I., 133.]

[Footnote 24: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 437-444.]

[Footnote 25: Palfrey, _New England_, I., 223, II., 6; Hazard, _State
Papers_, I., 300.]

[Footnote 26: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 459.]

[Footnote 27: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 444.]

[Footnote 28: Ibid., 122.]

[Footnote 29: Ibid., 187.]

[Footnote 30: Palfrey, _New England_, II., 8.]

[Footnote 31: Ibid. In August, 1643, the number of males of military
age was 627.]

[Footnote 32: Brigham, _Plymouth Charter and Laws_, 43, 244.]

[Footnote 33: Palfrey, _New England_, II., 7; Howard, _Local
Constitutional History_, 50-99.]

[Footnote 34: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 314, 418, 419.]




CHAPTER XI

GENESIS OF MASSACHUSETTS

(1628-1630)


The abandonment, in 1626, of their colony at Cape Ann by the
Dorchester adventurers, did not cause connection to be entirely
severed either in America or in England. In America, Conant and three
of the more industrious settlers remained, but as the fishery was
abandoned, they withdrew with the cattle from the exposed promontory
at Cape Ann to Naumkeag, afterwards Salem.[1] In England a few of the
adventurers, loath to give up entirely, sent over more cattle, and the
enterprise, suddenly attracting other support, rose to a greater
promise than had ever been anticipated.[2]

Among those in England who did not lose hope was the Rev. John White,
of Dorchester, a merchant as well as a preacher, and his large figure
stands on the threshold of the great commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Thomas Fuller says that he had absolute command of two things not
easily controlled--"his own passions and the purses of his
parishioners." White wrote Conant and his associates to stick by the
work, and promised to obtain for them a patent and fully provide them
with means to carry on the fur trade. The matter was discussed in
Lincolnshire and London, and soon a powerful association came into
being and lent its help.

Other men, some of whom are historic personages, began to take a
leading part, and there was at first no common religious purpose among
the new associates. The contemporary literature is curiously free from
any special appeal to Puritanic principles, and the arguments put
forward are much the same as those urged for the settlement of
Virginia. The work of planting a new colony was taken up
enthusiastically, and a patent, dated March 19, 1628, was obtained
from the Council for New England, conceding to six grantees, Sir Henry
Rosewell, Sir John Young, Thomas Southcot, John Humphrey, John
Endicott, and Simon Whitcombe, "all that Parte of New England in
America aforesaid, which lyes and extendes betweene a greate River
there comonlie called Monomack alias Merriemack, and a certen other
River there, called Charles River, being in the Bottome of a certayne
Bay there, comonlie called Massachusetts alias Mattachusetts, ... and
... lyeing within the Space of three English Myles on the South Parte
of the said Charles River, ... and also ... within the space of three
English Myles to the Northward of the said River called Monomack, ...
throughout the Mayne Landes there, from the Atlantick and Westerne Sea
and Ocean on the East Parte, to the South Sea on the West Parte."

The patent also gave to the company "all Jurisdiccons, Rights,
Royalties, Liberties, Freedoms, Ymmunities, Priviledges, Franchises,
Preheminences, and Commodities, whatsoever, which they, the said
Council established at Plymouth, ... then had, ... within the saide
Landes and Premisses."[3] On account of the reckless manner in which
the Council for New England granted away its territory, the patent
conflicted with several others of an earlier date. In March, 1622,
they had granted to John Mason a patent for all the land between
Naumkeag and the Merrimac River. Then, in December, 1622, a part of
this territory having a front of ten miles "upon the northeast side of
Boston Bay," and extending thirty miles into the interior, was granted
to Captain Robert Gorges.[4] Next, at the division in June, 1623, the
part of New England about Boston Bay fell to Lord Sheffield, the earl
of Warwick, and Lord Edward Gorges, a cousin of Sir Ferdinando. The
rights under the first and last of these grants were surrendered in
1629,[5] but, according to Ferdinando Gorges, he, as one of the
council, only sanctioned the patent to Rosewell and his partners on
the understanding that the grant to his son should not be interfered
with; and the maintenance of this claim was the occasion of dispute
for some years.[6]

June 20, 1628, the new company sent out a party of emigrants under
John Endicott, who arrived, September 6, at Naumkeag, where, with the
number already on Boston Bay at their coming, they made about fifty or
sixty persons. He found the remains of Conant's company disposed to
question the claims of the new-comers, but the dispute was amicably
arranged, and in commemoration Naumkeag was given the name of Salem,
the Hebrew word for "Peaceful."[7]

For nearly a year little is known of the settlers except that in the
winter some died of the scurvy and others of an "infectious fever."[8]
Endicott wrote to Plymouth for medical assistance, and Bradford sent
Dr. Samuel Fuller, whose services were thankfully acknowledged. One
transaction which has come down to us shows that Endicott's government
early marked out the lines on which the Massachusetts colony travelled
for many years afterwards. Endicott made it evident that he would make
no compromise with any of the "ungodly" in Massachusetts. Morton's
settlement fell within Endicott's jurisdiction, and he resolved to
finish the work which the Plymouth people began. So, about three
months after the first visit, Endicott, with a small party, crossed
the bay, hewed down the abominable May-pole, and, solemnly dubbing the
place Mount Dago, in memory of the Philistine idol which fell down
before the ark of the Lord, "admonished Morton's men to look ther
should be better walking."

In the mean time, important events were happening in England. John
Oldham, having Thomas Morton in custody, landed at Plymouth, England,
not long after Endicott left for America. Morton posed as a martyr to
religious persecution, and Oldham, who remembered his own troubles
with the Plymouth settlers, soon fraternized with him. They acted in
connection with Ferdinando Gorges and his son John Gorges, who,
instead of punishing Morton for illicit trading, made use of him and
Oldham to dispute the title of the grant to Endicott and his
associates. Robert Gorges was then dead, and his brother John was heir
to his patent for the northeast side of Massachusetts Bay.

Accordingly, John Gorges, in January, 1629, executed two deeds--one to
John Oldham and the other to Sir William Brereton--for two tracts of
land out of the original grant to Robert Gorges. Oldham planted
himself on his new rights, and tried to make his patent the means to
obtain from the Massachusetts Company in England the exclusive
management of the colony's fur trade, or the recognition of his rights
as an independent trader. But the company had already set aside the
profits of the fur trade as a fund for the defence of the colony and
the support of the public worship, and they would make no
concession.[9] Instead, they took the best means to strengthen their
title and suppress such disturbers as Oldham.

A royal charter was solicited, and March 4, 1629, one of liberal
powers passed the seals, chiefly through the influence of the earl of
Warwick.[10] It created a corporation by the name of the "Governor and
Company of Massachusetts Bay in New England," and confirmed to them
all the territory given by the patent from the Council for New
England. The administration of its affairs was intrusted to a
governor, deputy, and eighteen assistants, who were annually, on the
last Wednesday of Easter term, to be elected by the freemen or members
of the corporation, and to meet once a month or oftener "for
despatching such business as concerned the company or plantation."
Four times a year the governor, assistants, and all the freemen were
to be summoned to "a greate generall, and solemne assemblie," and
these "greate and generall courts" were invested with full power to
choose and admit into the company so many as they should think fit, to
elect and constitute all requisite subordinate officers, and to make
laws and ordinances for the welfare of the company and for the
government of the plantation.

The company was given the power to transport to its American territory
all persons who should go willingly, but the corporate body alone was
to decide what liberties, if any, the emigrants should enjoy. In fact,
the only restrictions in the charter upon the company and its court of
assistants were that they should license no man "to rob or spoil,"
hinder no one from fishing upon the coast of New England, and pass "no
law contrary or repugnant to the lawes and statutes of England."
Matthew Cradock was named in the charter the governor of the company.

One of the first steps taken by the company under the new charter was
to organize a temporary local government for the colonists in
Massachusetts. This was to consist of a governor, a deputy governor,
and thirteen councillors, of whom seven were to be named by the
company, three were to be chosen by these seven and the governor, and
three more were to be appointed by the "old planters" found in
Massachusetts at the arrival of Endicott. Land was allotted on a plan
like that adopted by the London Company: each shareholder was to have
two hundred acres for every L50 that he invested, and if he settled in
that country, fifty more for himself and fifty more for each member of
his family.[11]

A letter of instructions was draughted, April 17, to Governor
Endicott, in which mention was made of the negotiations with Oldham,
and orders given to effect an occupation of the territory covered by
his grant from John Gorges. This letter was sent off by a special ship
which reached Salem June 20, 1629, and Endicott promptly despatched
three brothers of the name of Sprague, and a few others, who planted
themselves at Mishawum, within the disputed territory, where they
found but "one English palisadoed and thatched house wherein lived
Thomas Walford, a smith." Other emigrants followed, and there, in
July, was laid out by Endicott a town which was named Charlestown.
This practically ended the difficulty with Oldham, who was kept in the
dark till the ship sailed from England, and was then told by the
company that they were determined, on advice of counsel, to treat his
grant as void. As for Brereton, he was made a member of the company
and did not give any real trouble.[12]

May 11, 1629, sailed from London five ships carrying about four
hundred settlers, most of whom were servants, and one hundred and
forty head of cattle and forty goats. They arrived at Salem, June 27,
and about four weeks later the ecclesiastical organization of the
colony was effected by John Endicott, who had already written to
Bradford that the worship at Plymouth was "no other than is warranted
by the evidence of the truth." He set apart July 20 for the work, and,
after a portion of the morning spent in prayer, Samuel Skelton and
Francis Higginson, two of the four ministers who accompanied the last
arrivals, avowed their belief in the doctrines of the Independents,
and were elected respectively pastor and teacher. A confession of
faith and a church covenant were drawn up, and August 6 thirty persons
associated themselves in a church.[13]

Two of the gentlemen emigrants, John and Samuel Browne, presumed to
hold a separate service with a small company, using the Prayer Book.
Thereupon the hot-headed Endicott arrested them, put them on
shipboard, and sent them back to England. This conduct of Endicott's
was a flagrant aggression on vested rights, since the Brownes appear
in the charter as original promoters of the colony, and were sent to
Massachusetts by the company in the high capacity of assistants or
councillors to Endicott himself. The two brothers complained in
England, and in October, 1629, the company sent Endicott a warning
against "undigested counsels ... which may have any ill construction
with the state here and make us obnoxious to an adversary."[14]

In another particular Endicott showed the summary character which
distinguished him. When Morton arrived in London a prisoner, in 1628,
Isaac Allerton was trying to secure from the Council for New England a
new patent for Plymouth colony. In Morton he appears to have
recognized a convenient medium for reaching Sir Ferdinando Gorges; at
any rate, when Allerton returned to New England in the summer of 1629,
he brought Thomas Morton back with him, to the scandal of the Plymouth
community.[15] After a few weeks at Plymouth, Morton repaired to Merry
Mount and resumed the business of a fur-trader, but, as might have
been expected, he was soon brought into conflict with his neighbors.

Endicott, it appears, not long after Morton's return, in pursuance of
instructions from England, summoned all the settlers in Massachusetts
to a general court at Salem. At this meeting, according to Morton,
Endicott tendered to all present for signature articles binding them
"to follow the rule of God's word in all causes as well
ecclesiasticall as politicall." The alternative was banishment, but
Morton says that he declined to subscribe without the words in the
Massachusetts charter, "so as nothing be done contrary or repugnant to
the Lawes of the Kingdome of England." Endicott took fire at the
independent claims of Morton and sent a party to arrest him. They
found Morton gone, whereupon they broke into his house and
appropriated his corn and other property.[16]

Meanwhile, in England, an important determination had been reached by
the leaders of the Massachusetts Company. At a general court, July 28,
1629, Cradock, the governor, read "certain propositions conceived by
himself" for transferring the headquarters of the company to
America.[17] The matter was held in abeyance, and the members present
were instructed to consider the question "privately and secretely."
August 26 twelve of the most influential members, among whom were John
Winthrop, Isaac Johnson, Thomas Dudley, and Richard Saltonstall, bound
themselves by a written agreement at Cambridge to emigrate with their
families to New England if a transfer of the government could be
effected.[18]

Three days later the company held another meeting, when the removal
was formally proposed and carried. Accordingly, such of the old
officers as did not wish to take part in the emigration resigned their
places, and for governor the choice fell upon John Winthrop, a wealthy
gentleman of Groton, in Suffolk, and for deputy governor upon Thomas
Dudley, who had been steward of the earl of Lincoln. The ultimate
effect of this brilliant stroke was to convert the company into a
colony.[19]

This change of policy was taken when affairs looked particularly dark
in England, for it was about this time that King Charles, provoked at
the opposition of Parliament, entered upon his policy of ruling
without one. March 10, 1629, Parliament was dissolved, and no other
was called for a space of eleven years. Several of the most eminent
members were languishing in the Tower of London, and the king's
proclamation of March 27 announced that he would "account it as a
presumption for any to prescribe any time unto us for Parliaments, the
calling, continuing, and dissolving of which is always in our
power."[20]

The result was a general stir throughout England, and in a few months
a thousand persons prepared to leave. They went in several parties in
seventeen ships, and there was probably a greater proportion of men of
wealth and solid respectability than ever had left England for America
in any one year before. The colonists, though Puritans, were church of
England men, and the idea of any separation from their old religious
connections was expressly disclaimed in a pamphlet published in 1630,
entitled the "Planters' Plea,"[21] which has been, with good reason,
assigned to Rev. John White. In this paper the writer appeals to the
address of the colonists at their departure, wherein they termed the
church of England "our dear mother."[22] Apparently anxious to repel
the imputation of nonconformity against "our New England colony," he
adds the confident assertion that John Winthrop, the chosen governor,
has been "in every way regular and conformable in the whole course of
his practice"; and that "three parts of four of the men planted in New
England are able to justify themselves to have lived in a constant
conformity unto our church government and orders."

The party with which Winthrop sailed arrived at Salem June 12, 1630,
after a nine weeks' voyage, in which they were exposed to stormy and
boisterous weather. They found the colony of Endicott in "a sad and
unexpected condition." More than a fourth part had died during the
previous winter, and many of the survivors were weak and sick. There
was a general scarcity of bread and corn, and the arrival of Winthrop
and his emigrants did not improve matters, for many of the new-comers
were suffering from scurvy, and a quantity of supplies which had been
bought in England had by some mistake been left behind.[23]

[Footnote 1: Hubbard, _New England_ (Mass. Hist. Soc., _Collections_,
2d series, V.), 107, 108.]

[Footnote 2: _Planters' Plea_ (Force, _Tracts_, II., No. iii.).]

[Footnote 3: The patent is not preserved, but there is a recital of
its main feature in the Massachusetts charter. Poore, _Charters and
Constitutions_, I., 932.]

[Footnote 4: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, pp. 25, 35;
Gorges, _Description of New England_ (Mass. Hist. Soc., _Collections_,
3d series, VI., 75).]

[Footnote 5: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1661-1668, p. 347.]

[Footnote 6: Gorges, _Description of New England_, 80.]

[Footnote 7: Hubbard, New England (Mass. Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 2d
series, V., 109).]

[Footnote 8: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 314.]

[Footnote 9: Young, _Chronicles of Massachusetts_, 148; Adams, _Three
Episodes of Mass. Hist._, I., 216.]

[Footnote 10: See charter in Poore, _Charters and Constitutions_, I.,
932.]

[Footnote 11: Young, _Chronicles of Massachusetts_, 192-200.]

[Footnote 12: Hutchinson, _Massachusetts Bay_, I., 17; Adams, _Three
Episodes of Mass. Hist._, I., 216-220.]

[Footnote 13: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 315, 316.]

[Footnote 14: Young, _Chronicles of Massachusetts_, 89, 290.]

[Footnote 15: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 302.]

[Footnote 16: Morton, _New English Canaan_ (Force, _Tracts_, II., No.
v.), 106, 107.]

[Footnote 17: _Mass. Col. Records_, I., 49.]

[Footnote 18: Young, _Chronicles of Massachusetts_, 282-284.]

[Footnote 19: _Mass. Col. Records_, I., 51.]

[Footnote 20: Rymer, _Foedera_, XIX., 63.]

[Footnote 21: Force, _Tracts_, II., No. iii.]

[Footnote 22: Palfrey, _New England_, I., 312.]

[Footnote 23: Thomas Dudley, letter to the countess of Lincoln (Force,
_Tracts_, II., No. iv.).]

[Illustration: NEW ENGLAND 1652]




CHAPTER XII

FOUNDING OF MASSACHUSETTS

(1630-1642)


Winthrop's government superseded Endicott's; but Winthrop, not liking
the appearance of the country around Salem, repaired to Charlestown
with most of the new-comers. Here, as elsewhere, there was much
sickness and death. Owing to the dearth of provisions it was found
necessary to free all the servants sent over within the last two years
at a cost of L16 or L20 each. The discouragement was reflected in the
return to England within a few months of more than a hundred persons
in the ships that brought them over.

The gloom of his surroundings caused Winthrop to set apart July 30 as
a day of prayer, and on that day Rev. John Wilson, after the manner of
proceeding the year before at Salem, entered into a church covenant
with Winthrop, Dudley, and Isaac Johnson, one of the assistants. Two
days later they associated with themselves five others; and more being
presently added, this third congregational church established in New
England, elected, August 27, John Wilson to be their teacher and
Increase Nowell to be ruling elder.[1]

Still the guise of loyalty to the church of England was for some time
maintained. In a letter to the countess of Lincoln, March 28, 1631,
the deputy governor, Thomas Dudley, one of the warmest of the
Puritans, repelled "the false and scandalous report," which those who
returned "the last year" had spread in England that "we are Brownists
in religion and ill affected to our state at home"; "and for our
further cleareinge," he said, "I truely affirme that I know noe one
person who came over with us the last yeare to be altered in his
judgment and affection eyther in ecclesiasticall or civill respects
since our comeinge hither."[2]

Winthrop and his assistants held their first formal session at
Charlestown, August 23, 1630, and took vigorous measures to
demonstrate their authority. Morton challenged attention on account
not only of his religious views and his friendship for Gorges, but of
his defiant attitude to the colony, and an order was issued that
"Morton, of Mount Wolliston, should presently be sent for by process."
Two weeks later his trial was had, and he was ordered "to be set into
the bilboes," and afterwards sent prisoner to England. To defray the
charges of his transportation, his goods were seized, and "for the
many wrongs he had done the Indians" his house was burned to the
ground,[3] a sentence which, according to Morton, caused the Indians
to say that "God would not love them that burned this good man's
house."[4]

Death was still playing havoc with the immigrants at Charlestown.
Several hundred men, women, and children were crowded together in a
narrow space, and had no better protection than tents, wigwams,
booths, and log-cabins. By December two hundred of the late arrivals
had perished, and among the dead were Francis Higginson, who had taken
a leading part in establishing the church at Salem, the first in
Massachusetts.[5] The severity of the diseases was ascribed to the
lack of good water at Charlestown, and, accordingly, the settlers
there broke up into small parties and sought out different places of
settlement.

On the other side of the Charles River was a peninsula occupied by
William Blackstone, one of the companions of Robert Gorges at
Wessagusset in 1626. It was blessed with a sweet and pleasant spring,
and was one of the places now selected as a settlement. September 7,
1630, the court of assistants gave this place the name of Boston; and
at the same court Dorchester and Watertown began their career under
legislative sanction.[6] Before winter the towns scattered through
Massachusetts were eight in number--Salem, Charlestown, Dorchester,
Boston, Watertown, Roxbury, Mystic, and Lynn.[7]

October 19, 1630, a general court, the first in New England, was held
in Boston. The membership consisted of the governor, deputy, eight
assistants, and one or two others, for these were all at that time in
Massachusetts possessing the franchise of the company.[8] The former
officers were re-elected, and a resolution was adopted that "the
freemen should have the power to choose assistants when they are to be
chosen, and the assistants to choose from among themselves the
governor and his deputy." The rule implied a strong reluctance to
leave out of the board any person once elected magistrate.

From the last week in December to the middle of February, 1631, the
suffering in the colony was very great, especially among the poorer
classes, and many died. Were it not for the abundance of clams,
mussels, and fish gathered from the bay there might have been a
"starving time," like that of Jamestown in 1609. Winthrop appointed a
fast to be kept February 22, 1631; but February 5 the _Lyon_ arrived
with supplies, and a public thanksgiving was substituted for a public
fasting.[9]

From this time the colony may be said to have secured a permanent
footing. The court of assistants, who had suspended their sessions
during the winter, now began to meet again, and made many orders with
reference to the economic and social affairs of the colonists. There
were few natives in the neighborhood of the settlement, and
Chickatabot, their sachem, anxious to secure the protection of the
English against the Taratines, of Maine, visited Boston in April and
established friendly communications.[10] At the courts of elections of
1631, 1632, and 1633 Winthrop was re-elected governor. His conduct was
not deemed harsh enough by some people, and in 1634 Thomas Dudley
succeeded him. In 1635 Jonn Haynes became governor, and in 1636 Henry
Vane, known in English history as Sir Harry Vane, after which time the
governorship was restored to Winthrop.

Puritanism entered the warp and woof of the Massachusetts colony, and
a combination of circumstances tended to build up a theocracy which
dominated affairs. The ministers who came over were among the most
learned men of the age, and the influence which their talents and
character gave them was greatly increased by the sufferings and the
isolation of the church members, who were thus brought to confide all
the more in those who, under such conditions, dispensed religious
consolation. Moreover, the few who had at first the direction of civil
matters were strongly religious men, and inclined to promote the unity
of the church by all the means at hand.

We have noticed the turn of affairs given by Endicott at Salem, and
how Winthrop followed his example on his arrival at Charlestown. After
the court of assistants resumed their meetings in March, 1631, the
upbuilding of the theocracy was rapidly pushed. Various people deemed
inimical to the accepted state of affairs were punished with
banishment from the colony, and in some cases the penalties of
whipping, cropping of ears, and confiscation of estate were added. In
some cases, as that of Sir Christopher Gardiner, a secret agent of Sir
Ferdinando Gorges, there was reason for parting with these people; but
in other cases the principle of punishment was persecution and not
justice. There is a record of an order for reshipping to England six
persons of whose offence nothing more is recorded than "that they were
persons unmeet to inhabit here."[11]

The most decided enlargement of the power of the theocracy was made in
the general court which met at Boston in May, 1631, when it was
resolved that the assistants need not be chosen afresh every year, but
might keep their seats until removed by a special vote of the
freemen.[12] The company was enlarged by the addition of one hundred
and eighteen "freemen"; but "to the end that the body of the commons
may be preserved of honest and good men," it was ordered that "for the
time to come no man should be admitted to the freedom of this body
politic but such as are members of some of the churches within the
limits of the same."

These proceedings practically vested all the judicial and legislative
powers in the court of assistants, whose tenure was permanent, and
left to the freemen in the general court little else than the power of
admitting freemen. Not only was citizenship based on
church-membership, but the Bible was the only law-book recognized by
the court of assistants. Of this book the ministers were naturally
thought the best interpreters, and it thus became the custom for the
magistrates to consult them on all questions of importance. Offenders
were not merely law-breakers, but sinners, and their offences ranged
from such as wore long hair to such as dealt in witchcraft and
sorcery.

Fortunately, this system did not long continue without some
modification. In February, 1632, the court of assistants assessed a
tax upon the towns for the erection of a fortification at Newtown,
subsequently Cambridge. The inhabitants of Watertown grumbled about
paying their proportion of this tax, and at the third general court,
May 9, 1632, it was ordered that hereafter the governor and assistants
in laying taxes should be guided by the advice of a board composed of
two delegates from every town; and that the governor and other
magistrates should be elected by the whole body of the freemen
assembled as the charter required.

Two years later a general court consisting of the governor,
assistants, and two "committees," or delegates, elected by the freemen
resident in each town, assembled and assumed the powers of
legislation.[13] This change, which brought about a popular
representative body--second in point of time only to Virginia--was a
natural extension of the proceedings of 1632. In 1644 the assistants
and delegates quarrelled over an appeal in a lawsuit, and as a result
the division of the court into two co-ordinate branches occurred.[14]

Nevertheless, the authority of the court of assistants, for several
reasons, continued to be very great. In the first place, unlike the
Council of Virginia, which could only amend or reject the action of
the lower house, the assistants had the right of originating laws.
Then the custom at the annual elections of first putting the names of
the incumbents to the vote made the tenure of its members a pretty
constant affair. Next, as a court, it exercised for years a vast
amount of discretionary power. Not till 1641 was the first code,
called the _Body of Liberties_, adopted, and this code itself
permitted the assistants to supply any defect in the law by the "word
of God," a phrase which to the followers of Calvin had especial
reference to the fierce legislation of the Old Testament.

The course of the colonial authorities speedily jeopardized the
charter which they obtained so readily from the king. Upon the arrival
in England, in 1631, of Morton, Gardiner, and other victims of the
court of assistants, they communicated with Gorges (now powerfully
assisted by John Mason); and he gladly seized upon their complaints to
accuse the ministers and people of Massachusetts of railing against
the state and church of England, and of an evident purpose of casting
off their allegiance at the first favorable opportunity. The complaint
was referred, in December, 1632, to a committee of the council,[15]
before whom the friends of the company in London--Cradock,
Saltonstall, and Humphrey--filed a written answer. Affairs bore a bad
appearance for the colonists, but the unexpected happened. Powerful
influences at court were brought to bear upon the members of the
committee, and to the astonishment of every one they reported, January
19, 1633, against any interference until "further inquiry" could be
made.[16] King Charles not only approved this report, but volunteered
the remark that "he would have them severely punished who did abuse
his governor and the plantation."[17]

Though the danger for the present was avoided, it was not wholly
removed. In August, 1633, Laud was made archbishop of Canterbury, and
his accession to authority was distinguished by a more rigorous
enforcement of the laws against Nonconformists. The effect was to
cause the lagging emigration to New England to assume immense volume.
There was no longer concealment of the purposes of the emigrants, for
the Puritan preachers began everywhere to speak openly of the
corruptions of the English church.[18] In September, 1633, the
theocracy of Massachusetts were reinforced by three eminent ministers,
John Cotton, Thomas Hooker, and Thomas Shepard; and so many other
persons accompanied and followed them that by the end of 1634 the
population was not far short of four thousand. The clergy, now
thirteen or fourteen in number, were nearly all graduates of Oxford or
Cambridge.

This exodus of so many of the best, "both ministers and
Christians,"[19] aroused the king and Archbishop Laud to the danger
threatened by the Massachusetts colony. Gorges, Mason, and the rest
renewed the attack, and in February, 1634, an order was obtained from
the Privy Council for the detention of ten vessels bound for
Massachusetts. At the same time Cradock, the ex-governor of the
company, was commanded by the Privy Council to hand in the
Massachusetts charter.[20] Soon after, the king announced his
intention of "giving order for a general governor" for New England;
and in April, 1634, he appointed a new commission for the government
of the colonies, called "The Commission for Foreign Plantations," with
William Laud, archbishop of Canterbury, at the head. Mr. Cradock
transmitted a copy of the order of council, requiring a production of
the charter, to Boston, where it was received by Governor Dudley in
July, 1634.

This was a momentous crisis in the history of the colony. The governor
and assistants made answer to Mr. Cradock that the charter could not
be returned except by command of the general court, not then in
session. At the same time orders were given for fortifying Castle
Island, Dorchester, and Charlestown. In this moment of excitement the
figure of Endicott again dramatically crosses the stage of history.
Conceiving an intense dislike to the cross in the English flag, he
denounced it as antichrist, and cut it out with his own hands from the
ensign borne by the company at Salem. Endicott was censured by the
general court for the act, but soon the cross was left out of all the
flags except that of the fort at Castle Island, in Boston Harbor.[21]

Massachusetts, while taking these bold measures at home, did not
neglect the protection of her interests in England. The government of
Plymouth, in July, 1634, sent Edward Winslow to England, and Governor
Dudley and his council engaged him to present an humble petition in
their behalf.[22] Winslow was a shrewd diplomat, but was so far from
succeeding with his suit that upon his appearance before the lords
commissioners in 1635 he was, through Laud's "vehement importunity,"
committed to Fleet Prison, where he lay seventeen weeks.[23]

Gorges and Mason lost no time in improving their victory. February 3,
1635, they secured a redivision of the coast of New England by the
Council for New England, into twelve parts, which were assigned to as
many persons. Sir William Alexander received the country from the
river St. Croix to Pemaquid; Sir Ferdinando Gorges, the province of
Maine from Penobscot to Piscataqua; Captain John Mason, New Hampshire
and part of Massachusetts as far as Cape Ann, while the coast from
Cape Ann to Narragansett Bay fell to Lord Edward Gorges, and the
portion from Narragansett Bay to the Connecticut River to the marquis
of Hamilton.[24]

April 25, 1635, the Council for New England issued a formal
declaration of their reasons for resigning the great charter to the
king, chief among which was their inability to rectify the complaints
of their servants in America against the Massachusetts Company, who
had "surreptitiously" obtained a charter for lands "justly passed to
Captain Robert Gorges long before."[25] June 7 the charter was
surrendered to the king, who appointed Sir Ferdinando Gorges "general
governor." The expiring company further appointed Thomas Morton as
their lawyer to ask for a _quo warranto_ against the charter of the
Massachusetts Company.

In September, 1635, judgment was given in Westminster Hall that "the
franchises of the Massachusetts Company be taken and seized into the
king's hands."[26] But, as Winthrop said, the Lord "frustrated their
designs." King Charles was trying to rule without a Parliament, and
had no money to spend against New England. Therefore, the cost of
carrying out the orders of the government devolved upon Mason and
Gorges, who set to work to build a ship to convey the latter to
America, but it fell and broke in the launching,[27] and about
November, 1635, Captain John Mason died.

After this, though the king in council, in July, 1637, named Gorges
again as "general governor,"[28] and the Lords Commissioners for
Plantations, in April, 1638, demanded the charter anew,[29] the
Massachusetts general court would not recognize either order. Gorges
could not raise the necessary funds to compel obedience, and the
attention of the king and his archbishop was occupied with forcing
episcopacy upon Scotland. In 1642 war began in England between
Parliament and king, and Massachusetts was left free to shape her own
destinies. It was now her turn to become aggressive. Construing her
charter to mean that her territory extended to a due east line three
miles north of the most northerly branch of Merrimac River, she
possessed herself, in 1641, of New Hampshire, the territory of the
heirs of John Mason; and in 1653-1658, of Maine, the province of
Gorges.

When the Long Parliament met, in 1641, the Puritans in England found
enough occupation at home, and emigration greatly diminished. In 1643
Massachusetts became a member of the New England confederation, and
her population was then about fifteen thousand; but nearly as many
more had come over and were distributed among three new
colonies--Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Haven.

[Footnote 1: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 332; Winthrop, _New
England_, I., 36.]

[Footnote 2: Force, _Tracts_, II., No. iv., 15.]

[Footnote 3: _Mass. Col. Records_, I., 75.]

[Footnote 4: Morton, _New English Canaan_ (Force, _Tracts_, II., No.
v.), 109.]

[Footnote 5: Dudley's letter (ibid., No. iv.).]

[Footnote 6: _Mass. Col. Records_, I., 75, 77.]

[Footnote 7: Palfrey, _New England_, I., 323, 324]

[Footnote 8: Ibid., 323.]

[Footnote 9: Hubbard, _New England_ (Mass. Hist. Soc., _Collections_,
2d series, V.), 138, 139; Winthrop, _New England_, I., 52.]

[Footnote 10: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 64.]

[Footnote 11: _Mass. Col. Records_, I., 82.]

[Footnote 12: Ibid., 87.]

[Footnote 13: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 84, 90, 152.]

[Footnote 14: _Mass. Col. Records_, II., 58, 59; Winthrop, _New
England_, II., 115-118, 193.]

[Footnote 15: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._ 1574-1660, p. 158.]

[Footnote 16: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 356.]

[Footnote 17: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 122, 123.]

[Footnote 18: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, p. 174.]

[Footnote 19: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 161.]

[Footnote 20: Hazard, _State Papers_, I., 341.]

[Footnote 21: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 161, 163, 166, 186, 188,
224.]

[Footnote 22: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 163.]

[Footnote 23: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 393.]

[Footnote 24: Maine Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 2d series, VII.,
183-188.]

[Footnote 25: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, pp. 200, 204.]

[Footnote 26: Hazard, _State Papers_, I., 423-425.]

[Footnote 27: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 12.]

[Footnote 28: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, p. 256.]

[Footnote 29: Hazard, _State Papers_, I., 432.]




CHAPTER XIII

RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS

(1631-1638)


The history of the beginnings of the Massachusetts colony shows that
there was no real unity in church matters among the first emigrants.
The majority were strongly tinctured with Puritanism, but
nonconformity took on many shades of opinion. When it came to adopting
a form of religion for Massachusetts, the question was decided by the
ministers and the handful who then enjoyed the controlling power in
the colony, and not by the majority of inhabitants. It was in this way
that the Congregational church, and not the Presbyterian church, or a
simplified form of the Anglican church, obtained its first hold upon
the colony.

The adoption of the law of 1631 making membership in the
Congregational church the condition of citizenship, and the arrival at
a later day of so many talented ministers embittered by persecution
against the Anglican church, strengthened the connection and made it
permanent. "God's word" was the law of the state, and the
interpretation of it was the natural function of the clergy. Thus,
through church influence, the limitations on thought and religious
practice became more stringent than in the mother-country, where the
suffrage took in all freeholders, whether they were adherents of the
established church or not.

In Massachusetts even Puritans who declined to acknowledge the form of
church government prescribed by the self-established ecclesiastical
authority were practically aliens, compelled to bear the burdens of
church and state, and without a chance of making themselves felt in
the government. And yet, from their own point of view, the position of
the Puritan rulers was totally illogical. While suffering from
persecution in England, they had appealed to liberty of conscience;
and when dominant in America the denouncers of persecution turned
persecutors.

A spirit of resistance on the part of many was the natural consequence
of a position so full of contradiction. Instances of contumacy
happened with such frequency and determination as should have given
warning to those in control. In November, 1631, Richard Brown, an
elder in the Watertown church, was reported to hold that "the Romish
church was a Christian church." Forthwith the court of assistants
notified the Watertown congregation that such views could not be
allowed, and Winthrop, who went in person with the deputy governor,
Dudley, used such summary arguments that Richard Brown, though "a man
of violent spirit," thought it prudent to hold his tongue thereafter.
In November, 1634, John Eliot, known afterwards so well for his noble
work among the Indians, in a sermon censured the court for proceeding
too arbitrarily towards the Pequots. He, too, thought better of his
words when a solemn embassy of ministers presented the matter in a
more orthodox light.

In March, 1635, Captain Israel Stoughton, one of the deputies from
Dorchester to the general court, incurred the resentment of the
authorities. This "troubler of Israel," as Governor Winthrop termed
him, wrote a pamphlet denying the right of the governor and assistants
to call themselves "Scriptural Magistrates." Being questioned by the
court, the captain made haste, according to the record, to desire that
"the said book might be burned as being weak and oppressive." Still
unsatisfied, the court ordered that for his said offence he should for
three years be disabled from bearing any office in the colony.[1]

The first great check which this religious despotism received
proceeded from Roger Williams, who arrived in February, 1631, in the
_Lyon_, which brought supplies to the famishing colonists of
Massachusetts. He was the son of a merchant in London and a graduate
of Pembroke College, Cambridge, where he took the degree of master of
arts in 1627. In his mere religious creed Williams was harsher than
even the orthodox ministers of Massachusetts. Soon after his arrival
he was invited to become one of the ministers of the Boston church,
but refused because that church declined to make a public declaration
of their repentance for holding communion in the churches of England
while they lived in the home country.

He was then invited to Salem, where he made himself very popular by
his talents and eloquence. Nevertheless, within two months he advanced
other "scrupulosities," denying the validity of land-titles proceeding
from the Massachusetts government, and the right of the magistrates to
impose penalties as to Sabbath-breaking or breaches of the laws of the
first table. Winthrop and his assistants complained to the Salem
church, and this interference prevented his intended ordination at
Salem.[2]

Williams presently removed to Plymouth, where his peculiar views were
indulged, and where he improved his time in learning the Indian
language and cultivating the acquaintance of the chief sachems of the
neighboring Indian tribes. When, two years later, in 1633, Williams
returned to live at Salem for the purpose of assisting the minister,
Mr. Skelton, who was sick, the rulers of the church at Plymouth
granted him a dismissal, but accompanied it with some words of warning
about his "unsettled judgment and inconsistency."[3]

Williams was soon in trouble in Massachusetts. While at Plymouth his
interest in the Indians led him to prepare for the private reading of
Bradford a pamphlet which argued that the king of England had no right
to give away the lands of the Indians in America. The pamphlet had
never been published, but reports of its contents reached Boston, and
the court of assistants, following, as usual, the advice of the
ministers, pounced upon the author and summoned him to answer for what
it was claimed was a denial of their charter rights.

When Williams appeared for this purpose, in January, 1634, the
objections of the court shifted to some vague phrases in the document
which they construed to reflect upon the king. These expressions were
readily explained by Williams, and he was promptly forgiven by the
court on his professing loyalty and taking the usual oath of
allegiance to his majesty.[4] Perhaps this singular behavior on the
part of the court is explained by the apprehension generally felt that
Ferdinando Gorges, in England, would succeed in his attempt to vacate
the charter of Massachusetts. If the charter had been successfully
called in, Williams's ground of the sufficiency of the Indian title to
lands might have proved useful as a last resort.[5]

Nevertheless, in November, 1634, the authorities were on his track
again. The pretext now was that Williams "taught publicly against the
king's patent," and that "he termed the churches of England
antichristian." This revamping of an old charge which had been
explained and dropped was probably due to a change of attitude towards
the English government. In May, 1634, the general court elected the
intolerant deputy governor, Thomas Dudley, governor in the place of
Winthrop; and when in July the news of the demand of the Lords
Commissioners for Foreign Plantations for the surrender of the colony
charter was received at Boston, the new governor took steps, as we
have seen, to commit the colony to a fight rather than yield
compliance.[6]

Nothing, however, resulted from the charges against Williams, and it
was not until March, 1635, that he again excited the wrath of the
government. Then his scruples took the shape of objections to the
recent legislation requiring every resident to swear to defend the
provincial charter. Williams declared that the state had no right to
demand an oath of an "unregenerate man," for that "we thereby had
communion with a wicked man in the worship of God and caused him to
take the name of God in vain."

Williams was, accordingly, summoned to Boston in April, and subjected
to confutation by the ministers, but positive action was deferred.
While the matter remained thus undetermined, the church at Salem
elected him teacher, and this action was construed as a contempt on
the part of both Williams and the Salem church. Accordingly, when the
general court met in July, 1635, Haynes now being governor, it entered
an order giving them till next court to make satisfaction for their
conduct. At the same court a petition of the Salem church for some
land in Marblehead Neck was rejected "because they had chosen Mr.
Williams their teacher."

Affairs had now drawn to a crisis. The Salem church wrote a letter to
all the other churches protesting against their treatment, and
Williams notified his own church that he would not commune with them
unless they declined to commune with the other churches of the colony.

When the general court met in September, Salem was punished with the
loss of representation, and thereupon gave way and submitted. Not so
Williams. In October, 1635, he was again "convented," and on his
refusing, in the presence of all the ministers of the colony, to
renounce his opinions, he was banished from Massachusetts. The time
given him to depart was only six weeks, and though some of the laymen
in the church opposed the decree, every clerical member save one
approved it.

Liberty to remain till spring was afterwards granted Williams, but he
was admonished not to go about to draw others to his opinions. As
Williams was one of those contentious people who must talk, this
inhibition was futile. It is true that he no longer preached in his
church, as the congregation had submitted to the will of those in
power. But he conversed in private with some of his friends, and
arranged a plan of establishing a new settlement on the shores of
Narragansett Bay.

When information of this design reached Boston in January, 1636, the
authorities, on the plea that an heretical settlement in the
neighborhood might affect the peace of the colony, determined to get
rid of Williams altogether by shipping him to England. An order was
sent to him to come to Boston, which he declined to obey on account of
ill-health. Captain Underhill was then sent to take him by force, but
before the doughty captain could arrive, Williams, getting
intelligence of his purpose, sick as he was, left his wife and two
infant children and hurried away, and no one at Salem would give
Underhill any information.[7]

Thirty-five years later Williams wrote, "I was sorely tossed for one
fourteen weeks, in a bitter winter season, not knowing what bed or
bread did mean." In this extremity he experienced the benefits of the
friendly relations which he had cultivated with the Indians at
Plymouth, for the Pokanokets received him kindly and gave him some
land on the Seekonk River.

The long arm of the Massachusetts authorities reached out for him even
here. He was soon advised by his friend, Governor Winslow, of
Plymouth, that as his plantation was within the limits of the Plymouth
colony he had better remove to the other side of the river, as his
government was "loath to displease the Bay." So Williams, with five of
his friends, who now joined him, embarked in his canoe and established
his settlement in June, 1636, at Providence, where he was joined by
many members of the church of Salem.[8] This was the beginning of
Rhode Island, or, rather, of one of the beginnings of their complex
colony.

The religion of the ruling class in Massachusetts, though bitterly
hostile to the ritual of the English church, was a matter of strict
regulation--there were rules regarding fast days, Sabbath attendance,
prayer-meetings, apparel, and speech. The wrath of God and eternal
punishment formed the substance of every sermon. In the church at
Boston this rigid system found a standard exponent in the pastor, John
Wilson; but the "teacher," John Cotton, a man of far greater ability,
sometimes preached sermons in which he dwelt upon the divine mercy and
love. The result was that the people crowded to hear him, and more
persons were converted and added to the church in Boston in the
earlier months of Cotton's residence than in all the other churches in
the colony.[9]

Among the members of Cotton's church was Mrs. Anne Hutchinson, who
knew Cotton in England and had crossed the sea to hear his teachings.
After her arrival, in June, 1636, she made herself very popular by her
ministrations "in time of childbirth and other occasions of bodily
infirmities." Soon she ventured to hold open meetings for women, at
which the sermons of the ministers furnished the subject of comment.
From a mere critic of the opinions of others Mrs. Hutchinson gradually
presumed to act the part of teacher herself, and her views on the
questions of "a covenant of works" and "a covenant of grace" attracted
much attention.[10] The former of these terms had been used by
Protestants to designate the condition of the Catholic church, which
imposed as the condition of salvation penances, confessions,
pilgrimages, legacies to the church, etc.; while the latter expression
described the condition of all true Protestant Christians who found
peace in the consciousness of holiness of spirit and faith in Jesus
Christ.

Mrs. Hutchinson gave an emotional rendering to the "covenant of
grace," and held that the divine spirit dwelt in every true believer
and no demeanor in life could evidence its existence. To the
Massachusetts ministers this doctrine seemed like a claim to
inspiration, and struck at the whole discipline of the church. But
what disturbed them more than anything else was the report that she
had singled out two of the whole order, John Cotton and her
brother-in-law John Wheelwright, to praise as walking in "the covenant
of grace."[11]

The quarrel began first in the bosom of the Boston church. Wilson, the
pastor, resented Mrs. Hutchinson's preference of Mr. Cotton, the
teacher, and began to denounce Mrs. Hutchinson's opinions. The
congregation divided into two factions; on the one side was the
pastor, supported by John Winthrop and a few others, and on the other
were Mrs. Hutchinson, young Harry Vane, then governor, and the large
majority of the members. Mr. Cotton was not identified with either
side, but sympathized with the latter. Matters verged to a crisis when
the Hutchinsonians announced their intention of electing Mr.
Wheelwright, who had not long since arrived, as a second teacher in
the church.

The election was to take place on Sunday, October 30, 1636; but
October 25 the general court met and the ministers from other parts of
the colony came to Boston and held a conference at which Cotton,
Wheelwright, and Wilson were present, and there was a general
discussion of all points in controversy. They agreed that
"sanctification" (_i.e._, a holy deportment) did help to evidence
"justification" (salvation); but there was more or less difference on
the question of the "indwelling of the Holy Ghost." Mr. Wheelwright
argued in its favor, but held that the indwelling referred to did not
amount to "a personal union with God," as Mrs. Hutchinson and Governor
Vane contended.

The conference instead of quieting aggravated the difficulty. Five
days later, when Mr. Wheelwright's name was voted upon, Winthrop rose
and hotly objected to him on the ground that he held unorthodox
opinions respecting the indwelling of the Holy Ghost and was apt to
raise "doubtful disputations." As a consequence the church would not
elect Wheelwright in the face of an objection from so prominent a
member as Winthrop. Next day Winthrop continued his attack, insisting
that Wheelwright must necessarily believe in a "personal union."

At this juncture Governor Harry Vane unfortunately gave to the
existing difficulties a political aspect. Vane was the son of one of
the secretaries of state of England. Having taken a religious turn, he
forsook all the honors and preferments of the court and obtained the
consent of his parents to visit Massachusetts. Almost immediately
after his arrival, he was elected, in May, 1636, when only twenty-four
years of age, governor of the colony, with John Winthrop as deputy
governor. After the quarrel in regard to the election of Wheelwright,
Vane, who had become tired of the distractions in the colony, convened
the general court, December 10, 1636, to tender his resignation upon
the half-reason that his private affairs required his presence in
England.

Next day one of the assistants very feelingly regretted the coming
loss, especially in view of threatened attacks from the French and
Indians. The remarks took Vane off his guard. Carried away by his
feelings, he burst into tears and protested that, though his outward
estate was really in peril, yet he would not have thought of deserting
them at this crisis had he not felt the inevitable danger of God's
judgments upon them for their dissensions. Thereupon the court, of
which a majority were his opponents, declined to allow his departure
on the grounds assigned. Vane saw his mistake and reverted to his
private estate. The court then consented to his departure, and a court
of elections was called for December 15 to supply the vacancy caused
by his resignation.

Before this time arrived the religious drama took a new turn. The
friends of Mrs. Hutchinson knew the value of having the head of the
government with them, and would not dismiss Vane from the church,
whereupon he withdrew his resignation altogether. Till the next
election in May the colony was more divided than ever. Mr. Wheelwright
was appointed to take charge of a church at Mount Wollaston, but his
forced withdrawal from Boston was a source of irritation to his
numerous friends. Mrs. Hutchinson remained and was the storm-centre,
while Vane, who now sought a re-election, was freely accused of
subterfuge and deception.

A day or two after December 15 the ministers and the court held a
meeting at which very hot words passed between Governor Vane and Rev.
Hugh Peter. Wilson, the pastor of Boston, also indulged in caustic
criticisms directed at Governor Vane and the other friends of Mrs.
Hutchinson. By this speech Wilson gave great offence to his
congregation, who would have laid a formal church censure upon him had
not Cotton interfered and in lieu of it gave his fellow-preacher a
good scolding, under the guise of what Winthrop calls "a grave
exhortation."

The clergy were very anxious to win over Mr. Cotton, and about a week
later held a meeting at Boston and solemnly catechised Cotton on many
abstruse points. The storm of theological rancor was at its height.
Harsh words were hurled about, and by some orthodox ministers Mrs.
Hutchinson and her friends were denounced as Familists, Antinomians,
etc., after certain early sects who cherished the doctrines of private
inspiration and had committed many strange offences. On the other
hand, some of Mrs. Hutchinson's friends scornfully referred to the
orthodox party as legalists and antichrists, "who walked in a covenant
of works."

Harsh words are only one step removed from harsh measures. The
legalists were in a majority in the general court, and they resolved
to retaliate for the treatment Mr. Wilson had received at the hands of
his congregation.[12] At the general court which convened March 9,
1637, Wilson's sermon was approved and Wheelwright was summoned to
answer for alleged "seditious and treasonable words" that were used by
him in a sermon preached in Boston on a recent fast day. This action
brought forth a petition from the church of Boston in Wheelwright's
behalf, which the court declared "presumptious" and rejected.
Wheelwright himself was pronounced guilty, and thereupon a protest was
offered by Vane, and a second petition came from Boston, which, like
the first, went unheeded, and only served at a later day to involve
those who signed it.

Amid great excitement the legalists carried a resolution to hold the
May election at Newtown (Cambridge) instead of Boston, a partisan
move, for Newtown was more subject to their influence than Boston. At
this court in May the turbulence was so great that the parties came
near to blows. Threats resounded on all sides, and Wilson was so
carried away with excitement that he climbed a tree to harangue the
multitude. The Vane forces struggled hard, but were badly defeated,
and Winthrop was restored to his former office as governor, while the
stern Thomas Dudley was made deputy governor. Vane and his assistants,
Coddington and Dummer, were defeated and "quite left out," even from
the magistracy.[13]

Secure in the possession of power, the legalists now proceeded to
suppress the opposing party altogether. An order was passed commanding
that no one should harbor any new arrival for more than three weeks
without leave of the magistrates. This was to prevent any dangerous
irruption of sympathizers with Mrs. Hutchinson from England, and it
was applied against a brother of Mrs. Hutchinson and some others of
her friends who arrived not long after.

August 3, 1637, Vane sailed for England, and thenceforward the
Hutchinson faction, abandoned by their great leader, made little
resistance. In the latter part of the same month (August 30) a great
synod of the ministers was held at Newtown, which was the first thing
of the sort attempted in America, and included all the teaching elders
of the colony and some new-comers from England. This body set to work
to lay hold of the heresies which infected the atmosphere of the
colony, and formulated about "eighty opinions," some "blasphemous,"
but others merely "erroneous and unsafe." How many of them were really
entertained by Mrs. Hutchinson's followers and how many were merely
inferences drawn from their teachings by their opponents it is hard to
say.

When these heresies were all enumerated and compared with the opinions
of Cotton and Wheelwright, only five points of possible heterodoxy on
their part appeared. Over these there was a solemn wrangle for days,
till Cotton, shrinking from his position, contrived, through abundant
use of doubtfull expressions, to effect his reconciliation with the
dominant party. After a session of twenty-four days the synod
adjourned, and Wheelwright, alone of the ministers, was left as the
scapegoat of the Antinomians, and with him the majority determined to
make short work.[14]

At the general court which met November 2, 1637, the transgressions of
Wheelwright through his fast-day sermon were made the basis of
operations. For this offence Wheelwright had been judged guilty more
than nine months before, but sentence had been deferred; he was now
sentenced to disfranchisement and banishment. Many of his friends at
Boston, including William Aspinwall and John Coggeshall, delegates to
the general court, experienced similar treatment for signing the
petition presented to the court in March, 1637, after the verdict
against Wheelwright.[15]

An order was passed for disarming Mrs. Hutchinson's followers, and
finally the arch-heretic herself was sent for and her examination
lasted two days. In the dialogue with Winthrop which began the
proceedings, Mrs. Hutchinson had decidedly the best of the
controversy; and Winthrop himself confesses that "she knew when to
speak and when to hold her tongue." The evidence failed wretchedly
upon the main charge, which was that Mrs. Hutchinson alleged that all
the ministers in Massachusetts except Mr. Cotton preached "a covenant
of works." On the contrary, by her own evidence and that of Mr. Cotton
and Mr. Leverett, it appeared that Mrs. Hutchinson had said that "they
did not preach a covenant of grace as clearly as Mr. Cotton did,"
which was probably very true.[16]

Her condemnation was a matter of course, and at the end of two days
the court banished her from the colony; but as it was winter she was
committed to the temporary care of Mr. Joseph Welde, of Roxbury,
brother of the Rev. Thomas Welde, who afterwards wrote a rancorous
account of these difficulties, entitled _A Short Story_. While in his
house, Mrs. Hutchinson was subjected to many exhortations by anxious
elders, till her spirits sank under the trial and she made a
retraction. Nevertheless, it was not as full as her tormentors
desired, and the added penalty of dismissal from church was imposed.
After her excommunication her spirits revived, "and she gloried in her
condemnation and declared that it was the greatest happiness next to
Christ that ever befell her."

In this affair Winthrop acted as prosecutor and judge. Before the
spring had well set in he sent word to Mrs. Hutchinson to depart from
the colony. Accordingly, March 28, 1638, she went by water to her farm
at Mount Wollaston (now Quincy), intending to join Mr. Wheelwright,
who had gone to Piscataqua, in Maine, but she changed her mind and
went by land to the settlement of Roger Williams at Providence, and
thence to the island of Aquidneck, where she joined her husband and
other friends.[17]

Such was the so-called Antinomian controversy in Massachusetts, and
its ending had a far-reaching effect upon the fortunes of the colony.
The suppression of Mrs. Hutchinson and her friends produced what
Winthrop and the rest evidently desired--peace--a long peace. For
fifty years the commonwealth was free from any great religious
agitations; but this condition of quietude, being purchased at the
price of free speech and free conscience, discouraged all literature
except of a theological stamp, and confirmed the aristocratic
character of the government. As one of its mouth-pieces, Rev. Samuel
Stone, remarked, New England Congregationalism continued till the
close of the century "a speaking aristocracy in the face of a silent
democracy."[18] The intense practical character of the people saved
the colony, which, despite the theocratic government, maintained a
vigorous life in politics, business, and domestic economy.

[Footnote 1: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 70, 81, 113, 179, 185; _Cal.
of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, p. 180.]

[Footnote 2: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 49, 63.]

[Footnote 3: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 370; Hubbard, _New
England_ (Mass. Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 2d series, V.), 203.]

[Footnote 4: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 145, 147.]

[Footnote 5: Eggleston, _Beginners of a Nation_, 282.]

[Footnote 6: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 163, 166, 180.]

[Footnote 7: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 188, 193, 198, 204, 209,
210.]

[Footnote 8: Mass. Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 1st series, I., 276.]

[Footnote 9: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 144.]

[Footnote 10: Adams, _Three Episodes of Mass. Hist_., I., 339.]

[Footnote 11: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 239; Hutchinson,
_Massachusetts Bay_, I., 435.]

[Footnote 12: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 240-255; _Mass. Col.
Records_, I., 185.]

[Footnote 13: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 256-263.]

[Footnote 14: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 261-288.]

[Footnote 15: Ibid., 291-296.]

[Footnote 16: Hutchinson, _Massachusetts Bay_, II., 423-447.]

[Footnote 17: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 296-312.]

[Footnote 18: Adams, _Massachusetts: Its Historians and its History_,
57.]




CHAPTER XIV

NARRAGANSETT AND CONNECTICUT SETTLEMENTS

(1635-1637)


The island of Aquidneck, to which Mrs. Hutchinson retired, was secured
from Canonicus and Miantonomoh, the sachems of the Narragansetts,
through the good offices of Roger Williams, by John Clarke, William
Coddington, and other leaders of her faction, a short time preceding
her banishment, after a winter spent in Maine, where the climate
proved too cold for them.[1] The place of settlement was at the
northeastern corner of the island, and was known first by its Indian
name of Pocasset and afterwards as Portsmouth. The first settlers,
nineteen in number, constituted themselves a body politic and elected
William Coddington as executive magistrate, with the title of chief
judge, and William Aspinwall as secretary.[2] Other emigrants swelled
the number, till in 1639 a new settlement at the southern part of the
island, called Newport, resulted through the secession of a part of
the settlers headed by Coddington. For more than a year the two
settlements remained separate, but in March, 1640, they were formally
united.[3] Settlers flocked to these parts, and in 1644 the Indian
name of Aquidneck was changed to Rhode Island.[4]

Not less flourishing was Roger Williams's settlement of Providence on
the main-land. In the summer of 1640 Patuxet was marked off as a
separate township;[5] and in 1643 Samuel Gorton and others, fleeing
from the wrath of Massachusetts, made a settlement called Shawomet, or
Warwick, about twelve miles distant from Providence.

The tendency of these various towns was to combine in a commonwealth,
but on account of their separate origin the process of union was slow.
The source of most of their trouble in their infancy was the grasping
policy of Massachusetts. Next to heretics in the bosom of the
commonwealth heretic neighbors were especially abhorrent. When in 1640
the magistrates of Connecticut and New Haven addressed a joint letter
to the general court of Massachusetts, and the citizens of Aquidneck
ventured to join in it, Massachusetts arrogantly excluded the
representation of Aquidneck from their reply as "men not fit to be
capitulated withal by us either for themselves or for the people of
the isle where they inhabit."[6] And neither in 1644 nor in 1648 would
Massachusetts listen to the appeal of the Rhode-Islanders to be
admitted into the confederacy of the New England colonies.[7]

The desire of Massachusetts appeared to be to hold the heretics and
their new country under a kind of personal and territorial vassalage,
as was interestingly shown in the case of Mrs. Hutchinson and Samuel
Gorton. Despite her banishment and excommunication the church at
Boston seemed to consider it a duty to keep a paternal eye on Mrs.
Hutchinson; and not long after her settlement at Portsmouth sent an
embassy to interview her and obtain, if possible, a submission and
profession of repentance.

The bearers of this message met with an apt reception and returned
very much disconcerted. They found Mrs. Hutchinson, and declared that
they came as messengers from the church of Boston, but she replied
that she knew only the church of Christ and recognized no such church
as "the church of Boston." Nevertheless, she continued to be annoyed
with messages from Boston till, in order to be quiet and out of reach,
she removed to a place very near Hell Gate in the Dutch settlement,
and there, in 1643, she, with most of her family, perished in an
Indian attack.[8]

The authority of Massachusetts over the banished was not confined to
religious exhortations. Samuel Gorton, a great friend of Mrs.
Hutchinson, was in many respects one of the most interesting
characters in early New England history. This man had a most
pertinacious regard for his private rights, and at Plymouth,
Portsmouth, and Providence his career of trouble was very much the
same. But he was not an ordinary law-breaker, and in Providence, in
1641, Gorton and his friends refused to submit to a distress ordained
by the magistrates, for the reason that these magistrates, having no
charter, had no better authority to make laws than any private
person.[9]

The next year, 1642, thirteen citizens of Providence petitioned Boston
for assistance and protection against him; and not long after, four of
the petitioners submitted their persons and lands to the authority of
Massachusetts.[10] Although to accept this submission was to step
beyond their bounds under the Massachusetts charter, the authorities
at Boston, in October, 1642, gave a formal notice of their intention
to maintain the claim of the submissionists.[11] To this notice Gorton
replied, November 20, 1642, in a letter full of abstruse theology and
rancorous invective.

Nevertheless, he and his party left Patuxet and removed to Shawomet, a
tract beyond the limits of Providence, and purchased in January, 1643,
from Miantonomoh, the great sachem of the Narragansetts.[12] Gorton's
letter had secured for him the thorough hatred of the authorities in
Massachusetts, and his removal by no means ended their interference.
The right of Miantonomoh to make sale to Gorton was denied by two
local sachems; and Massachusetts coming to their support, Gorton was
formally summoned, in September, 1643, to appear before the court of
Boston to answer the complaint of the sachems for trespass.[13] Gorton
and his friends returned a contemptuous reply, and as he continued to
deny the right of Massachusetts to interfere, the Boston government
prepared to send an armed force against him.[14]

In the mean time, a terrible fate overtook the friend and ally of
Gorton, Miantonomoh, at the hands of his neighbors in the west, the
Mohegans, whose chief, Uncas, attacked one of Miantonomoh's
subordinate chiefs; Miantonomoh accepted the war, was defeated, and
captured by Uncas. Gorton interfered by letter to save his friend, and
Uncas referred the question of Miantonomoh's fate to the federal
commissioners at Boston. The elders were clamorous for the death
penalty, but the commissioners admitting that "there was no sufficient
ground for us to put him to death," agreed to deliver the unhappy
chieftain to Uncas, with permission to kill him as soon as he came
within Uncas's jurisdiction. Accordingly, Miantonomoh was slaughtered
by his enemy, who cut out a warm slice from his shoulder and declared
it the sweetest morsel he had ever tasted and that it gave strength to
his heart.[15] Thus fell Miantonomoh, the circumstances of whose death
were "not at all creditable to the federal commissioners and their
clerical advisers."[16]

Massachusetts sent out an armed force against the Gortonists, and
after some resistance the leaders were captured and brought to Boston.
Here Wilson and other ministers urged the death penalty upon the
"blasphemous heretics." But the civil authorities were not prepared to
go so far, and in October, 1643, adopted the alternative of
imprisonment. In March, 1644, Gorton and his friends were liberated,
but banished on pain of death from all places claimed to be within the
jurisdiction of Massachusetts.

They departed to Shawomet, but Governor Winthrop forbade them to stay
there; and in April, 1644, Gorton and his friends once more sought
refuge at Aquidneck.[17] Gorton, having contrived to reach England,
returned in May, 1648, with an order from the Parliamentary
commissioners for plantations, directed to the authorities of
Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Connecticut, to permit him and his
friends to reside in peace at Warwick, which they were then permitted
to do.[18] In 1652 Gorton became president of Providence and
Warwick.[19]

In December, 1643, the agents of Massachusetts in England obtained
from the Parliamentary commissioners for plantations a grant of all
the main-land in Massachusetts Bay; and it appeared for the moment as
if it were all over with the independence of the Rhode Island towns.
Fortunately, Williams was in England at the time, and with indomitable
energy he set to work to counteract the danger.

In less than three months he persuaded the same commissioners to
issue, March 14, 1644, a second instrument[20] incorporating the towns
of "Providence Plantations, in the Narragansett Bay in New England,"
and (in flat contradiction of the earlier grant to Massachusetts)
giving them "the Tract of Land in the Continent of America called by
the name of Narragansett Bay, bordering Northward and Northeast on the
patent of the Massachusetts, East and Southeast on Plymouth Patent,
South on the Ocean, and on the West and Northwest by the Indians
called Nahigganeucks, alias Narregansets--the whole Tract extending
about twenty-five English miles unto the Pequot River and Country."
The charter contained no mention of religion or citizenship, though it
gave the inhabitants full power "to rule themselves and such others as
shall hereafter inhabit within any Part of the said Tract, by such a
Form of Civil Government, as by voluntary consent of all, or the
greater Parte of them, they shall find most suitable to their Estate
and Condition."

Williams returned to America in September, 1644. On account of the
unfriendly disposition of Massachusetts he was compelled, when leaving
for England, to take his departure from the Dutch port of New
Amsterdam. Now, like one vindicated in name and character, he landed
in Boston, and, protected by a letter[21] from "divers Lords and
others of the Parliament," passed unmolested through Massachusetts,
and reached Providence by the same route which, as a homeless
wanderer, he had pursued eight years before. It is said that at
Seekonk he was met by fourteen canoes filled with people, who escorted
him across the water to Providence with shouts of triumph.[22]

Peace and union, however, did not at once flow from the labors of
Williams. The hostility of Massachusetts and Plymouth towards the
Rhode-Islanders seemed at first increased; and the principle of
self-government, to which the Rhode Island townships owed their
existence, delayed their confederation. At last, in May, 1647, an
assembly of freemen from the four towns of Portsmouth, Newport,
Providence, and Warwick met at Portsmouth, and proceeded to make laws
in the name of the whole body politic, incorporated under the charter.
The first president was John Coggeshall; and Roger Williams and
William Coddington were two of the first assistants.

Massachusetts, aided by the Plymouth colony, still continued her
machinations, and an ally was found in Rhode Island itself in the
person of William Coddington. In 1650 he went to England and obtained
an order, dated April 3, 1651, for the severance of the island from
the main-land settlements.[23] Fortunately, however, for the
preservation of Rhode Island unity, an act of intemperate bigotry on
the part of Massachusetts saved the state from Coddington's
interference.

The sect called Anabaptists, or Baptists, opposed to infant baptism,
made their appearance in New England soon after the banishment of Mrs.
Hutchinson. Rhode Island became a stronghold for them, and in 1638
Roger Williams adopted their tenets and was rebaptized.[24] In 1644 a
Baptist church was established at Newport.[25] The same year
Massachusetts passed a law decreeing banishment of all professors of
the new opinions.[26] In October, 1650, three prominent Baptists, John
Clarke, Obadiah Holmes, and John Crandall, visited Massachusetts, when
they were seized, whipped, fined, imprisoned, and barely escaped with
their lives.[27]

The alarm created in Rhode Island by these proceedings brought the
towns once more into a common policy, and Clarke and Williams were
sent to England to undo the work of Coddington. Aided by the warm
friendship of Sir Harry Vane, the efforts of the agents were crowned
with success. Coddington's commission was revoked by an order of
council in September, 1652, and the townships were directed to unite
under the charter of 1644.[28] Coddington did not at once submit, and
there was a good deal of dissension in the Rhode Island towns till
June, 1654, when Williams returned from England. Then Coddington
yielded,[29] and, August 31, commissioners from the four towns voted
to restore the government constituted seven years before. The
consolidation of Rhode Island was perfected when, in 1658,
Massachusetts released her claims to jurisdiction there.[30]

Liberty of conscience as asserted by Roger Williams did not involve
the abrogation of civil restraint, and when one William Harris
disturbed the peace in 1656, by asserting this doctrine in a
pamphlet,[31] Williams, then governor, had a warrant issued for his
apprehension. When, in 1658, Williams retired to private life the
possibility of founding a state in which "religious freedom and civil
order could stand together" was fully proved to the world.[32]

Besides the Indian power, as many as six independent jurisdictions
existed originally in the present state of Connecticut. (1) The Dutch
fort of "Good Hope," established in 1633, on the Connecticut River,
had jurisdiction over a small area of country. (2) The Plymouth colony
owned some territory on the Connecticut River and built a fort there
soon after the Dutch came. (3) Next was the jurisdiction of Fort
Saybrook, the sole evidence of possession on the part of the holders
of a patent from the earl of Warwick, president of the Council for New
England, who claimed to own the whole of Connecticut. (4) A much
larger jurisdiction was that of the Connecticut River towns, settled
in 1635-1636, contemporaneously with the banishment of Roger Williams.
(5) New Haven was settled in 1638, in the height of the Antinomian
difficulties. (6) A claim was advanced by the marquis of Hamilton for
a tract of land running from the mouth of the Connecticut River to
Narragansett Bay, assigned to him in the division of 1635, but it did
not become a disturbing factor till 1665.

The early relations between the Dutch and English colonies were, as we
have seen, characterized by kindness and good-fellowship. The Dutch
advised the Plymouth settlers to remove from their "present barren
quarters," and commended to them the valley of the "Fresh River"
(Connecticut), referring to it as a fine place both for plantation and
trade.[33] Afterwards, some Mohegan Indians visiting Plymouth in 1631
made similar representations. Their chief, Uncas, an able,
unscrupulous, and ambitious savage, made it his great ambition to
attain the headship of his aggressive western neighbors, the Pequots.
The only result had been to turn the resentment of the Pequots against
himself; and he sought the protection of the Plymouth government by
encouraging them to plant a settlement on the Connecticut in his own
neighborhood.[34]

These persuasions had at length some effect, and in 1632 Edward
Winslow, being sent in a bark to examine the river, reported the
country as conforming in every respect to the account given of it by
the Dutch and the Indians.[35] Meanwhile, the Indians, not liking the
delay, visited Boston and tried to induce the authorities there to
send out a colony, but, though Governor Winthrop received them
politely, he dismissed them without the hoped-for assistance.[36]

In July, 1633, Bradford and Winslow made a special visit to Boston to
discuss the plan of a joint trading-post, but they did not receive
much encouragement. Winthrop and his council suggested various
objections: the impediments to commerce due to the sand-bar at the
mouth; the long continuance of ice in spring, and the multitude of
Indians in the neighborhood. But it seems likely that these
allegations were pretexts, since we read in Winthrop's _Journal_ that
in September, 1633, a bark was sent from Boston to Connecticut; and
John Oldham, with three others, set out from Watertown overland to
explore the river.[37]

Plymouth determined to wait no longer, and in October, 1633, sent a
vessel, commanded by William Holmes, with workmen and the frame of a
building for a trading-post. When they arrived in the river, they were
surprised to find other Europeans in possession. The Dutch, aroused
from their dream of security by the growth of the English settlement,
made haste in the June previous to purchase from the Indians twenty
acres where Hartford now stands, upon which they built a fort a short
time after. When the vessel bearing the Plymouth traders reached this
point in the river, the Dutch commander, John van Curler, commanded
Holmes to stop and strike his flag. But Holmes, paying little
attention to the threats of the Dutchman, continued his voyage and
established a rival post ten miles above, at a place now known as
Windsor.[38]

Meanwhile, the ship which Winthrop sent to Connecticut went onward to
New Netherland, where the captain notified Governor Van Twiller, in
Winthrop's name, that the English had a royal grant to the territory
about the Connecticut River. It returned to Boston in October, 1633,
and brought a reply from Van Twiller that the Dutch had also a claim
under a grant from their States-General of Holland.[39] In December,
1633, Van Twiller heard of Holmes's trading-post and despatched an
armed force of seventy men to expel the intruders. They appeared
before the fort with colors flying, but finding that Holmes had
received reinforcements, and that it would be impossible to dislodge
him without bloodshed, they returned home without molesting him.[40]

The Plymouth settlers were destined to be dispossessed, not by the
Dutch, but by their own countrymen. The people of Massachusetts were
now fully aroused, and the news that came to Boston in the summer of
1634 that the small-pox had practically destroyed the Indians on the
river increased "the hankering" after the coveted territory.[41] The
people of Watertown, Dorchester, and Newtown (Cambridge) had long been
restless under the Massachusetts authority, and were anxious for a
change. Dorchester was the residence of Captain Israel Stoughton, and
Watertown the residence of Richard Brown and John Oldham, all three of
whom had been under the ban of the orthodox Puritan church. At
Watertown also had sprung up the first decided opposition to the
aristocratic claim of the court of assistants to lay taxes on the
people. As for Newtown (now Cambridge), its inhabitants could not
forget that, though selected in the first instance as the capital of
the colony, it had afterwards been discarded for the town of Boston.

In all three towns there was a pressure for arable lands and more or
less jealousy among the ministers. Some dissatisfaction also with the
requirement in Massachusetts of church-membership for the suffrage may
have been among the motives for seeking a new home. At the head of the
movement was the Rev. Thomas Hooker, a graduate of Emmanuel College,
Cambridge, who had lived in Holland, and while there had imbibed a
greater share of liberality than was to be found among most of the
clergy of Massachusetts. Cotton declared that democracy was "no fit
government either for church or commonwealth," and the majority of the
ministers agreed with him. Winthrop defended his view in a letter to
Hooker on the ground that "the best part is always the least, and of
that best part the wiser part is always the lesser." But Hooker
replied that "in matters which concern the common good a general
council, chosen by all, to transact business which concerns all, I
conceive most suitable to rule and most safe for the relief of the
whole."

Hooker arrived in the colony in September, 1633,[42] and in May, 1634,
at the first annual general court after his arrival, his congregation
at Newtown petitioned to be permitted to move to some other quarters
within the bounds of Massachusetts.[43] The application was granted,
and messengers were sent to Agawam and Merrimac to look for a suitable
location.[44] After this, when the epidemic on the Connecticut became
known, a petition to be permitted to move out of the Massachusetts
jurisdiction was presented to the general court in September, 1634.
This raised a serious debate, and though there can be little doubt
that Winthrop and the other leaders in Massachusetts shrewdly
cherished the idea of pre-empting in some way the trade of the
Connecticut, against both the Plymouth people and the Dutch, an
emigration such as was proposed appeared too much like a desertion.
The fear of the appointment by the crown of a governor-general for New
England was at its height, and so the application, though it met with
favor from the majority of the deputies, was rejected by the court of
assistants.[45]

The popularity of the measure, however, increased mightily, and there
is a tradition that in the winter of 1634-1635 some persons from
Watertown went to Connecticut and managed to survive the winter in a
few huts erected at Pyquag, afterwards Wethersfield.[46] The next
spring the Watertown and Dorchester people imitated the Newtown
congregation in applying to the general court for permission to
remove. They were more successful, and were given liberty to go to any
place, even outside of Massachusetts, provided they continued under
the Massachusetts authority.[47]

Then began a lively movement, and Jonathan Brewster, in a letter
written from the Plymouth fort at Windsor in July, 1635, tells of the
daily arrival by land and water of small parties of these adventurous
settlers. Their presence around the fort caused Brewster much
uneasiness, since some began to cast covetous eyes upon the very spot
which the Plymouth government had bought from the Mohegans and held
against the Dutch.

As their numbers grew their confidence increased; and finally the men
of Dorchester, headed by Roger Ludlow, one of the richest men in
Massachusetts, pretending that the land was theirs as the "Lord's
waste," upon which "the providence of God" had cast them, intruded
themselves into the actual midst of the Plymouth people. The emigrants
from Plymouth protested, but were finally glad to accept a compromise,
though, as Bradford remarks, "the unkindness was not soon forgotten."
The Massachusetts settlers held on to fifteen-sixteenths of the land,
while they magnanimously conceded to the Plymouth people
one-sixteenth, in addition to their block-houses.[48]

The emigration in the summer of 1635 was preliminary to a much larger
exodus in the fall. In October a company of about sixty men, women,
and children, driving before them their cows, horses, and swine, set
out by land and reached the Connecticut "after a tedious and difficult
journey";[49] but the winter set in very early, and the vessels which
were to bring their provisions by water not appearing, they were
forced to leave their settlement for fear of famine. They were
fortunate to find a ship frozen up in the river, which they freed from
the ice and used to return to Boston. The other settlers who remained
upon the river suffered very much, and were finally reduced to the
necessity of eating acorns and ground-nuts, which they dug out of the
snow. A great number of the cattle perished, and the Dorchester
Company "lost near L2000 worth."[50]

These calamities were soon forgotten; and as soon as the first flowers
of spring suggested the end of the dreary winter season, the Newtown
people prepared to move. Selling their lands on the Charles River to
the congregation of Rev. Thomas Shepard, the whole body, in June,
1636, emigrated through the green woods, musical with birds and bright
with flowers, under the leadership of their two eminent ministers,
Thomas Hooker and Samuel Stone.[51] Among the lay members of the
community were Stephen Hart, Thomas Bull, and Richard Lord.[52] A
little later the churches of Dorchester and Watertown completed their
removal, while a settlement was made by emigrants from Roxbury under
William Pynchon at Agawam, afterwards Springfield, just north of the
boundary between Massachusetts and Connecticut.[53]

At the beginning of the winter of 1636-1637 about eight hundred people
were established in three townships below Springfield. These townships
were first called after the towns from which their inhabitants
removed--Newtown, Watertown, and Dorchester; but in February, 1637,
their names were changed to Hartford, Wethersfield, and Windsor. The
settlements well illustrate the general type of New England
colonization. The emigration from Massachusetts was not of
individuals, but of organized communities united in allegiance to a
church and its pastor. Carrying provisions and supplies, erecting new
villages, as communities they came from England to Massachusetts, and
in that character the people emigrated to Connecticut.

In the mean time, the silence of the Connecticut woods was broken by
other visitors. The lands occupied by the Massachusetts settlers upon
the Connecticut lay within a grant executed March 19, 1631, by the
earl of Warwick, as president of the Council for New England for "all
that part of New England in America which lies and extends itself from
a river there called Narragansett River, the space of forty leagues
upon a straight line near the seashore towards the southwest, west,
and by south, or west, as the coast lieth towards Virginia, accounting
three English miles to the league; and also all and singular the lands
and hereditaments whatsoever, lying and being within the lands
aforesaid, north and south in latitude and breadth, and in length and
longitude of and within, all the breadth aforesaid, throughout the
main-lands there, from the western ocean to the south sea." The
grantees included Lord Say and Sele, Lord Brooke, and Sir Richard
Saltonstall.[54]

Probably some report of the unauthorized colonies reached them and
hastened Saltonstall to send out a party of twenty men in July, 1635,
to plant a settlement on the Connecticut. But the Dorchester settlers
treated them with even less consideration than they had the Plymouth
men. They set upon them and drove them out of the river.[55] Then, in
October, 1635, John Winthrop, Jr., the eldest son of John Winthrop of
Massachusetts, came from England with a commission to be governor of
the "river Connecticut in New England" for the space of one year.[56]

He was, however, a governor in theory, and made but one substantial
contribution to the permanent possession of Connecticut by the
English. In November, 1635, he erected at the mouth of the river a
fort called after Lord Say and Sele and Lord Brooke--Saybrook--which
in the spring of 1636 he placed under the command of Lyon Gardiner, an
expert military engineer, who had seen much service in the
Netherlands.[57] Hardly had the English mounted two cannon on their
slight fortification when a Dutch vessel sent from New Amsterdam on a
sudden errand arrived in the river. Finding themselves anticipated,
the Dutch returned home, and the scheme of cutting off the English
settlements on the upper Connecticut from the rest of New England was
frustrated.[58]

For a year the towns on the Connecticut, including Springfield, were
governed by a commission issued by the general court of Massachusetts,
in concert with John Winthrop, Jr., as a representative of the
patentees.[59] When the year expired the commission was not renewed,
but a general court representing the three towns of Massachusetts and
consisting of six assistants and nine delegates, three for each town,
was held at Hartford in May, 1637. They became from this time a
self-governing community under the name of Connecticut, and the union
happened just in time to be of much service in repelling a great
danger.

[Footnote 1: Clarke, _Ill Newes from New England_ (Mass. Hist. Soc.,
_Collections_, 4th series, II., 1-113).]

[Footnote 2: _R.I. Col. Records_, I., 52.]

[Footnote 3: _R.I. Col. Records_, I., 87, 100, 108.]

[Footnote 4: Ibid., 127. In 1614 the Dutch navigator Adrian Block gave
to the country of Narragansett Bay the name of Rhode Island--the Red
Island--because of the red clay in some portions of its shores.]

[Footnote 5: _R.I. Col. Records_, I., 27.]

[Footnote 6: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 24; _Mass. Col. Records_,
I., 305.]

[Footnote 7: _Plymouth Col. Records_, IX., 23, 110.]

[Footnote 8: Sparks, _American Biographies_, VI., 333, 352; Arnold,
_Rhode Island_, I., 66, n.]

[Footnote 9: Sparks, _American Biographies_, V., 326-340.]

[Footnote 10: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 71.]

[Footnote 11: Ibid., 102; _Mass. Col. Records_, II., 22.]

[Footnote 12: _Simplicities Defence Against Seven-Headed Policy_
(Force, Tracts, IV., No. vi.), 24.]

[Footnote 13: _Mass. Col. Records_, II., 40, 41.]

[Footnote 14: _Simplicities Defence_.]

[Footnote 15: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 157-162; _Acts of the
Federal Commissioners_, I., 10-12.]

[Footnote 16: Fiske, _Beginnings of New England_, 171.]

[Footnote 17: _Simplicities Defence_ (Force, _Tracts_, IV., No. vi.),
86; Winthrop, _New England_, II., 165, 188.]

[Footnote 18: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 387-390.]

[Footnote 19: _R.I. Col. Records_, I., 241.]

[Footnote 20: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, p. 325.]

[Footnote 21: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 236.]

[Footnote 22: Richard Scott's letter, in Fox, _New England Fire Brand
Quenched_, App.]

[Footnote 23: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, p. 354.]

[Footnote 24: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 352.]

[Footnote 25: Palfrey, _New England_, II., 346.]

[Footnote 26: _Mass. Col. Records_, II., 85.]

[Footnote 27: Clarke, _Ill Newes from New England_ (Mass. Hist. Soc.,
_Collections_, 4th series, II., 1-113).]

[Footnote 28: Backus, _New England_, I., 277.]

[Footnote 29: _R.I. Col. Records_, I., 328.]

[Footnote 30: _Mass. Col. Records_, IV., pt. i., 333.]

[Footnote 31: _R.I. Col. Records_, I., 364.]

[Footnote 32: Doyle, _English Colonies_, II., 319.]

[Footnote 33: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 370, 371.]

[Footnote 34: Trumbull, _Connecticut_, I., 41.]

[Footnote 35: Ibid., 31; Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 371.]

[Footnote 36: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 62.]

[Footnote 37: Ibid., 132, 162.]

[Footnote 38: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 373; Brodhead, _New
York_, I., 241.]

[Footnote 39: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 133.]

[Footnote 40: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 373; Brodhead, _New
York_, I., 242.]

[Footnote 41: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 388, 402.]

[Footnote 42: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 129.]

[Footnote 43: _Mass. Col. Records_, I., 119.]

[Footnote 44: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 159.]

[Footnote 45: Ibid., 167.]

[Footnote 46: Trumbull, _Connecticut_, I., 59.]

[Footnote 47: _Mass. Col. Records_, I., 146.]

[Footnote 48: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_, 402-406.]

[Footnote 49: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 204.]

[Footnote 50: Ibid., 208, 219.]

[Footnote 51: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 223.]

[Footnote 52: Trumbull, _Memorial History of Hartford County_.]

[Footnote 53: Palfrey, _New England_, I., 454.]

[Footnote 54: Trumbull, _Connecticut_, I., 495.]

[Footnote 55: Mass. Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 4th series, VI., 579.]

[Footnote 56: Trumbull, _Connecticut_, I., 497.]

[Footnote 57: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 207.]

[Footnote 58: Brodhead, _New York_, I., 260.]

[Footnote 59: _Mass, Col. Records_, I., 170.]




CHAPTER XV

FOUNDING OF CONNECTICUT AND NEW HAVEN

(1637-1652)


The establishment of the new settlements on the Connecticut projected
the whites into the immediate neighborhood of two powerful and warlike
Indian nations--the Narragansetts in Rhode Island and the Pequots in
Connecticut. With the first named there existed friendly relations,
due to the politic conduct of Roger Williams, who always treated the
Indians kindly. With the latter, conditions from the first were very
threatening.

As early as the summer of 1633, Stone, a reckless ship-captain from
Virginia, and eight of his companions, were slain in the Connecticut
River by some Pequots. When called to account by Governor Winthrop of
Massachusetts, the Indians justified themselves on the ground that
Stone was the aggressor. Thereupon Winthrop desisted, and referred the
matter to the Virginia authorities.[1] In 1634, when the settlements
were forming on the Connecticut, a fresh irritation was caused by the
course of the emigrants in negotiating for their lands with the
Mohegan chiefs instead of with the Pequots, the lords paramount of the
soil.

The Pequots were greatly embarrassed at the time by threatened
hostilities with the Narragansetts and the Dutch, and in November,
1634, they became reduced to the necessity of seeking the alliance of
the Massachusetts colony. That authority inopportunely revived the
question of Stone's death and required the Pequots to deliver annually
a heavy tribute of wampum as the price of their forgiveness and
protection.[2] Had the object of the Massachusetts people been to
promote bad feeling, no better method than this could have been
adopted.

In July, 1636, John Oldham, who had been appointed collector of the
tribute from the Pequots, was killed off Block Island by some of the
Indians of the island who were subject to the Narragansett tribe.[3]
Although the Pequots had nothing whatever to do with this affair, the
Massachusetts government, under Harry Vane, sent a force against them,
commanded by John Endicott. After stopping at Block Island and
destroying some Indian houses, he proceeded to the main-land to make
war on the Pequots, but beyond burning some wigwams and seizing some
corn he accomplished very little.

The action of Massachusetts was heartily condemned by the Plymouth
colony and the settlers on the Connecticut, and Gardiner, the
commander of the Saybrook fort, bluntly told Endicott that the
proceedings were outrageous and would serve only to bring the Indians
"like wasps about his ears." His prediction came true, and during the
winter Gardiner and his few men at the mouth of the river were
repeatedly assailed by parties of Indians, who boasted that
"Englishmen were as easy to kill as mosquitoes."[4]

Danger was now imminent, especially to the infant settlements up the
river. For the moment it seemed as if the English had brought upon
themselves the united power of all the Indians of the country. The
Pequots sent messengers to patch up peace with their enemies, the
Narragansetts, and tried to induce them to take up arms against the
English. They would have probably succeeded but for the influence of
Roger Williams with the Narragansett chiefs. In this crisis the
friendship of Governor Vane for the banished champion of religious
liberty was used to good effect. To gratify the governor and his
council at Boston, Williams, at the risk of his life, sought the
wigwams of Canonicus and Miantonomoh, and "broke to pieces the Pequot
negotiations and design."[5] Instead of accepting the overtures of the
Pequots, the Narragansetts sent Miantonomoh and the two sons of
Canonicus to Boston to make an alliance with the whites.[6]

In the spring of 1637 the war burst with fury. Wethersfield was first
attacked at the instance of an Indian who had sold his lands and could
not obtain the promised payment. In revenge he secretly instigated the
Pequots to attack the place, and they killed a woman, a child, and
some men, besides some cattle; and took captive two young women, who
were preserved by the squaw of Mononotto, a Pequot sachem, and,
through the Dutch, finally restored to their friends.[7]

By May, 1637, when the first general court of Connecticut convened at
Hartford, upward of thirty persons had fallen beneath the tomahawk.
The promptest measures were necessary; and without waiting for the
assistance of Massachusetts, whose indiscretion had brought on the
war, ninety men (nearly half the effective force of the colony) were
raised,[8] and placed under the command of Captain John Mason, an
officer who had served in the Netherlands under Sir Thomas Fairfax.
The force sailed down the river in three small vessels, and were
welcomed at Fort Saybrook by Lieutenant Gardiner.

The Indian fort was situated in a swamp to the east of the Connecticut
on the Mystic River; but instead of landing at the Pequot River, as he
had been ordered, Mason completely deceived the Indian spies by
sailing past it away from the intended prey. Near Point Judith,
however, in the Narragansett country, Mason disembarked his men; and,
accompanied by eighty Mohegans and two hundred Narragansetts, turned
on his path and marched by land westward towards the Pequot country.
So secretly and swiftly was this movement executed that the Indian
fort was surrounded and approached within a few feet before the
Indians took alarm.[9]

The victory of Mason was a massacre, the most complete in the annals
of colonial history. The English threw firebrands among the wigwams,
and in the flames men, women, and children were roasted to death.
Captain Underhill, who was present, wrote that "there were about four
hundred souls in this fort, and not above five of them escaped out of
our hands." Only two white men were killed, though a number received
arrow wounds.[10]

Mason, as he went to the Pequot harbor to meet his vessels, met a
party of three hundred Indians half frantic with grief over the
destruction of their countrymen, but contented himself with repelling
their attack. Finally, he reached the ships, where he found Captain
Patrick and forty men come from Massachusetts to reinforce him.
Placing his sick men on board to be taken back by water, Mason crossed
the Pequot River and marched by land to Fort Saybrook, where they were
"nobly entertained by Lieutenant Gardiner with many great guns," and
there they rested the Sabbath. The next week they returned home.[11]

The remnant of the Pequots collected in another fort to the west of
that destroyed by Mason. Attacked by red men and white men alike, most
of them formed the desperate resolve of taking refuge with the Mohawks
across the Hudson. They were pursued by Mason with forty soldiers,
joined by one hundred and twenty from Massachusetts under Captain
Israel Stoughton. A party of three hundred Indians were overtaken and
attacked in a swamp near New Haven, and many were captured or put to
death. Sassacus, the Pequot chief, of whom the Narragansetts had such
a dread as to say of him, "Sassacus is all one God; no man can kill
him," contrived to reach the Mohawks, but they cut off his head and
sent it as a present to the English.[12]

The destruction of the Pequots as a nation was complete. All the
captive men, women, and children were made slaves, some being kept in
New England and others sent to the West Indies,[13] and there remained
at large in Connecticut not over two hundred Pequots. September 21,
1638, a treaty was negotiated between the Connecticut delegates and
the Narragansetts and Mohegans, by the terms of which the Pequot
country became the property of the Connecticut towns, while one
hundred Pequots were given to Uncas, and one hundred to Miantonomoh
and Ninigret, his ally, to be incorporated with their tribes.[14]

So far as the whites of Connecticut were concerned the effect of the
war was to remove all real danger from Indians for a period of forty
years. Not till the Indians became trained in the use of fire-arms
were they again matched against the whites on anything like equal
terms. Among the Indian tribes, the result of the Pequot War was to
elevate Uncas and his Mohegans into a position of rivals of
Miantonomoh, and his Narragansetts, with the result of the overthrow
and death of Miantonomoh. In the subsequent years war broke out
several times, but by the intervention of the federal commissioners,
who bolstered up Uncas, hostilities did not proceed.

On the conclusion of the Pequot War the freemen of the three towns
upon the Connecticut convened at Hartford, January 14, 1639, and
adopted "the Fundamental Orders," a constitution which has been justly
pronounced the first written constitution framed by a community,
through its own representatives, as a basis for government. This
constitution contained no recognition whatever of any superior
authority in England, and provided[15] that the freemen were to hold
two general meetings a year, at one of which they were to elect the
governor and assistants, who, with four deputies from each town, were
to constitute a general court "to make laws or repeal them, to grant
levies, to admit freemen, to dispose of lands undisposed of to several
towns or persons, call the court or magistrate or any other person
whatsoever into question for any misdemeanor, and to deal in any other
matter that concerned the good of the commonwealth, except election of
magistrates," which was "to be done by the whole body of freemen."

Till 1645 the deputies voted with the magistrates, but in that year
the general court was divided into two branches as in Massachusetts.
In one particular the constitution was more liberal than the unwritten
constitution of Massachusetts: church-membership was not required as a
condition of the suffrage, and yet in the administration of the
government the theocracy was all-powerful. The settlers of Connecticut
were Puritans of the strictest sect, and in the preamble of their
constitution they avowed their purpose "to maintain and preserve the
liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus, which we now
profess, as also the discipline of the churches, which, according to
the truth of the said gospel, is now practised among us." In 1656 the
law of Connecticut required the applicant for the franchise to be of
"a peaceable and honest conversation," and this was very apt to mean a
church-member in practice.

No one but a church-member could be elected governor, and in choosing
assistants the vote was taken upon each assistant in turn, and he had
to be voted out before any nomination could be made.[16] In none of
the colonies was the tenure of office more constant or persevering. In
a period of about twenty years Haynes was governor eight times and
deputy governor five times, Hopkins was governor six times and deputy
governor five times, while John Winthrop, the younger, served eighteen
years in the chief office.

The Connecticut government thus formed rapidly extended its
jurisdiction. Although Springfield was conceded to Massachusetts the
loss was made up by the accession, in 1639, of Fairfield and
Stratford, west of New Haven, and, April, 1644, of Southampton, on
Long Island, and about the same time of Farmington, near Hartford. In
1639 a town had been founded at Fort Saybrook by George Fenwick, who
was one of the Connecticut patentees.[17] In the confusion which
ensued in England Fenwick found himself isolated; and, assuming to
himself the ownership of the fort and the neighboring town, he sold
both to Connecticut in 1644, and promised to transfer the rest of the
extensive territory granted to the patentees "if it ever came into his
power to do so."[18] As the Connecticut government was entirely
without any legal warrant from the government of England, this
agreement of Fenwick's was deemed of much value, for it gave the
colony a quasi-legal standing.

In 1649 East Hampton, on Long Island, was annexed to the colony, and
in 1650 Norwalk was settled. In 1653 Mattabeseck, on the Connecticut,
was named Middletown; and in 1658 Nameaug, at the mouth of the Pequot
River, settled by John Winthrop, Jr., in 1646, became New London. In
1653 Connecticut had twelve towns and seven hundred and seventy-five
persons were taxed in the colony.[19]

While Connecticut was thus establishing itself, another colony, called
New Haven, controlled by the desire on the part of its leading men to
create a state on a thoroughly theocratic model, grew up opposite to
Long Island. The chief founder of the colony was John Davenport, who
had been a noted minister in London, and with him were associated
Theophilus Eaton, Edward Hopkins, and several other gentlemen of good
estates and very religiously inclined. They reached Boston from
England in July, 1637, when the Antinomian quarrel was at its height,
and Davenport was a member of the synod which devoted most of its time
to the settlement, or rather the aggravation, of the Antinomian
difficulty.

Owing to Davenport's reputation and the wealth of his principal
friends, the authorities of Massachusetts made every effort to retain
them in that colony, and offered them their choice of a place for
settlement. These persuasions failed, and after a nine months' stay
Davenport and his followers moved away, nominally because they desired
to divert the thoughts of those who were plotting for a general
governor for New England, but really because there were too many
Antinomians in Massachusetts, and the model republic desired by
Davenport could never be brought about by accepting the position of a
subordinate township under the Massachusetts jurisdiction.[20].

One of the results of the Pequot War was to make known the country
west of Fort Saybrook, and in the fall of 1637 Theophilus Eaton and
some others went on a trip to explore for themselves the coasts and
lands in that direction. They were so much pleased with what they saw
at "Quinnipiack" that in March, 1638, the whole company left Boston to
take up their residence there, and called their new settlement New
Haven. Soon after their arrival they entered into a "plantation
covenant," preliminary to a more formal engagement.[21] This agreement
pledged the settlers to accept the teachings of Scripture both as a
civil system and religious code.

Having no charter of any kind, they founded their rights to the soil
on purchases from the Indians, of which they made two (November and
December, 1638).[22] The next summer they proceeded to the solemn work
of a permanent government. June 4, 1639, all the free planters met in
a barn, and Mr. Davenport preached from the text, "Wisdom hath builded
her home; she hath hewn out her seven pillars." He then proposed a
series of resolutions which set forth the purpose of establishing a
state to be conducted strictly according to the rules of Scripture.
When these resolutions were adopted Davenport proposed two others
designed to reduce to practice the theory thus formally approved. It
was now declared that only church-members should have the right of
citizenship, and that a committee of twelve should be appointed to
choose seven others who were to be the constitution-makers.[23]

These articles were subscribed by one hundred and thirteen of the
people, and after due time for reflection the twelve men chosen as
above elected the "seven pillars," Theophilus Eaton, Esq., John
Davenport, Robert Newman, Matthew Gilbert, Thomas Fugill, John
Punderson, and Jeremiah Dixon, who proceeded in the same solemn and
regular manner to reorganize the church and state. First they set up
the church by associating with themselves nine others, and then after
another interval, on October 25, 1639, a court was held at which the
sixteen church-members proceeded to elect Theophilus Eaton as governor
for a year and four other persons to aid him as "deputies," who were
thereupon addressed by Davenport in what was called a charge.

Under the government thus formed a general court of the freemen was
held every year for the election of governor and assistants, and to
these officers was confided the entire administration of affairs.
There was no body of statutes till many years later, and during this
time the only restriction on the arbitrary authority of the judges was
the rules of the Mosaic law. The body of the free burgesses was very
cautiously enlarged from court to court.

Hardly had the people of New Haven settled themselves in their new
government before two other towns, Guilford, seventeen miles north,
and Milford, eleven miles south, sprang up in their neighborhood.
Though practically independent, their constitution was modelled after
that of New Haven.[24] Besides Guilford and Milford another town
called Stamford, lying west of the Connecticut territory and loosely
connected with New Haven, was also settled.[25] In the political
isolation of these towns one sees the principle of church
independence, as held by Davenport and his followers.

In April, 1643, apprehension from the Indians, the Dutch, and their
neighbor Connecticut caused a union of these towns with New Haven. The
new commonwealth was organized just in time to become a member of the
greater confederation of the colonies founded in May, 1643. It was
not, however, till October 27, 1643, that a general constitution was
agreed upon.[26] It confined the suffrage to church-members and
established three courts--the plantation court for small cases,
consisting of "fitt and able" men in each town; the court of
magistrates, consisting of the governor, deputy governor, and three
assistants for weighty cases; and the general court, consisting of the
magistrates and two deputies for each of the four towns which were to
sit at New Haven twice a year, make the necessary laws for the
confederation, and annually elect the magistrates. Trial by jury was
dispensed with, because no such institution was found in the Mosaic
law.

In 1649 Southold, on Long Island, and in 1651 Branford, on the
main-land, were admitted as members of the New Haven confederacy; and
in 1656 Greenwich was added. And the seven towns thus comprehended
gave the colony of New Haven the utmost extent it ever obtained.

[Footnote 1: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 146.]

[Footnote 2: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 176, 177.]

[Footnote 3: Ibid., 225, 226; Gardiner, _Pequot Warres_ (Mass. Hist.
Soc., _Collections_, 3d series, III.), 131-160.]

[Footnote 4: Gardiner, _Pequot Warres_; Winthrop, _New England_, I.,
231-233, 238, 259.]

[Footnote 5: Mass. Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 1st series, I., 175.]

[Footnote 6: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 234-236.]

[Footnote 7: Ibid., 267, 312; Mason, _Pequot War_ (Mass. Hist. Soc.,
_Collections_, 2d series, VIII.), 132.]

[Footnote 8: _Conn. Col. Records_, I., 9.]

[Footnote 9: Mason, _Pequot War_ (Mass. Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 2d.
series, VIII.), 134-136.]

[Footnote 10: Ibid.; Underhill, _Pequot War_ (Mass. Hist. Soc.,
_Collections_, 3d series, VI.), 25.]

[Footnote 11: Mason, _Pequot War_ (Mass. Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 2d
series, III.), 144.]

[Footnote 12: Ibid.; Winthrop, _New England_, I., 268, 278-281.]

[Footnote 13: Trumbull, _Connecticut_, I., 92.]

[Footnote 14: Mason, _Pequot War_ (Mass. Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 2d
series, VIII.), 148.]

[Footnote 15: _Conn. Col. Records_, I., 20-25, 119.]

[Footnote 16: The same rule prevailed in Massachusetts. For the
result, see Baldwin, _Early History of the Ballot in Connecticut_
(Amer. Hist. Assoc. _Papers_, IV.), 81; Perry, _Historical Collections
of the American Colonial Church_, 21; Palfrey, _New England_, II.,
10.]

[Footnote 17: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 368.]

[Footnote 18: Trumbull, _Connecticut_, I., 507-510.]

[Footnote 19: Palfrey, _New England_, II., 377.]

[Footnote 20: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 283, 312, 484.]

[Footnote 21: _New Haven Col. Records_, I., 12.]

[Footnote 22: Trumbull, _Connecticut_, I., 98.]

[Footnote 23: _New Haven Col. Records_, I., 11-17.]

[Footnote 24: Trumbull, _Connecticut_, I., 107; Doyle, _English
Colonies_, II., 196.]

[Footnote 25: _New Haven Col. Records_, I., 69.]

[Footnote 26: Ibid., 112.]

[Illustration: MAINE IN 1652]




CHAPTER XVI

NEW HAMPSHIRE AND MAINE

(1653-1658)


After the charter granted to the Council for New England in 1620, Sir
Ferdinando Gorges and Captain John Mason procured, August 10, 1622, a
patent for "all that part of y^e maine land in New England lying vpon
y^e Sea Coast betwixt y^e rivers of Merrimack & Sagadahock and to y^e
furthest heads of y^e said Rivers and soe forwards up into the land
westward untill threescore miles be finished from y^e first entrance
of the aforesaid rivers and half way over that is to say to the midst
of the said two rivers w^ch bounds and limitts the lands aforesaid
togeather w^th all Islands and Isletts w^th in five leagues distance
of y^e premisses and abutting vpon y^e same or any part or parcell
thereoff."[1]

Mason was a London merchant who had seen service as governor of
Newfoundland, and was, like Gorges, "a man of action." His experience
made him interested in America, and his interest in America caused him
to be elected a member of the Council for New England, and ultimately
its vice-president.[2] The two leaders persuaded various merchants in.
England to join them in their colonial projects; and in the spring of
1623 they set up two settlements within the limits of the present
state of New Hampshire, and some small stations at Saco Bay, Casco
Bay, and Monhegan Island, in the present state of Maine.

Of the settlements in New Hampshire, one called Piscataqua, at the
mouth of the river of that name, was formed by three Plymouth
merchants, Colmer, Sherwell, and Pomeroy, who chose a Scotchman named
David Thompson as their manager. They obtained a grant, October 16,
1622, for an island, and six thousand acres on the main, near the
mouth of Piscataqua; and here Thompson located in the spring of 1623.
He remained about three years, and in 1626 removed thence to an island
in Boston harbor, where he lived as an independent settler.[3] The
other plantation, called Cocheco, was established by two brothers,
Edward and William Hilton, fish-mongers of London, and some Bristol
merchants, and was situated on the south side of the Piscataqua about
eight miles from the mouth of the river.[4]

November 7, 1629, Captain Mason obtained a patent[5] from the Council
for New England for a tract extending sixty miles inland and lying
between the Merrimac and Piscataqua rivers, being a part of the
territory granted to Gorges and himself in 1622. He called it New
Hampshire in honor of Hampshire, in England, where he had an estate.
Seven days later the same grantors gave to a company of whom Mason and
Gorges were the most prominent merchants, a patent for the province of
Laconia, describing it as "bordering on the great lake or lakes or
rivers called Iroquois, a nation of savage people inhabiting into the
landward between the rivers Merrimac and Sagadahoc, lying near about
forty-four or forty-five degrees." And in 1631 Gorges, Mason, and
others obtained another grant for twenty thousand acres, which
included the settlement at the mouth of the Piscataqua.

Under these grants Gorges and Mason spent upward of L3000[6] in making
discoveries and establishing factories for salting fish and fur
trading; but as very little attention was paid to husbandry at either
of the settlements on the Piscataqua, they dragged out for years a
feeble and precarious existence. At Piscataqua, Walter Neal was
governor from 1630 to 1633 and Francis Williams from 1634 to 1642, and
the people were distinctly favorable to the Anglican church. At
Cocheco, Captain Thomas Wiggin was governor in 1631; and when, in
1633, the British merchants sold their share in the plantation to Lord
Say and Sele, Lord Brooke, and two other partners, Wiggin remained
governor, and the transfer was followed by the influx of Puritan
settlers.[7]

After the Antinomian persecution in Massachusetts some of Mrs.
Hutchinson's followers took refuge at Cocheco, and prominent among
them were Captain John Underhill and Rev. John Wheelwright. Underhill
became governor of the town in 1638, and his year of rule is noted for
dissensions occasioned by the ambitious actions of several
contentious, immoral ministers. Underhill was the central figure in
the disturbances, but at the next election, in 1639, he was defeated
and Roberts was elected governor of Cocheco. Dissensions continued,
however, till in 1640 Francis Williams, governor of Piscataqua,
interfered with an armed force. Underhill returned to Boston, and by
humbly professing repentance for his conduct he was again received
into the church there.[8] He then joined the Dutch, but when
Connecticut and New Haven were clamorous for war with the Dutch in
1653 he plotted against his new master, was imprisoned, and escaped to
Rhode Island,[9] where he received a commission to prey on Dutch
commerce.

Meanwhile, Mr. Wheelwright left Cocheco, and in 1638 established
southeast of it, at Squamscott Falls, a small settlement which he and
his fellow-colonists called Exeter.[10] In October, 1639, after the
manner of the Rhode Island towns, the inhabitants, thirty-five in
number, entered a civil contract to "submit themselves to such godly
and Christian lawes as are established in the realm of England to our
best knowledge, and to all other such lawes which shall, upon good
ground, be made and enacted among us according to God." This action
was followed in 1641 by their neighbors at Cocheco, where the contract
was subscribed by forty-one settlers; and about the same time, it is
supposed, Piscataqua adopted the same system.[11]

This change of fishing and trading stations into regular townships was
a marked political advance, but as yet each town was separate and
independent. The next great step was their union under one government,
which was hastened by the action of Massachusetts. In the assertion of
her claim that her northern boundary was a due east and west line
three miles north of the most northerly part of the Merrimac,
Massachusetts as early as 1636 built a house upon certain salt marshes
midway between the Merrimac and Piscataqua. Subsequently, when Mr.
Wheelwright, in 1638, proposed to extend the township of Exeter in
that direction, he was warned off by Governor Winthrop, and in 1641
Massachusetts settled at the place a colony of emigrants from Norfolk,
in England, and called the town Hampton.

Massachusetts in a few years took an even more decided step. At
Cocheco, or Dover, as it was now called, where the majority of the
people were Nonconformists, the desire of support from Massachusetts
caused the policy of submission to receive the approval of both
contending parties in town; and in 1639 the settlers made overtures to
Massachusetts for incorporation.[12] The settlers at Piscataqua, or
Strawberry Bank (Portsmouth), being Anglicans, were opposed to
incorporation, but submitted from stress of circumstances. After the
death of Captain Mason, in 1635, his widow declined to keep up the
industries established by him, and sent word to his servants at
Strawberry Bank to shift for themselves.[13]

Several years later Lord Say and Sele and Lord Brooke, who were the
chief owners of Dover, obtained from Mason's merchant partners in
England the title to Strawberry Bank, and being in sympathy with
Massachusetts they offered, in 1641, to resign to her the jurisdiction
of both places. The proposal was promptly accepted, and two
commissioners, Symonds and Bradstreet, went from Massachusetts to
arrange with the inhabitants the terms of incorporation. The towns
were guaranteed their liberties, allowed representation in the
Massachusetts general court, and exempted from the requirements of the
Massachusetts constitution that all voters and officers must be
members of the Congregational church.[14]

In 1643 Exeter followed the example of Dover and Strawberry Bank by
accepting the protection of Massachusetts, but it thereby lost its
founder. Being under sentence of banishment, Mr. Wheelwright withdrew
to the territory of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, where, having obtained a
patent, he founded the city of Welles. In 1644 he applied to Winthrop,
and was permitted on a slight submission to take charge of the church
at Hampton.[15] After several years he visited England, where he was a
favorite of Cromwell. At the Restoration he returned and settled at
Salisbury, in Massachusetts, where he died in 1679. He is perhaps the
single bright light in the ecclesiastical history of early New
Hampshire.[16]

The four towns--Dover, Strawberry Bank, Exeter, and Hampton, with
Salisbury and Haverhill on the northern banks of the Merrimac--were,
in 1643, made to constitute the county of Norfolk, one of the four
counties into which Massachusetts was then divided.[17]

A similar fortune at a later date overtook the townships to the north
of the Piscataqua. The origin of the name "Maine," applied to the
regions of these settlements, has never been satisfactorily explained.
Possibly it was a compliment to Henrietta Maria, the French wife of
Charles I.; more probably the fishermen used it to distinguish the
continent from the islands. The term "Maine" first occurs in the grant
to Gorges and Mason, August 22, 1622, which embraced all the land
between the Merrimac and the Sagadahoc, or Kennebec. By Mason's patent
in 1629 the country west of the Piscataqua was called New Hampshire,
and after that Maine was a name applied to the region between the
Piscataqua and Kennebec. In more modern times it was extended to the
country beyond, as far as the St. Croix River.

Under Gorges' influence Christopher Levett made a settlement in 1623
on an island in Saco Bay which has been called "the first regular
settlement in Maine."[18] The same year some Plymouth merchants
planted a colony upon Monhegan Island, which had been long a place of
general resort for fishermen.[19] And about the same time Gorges made
a settlement on the "maine" at Saco,[20] under the management of
Richard Vines. By two patents, both dated February 12, 1630, this
settlement was divided into two parts--one to Vines and Oldham, one to
Lewis and Bonighton--each extending four miles along by the sea-shore
and eight miles along the river-banks. These two tracts formed the
township of Saco, a part of which now bears the name of Biddeford. In
1625 the settlement of Pemaquid is known to have occurred, but it was
not patented till February 14, 1631, by the Bristol merchants
Aldsworth and Elbridge. Next in order of settlement was probably the
trading-post of the Plymouth colony at Kennebec, for which a patent
was obtained in 1628.

Many other patents were issued by the Council for New England. Thus,
March 13, 1630, John Beauchamp and Thomas Leverett obtained a grant of
ten leagues square, between Muscongus and Penobscot Bay upon which
they set up a factory for trading with the Indians; while the modern
city of Scarboro, on Casco Bay, occupies a tract which was made the
subject of two conflicting grants, one to Richard Bradshaw, November
4, and the other to Robert Trelawney and Moses Goodyear, December 1,
1631.[21]

Three other patents issued by the Council for New England, and having
an important connection with subsequent history, remain to be
mentioned. The first, December, 1631, granted twenty-four thousand
acres ten miles distant from Piscataqua to Ferdinando Gorges (son and
heir of John Gorges), Samuel Maverick, and several others. Many
settlers came over, and the first manager was Colonel Norton, but in a
short time he appeared to have been superseded by William Gorges,
nephew of Sir Ferdinando Gorges.[22]

After the division in 1635, by which his title between the Piscataqua
and the Kennebec was affirmed, Sir Ferdinando Gorges erected the coast
from Cape Elizabeth, a few miles north of Saco, as far as Kennebec,
into a district called New Somersetshire.[23] Two years later Gorges
obtained from King Charles a royal charter constituting him proprietor
of the "province or county of Maine," with all the rights of a count
palatine.[24] The provisions of this charter are more curious than
important. The territory granted, which included Agamenticus, was
embraced between the Piscataqua and Kennebec, and extended inland one
hundred and twenty miles. The lord proprietor had the right to divide
his province into counties, appoint all officers, and to execute
martial law. But while his rights were thus extensive, the liberties
of the people were preserved by a provision for a popular assembly to
join with him in making laws.

The charter certainly was out of keeping with the conditions of a
distant empire inhabited only by red savages and a few white
fishermen; but Gorges' elaborate plan for regulating the government
seemed even more far-fetched. He proposed to have not only a
lieutenant-governor, but a chancellor, a marshal, a treasurer, an
admiral, a master of ordnance, and a secretary, and they were to act
as a council of state.[25]

To this wild realm in Norumbega, Thomas Gorges, "a sober and
well-disposed young man," nephew of the lord proprietor, was
commissioned in 1640 to be the first governor, and stayed three years
in the colony.[26] Agamenticus (now York) was only a small hamlet, but
the lord proprietor honored it in March, 1652, by naming it Gorgeana,
after himself, and incorporating it as a city. The charter of this
first city of the United States is a historical curiosity, since for a
population of about two hundred and fifty inhabitants it provided a
territory covering twenty-one square miles and a body of nearly forty
officials.[27]

The second of the three important patents led to the absorption of
Maine by the government of Massachusetts. The claim of Massachusetts
to jurisdiction over the settlements in New Hampshire as readily
applied to Maine; and, in addition, the patent granted in June, 1632,
by the Council for New England, to George Way and Thomas Purchas, gave
a tract of land along the river "Bishopscot" or "Pejepscot," better
known as the Androscoggin.[28] In 1639 Massachusetts, by buying this
property, secured her first hold on the land within Gorges'
patent.[29] The revival in 1643 of another patent, believed to have
been abandoned, but with rights conflicting with the patent of Gorges,
both prompted and excused the interference of Massachusetts.

The third great patent was a grant made by the Council for New
England, in June, 1630, for a tract extending from Cape Porpoise to
Cape Elizabeth, and hence taking in Gorges' settlement at Saco.[30]
This patent was known as the Lygonian, or "Plough patent," the latter
commemorating the name of the vessel which brought over the first
settlers, who after a short time gave up the settlement and went to
Boston in July, 1631. For twelve years the patent was neglected, but
in 1643 the rights of the original patentees were purchased by
Alexander Rigby, a prominent member of Parliament.[31] He sent over as
his agent George Cleves, but when he arrived in America in 1644 his
assumption of authority under the Plough patent was naturally resisted
by the government of Sir Ferdinando Gorges.

Cleves set up his government at Casco, and Vines, his rival, organized
his at Saco. When Cleves sent his friend Tucker to Vines with a
proposal to settle the controversy, Vines arrested the envoy and threw
him into prison. Both parties appealed to the government of
Massachusetts, who gave them advice to remain quiet. The contention
continued, however, and at last the Massachusetts court of assistants,
in June, 1646, consented to refer the case to a jury. Then it appeared
that there were six or eight patentees in the original Plough patent,
and Mr. Rigby's agent could only show an assignment from two. On the
other hand, Vines could not produce the royal patent of Sir Ferdinando
Gorges, which was in England, and had only a copy attested by
witnesses. On account of these defects the jury declined to bring in a
verdict.

Cleves had better fortune with the parliamentary commissioners for
foreign plantations, to whom he carried the dispute, since before this
tribunal the veteran Gorges, who had taken the king's side, had little
chance to be heard. In March, 1646, they decided in favor of Rigby,
and made the Kennebunk River the boundary-line between the two rival
proprietors, thus reducing Gorges' dominions in Maine to only three
towns--Gorgeana, Welles, and Kittery, which had grown up at the mouth
of the Piscataqua opposite to Strawberry Bank.[32]

The year following this decision Gorges died, and the province of
Maine was left practically without a head. The settlers wrote to his
heirs for instruction, but owing to the confusion of the times
received no reply.[33] In this state of doubt and suspense the general
court was, in 1649, convoked at Welles, when Edward Godfrey was
elected governor. Then another address was prepared and transmitted to
England, but it met with no better fortune than the first.
Accordingly, in July, 1649, the settlers of the three townships met at
Gorgeana and declared themselves a body politic. Edward Godfrey was
re-elected governor, and a council of five members were chosen to
assist him in the discharge of his duties.[34]

In this state of affairs, deserted by their friends in England, the
Maine settlements looked an inviting prey to Massachusetts. In
October, 1651, three commissioners were appointed to proceed to
Kittery to convey the warning of Massachusetts "against any further
proceeding by virtue of their combination or any other interest
whatsoever."[35] Godfrey declined to submit, and in behalf of the
general court of the colony addressed a letter, December 5, 1651, to
the Council of State of Great Britain praying a confirmation of the
government which the settlers had erected. Cleves, at the head of the
Rigby colony, made common cause with Godfrey and carried the petition
to England, but he met with no success. The death of Rigby rendered
Cleves's influence of no avail against the Massachusetts agent, Edward
Winslow, who showed that Cleves's mission had originated among
American royalists.[36]

This opposition, in fact, served only to hasten the action of
Massachusetts. In May, 1652, surveyors were appointed by the general
court who traced the stream of the Merrimac as far north as the
parallel of 43 deg. 40' 12".[37] Then, despite the protests of Godfrey,
commissioners were again sent to Kittery, where they opened a court,
November 15, and shortly after received the submission of the
inhabitants.[38] They next proceeded to Gorgeana, where the like
result followed, Governor Godfrey reluctantly submitting with the
rest. Gorgeana was made a town under the Massachusetts jurisdiction,
by the name of York, and all the country claimed by Massachusetts
beyond the Piscataqua was made into a county of the same name.[39]

Next year, 1653, commissioners were sent to Welles, the remaining town
in the Gorges jurisdiction, to summon to obedience the inhabitants
there and at Saco and Cape Porpoise, in the Lygonian patent, and the
conditions made resistance unlikely. Disregarding the Rigby
claims,[40] the settlers in southern Maine accepted the overture of
the Massachusetts commissioners. Accordingly, Welles, Saco, and Cape
Porpoise followed the example of Kittery and Gorgeana, and came under
the government of Massachusetts.

The inhabitants north of Saco about Casco Bay remained independent for
several years after. Cleves and other leading inhabitants would not
submit, and they tried to secure the interference of Cromwell. When
they failed in this attempt, the people of Casco Bay, in 1658,
recognized the authority of Massachusetts. It was at this time that
the plantations at Black Point, at Spurwink, and Blue Point were
united and received the name of Scarboro and those at Casco Bay
received that of Falmouth.[41]

Whatever judgment we may pass on the motives of Massachusetts in thus
enlarging her borders to the farthest limits of settled territory
north of Plymouth, it must be acknowledged that her course inured to
the benefit of all parties concerned. The unruly settlements of the
north received in time an orderly government, while each successive
addition of territory weakened the power of the religious aristocracy
in Massachusetts by welcoming into the body politic a new factor of
population.

[Footnote 1: Maine Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 2d series, VII., 65-72.]

[Footnote 2: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, p. 210.]

[Footnote 3: Mass. Hist. Soc, _Proceedings_ (year 1876), 358.]

[Footnote 4: Belknap, _New Hampshire_, 20.]

[Footnote 5: Maine Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 2d series, VII., 96-98.]

[Footnote 6: Maine Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 2d series, VII., 98-107,
143-150.]

[Footnote 7: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 137.]

[Footnote 8: Ibid., I., 394, II., 33, 49, 76.]

[Footnote 9: _Plymouth Col. Records_, X., 31, 32, 426.]

[Footnote 10: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 349.]

[Footnote 11: N.H. Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 1st series, I., 321,
324.]

[Footnote 12: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 349, 384.]

[Footnote 13: _N.H. Col. Records_, I., 113.]

[Footnote 14: _Mass. Col. Records_, I., 332, 342, II., 29.]

[Footnote 15: _Mass. Col. Records_, II., 67; Winthrop, _New England_,
II., 195.]

[Footnote 16: Palfrey, _New England_, I., 594.]

[Footnote 17: _Mass. Col. Records_, II., 38.]

[Footnote 18: Doyle, _English Colonies_, II., 215.]

[Footnote 19: Williamson, _Maine_, I., 226.]

[Footnote 20: Gorges, _Description of New England_, 79; Doyle,
_English Colonies_, II., 215.]

[Footnote 21: Maine Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 2d series, VII., 125,
150, 160, 163; Doyle, _English Colonies_, II., 324.]

[Footnote 22: Gorges, _Description of New England_, 79.]

[Footnote 23: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 276.]

[Footnote 24: Maine Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 2d series, VII.,
222-243.]

[Footnote 25: Gorges, _Description of New England_, 83.]

[Footnote 26: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 11.]

[Footnote 27: Hazard, _State Papers_, I., 470.]

[Footnote 28: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, p. 152.]

[Footnote 29: _Mass. Col. Records_, I., 272.]

[Footnote 30: Maine Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 2d series, VII.,
133-136.]

[Footnote 31: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 69, II., 186.]

[Footnote 32: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 186, 313, 390.]

[Footnote 33: Maine Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 2d series, VII., 266,
267.]

[Footnote 34: Maine Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 2d series, VII., 266,
267; Williamson, _Maine_, I., 326.]

[Footnote 35: _Mass. Col. Records_, IV., pt. i., 70.]

[Footnote 36: Williamson, _Maine_, I., 336.]

[Footnote 37: Maine Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 2d series, VII., 273.]

[Footnote 38: Ibid., 274; _Mass. Col. Records_, IV., pt. i., 122-126.]

[Footnote 39: _Mass. Col. Records_, IV., pt. i., 129.]

[Footnote 40: Williamson, _Maine_, I., 340, 341.]

[Footnote 41: _Mass. Col. Records_, IV., pt. i., 157-165, 359-360.]




CHAPTER XVII

COLONIAL NEIGHBORS

(1643-1652)


Although the successive English colonies--Virginia, Maryland,
Plymouth, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Haven, New
Hampshire, and Maine--each sprang from separate impulses, we have seen
how one depended upon another and how inextricably their history is
connected each with the other. Even the widely separated southern and
northern groups had intercourse and some transmigration. Thus the
history of each colony is a strand in the history of England in
America.

In the same way the history of each colony and of the colonies taken
together is interwoven with that of colonies of other European
nations--the Spaniards, French, and Dutch--planted at first distant
from the English settlements, but gradually expanding into dangerous
proximity. It was from a desire to protect themselves against the
danger of attack by their foreign neighbors and to press their
territorial claims that the New England group of English colonies
afforded the example of the first American confederation.

Danger to the English colonization came first from the Spaniards, who
claimed a monopoly of the whole of North America by virtue of
discovery, the bull of Pope Alexander VI., and prior settlement. When
Sir Francis Drake returned from his expedition in 1580 the Spanish
authorities in demanding the return of the treasure which he took from
their colonies in South America vigorously asserted their pre-emptive
rights to the continent. But the English government made this famous
reply--"that prescription without possession availed nothing, and that
every nation had a right by the law of nature to freely navigate those
seas and transport colonies to those parts where the Spaniards do not
inhabit."[1]

The most northerly settlement of the Spaniards in 1580 was St.
Augustine, in Florida, for, though in 1524 Vasquez de Ayllon had
planted a settlement called San Miguel on James River, starvation,
disease, and Indian tomahawk soon destroyed it. After the defeat of
the Spanish Armada and the subsequent terrible punishment inflicted on
the Spanish marine England was less disposed than ever to listen to
the claims of Spain.[2] Reduced in power, the Spaniards substituted
intrigue for warlike measures, and while they entangled King James in
its web and hastened a change in the form of government for Virginia,
they did not inflict any permanent injury upon the colony.

In 1624 England declared war against Spain, and English emigrants
invaded the West Indies and planted colonies at Barbadoes, St.
Christopher, Nevis, Montserrat, and other islands adjoining the
Spanish settlements. Till the New England Confederation the chief
scene of collision with the Spanish was the West Indies. In 1635 the
Spanish attacked and drove the English from the Tortugas, and
Wormeley, the governor, and many of the inhabitants took refuge in
Virginia.[3]

Because of their proximity the danger from the French colonies was far
more real. Small fishing-vessels from Biscay, Brittany, and Normandy
were in the habit of visiting the coast of Newfoundland and adjacent
waters from as early as 1504. Jean Denys, of Honfleur, visited the
Gulf of St. Lawrence in 1506, and in 1508 Thomas Aubert sailed eighty
leagues up the St. Lawrence River.[4] In 1518 Baron de Lery attempted
to establish a colony on Sable Island, and left there some cattle and
hogs, which multiplied and proved of advantage to later adventurers.
Then followed the great voyage of John Verrazzano, who, in 1524, in a
search for the East Indies, sailed up the coast from thirty-four to
fifty-four degrees. In 1534 Jacques Cartier visited Newfoundland and
advanced up the river St. Lawrence till he reached the western part of
Anticosti Island. The next year Cartier came again and ascended the
great river many miles, visiting Stadacone (Quebec) and Hochelaga
(Montreal). At Quebec he encamped with his men, and, after a winter
rendered frightful by the cold and the ravages of the scurvy, he
returned in the spring to St. Malo.[5]

No further attempt was made till a short peace ended the third
desperate struggle between Charles V. and Francis I. In 1540 King
Francis created Francis de la Roque, Sieur de Roberval, lord of
Norumbega and viceroy of "Canada, Hochelaga, Saguenay, Newfoundland,
Bell Isle, Carpunt, Labrador, Great Bay, and Baccalaos"; and Cartier
was made "captain-general." The expedition sailed in two divisions,
Cartier commanding the first, which left St. Malo May 23, 1541. Again
he passed a winter of gloom and suffering on the St. Lawrence, and in
June of the following year set out to return.

On the coast of Newfoundland he met Roberval, who had charge of the
second division of the ships and two hundred colonists. The viceroy
ordered him to return, but Cartier slipped past him at night and left
Roberval to hold the country the best he could. Undismayed, Roberval
pursued his way, entered the St. Lawrence, and established his colony
at Quebec. He sent Jean Alefonse to explore Norumbega, a term applied
to the coast of Maine, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland; and he himself
explored the river Saguenay. Lescarbot tells us that in the course of
1543 the king sent out Cartier, who brought home the wretched
survivors of the company.

Then for nearly fifteen years the civil wars in France prevented any
further effort at settlement on the St. Lawrence. Scores of French
vessels, however, visited the region of the northwest for fish and
furs, and as soon as the civil wars were ended the work of
colonization was taken up anew. Failure as of old attended the first
experiments. In 1598 Marquis de la Roche landed forty convicts at
Sable Island, but after seven years the few survivors received a
pardon and returned home. In 1600 Chauvin and Pontgrave promised to
establish a colony on the St. Lawrence, and obtained from King Henry
IV. a grant of the fur trade, but Chauvin died and the undertaking
came to an end.[6]

In 1603 the first systematic effort to found French colonies in
America was made. A company was formed at the head of which was Aymar
de Chastes, governor of Dieppe, who sent over Samuel Champlain. He
visited the St. Lawrence, and after careful exploration returned to
France with a valuable cargo of furs. On his arrival he found De
Chastes dead, but Pierre du Guast, Sieur de Monts, a patriotic
Huguenot, took up the unfinished work. He received from Henry IV. a
patent[7] "to represent our person as lieutenant-general in the
country of Acadia from the fortieth to the forty-sixth degree," with
governmental authority, and the exclusive privileges of traffic with
the Indians.

April 7, 1604, De Monts, accompanied by Champlain, sailed from Havre
de Grace, and May 1 came in sight of Sable Island. They sailed up the
Bay of Fundy and entered a harbor on the north coast of Nova Scotia.
Poutrincourt, one of the leading men, was so pleased with the region
that he obtained a grant of it from De Monts, and named it Port Royal
(now Annapolis). After further exploration De Monts planted his
settlement on the Isle of St. Croix, at the mouth of the St. Croix
River, where he passed the winter; but half the emigrants died from
exposure and scurvy, and in the spring the colony was transferred to
Port Royal. After three years spent in the country, during which time
the coast was explored thoroughly by Champlain and Poutrincourt as far
as Nausett Harbor, the Acadian emigrants went back to France, which
they reached in October, 1607.

The design was not abandoned. Poutrincourt returned in 1610 and
re-established his colony at Port Royal, which he placed in charge of
his son. In 1611 two Jesuit priests, Biard and Masse, came over, under
the patronage of Madame de Guercheville, and in 1613 they planted a
Jesuit station at Mount Desert Island, on the coast of Maine.[8]

Champlain did not return to Port Royal, but was employed in another
direction. In April, 1608, De Monts sent out Champlain and Pontgrave
to establish a colony on the St. Lawrence and traffic with the Indians
of that region. Of this expedition Champlain was constituted
lieutenant-governor, and he was successful in planting a settlement at
Quebec in July, 1608. It was a mere trading-post, and after twenty
years it did not number over one hundred persons. But Champlain looked
to the time when Canada should be a prosperous province of France, and
he was tireless and persistent. Aided by several devout friars of the
Franciscan order, he labored hard to Christianize the Indians and
visited lakes Champlain, Nipissing, Huron, and Ontario. While he made
the fur trade of great value to the merchant company in France, he
committed the fatal mistake of mixing up with Indian quarrels. Between
the Five Nations of New York and the Hurons and their allies, the
Algonquins of the St. Lawrence, perpetual war prevailed, and Champlain
by taking sides against the former incurred for the French the lasting
hatred of those powerful Indians.

The progress of the colony was not satisfactory to Champlain or to the
authorities in France, and in 1627 Cardinal Richelieu dissolved the
company which had charge of affairs, and instituted a new one with
himself at its head. In the spring of 1628 he despatched to Canada
four armed vessels and eighteen transports laden with emigrants,
stores, and cannon, but war had broken out between the English and
French the year before, and on their way the fleet was intercepted and
the ships and goods confiscated.

The English had not recognized the claims of the French to any part of
the North American continent, and the very year that the Jesuit
station was planted at Mount Desert Island Samuel Argall came twice
from Virginia and burned the houses of the intruding French at all of
their settlements in Acadia: Mount Desert Island, Isle de Croix, and
Port Royal. The French rebuilt Port Royal, and at the death of
Poutrincourt's son Biencourt, about the year 1623, his possessions and
claims fell to his friend and companion Claude de la Tour.

Meanwhile, in 1621, Sir William Alexander obtained a grant from King
James for New Scotland, being that part of Acadia now comprising the
provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick;[9] and he sent over from
time to time a few Scotch emigrants. De la Tour and the French
submitted, and English rule seemed firmly established in Acadia when
war was declared in 1628. In February, 1629, Alexander received a
patent for St. Lawrence River and "fifty leagues of bounds on both
sides thereof," and on both sides of its tributary lakes and rivers as
far as the Gulf of California.[10]

After the failure of the expedition sent by Cardinal Richelieu,
Alexander and his partners despatched an English fleet commanded by
David Kirke, which appeared before Quebec in July, 1629. Champlain and
his small garrison were compelled to surrender, and all New France
fell under English power. Unfortunately for Alexander and Kirke, war
between the two nations had ceased, and the articles of peace provided
that all conquests made subsequent to April 24, 1629, should be
restored to the former owner. This insured the loss of Quebec and was
the forerunner of other misfortunes. In 1632 a treaty was made at St.
Germain by which, despite the protest of Sir William Alexander and a
memorial from the Scottish Parliament, King Charles consented "to give
up and restore all the places occupied in New France, Acadia, and
Canada" by his subjects.[11]

In 1632 Champlain returned to his government at Quebec, and with him
arrived a number of zealous Jesuit priests, who began that adventurous
career of exploration which, after Champlain's death in 1635,
connected the fame of their order with the great lakes and the
Mississippi. The king of France appointed Chevalier Razilly governor
of Acadia, who designated as his lieutenants Claude de la Tour's son
Charles, for the portion west of St. Croix; and Charles de Menou,
Sieur d'Aulnay Charmise, for the portion to the east.[12] They claimed
dominion for France as far as Cape Cod.

Subsequently the two rivals quarrelled, and in 1641 D'Aulnay obtained
an order from the king deposing De la Tour, but the latter refused
obedience and sent an envoy to Boston in November, 1641, to solicit
aid. This envoy was kindly treated, and some of the Puritan merchants
despatched a pinnace to trade with De la Tour; but they met with
D'Aulnay at Pemaquid, who threatened to make prize of any vessel which
he caught engaged in the fur trade in Acadia.[13]

The Dutch claim to America was comparatively recent, as it was not
until 1597 that voyages were undertaken from Holland to the continent.
In 1602 the Dutch East India Company was chartered, and in 1609 sent
out Henry Hudson, an Englishman by birth, to seek a way to India by
the northeast. After sailing to Nova Zembla, where fogs and fields of
ice closed against him the strait of Veigatz, he changed his course
for Newfoundland and coasted southward to Chesapeake Bay. Returning on
his path he entered the Hudson in September, 1609, and stayed four
weeks exploring the river and trafficking with the natives.[14]

The reports brought by him to Europe of a newly discovered country
abounding in fur-bearing animals created much interest, and in 1612
some merchants in Holland sent Christiansen and Blok to the island of
Manhattan, where they built a little fort, which, it is stated, Argall
attacked in 1613. Losing his ship by fire, Blok built a yacht of
sixteen tons at Manhattan, and with this small craft was the first
explorer (1614) of the Connecticut River. He also visited Narragansett
Bay, and gave to its shores the name of Roode Eiland (now Rhode
Island).

After his return home the merchants obtained from the States-General a
charter for three years' monopoly of the trade of New Netherland, as
the present New York was now first formally called. It was defined as
extending between New France and Virginia, from the fortieth to the
forty-fifth degree of north latitude.[15] After this New Netherland
continued to be resorted to by Dutch traders, though no regular
settlement was formed for some years.

In 1619 Thomas Dermer visited the Hudson and brought news to England
of the operations of the Dutch and the value of the fur trade.
Thereupon Captain Samuel Argall, with many English planters, prepared
to make a settlement on the Hudson, and when the Dutch government, in
June, 1621, chartered the Dutch West India Company, the English court,
on Argall's complaint, protested against Dutch intrusion within what
was considered the limits of Virginia. The States-General at first
evaded a reply, but finally declared that they had never authorized
any settlement on the Hudson.[16] The charter,[17] in fact, gave the
company only an exclusive right to trade for twenty-four years on the
coasts of Africa and America.

Nevertheless, the company proceeded to send over, in 1622, a number of
French Walloons, who constituted the first Dutch colony in America.
One party, under the command of Captain Cornelius Jacobson May, the
first Dutch governor, sailed to the South, or Delaware River, where,
four miles below the present Philadelphia, they erected a fort called
Nassau; and another party under Adrian Joris went up the Hudson, and
on the site of Albany built Fort Orange. Peter Minuit succeeded May in
1626, and bought from the Indians the whole of Manhattan Island, and
organized a government with an advisory council.

The population of New Netherland was only two hundred, and though
trade was brisk there was little agriculture. The company met this
difficulty by obtaining a new charter and seeking to promote
emigration by dividing up the country among some great patroons:
Samuel Godyn, Killiaen van Renssalaer, Michael Pauw, David Pieterson
de Vries, and other rich men. In 1631 De Vries settled Swaanendael, on
the South River, as the Dutch called the Delaware; but in a few months
the Indians attacked the place and massacred the settlers.[18] Soon
the patroons became rivals of the West India Company in the fur trade,
and in 1632 Minuit, who favored them, was recalled and Wouter van
Twiller was made governor. His accession marks the first real clash
between the rival claims of the Dutch and English.[19]

In 1632 Lord Baltimore obtained a patent for Maryland which included
all the south side of Delaware Bay and river; and a month later Sir
Edmund Plowden obtained a grant from the English king for "Long Isle
and also forty leagues square of the adjoining continent," including
the very site of Manhattan.[20] In April, 1633, Jacob Eelkens, in
command of an English vessel, forced his way past Fort Amsterdam, on
Manhattan Island, and traded with the Indians, until the incompetent
Van Twiller at length stripped him of his goods and drove him from the
river.[21] The same year Van Twiller, as we have seen, planted a fort
near the site of the present city of Hartford, which served as the
seed of future troubles.

In 1634 Captain Thomas Young visited the Delaware and lorded it over
the Dutch vessels which he found in the river.[22] Then in 1635, while
settlers from Massachusetts poured into Connecticut, and the Council
for New England, preliminary to its dissolution, assigned Long Island,
despite the Dutch claim, to Sir William Alexander, men came from
Virginia to Delaware Bay and seized Fort Nassau, then abandoned by the
Dutch; but Van Twiller soon drove them away.[23] Thus step by step
English progress encroached upon the territories of the Dutch.

In 1638 Van Twiller was recalled and William Kieft was sent over. He
had to deal with Swedes as well as English, for in 1626 King Gustavus
Adolphus was persuaded by Usselinx, an Amsterdam merchant, to form the
Swedish West India Company, and after his death Oxenstierna, his
prime-minister, renewed the scheme. In 1638 he sent out a Swedish
expedition under Peter Minuit, the late governor of New Netherland,
who established a fort on the Delaware near the present Wilmington,
and called it "Christina," and the Swedes paid no attention to the
protest of Governor Kieft.[24]

In 1640 a party of English settlers from New Haven obtained deeds to
the soil on Long Island from Farrett, agent of Sir William Alexander,
and settled at Southold; and another party from Massachusetts, more
daring still, settled at Schouts Bay, almost opposite to Manhattan.
When a force of Dutch troops was sent against them they retired to the
east end of the island and settled Southampton. A more adventuresome
proceeding was attempted in 1641 when another party from New Haven
took the Dutch in the flank by settling on the Delaware. Dutch and
Swedes united to drive the intruders away. As if these were not
troubles enough, Kieft, in 1642, provoked war with the Indians all
along the Hudson.

[Footnote 1: Brown, _Genesis of the United States_, I., 8.]

[Footnote 2: Bourne, _Spain in America_, chap. x.]

[Footnote 3: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, pp. 75, 85, 98.]

[Footnote 4: Charlevoix, _New France_ (Shea's ed.), I., 106.]

[Footnote 5: Hakluyt, _Voyages_, III., 250-297; Charlevoix, _New
France_ (Shea's ed.), I., 129-131; cf. Bourne, _Spain in America_,
chap. x.]

[Footnote 6: Parkman, _Pioneers of France in the New World_, 213,
218.]

[Footnote 7: Maine Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 2d series, VII., 2-6.]

[Footnote 8: Charlevoix, _New France_ (Shea's ed.), I., 247-263.]

[Footnote 9: Maine Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 2d series, VII., 57.]

[Footnote 10: Ibid., 82.]

[Footnote 11: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, pp. 119, 130.]

[Footnote 12: Hannay, _Acadia_, 140.]

[Footnote 13: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 106, 109.]

[Footnote 14: Purchas, _Pilgrimes_, III., 581-596.]

[Footnote 15: Brodhead, _New York_, I., 57-62.]

[Footnote 16: _N.Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist._, III., 6-8.]

[Footnote 17: Maine Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 2d series, VII.,
53-56.]

[Footnote 18: N.Y. Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 2d series, III., 16,
22.]

[Footnote 19: Brodhead, _New York_, I., 222.]

[Footnote 20: _Cal. of State Pap., Col._, 1574-1660, p. 154.]

[Footnote 21: Brodhead, _New York_, I., 230.]

[Footnote 22: Mass. Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 4th series, IX.,
125-128.]

[Footnote 23: N.Y. Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 2d series, III., 77.]

[Footnote 24: Winsor, _Narr. and Crit. Hist._, IV., 443-452.]

[Illustration: NEW SWEDEN AND NEW NETHERLAND]




CHAPTER XVIII

THE NEW ENGLAND CONFEDERATION

(1643-1654)


These Dutch settlements brought about a political union of the New
England colonies, although the first cause of the New England
confederation was the Indian tribes who lay between the Dutch and the
English. In August, 1637, during the war with the Pequots, some of the
Connecticut magistrates and ministers suggested to the authorities at
Boston the expediency of such a measure. The next year Massachusetts
submitted a plan of union, but Connecticut demurred because it
permitted a mere majority of the federal commissioners to decide
questions. Thereupon Massachusetts injected the boundary question into
the discussions, and proposed an article not relished by Connecticut,
that the Pequot River should be the line between the two
jurisdictions.[1] Thus the matter lay in an unsettled state till the
next year, when jealousy of the Dutch stimulated renewed action.

In 1639 John Haynes, of Connecticut, and Rev. Thomas Hooker came to
Boston, and again the plan of a confederation was discussed, but
Plymouth and Massachusetts quarrelled over their boundary-line, and
the desirable event was once more postponed. Nearly three more years
passed, and the founding of a confederacy was still delayed. Then, at
a general court held at Boston, September 27, 1642, letters from
Connecticut were read "certifying us that the Indians all over the
country had combined themselves to cut off all the English."

At this time the war between De la Tour and D'Aulnay was at its
height, and the Dutch complaints added to the general alarm. Thus the
Connecticut proposition for a league received a more favorable
consideration and was referred to a committee "to consider" after the
court. At the next general court which met in Boston, May 10, 1643, a
compact of confederation in writing was duly signed by commissioners
from Plymouth, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Haven.[2] The
settlement of Gorges and Mason at Piscataqua and the plantations about
Narragansett Bay were denied admission into the confederacy--the
former "because they ran a different course from us both in their
ministry and administration,"[3] and the latter because they were
regarded as "tumultuous" and "schismatic."

After a preamble setting forth that "we live encompassed with people
of several nations and strange languages," that "the savages have of
late combined themselves against us," and that "the sad distractions
in England prevent the hope of advice and protection," the document
states that the contracting parties' object was to maintain "a firm
and perpetual league of friendship and amity, for offence and defence,
mutual advice and succor upon all just occasions both for preserving
and propagating the truth and liberties of the gospel, and for their
own mutual safety and walfare." It then declared the name of the new
confederation to be "the United Colonies of New England," and in ten
articles set out the organization and powers of the federal
government. The management was placed in the hands of eight
commissioners, two for each colony, "all in church-fellowship with
us," who were to hold an annual meeting in each of the colonies by
rotation, and to have power by a vote of six "to determine all affairs
of war or peace, leagues, aids, charges, and number of men for war,
division of spoils, or whatever is gotten by conquest," the admission
of new confederates, etc. All public charges were to be paid by
contributions levied on the colonies proportioned to the number of
inhabitants in each colony between sixteen and sixty; and for this
purpose a census was to be taken at stated times by the commissioners.
In domestic affairs the federal government was not to interfere, but
each colony was guaranteed the integrity of its territory and local
jurisdiction.

Two defects were apparent in this constitution: the federal government
had no authority to act directly upon individuals, and thus it had no
coercive power; the equal number of votes allowed the members of the
confederation in the federal council was a standing contradiction of
the measure of contribution to the burdens of government. The
confederacy contained a population of about twenty-three thousand five
hundred souls, of which number fifteen thousand may be assigned to
Massachusetts, three thousand each to Connecticut and Plymouth, and
two thousand five hundred to New Haven. Massachusetts, with two out of
eight commissioners, possessed a population greater than that of the
other three colonies combined.

There was really no Indian combination in 1643 against the colonists,
but the rivalry between the Narragansetts and the Mohegans gave
grounds for uneasiness. After the death of Miantonomoh, under the
circumstances already related, the fear of an Indian attack was
temporarily removed. But the Narragansetts were grief-stricken over
the loss of their chieftain and thought only of revenge upon the hated
Uncas and his Indians, at whose door they laid all the blame. To give
opportunity for intended operations, they made Gorton and others
intermediaries for a complete cession of their country to the king of
England in April, 1644. Then, when summoned by the general court of
Massachusetts to Boston, Canonicus and Pessacus, the two leading
chiefs, pleaded the king's jurisdiction and declined to appear.[4] Two
envoys sent by the general court in May, 1644, to the wigwam of
Canonicus, were compelled to stay out in the rain for two hours before
being admitted, and Pessacus, instead of giving them satisfaction,
persisted in his threat of hostilities against Uncas, agreeing only
not to attack Uncas "till after next planting-time," nor then till
after due notice given to the English.[5]

The truce did not restrain the Narragansetts, and in the spring of
1645 they attacked the Mohegans and defeated them, and thereupon the
federal commissioners, in July, 1645, met at Boston, and upon the
refusal of the Narragansetts to make peace with Uncas they made
preparations for war. A force of three hundred men was raised, one
hundred and ninety from Massachusetts, forty each from Plymouth and
Connecticut, and thirty from New Haven.

Upon the question of appointment of a commander-in-chief colonial
independence came in conflict with federal supremacy. In 1637
Massachusetts was the champion of the principle that all questions
should be decided by a simple majority vote of the commissioners; but
now the Massachusetts general court asserted that no appointment of a
commander should be valid without their confirmation. The federal
commissioners stood stoutly for their rights, and the issue was evaded
for a time by the appointment of Major Gibbons, who was a citizen of
Massachusetts.

The report of these warlike preparations brought the Narragansetts to
terms; but uneasiness still continued, and the subsequent years,
though free from bloodshed, were full of rumors and reports of
hostilities, compelling frequently the interference of the
commissioners in behalf of their friend Uncas. In all these
troubles[6] the question is not so much the propriety of the
particular measures of the federal commissioners as their conduct in
making the confederation a party to the disputes of the Indians among
themselves. The time finally came when Uncas, "the friend of the white
man," was regarded by his former admirers as a hopeless marplot and
intriguer.

More commendable were the services of the federal commissioners with
the Indians in another particular. One of the professed designs of the
charter of Massachusetts was to Christianize the heathen savages, but
more than twelve years elapsed after the coming of Winthrop and his
colonists before New England was the scene of anything like missionary
work. Then the first mission was established in 1643 by Thomas Mayhew
at the island of Martha's Vineyard, which was not included in any of
the New England governments and was under the jurisdiction of Sir
William Alexander. In 1651 Mayhew reported that one hundred and
ninety-nine men, women, and children of Martha's Vineyard and
Nantucket were "worshippers of the great and ever living God."

His example was followed by John Eliot, the minister of Roxbury, in
Massachusetts, who learned to speak the Indian tongue, and in 1646
preached to the Indians near Watertown. The Massachusetts general
court a week later endorsed the purposes of Eliot by enacting that the
church should take care to send two ministers among the Indians every
year to make known to them by the help of an interpreter "the heavenly
counsel of God." In four years two colonies of Indians were
established, one at Nonantum and the other at Concord. But the
converts were still under the influence of their sagamores, who were
hostile to Eliot's schemes, and in 1651 he removed his Indians to
Natick, on the Charles River, where they might be free from all
heathenish subjection.

In the mean time, the intelligence of what was taking place was
communicated to Edward Winslow, the agent of the colony in England. He
brought the matter to the attention of Parliament, and July 19, 1649,
an ordinance was passed incorporating "the society for the promoting
and propagating of the gospel of Jesus Christ in New England." This
society selected the federal commissioners as the managers of the fund
which flowed into them from persons charitably inclined, and in seven
years the sums which were remitted to New England amounted to more
than L1700. The commissioners laid out the money in paying Eliot and
Mayhew and other teachers, in printing catechisms in the Indian
language, and providing the Indian converts with implements of labor.
By 1674 the number of these "praying Indians," as they were called,
was estimated at four thousand.[7]

The commissioners also rendered many services in the domestic affairs
of the colonies. In order to secure the claim which she had advanced
in 1637 to the Pequot River as her southern boundary, Massachusetts in
1644 authorized John Winthrop, Jr., to plant a colony on Pequot Bay at
a spot called Nameaug, now New London.[8] The Connecticut government
protested against the authority of Massachusetts, and in 1647 the
commissioners decided that "the jurisdiction of the plantation doth
and ought to belong to Connecticut."[9] This decision, however, only
settled the ownership of a particular place, and the exact southern
and northern boundaries of Connecticut remained for several years a
matter of contention.

In another matter of internal interest the influence of the
confederacy was manifested. Among other considerations for the cession
of the Saybrook fort, Fenwick was promised the proceeds for the term
of ten years of a duty on all corn, biscuit, beaver, and cattle
exported from the Connecticut River.[10] March 4, 1645, the general
court of Connecticut passed an act to carry out their promise; but as
the law affected the trade of Springfield on the upper waters of the
Connecticut River as much as that of the Connecticut towns,
Springfield protested, and appealed to the protection of
Massachusetts. Thereupon the general court of that colony lodged a
vigorous complaint with the federal commissioners, and the cause was
patiently heard by them at two separate meetings. Massachusetts had,
doubtless, the right on her side, but the Connecticut contention
rested on what was international usage at the time.

The result of the deliberation of the commissioners was a decision in
July, 1647, in favor of Connecticut. This was far from satisfying
Massachusetts, and she reopened the question in September, 1648. To
enforce her arguments, she offered certain amendments to the
confederation, which, if adopted, would have shorn the commissioners
of pretty nearly all their authority. But the commissioners stood
firm, and declared that "they found not sufficient cause to reverse
what was done last year."[11]

Feeling on both sides had now become quite embittered. At a special
meeting of the federal commissioners in July, 1649, Massachusetts
renewed her objections, and during the discussions her commissioners
produced an order,[12] passed two months before by their general
court, which, reciting the decision against Springfield, laid a tax
upon all articles imported to Boston from any one of the other three
confederate colonies, or exported to them from "any part of the Bay."
This proceeding was justly interpreted by the federal commissioners to
mean not only a retaliation upon Connecticut for the Saybrook tax, but
a punishment upon the other two colonies--Plymouth and New Haven--for
taking her side in the court of the confederation.

The commissioners acted with dignified firmness, and forwarded to
Massachusetts a remonstrance in which they pointedly desired "to be
spared in all further agitations concerning Springfield."[13]
Massachusetts reluctantly yielded and the next year repealed her
impost,[14] while Connecticut continued to tax the trade of
Springfield till the ten years expired. Whether the tax imposed by
Connecticut was right or not, Massachusetts had, nevertheless, gone
dangerously near to nullification in these proceedings.

Not less interesting is the history of the dealings of the
commissioners with the French and Dutch. Encouraged by the favor which
had been extended to him in Massachusetts, De la Tour arrived in
person in Boston, June 12, 1643, to crave assistance against D'Aulnay,
his rival. As, notwithstanding the French king's order of the previous
year, he showed a commission from the vice-admiral of France which
styled him as lieutenant-general of Acadia, Governor Winthrop,
influenced by the merchants of Boston, whose cupidity was excited by
the valuable fur trade of Acadia, permitted him to hire both men and
shipping in Massachusetts. When his preparations were completed he
sailed away, accompanied by a fleet of four ships and a pinnace, the
property of two intimate friends of the governor--Major Gibbons and
Captain Hawkins--the latter of whom went along in charge of the
Puritan contingent.[15]

In permitting this expedition Winthrop not only violated the articles
of confederation and the laws of neutrality, but exposed himself to
the reproach of Endicott and some of the more straitlaced elders, that
he consorted with "idolators" and "antichrists," as Puritans chose to
call Roman Catholics. It seems that Winthrop and his Boston friends
did not intend to do more than to restore De la Tour to St. Johns,
which D'Aulnay was then besieging. But the original wrong had its
natural result. When D'Aulnay saw his rival's formidable fleet
approaching he promptly raised the blockade and made haste to get
under the protection of his stronghold at Port Royal. De la Tour
followed and attacked, and, though he failed to dislodge his enemy,
with the assistance of the Boston men he killed several of D'Aulnay's
soldiers, burned his mill, and did much other damage.

After this, while D'Aulnay went to France to get fresh orders from the
king against his rival, De la Tour came to Massachusetts in May, 1644,
in hopes of again interesting the Puritans there in his fortunes. But
John Endicott had been elected governor in the place of Winthrop, and
all the cheer De la Tour could get in return for permitting free-trade
was the promise of a letter addressed to D'Aulnay urging peace with De
la Tour and protesting against the capture of Massachusetts' trading
vessels.[16]

In September, 1644, the federal commissioners met at Hartford, and
showed dislike of the conduct of ex-Governor Winthrop by passing a
resolution to the effect that "no jurisdiction within this
confederation shall permit any voluntaries to go forth in a warlike
way against any people whatever without order and direction of the
commissioners of the other jurisdictions." In the mean while, D'Aulnay
came back from France with fresh orders from the king for the arrest
of De la Tour, and in October, 1644, sent to Boston an envoy with the
new credentials. The Massachusetts authorities were reluctant to
abandon De la Tour, but seeing no alternative they made a treaty for
free-trade, subject to confirmation by the federal commissioners.[17]

Still the ties that bound the Boston merchants to De la Tour were not
wholly dissolved even now. They gave an asylum to De la Tour's wife at
Boston, and sent her with supplies to his fort at Port Royal; and when
the fort succumbed under D'Aulnay's attack they fitted her husband out
with a ship and truck for trading. At last De la Tour's dealings
thoroughly opened their eyes. When the ship came to Cape Sable, De la
Tour and his Frenchmen suddenly arose against the English crew, put
them out in the woods, and seized and appropriated the vessel and
cargo. Prominent among those who had lent money and influence to De la
Tour was Major Edward Gibbons, who lost upward of L2500.

D'Aulnay retaliated and took a ship belonging to Massachusetts, and in
September, 1646, a new treaty was made with him by envoys representing
the confederacy. The English made a formal acknowledgment of error,
and the French accepted in full satisfaction a present to D'Aulnay of
a sedan-chair, which had been sent as a present by the viceroy of
Mexico to his sister, but was captured in the West Indies by Cromwell
and given by him to Governor Winthrop.[18]

In 1648 the colony of Massachusetts applied to the French officials at
Quebec for a reciprocity of trade. As the Iroquois had proved very
destructive to the French and their Algonquin and Huron allies, the
French governor caught at the plan of granting the desired privileges
in return for military aid. Accordingly, in 1650, the French governor,
D'Aillebout, sent the Jesuit father Druillettes, who had acted as
missionary among the Algonquins of Maine, as envoy to Boston to
negotiate a treaty.[19] But Massachusetts did not repeat the error of
former times, and would do nothing without consent of the federal
commissioners. To them, therefore, the matter was referred, with the
result that the commissioners declined to involve the confederacy in a
war with the Iroquois by authorizing any assistance to be given the
French privately or officially.[20]

In the relations with the Dutch the temperate and conservative force
in the confederacy was Massachusetts, who took steady ground for peace
and opposed hostile measures. In doing so, however, she went the whole
length of nullification and almost broke up the confederacy. William
Kieft, the governor of New Netherland (1637-1647), seemed to recognize
at once the significance of the confederacy as well as the importance
of making friends with Massachusetts; and in July, 1643, before the
commissioners had time to hold their first meeting, he wrote a letter
of congratulations to Governor Winthrop, which he loaded, however,
with complaints against Connecticut for intruding upon the land of the
Dutch fort at Hartford. Governor Winthrop in reply assured Kieft that
the influence of Massachusetts would be on the side of peace, for that
"the ground of difference being only a small parcel of land" was a
matter of too small value to cause a breach between two people so
nearly related as the Dutch and English.

When the federal commissioners met in September they showed a hostile
spirit, and addressed vehement letters to the Swedish and Dutch on
account of their "foul injuries" offered the New Haven settlers on the
Delaware. In March, 1644, letters came from the Swedes and Dutch full
of expressions of regard for the English and "particularly for
Massachusetts." They promised to refrain from interfering with
visitors who should bring authority from the commissioners, which so
encouraged some Boston merchants that they sent to the Delaware a
pinnace to search for a great lake reported to be its source. But when
they arrived at the Delaware, the Swedish and Dutch governors, while
telling the captain that he might go up the river as far as he chose,
prohibited him from any trafficking with the Indians, which caused the
return of the pinnace to Boston. After this the war which Kieft
provoked with the Indians so occupied the Dutch that for two years
they had no time to give attention to their English neighbors. So hard
pressed were they that, instead of making further reclamations on New
Haven, they earnestly but unsuccessfully solicited her aid. After
great losses to both the Dutch and the Indians the Mohawks intervened
as arbitrators, and brought about a peace in September, 1645.[21]

In 1646 the men of New Haven set up a trading-house near the mouth of
the Housatonic, and thereupon Kieft wrote to the commissioners, who
met at New Haven in April, 1646, a blustering letter of which the
following is a good sample: "We protest against all you commissioners
met at the Red Mount (New Haven) as against breakers of the common
league, and also infringers of the rights of the lords, the states,
our superiors, in that you have dared, without our express and
especial consent, to hold your general meeting within the limits of
New Netherland."[22] At the close of Kieft's administration in 1647
the whole province of New Netherland could furnish not more than three
hundred fighting-men and contained a population of not more than two
thousand. Compared with the population of New England these figures
seem insignificant enough, and render highly improbable the story
popular with some New England historians that the Dutch were enlisted
in a great scheme of uprooting the English colonies.

In 1647 Peter Stuyvesant was sent over as governor. He had the sense
to see that the real safety of the Dutch consisted not in bluster, but
in settling a line between the possessions of the two nations as soon
as possible. The charter of the West India Company called for the
territory between forty and forty-five degrees north latitude, but to
assert the full extent of the patent would have been to claim the
jurisdiction of Massachusetts. Accordingly, Stuyvesant, soon after his
arrival, addressed a letter to Governor Winthrop, asserting the Dutch
claim to all the land between the Connecticut and Delaware and
proposing a conference. But it is evident that in claiming the
Connecticut he was actuated more by a hope of deterring the further
aggressions of English settlers than otherwise. The federal
commissioners returned a polite reply, but showed no anxiety to come
to an accommodation. Soon after a fresh quarrel broke out with New
Haven, and in March, 1648, Stuyvesant wrote to the governor of
Massachusetts offering to submit to him and the governor of Plymouth
the matter in dispute. He then wrote home for instructions, and as
diplomatic relations between England and Holland were suspended, the
West India Company bade him make such terms as he could with his
English neighbors.[23]

Accordingly, in September, 1650, Stuyvesant visited Hartford while the
federal commissioners were in session there. The discussions were
carried on in writing, and Stuyvesant dated his letter at "New
Netherland." The federal commissioners declined to receive this
letter, and Stuyvesant changed the address to "Connecticut." This
proving satisfactory to the commissioners, Stuyvesant set out his
territorial claim and the imputed wrongs suffered by the Dutch from
the English, and the federal commissioners rejoined in a similar
manner. Then Stuyvesant proposed to refer the question in dispute to
four arbitrators, all Englishmen, two to be appointed by himself and
two by the federal commissioners.

The offer was accepted, and after a full hearing by these arbitrators,
Thomas Willet, George Baxter, Simon Bradstreet, and Thomas Prince,
declined to decide upon the wrongs complained of by either party and
rendered an award upon the territorial question only. They decided
that the Dutch should retain their fort on the Connecticut, and that
the boundary should begin at a point on the west side of Greenwich
Bay, about four miles from Stamford, and run due north twenty miles.
From that point it should be extended as the Dutch and New Haven might
agree, provided that the line should not come nearer the Hudson River
than ten miles. The English obtained most of Long Island besides, for
in that quarter the line was declared to be a meridian drawn through
the westernmost part of Oyster Bay.[24] If these terms subjected
Stuyvesant to severe criticism at New Amsterdam, it was really a
stroke of statesmanship to obtain, even at a sacrifice, what was for
the first time an international barrier to English intrusion.

The southern flank of New Netherland was left unprotected, and in 1651
New Haven once more endeavored to plant a colony on the Delaware. The
failure of the former attempt bore heavily upon the wealthy merchants
of the town, and they had ill luck in another adventure. In January,
1646, they sent an agent to England to solicit a charter from the
English government. The ship in which he sailed carried seventy other
prominent citizens of the place and a cargo valued at L5000. A great
storm ensued after the ship's departure and she was lost at sea.[25]
So disheartening was this misfortune that many at New Haven
entertained the idea of removing to the West Indies or Ireland.

Now, in 1651, under a commission from Governor Eaton, fifty men from
New Haven prepared to sail for the Delaware.[26] Their ship touched at
New Amsterdam, and Stuyvesant arrested both passengers and officers,
and only released them on their promise to return home. The
adventurers appealed to the commissioners, and these officials wrote a
letter to Stuyvesant protesting against his course.[27]

Next year war broke out between Holland and England, and the war
spirit spread to this side of the ocean. Rumors got afloat that the
Dutch and Indians had conspired against the English, and Connecticut
and New Haven became hysterical for war; while Rhode Island
commissioned John Underhill, lately escaped from the Dutch, to take
all Dutch vessels he could find.[28] Stuyvesant indignantly denied the
charge of conspiring with the Indians, and proposed to refer the
examination of the facts to any impartial tribunal. Nevertheless, all
the old complaints were revived.

In 1652 the federal commissioners resolved on hostilities,[29] but the
Massachusetts general court, which had all along taken a position in
favor of peace, refused to be bound by a vote of six commissioners
representing Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven.[30] On the other
hand, the commissioners of the three smaller colonies protested
against the conduct of the court of Massachusetts as violating the
confederation.[31] New Haven and Connecticut took measures to wage war
on their own account,[32] and in April, 1654, Connecticut sequestered
the Dutch fort at Hartford.[33]

When, in June, 1654, a fleet despatched by Cromwell, in response to
appeals made to him, appeared in Boston harbor, Connecticut and New
Haven were overjoyed, and proceeded with alacrity to make arrangements
for an attack on the hated Dutch. Massachusetts refused to raise
troops, although she gave her citizens privilege to enlist if they
chose. Yet her policy of peace prevailed in the end, for before the
preparations described could be completed a stop was put to them by
the news that a treaty of peace had been signed between England and
Holland April 5, 1654.[34]

Massachusetts had successfully nullified the plain provisions of the
articles, and for a time it looked as if the dissolution of the
confederacy would be the consequence. New Haven voted at first not to
choose commissioners, but finally decided to do so,[35] and meetings
of the commissioners went on apparently as before. Nevertheless, the
effect of the action of Massachusetts was far-reaching--from that time
the respective colonies diverged more and more, till the hope of a
permanent intercolonial bond vanished.

[Footnote 1: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 283, 342-344.]

[Footnote 2: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 95, 99, 102, 121-127.]

[Footnote 3: Ibid., 121.]

[Footnote 4: _Simplicities Defence_ (Force, _Tracts_, IV., No. vi.,
93).]

[Footnote 5: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 203, 243, 301, 463.]

[Footnote 6: _Plymouth Col. Records_, IX., 32-49.]

[Footnote 7: Palfrey, _New England_, II., 187-198, 332-341, III., 141;
Hutchinson, _Massachusetts Bay_, I., 153.]

[Footnote 8: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 325.]

[Footnote 9: Palfrey, _New England_, II., 234.]

[Footnote 10: Trumbull, _Connecticut_, I., 508.]

[Footnote 11: Ibid., 165, 166; Palfrey, _New England_, II., 240-249.]

[Footnote 12: _Mass. Col. Records_, III., 152.]

[Footnote 13: _Plymouth Col. Records_, IX., 158.]

[Footnote 14: _Mass. Col. Records_, IV., pt. i., II.]

[Footnote 15: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 128, 130, 153.]

[Footnote 16: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 163, 180, 219, 220.]

[Footnote 17: _Plymouth Col. Records_, IX., 59.]

[Footnote 18: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 244, 335.]

[Footnote 19: Parkman, _Jesuits_, 327-335.]

[Footnote 20: Hutchinson, _Massachusetts Bay_, I., 156-158.]

[Footnote 21: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 155, 157, 169, 189, 193,
229; Brodhead, _New York_, I., 409.]

[Footnote 22: Trumbull, _Connecticut_, I., 158.]

[Footnote 23: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 382, 395; Brodhead, _New
York_, I. 499.]

[Footnote 24: Trumbull, _Connecticut_, I., 189-192.]

[Footnote 25: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 325, 337.]

[Footnote 26: Trumbull, _Connecticut_, I., 196.]

[Footnote 27: _Plymouth Col. Records_, IX., 210-215.]

[Footnote 28: _R.I. Col. Records_, I., 266.]

[Footnote 29: _Plymouth Col. Records_, X., 102.]

[Footnote 30: _Mass. Col. Records_, III., 311.]

[Footnote 31: _New Haven Col. Records_, II., 36.]

[Footnote 32: Ibid., 37]

[Footnote 33: _Conn. Col. Records_, I., 254.]

[Footnote 34: Trumbull, _Connecticut_, I., 219, 220.]

[Footnote 35: _New Haven Col. Records_, II., iii.]




CHAPTER XIX

EARLY NEW ENGLAND LIFE

(1624-1652)


During the civil war in England the sympathies of Massachusetts, of
course, were with Parliament. New England ministers were invited to
attend the Westminster assembly of divines held in September, 1642,
and several of them returned to England. The most prominent was Rev.
Hugh Peter, who was instrumental in procuring the decapitation of
Charles I., and paid for the offence, on the restoration of Charles
II., with his own life. In 1643 Parliament passed an act[1] freeing
all commodities carried between England and New England from the
payment of "any custom, subsidy, taxation, imposition, or other duty."

The transfer of the supreme authority to the Parliament, though hailed
with enthusiasm in New England, increased, if anything, her
confidence. In the summer of 1644 a ship bearing a commission from the
Parliament attacked and captured in the harbor of Boston another ship
friendly to the king; Massachusetts showed her displeasure by
addressing a strong protest to Parliament. Not long after another
vessel of Parliament attacked a ship belonging to persons from
Dartmouth in sympathy with the king. This time Winthrop turned the
guns of the battery upon the parliamentary captain and made him pay a
barrel of powder for his insolence.[2]

The same summary action was adopted in regard to the growing demand
for a freer suffrage. In May, 1646, an able and respectful petition
was presented to the general court for the removal of the civil
disabilities of all members of the churches of England and Scotland,
signed by William Vassall, Samuel Maverick, Dr. Robert Child, and four
other prominent Presbyterians. The petition was pronounced seditious
and scandalous, and the petitioners were roundly fined. When Child set
out for England with his grievances, he was arrested and his baggage
searched. Then, to the horror of the rulers of Massachusetts, there
was discovered a petition addressed to Parliament, suggesting that
Presbyterianism should be established in New England and that a
general governor should be sent over. The signers, brought before the
court, were fined more heavily than before and imprisoned for six
months. At length Vassall and his friends contrived to reach England,
expecting to receive the aid of the Presbyterian party in Parliament;
but misfortune overtook them there as in Massachusetts, for the
Independents were now in control and no help could be obtained from
them.[3]

The agitation in England in favor of Presbyterianism, and the petition
of Vassall and his friends in Massachusetts, induced the general court
in May, 1646, to invite the clergy to meet at Cambridge, "there to
discuss, dispute, and clear up, by the word of God, such questions of
church government and discipline as they should think needful and
meet," until "one form of government and discipline" should be
determined upon. The "synod" met September 1, 1646, and after
remaining in session fourteen days they adjourned. In August, 1648,
after the downfall of Presbyterianism in England, another meeting was
held, and a plan of church government was agreed upon, by which order
and unity were introduced among members theoretically independent.[4]

By a unanimous vote the synod adopted "a platform" approving the
confession of faith of the Westminster divines, except as to those
parts which favored the Presbyterian discipline. The bond of union was
found in the right of excluding an offending church from fellowship
and of calling in the civil power for the suppression of idolatry,
blasphemy, heresy, etc. The platform recognized the prerogative of
occasional synods to give advice and admonition to churches in their
collective capacity, but general officers and permanent assemblies,
like those of the Presbyterian and Anglican churches, armed with
coercive power to act upon individuals, were disclaimed.[5]

Nevertheless, by the organization thus effected, the benumbing
influence of the Calvinistic faith upon the intellectual life of New
England was fully established, and the deaths of John Winthrop and
John Cotton, which happened not long after, were the forerunners of
what Charles Francis Adams styles the "glacial period of
Massachusetts."[6] Both Winthrop and Cotton were believers in
aristocracy in state and church, but the bigotry of Winthrop was
relieved by his splendid business capacity and that of Cotton by his
comparative gentleness and tenderness of heart.

"Their places were taken by two as arrant fanatics as ever
breathed"[7]--John Endicott, who was governor for thirteen out of
fifteen years following Winthrop's death, and John Norton, an able and
upright but narrow and intolerant clergyman. The persecuting spirit
which had never been absent in Massachusetts reached, under these
leaders, its climax in the wholesale hanging of Quakers and witches.

In the year of Cotton's death (1652), which was the year that Virginia
surrendered to the Parliamentary commissioners and the authority of
the English Parliament was recognized throughout English America, the
population of New England could not have been far short of fifty
thousand. For the settlements along the sea the usual mode of
communication was by water, but there was a road along the whole coast
of Massachusetts. In the interior of the colony, as Johnson boasted,
"the wild and uncouth woods were filled with frequented ways, and the
large rivers were overlaid with bridges, passable both for horse and
foot."[8]

All the conditions of New England tended to compress population into
small areas and to force the energies of the people into trade.
Ship-building was an early industry, and New England ships vied with
the ships of Holland and England in visiting distant countries for
commerce.[9] Manufacturing found early encouragement, and in 1639 a
number of clothiers from Yorkshire set up a fulling-mill at
Rowley.[10] A glass factory was established at Salem in 1641,[11] and
iron works at Lynn in 1643,[12] under the management of Joseph Jenks.
The keenness of the New-Englander in bargains and business became
famous.

In Massachusetts the town was the unit of representation and taxation,
and in local matters it governed itself. The first town government
appears to have been that of Dorchester, where the inhabitants agreed,
October 8, 1633, to hold a weekly meeting "to settle and sett down
such orders as may tend to the general good."[13] Not long after a
similar meeting was held in Watertown, and the system speedily spread
to the other towns. The plan of appointing a body of "townsmen," or
selectmen, to sit between meetings of the towns began in February,
1635, in Charlestown.[14]

The town-meeting had a great variety of business. It elected the town
officers and the deputies to the general court and made ordinances
regarding the common fields and pastures, the management of the
village herds, roadways, boundary-lines, fences, and many other
things. Qualified to share in the deliberations were all freemen and
"admitted inhabitants of honest and good conversation" rated at L20
(equivalent to about $500 to-day).[15]

In the prevalence of the town system popular education was rendered
possible, and a great epoch in the history of social progress was
reached when Massachusetts recognized the support of education as a
proper function of government. Boston had a school with some sort of
public encouragement in 1635,[16] and in 1642, before schools were
required by law, it was enjoined upon the selectmen to "take account
from time to time of parents and masters of the ability of the
children to read and understand the principles of religion and the
capital lawes of the country."[17] In November, 1647, a general
educational law required every town having fifty householders or more
to appoint some one to teach children how to read and write, and every
town having one hundred householders or more to establish a "grammar
(Latin) school" to instruct youth "so far as may be fitted for the
university."[18]

In 1636 the Massachusetts assembly agreed to give L400 towards "a
schoole or Colledge,"[19] to be built at Newtown (Cambridge). In 1638
John Harvard died within a year after his arrival, and left his
library and "one-half his estate, it being in all about L700, for the
erecting of the College." In recognition of this kindly act the
general court fitly gave his name to the institution,[20] the first
founded in the United States.

In 1650 Connecticut copied the Massachusetts law of 1647, and a clause
declared that the grammar-schools were to prepare boys for college.
The results, however, in practice did not come up to the excellence of
the laws, and while in some towns in both Massachusetts and
Connecticut a public rate was levied for education, more generally the
parents had to pay the teachers, and they were hard to secure. When
obtained they taught but two or three months during the year.[21] Bad
spelling and wretched writing were features of the age from which New
England was not exempt. Real learning was confined, after all, to the
ministers and the richer classes in the New England colonies, pretty
much as in the mother-country. In Plymouth and Rhode Island, where the
hard conditions of life rendered any legal system of education
impracticable, illiteracy was frequent. The class of ignorant people
most often met with in New England were fishermen and the small
farmers of the inland townships.

Scarcity of money was felt in New England as in Virginia, and resort
was had to the use of wampum as a substitute,[22] and corn, cattle,
and other commodities were made legal tenders in payment of debts.[23]
In 1652 a mint was established at Boston, and a law was passed
providing for the coinage of all bullion, plate, and Spanish coin into
"twelve-penny, sixpenny, and threepenny pieces." The master of the
mint was John Hull, and the shillings coined by him were called
"Pine-Tree Shillings," because they bore on one side the legend
"Massachusetts" encircling a tree.[24]

Marriage was a mere civil contract, and the burials took place without
funeral service or sermon. Stern laws were made against card-playing,
long hair, drinking healths, and wearing certain articles, such as
gold and silver girdles, hat-bands, belts, ruffs, and beaver hats.
There were no Christmas festivals and no saints' days nor recognized
saints, though special feasts and thanksgiving days were frequent.[25]
The penal legislation of New England was harsh and severe, and in
Massachusetts and Connecticut there were fifteen crimes punishable
with death, while the law took hold also of innumerable petty
offences. In addition the magistrates had a discretionary authority,
and they often punished persons on mere suspicion.

There can be no doubt that the ideal of the educated Puritan was lofty
and high, and that society in New England was remarkably free from the
ordinary frivolities and immoralities of mankind; but it would seem
that human nature exacted a severe retaliation for the undue
suppression of its weaknesses. There are in the works of Bradford and
Winthrop, as well as in the records of the colonies, evidence which
shows that the streams of wickedness in New England were "dammed" and
not dried up. At intervals the impure waters broke over the obstacles
in their way, till the record of crime caused the good Bradford "to
fear and tremble at the consideration of our corrupt natures."[26]

The conveniences of town life gave opportunities for literature not
enjoyed by the Virginians, and, though his religion cut the Puritan
almost entirely off from the finer fields of poetry and arts, New
England in the period of which we have been considering was strong in
history and theology. Thus the works of Bradford and Winthrop and of
Hooker and Cotton compare favorably with the best productions of their
contemporaries in England, and contrast with the later writers of
Cotton Mather's "glacial period," when, under the influence of the
theocracy, "a lawless and merciless fury for the odd, the disorderly,
the grotesque, the violent, strained analogies, unexpected images,
pedantics, indelicacies, freaks of allusion, and monstrosities of
phrase" were the traits of New England literature.[27]

[Footnote 1: N.H. Hist. Soc., _Collections_, I., 323-326.]

[Footnote 2: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 222-224, 228, 238-240.]

[Footnote 3: _New England's Jonas Cast Up at London_ (Force, _Tracts_,
IV., No. iii.); Winthrop, _New England_, II., 319, 340, 358, 391.]

[Footnote 4: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 329, 330, 402.]

[Footnote 5: Mather, _Magnalia_, book V.]

[Footnote 6: Adams, _Massachusetts, its Historians and its History_,
59.]

[Footnote 7: Fiske, _Beginnings of New England_, 179.]

[Footnote 8: Johnson, _Wonder Working Providence,_ book III., chap.
i.]

[Footnote 9: Weeden, _Econ. and Soc. Hist. of New England,_ I., 143.]

[Footnote 10: Palfrey, _New England,_ II., 53.]

[Footnote 11: _Mass. Col. Records,_ I., 344.]

[Footnote 12: Weeden, _Econ. and Soc. Hist. of New England,_ I., 174.]

[Footnote 13: Clapp, _Dorchester,_ 32.]

[Footnote 14: Frothingham, _Charlestown,_ 51.]

[Footnote 15: Howard, _Local Constitutional History,_ I., 66.]

[Footnote 16: Palfrey, _New England,_ II., 47.]

[Footnote 17: _Mass. Col. Records,_ II., 9.]

[Footnote 18: Ibid., 203.]

[Footnote 19: Ibid., I., 183.]

[Footnote 20: Ibid., 253.]

[Footnote 21: Weeden, _Econ. and Soc. Hist., of New England_, I., 282,
II., 861.]

[Footnote 22: Weeden, _Indian Money as a Factor in New England
Colonization_ (_Johns Hopkins University Studies_, II., Nos. viii.,
ix.).]

[Footnote 23: _Mass. Col. Records_, 110; _Conn. Col. Records_, I., 8.]

[Footnote 24: _Mass. Col. Records_, IV., pt. i., 84, 118.]

[Footnote 25: Howe, _Puritan Republic,_ 102, 110, 111.]

[Footnote 26: Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation,_ 459.]

[Footnote 27: Tyler, _American Literature,_ II., 87.]




CHAPTER XX

CRITICAL ESSAY ON AUTHORITIES

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL AIDS


Four special bibliographies of American history are serviceable upon
the field of this volume. First, most searching and most voluminous,
is Justin Winsor, _Narrative and Critical History of America_ (8
vols., 1888-1889). Mr. Winsor has added to the study of the era of
colonization by the writers of his co-operative work the vast wealth
of his own bibliographical knowledge. The part of Winsor applicable to
this volume is found in vol. III., in which most of the printed
contemporary material is enumerated. The second bibliography is the
_Cambridge Modern History,_ VII. (1903); pages 757-765 include a brief
list of selected titles conveniently classified. J.N. Lamed,
_Literature of American History, a Bibliographical Guide_ (1902), has
brief critical estimates of the authorities upon colonial history.
Channing and Hart, _Guide to the Study of American History_ (1896),
contains accounts of state and local histories (Sec. 23), books of travel
(Sec. 24), biography (Sec. 25), colonial records (Sec. 29), proceedings of
learned societies (Sec. 31), also a series of consecutive topics with
specific references (Sec.Sec. 92-98, 100, 101, 109-124). For the field of
the present volume a short road to the abundant sources of material is
through the footnotes of the principal secondary works enumerated
below. The critical chapters in _The American Nation,_ vols. III. and
V., contain appreciations of many authorities which also bear on the
field of vol. IV.


GENERAL SECONDARY WORKS

The "Foundation" period, from 1574 to 1652, is naturally one of the
most interesting in the annals of the American colonies. The most
important general historians are George Bancroft, _History of the
United States_ (rev. ed., 6 vols., 1883-1885); J.A. Doyle, _English
Colonies in America_ (3 vols., 1882-1887); Richard Hildreth, _History
of the United States_ (6 vols., 1849-1852); George Chalmers,
_Political Annals of the American Colonies_ (1780); Justin Winsor,
_Narrative and Critical History of America_ (8 vols., 1888-1889); John
Fiske, _Discovery of America_ (2 vols., 1892), _Old Virginia and Her
Neighbors_ (1900), _Beginnings of New England_ (1898), _Dutch and
Quaker Colonies in America, New France and New England_ (1902).

Among these writers three have conspicuous merit--Doyle, Winsor, and
Fiske. Doyle's volumes manifest a high degree of philosophic
perception and are accurate in statement and broad in conclusions. Of
his books the volumes on the Puritan colonies are distinctly of a
higher order than his volume on the southern colonies. The chief merit
of Winsor's work is the critical chapters and parts of narrative
chapters, which are invaluable. John Fiske is not wanting in the
qualities of a great historian--breadth of mind and accuracy of
statement; but his great charm is in his style and his power of
vivifying events long forgotten. He has probably come nearer than any
one else to writing real history so as to produce a popular effect.


COLLECTIONS OF SOURCES

The main contemporary collectors of materials for the history of the
early voyages to America were Richard Eden, Richard Hakluyt, and
Samuel Purchas. Eden's _Decades of the New World or West Indies_ (7
vols., 1555) consists of abstracts of the works of foreign
writers--Peter Martyr, Oviedo, Gomara, Ramusio, Ziegler, Pigafetta,
Munster, Bastaldus, Vespucius, and others. Richard Hakluyt first
published _Divers Voyages_ (1582; reprinted by the Hakluyt Society)
and then his _Principal Voyages_ (3 vols., folio, 1589; reissued
1600). Samuel Purchas's first volume appeared in 1613 under the title,
_Purchas: His Pilgrimage of the World, or Religions Observed in all
Ages and Places Discovered, from the Creation unto this Present_. The
four subsequent volumes were published in 1623 under the title,
_Hakluytius Posthumous, or, Purchas: His Pilgrimes._

Among these three compilers Hakluyt enjoys pre-eminence, and the
Hakluyt Society has supplemented his labors by publishing in full some
of the narratives which Hakluyt, for reasons of accuracy or want of
space, abbreviated. _The Historie of Travaile into Virginia_, by
William Strachey, secretary to Lord Delaware, was published by the
Hakluyt Society in 1848, and this book contains excellent accounts of
the expeditions sent by Sir Walter Raleigh to Roanoke, the voyages of
Bartholomew Gosnold and George Weymouth, and the settlement made under
its charter by the Plymouth Company at Sagadahoc, or Kennebec.

The only official collection of documentary materials that covers the
entire period is the _Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series,
America and West Indies, 1574-1696_ (9 vols., 1860-1903). George
Sainsbury, the editor, was a master at catching the salient points of
a manuscript. Many of his abstracts have elsewhere been published in
full.

The principal private collectors are E. Hazard, _State Papers_ (2
vols., 1792-1794); Peter Force, _Tracts_ (4 vols., 1836-1846);
Alexander Brown, _Genesis of the United States_ (2 vols., 1891);
Albert Bushnell Hart, _American History Told by Contemporaries_ (4
vols., 1898-1902); Maryland Historical Society, _Archives of
Maryland_; and the series called _Documents Relating to the Colonial
History of New York_, edited by John Romeyn Brodhead. Two convenient
volumes embodying many early writings are Stedman and Hutchinson,
_Library of American Literature_, I. (1888); Moses Coit Tyler,
_History of American Literature During the Colonial Time, 1607-1676_,
I. (1897).


VIRGINIA

The standard authorities for the history of Virginia are Robert
Beverley, _History of Virginia_ (1722) (extends to Spotswood's
administration); William Stith, _History of Virginia_ (1747) (period
of the London Company); John D. Burk, _History of Virginia_ (4 vols.,
1805); R.R. Howison, _History of Virginia_ (2 vols., 1846); Charles
Campbell, _History of the Colony and Ancient Dominion of Virginia_
(1847); and Jonn Fiske, _Old Virginia and Her Neighbors_ (1900). For
the period Stith is by far the most important. His work covers the
duration of the London Company, and as he had access to manuscripts
now destroyed the history has the value of an original document. As
president of William and Mary College Stith was an accomplished
scholar, and his work, pervaded with a broad, philosophic spirit,
ranks perhaps first among colonial histories. As a mere collection of
facts upon the whole colonial history of Virginia Campbell's work is
the most useful. The greatest collection of original material bearing
upon the first ten years of the colony's history is in Alexander
Brown, _Genesis of the United States_ (2 vols., 1890). This remarkable
work contains an introductory sketch of what has been done by
Englishmen prior to 1606 in the way of discovery and colonization, and
a catalogue of charters, letters, and pamphlets (many of them
republished at length) through which the events attending the first
foundation of an English colony in the New World are developed in
order of time. Dr. Brown's other works, _The First Republic in
America_ (1898), and _English Politics in America_ (1901) make
excellent companion pieces to the _Genesis_, though the author has
made a great mistake in not supporting his text with foot-notes and
references.

Among the contemporary writers, John Smith, _Works_ (1884), edited by
Edward Arber, is a compilation rather than a history, and in spite of
its partisan coloring contains much that is valuable regarding
Virginia affairs from 1607 to 1629. For matters from 1619-1624 we have
the sure guide of the London Company's _Journal,_ in Virginia
Historical Society, _Collections_, new series, VII. After that time
the main dependence, apart from the _Calendar of State Papers,_ is
Hening, _Statutes at Large of Virginia_ (13 vols., 1823). The leading
incidents in Virginia connected with Lord Baltimore's colony of
Maryland and the Puritan persecution are set forth by J.H. Latane,
_Early Relations of Maryland and Virginia_ (_Johns Hopkins University
Studies,_ XIII., Nos. iii., iv.) Many documents illustrative of this
period may be read in Force, _Tracts,_ and Hazard, _State Papers;_
Virginia history is illuminated by many original documents printed in
the _Virginia Magazine of History and Biography_ (11 vols.,
1893-1903); and the _William and Mary College Quarterly_ (12 vols.,
1892-1903). The works of Edward D. Neill are also of a documentary
nature and of much value. Those which bear upon Virginia are _The
Virginia Company_ (1868), _Virginia Carolorum_ (1886), _Virginia
Vestusta_ (1885), and _Virginia and Virginiola_ (1878). Many tracts
are cited in the foot-notes.


MARYLAND

The standard authorities for the history of Maryland are J.V.L.
McMahon, _Historical View of the Government of Maryland_ (1831); John
Leeds Bozman, _History of Maryland_ (2 vols., 1837, covering the
period of 1634 to 1658); James McSherry, _History of Maryland_ (1849);
J.T. Scharf, _History of Maryland_ (3 vols., 1879); William Hand
Browne, _History of Maryland_ (1893), and _George and Cecilius
Calvert_ (1893); Edward D. Neill, _Founders of Maryland_ (1876), and
_Terra Mariae_ (1867). Of these Bozman's work is an invaluable magazine
of information, being, in fact, as much a calendar of documents as a
continuous narrative. William Hand Browne's books show great
familiarity with the story of Maryland and its founders, but his
treatment of the subject is marked by strong bias and partisanship in
favor of Lord Baltimore and his government. Neill's books, on the
other hand, argue strongly in favor of the Puritan influence on the
history of Maryland. There are many interesting pamphlets relating to
Maryland in the series of _Johns Hopkins University Studies_, such as
Edward Ingle, _Parish Institutions of Maryland_, I., No. vi.; John
Hensley Johnson, _Old Maryland Manors_, I., No. vii.; Lewis W.
Wilhelm, _Maryland Local Institutions_, III., Nos. v., vi., vii.; D.R.
Randall, _The Puritan Colony at Annapolis, Maryland_, IV., No. vi.;
J.H. Latane, _Early Relations of Virginia and Maryland_, XIII., Nos.
iii., iv., and Bernard C. Steiner, _The Beginnings of Maryland_.

The documentary material of Maryland is very extensive, as the State
has been fortunate in preserving most of its colonial records. _The
Archives of Maryland_ (23 vols., 1889-1903), published by the Maryland
Historical Society, is composed of the proceedings of the council,
legislature, and provincial court. The _Fund Publications_ of the
society (36 nos. in 4 vols., 1867-1900), are also valuable in this
respect, and contain among other things _The Calvert Papers_ (_Fund
Publications_, No. 34). A complete list of all these publications can
be found in the annual report of the society for 1902.

For the controversy between Lord Baltimore and the Puritans the chief
authorities are Winthrop, _History of New England_ (2 vols.,
1790-1853); _Lord Baltimore's Case Concerning the Province of
Maryland_ (1653); _Virginia and Maryland, or Lord Baltimore's Case
Uncased and Answered_ (Force, _Tracts_, II., No. ix.); Leonard Strong,
_Babylon's Fall in Maryland, a Fair Warning to Lord Baltimore_; John
Langford, _A Just and Clere Reputation of Babylon's Fall_ (1655); John
Hammond, _Leah and Rachel_ (Force, Tracts, III., No. xiv.); _Hammond
versus Heamans, or an Answer to an Audacious Prophet;_ Heamans, _Brief
Narrative of the Late Bloody Designs Against the Protestants._ The
battle of the Severn is described in the letters of Luke Barber and
Mrs. Stone, published in Bozman, _Maryland_, II., 688.


PLYMOUTH AND MASSACHUSETTS

The standard authorities for the history of these two colonies are
Thomas Hutchinson, _History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay_ (3
vols., 1795-1828); John G. Palfrey, _History of New England_ (3 vols.,
1858-1890); J.S. Barry, _History of Massachusetts_ (3 vols.,
1855-1857). Very lively and interesting are Charles Francis Adams,
_Massachusetts: Its Historians and Its History_ (1893); _Three
Episodes of the History of Massachusetts_ (2 vols., 1895). The best
account of Plymouth is J.E. Goodwin, _The Pilgrim Republic_ (1888).

The chief original authority for the early history of the Puritan
colony of New Plymouth is William Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_
(several eds.); and for Massachusetts, John Winthrop, _History of New
England_ (several eds.), which is, however, a journal rather than a
history. Edward Arber, _Story of the Pilgrim Fathers as Told by
Themselves_ (1897), is a collection of ill-arranged sources. The
documentary sources are numerous. Hazard prints many documents bearing
upon the early history of Massachusetts, and much valuable matter is
found in the _Records of Plymouth_ (12 vols., 1855-1859), and the
_Records of Massachusetts Bay_ (5 vols., 1853-1854). Then there are
the published records of numerous towns, which throw much light upon
the political, social, and economic condition of the colonies. The
publications of the Massachusetts Historical Society and of the New
England Historic-Genealogical Society contain much original matter and
many interesting articles upon the early history of both Plymouth and
Massachusetts. Special tracts and documents are referred to in the
foot-notes to chaps, ix.-xiii., above.


RHODE ISLAND

The general histories are J.N. Arnold, _History of the State of Rhode
Island and Providence Plantation_ (2 vols., 1878), and Irving B.
Richman, _Rhode Island, Its Making and Meaning_ (2 vols., 1902). The
chief original authorities for the early history of Rhode Island are
John Winthrop, _History of New England_, and the _Colonial Records_,
beginning in 1636. The publications of the Rhode Island Historical
Society consist of _Collections_ (9 vols.), _Proceedings_ (21
numbers), and _Publications_ (8 vols.). In all of these important
material for history is preserved. The Narragansett Club,
_Publications_ (6 vols.), contain Roger Williams's letters; and there
is some important matter in S.S. Rider, _Rhode Island Historical
Tracts_ (1877-1895), in the _Narragansett Historical Register_ (9
vols.), and the _Newport Historical Reports_ (4 vols.).


CONNECTICUT AND NEW HAVEN

For Connecticut the standard authority is Benjamin Trumbull, _History
of Connecticut_ (2 vols., 1818). Other general histories are by
Theodore Dwight, G.H. Hollister, and W.H. Carpenter. Original material
is found in the _Colonial Records_, edited by J.H. Trumbull and C.J.
Hoadly; Winthrop, _History of New England_; Connecticut Historical
Society, _Proceedings_, which contain Hooker's famous letter to
Winthrop; and Massachusetts Historical Society, _Collections_.

For New Haven the reader should consult Edward E. Atwater, _History of
New Haven_ (1881); Charles H. Levermore, _Republic of New Haven_
(1886); and the publications of the New Haven Historical Society and
the _Records of the Colony of New Haven_, in which the documentary
material is chiefly printed. In connection with this volume the
records of Hartford and of Southold are important. Special authorities
are cited in chaps, xiv., xv. above.


NEW HAMPSHIRE AND MAINE

The standard authority for the history of New Hampshire is Jeremy
Belknap, _History of New Hampshire_ (3 vols., 1784-1813); and that for
Maine is William D. Williamson, _History of Maine_ (2 vols., 1832).
Documents illustrating the history of New Hampshire can be found in
the _New Hampshire Provincial and State Papers_ and in John Scribner
Jenness, _Transcripts of Original Documents in the English Archives
Relating to the Early History of the State of New Hampshire_ (1876).

Important papers occur in the ten volumes of _Collections_ published
by the New Hampshire Historical Society. For Maine the reader is
referred to the _Collections_ of the Massachusetts Historical Society
and those of the Maine Historical Society. Important original material
may be found in _York Deeds_ (11 vols., 1642-1726).

For the early history of both colonies John Winthrop, _History of New
England_, is the principal original authority. The narrative of Gorges
has some value in connection with both colonies. Special tracts and
documents are treated in chap, xvi., above.


DUTCH COLONY OF NEW NETHERLAND

The standard authorities for the early history of this colony are E.B.
O'Callaghan, _History of New Netherland_ (2 vols., 1855), and John
Romeyn Brodhead, _History of the State of New York_ (2 vols., 1872).
The voyage of Henry Hudson is told in Purchas; and the _Documents
Relating to the History of New York_ (15 vols., 1856-1861) collected
by John Romeyn Brodhead shed light on the early Dutch trading-post at
New Amsterdam. The first mention by the English of the Dutch on the
Hudson is made in a work republished in the _Collections_ of the
Massachusetts Historical Society (2d series, IX., 1-25), in which it
is stated that an English sea-captain, Dermer, "met on his voyage from
[Virginia to New England] with certain Hollanders who had a trade in
Hudson River some years before that time, 1619."

For the relations of the Dutch with the English the main authorities
are William Bradford, _Plimoth Plantation_; John Winthrop, _History of
New England_; the "Proceedings of the Federal Commissioners,"
published in _Plymouth Colony Records_, IX., X., and _New Haven
Records_, and Hazard, _State Papers_, II.; and Peter de Vries,
_Journal_ (N.Y. Hist. Soc., _Collections_, 2d series, III.).


NEW SWEDEN

The founding of New Sweden is probably best told in Benjamin Ferris,
_History of the Original Settlements on the Delaware_ (1846),
extracted from works already published in English, and is interesting
and valuable as identifying and describing many of the places
mentioned. Winthrop and the records of the federal commissioners set
out pretty fully the relations with the English colonies.


NEW FRANCE AND ACADIA

A series of chapters in Winsor, _Narrative and Critical History of
America_ (vol. IV., chaps, i.-iv.) tell the story of the founding of
the French dominion in America. The chief original authorities are
Richard Hakluyt, _Voyages_; Samuel de Champlain, _Les Voyages_; Marc
Lescarbot, _Histoire de la Nouvelle France_; and the _Jesuit
Relations_.

For relations with the English the chief original authority is
Winthrop. Among the late French writers the pre-eminence is accorded
to the Jesuit father Pierre Francois Xavier de Charlevoix, _Histoire
de la Nouvelle France_.


RIVALRY WITH SPAIN

The rivalry of England with Spain, which is the greatest underlying
principle of English colonization, is depicted fully in Hakluyt,
_Discourses on Western Planting_, written at Raleigh's request and
shown to Queen Elizabeth; first printed in 1877 by Dr. Charles Deane
in the Maine Hist. Soc., _Collections_ (2d series, II.). The lives of
Gilbert and Raleigh were manifestations of this spirit of rivalry, and
Edward Edwards, _Life of Sir Walter Raleigh_ (2 vols., 1868), contains
the fullest and best account extant of the two half-brothers. In an
excellent little work, _Thomas Hariot and His Associates_ (1900),
developed by Henry Stevens chiefly from dormant material, we have a
most entertaining and interesting account of Thomas Hariot, Sir
Humphrey Gilbert, Sir Walter Raleigh, Jacques Le Moyne, Captain John
White, and other noble spirits associated in the colonization of
America. Compare the critical chapter of E.G. Bourne, _Spain in
America_ (_The American Nation_, III.).


RELIGIOUS INFLUENCES

Religious influences entered largely into the settlement and
development of the different colonies in America. The chief
authorities on the subject are James Carwithen, _History of the Church
of England_ (1849); Daniel Neal, _History of the Puritans_ (1844);
Anderson, _History of the Church of England in the Colonies_ (2 vols.,
2d ed., 1856); William Stevens Perry, _History of the American
Episcopal Church_ (2 vols., 1885); Francis Lister Hawks,
_Contributions to the Ecclesiastical History of the United States_ (2
vols., 1836-1839). William Meade, _Old Churches in Virginia_ (2 vols.,
1857), tells much about the early church in Virginia. In the _Johns
Hopkins University Studies_ are Paul E. Lauer, _Church and State in
New England_, X., Nos. ii., iii.; and George Petrie, _Church and State
in Maryland_, X., No. iv.


SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

For Virginia the economic side has been fully presented by Philip A.
Bruce in his _Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century_
(2 vols., 1896). The social side during the period of the present
volume has not been thoroughly covered by any modern writer. For
Maryland no detailed statement can be found, but much valuable
information is contained in Newton D. Mereness, _Maryland as a
Proprietary Province_ (1901). For New England the social and economic
status is fully presented by William B. Weeden, _Economic and Social
History of New England_ (2 vols., 1891). John G. Palfrey, _History of
New England_ (4 vols.), has also several valuable chapters on the
subject. Edward Eggleston, _Beginners of a Nation_ (1897) and _Transit
of Civilization_ (1900) deal very appreciatively with social elements
and conditions.


INDEX

Acadia, Argall's raid, 72, 149, 289;
  attacks on Plymouth posts, 176, 177;
  settlement, 287;
  English grant and rule, 289;
  restored to France, 290;
  La Tour-Aulnay dissension, 290, 306-309;
  bibliography, 337.

Agamenticus. _See_ York.

Alexander, Sir William, grants, 207, 289, 294;
  expedition against Canada, 289;
  protests restoration, 290.

Antinomian controversy, 219-228;
  Anne Hutchinson's doctrines, 219;
  factions, 220, 221;
  ministerial conferences, 220, 225;
  political aspect, 221-225;
  Antinomians banished, 226-228;
  effect, 228.

Archer, Gabriel, in Virginia, 43, 52, 54, 63.

Argall, Samuel, relieves Virginia, 59, 63, 68;
  deputy governor, 70, 77;
  captures Pocahontas, 71;
  raids on Acadia, 72, 149, 289;
  tyranny, 77, 78;
  colonizing plan, 292.

Assistants, in Plymouth, 179;
  in Massachusetts, elective, 188, 203;
  permanent tenure, 201, 202;
  as a court, 202, 203;
  legislative power, 203;
  in Connecticut, 258;
  tenure, 259.

Aulnay, Sieur d', in Acadia, quarrel with La Tour 290, 306-309.

Baltimore, Cecilius, Lord, early years, character, 123;
  power as proprietary, 123-126;
  religious toleration, 125, 126, 139, 140, 143, 144;
  control of legislation, 131, 133;
  and Kent Island affair, 135-138;
  deposed by king, 142, 145;
  and Parliament, 143, 145-147.

Baltimore, George, Lord, early years, 118;
  settlement in Newfoundland, 118, 119;
  Catholic, 119;
  ennobled, 119;
  in Virginia, 119;
  seeks grant in Virginia, 119-121;
  first charter, 121;
  opposition of Virginia, 120-123;
  Maryland charter, 121;
  death, 122.

Baptists, in Rhode Island, 237;
  persecuted in Massachusetts, 238.

Bennett, Richard, commissioner, 111, 112;
  governor of Virginia, 113;
  in Maryland, 147.

Berkeley, Sir William, royalist governor of Virginia, 105;
  and Puritans, 106, 108;
  and parliamentary commission, 112.

Bermudas, Gates at, 62.

Bibliographies of period 1574-1652, 328.

Bicameral legislatures, 93, 133, 203, 258.

Boston, Blackstone's house, 175;
  settled, 198.

Boundaries, Virginia charter (1606), 37; (1609), 61;
  Maryland charter, 121;
  New England charter, 152;
  Plymouth, 173;
  Massachusetts charter, 184, 270, 279;
  Rhode Island charter, 235;
  New Netherland charter, 292, 313;
  Massachusetts-Plymouth, 298;
  Massachusetts-Connecticut, 304;
  New England-New Netherland, 313, 314.

Bradford, William, Separatist, 156;
  in Leyden, 158;
  emigrates, 160;
  governor of Plymouth, 164.

Brewster, William, Separatist, 155;
  in Leyden, 157;
  emigrates, 160;
  minister in Plymouth, 181.

Brooke, Lord, grant in Connecticut, 248;
  buys Dover, 268, 271.

Cabot, John, voyage, 6.

Cabot, Sebastian, and English trade, 8.

Calvert, Leonard, governor of Maryland, 126;
  Kent Island affair, 135-138;
  letters of marque, 140;
  driven from Maryland, 141;
  regains control, 142;
  death, 143.

Cambridge platform, 320, 321.

Canada, French voyages, 284;
  Roberval's colony, 285;
  colonizing company, 286;
  Quebec settled, 288;
  origin of Iroquois hostility, 288;
  company reorganized, 288;
  supplies captured, 289;
  Alexander's grant, 289;
  English capture, 290;
  restored to France, 290;
  and Massachusetts' trade, 309;
  bibliography, 337.

Cape Ann, Plymouth claim, 170;
  Dorchester settlers, 170;
  trouble, 171;
  settlement moved, 183.

Cartier, Jacques, voyages, 284, 285.

Carver, John, Separatist, in Leyden, 158;
  seeks patent, 150;
  emigrates, 160;
  governor of Plymouth, 161;
  death, 164.

Casco. See Falmouth.

Catholics, in Maryland, 126, 139, 140;
  missionaries in Canada, 287, 288, 290.

Cavendish, Thomas, voyage, 13;
  with Raleigh's colony, 23.

Challons, Henry, attempted settlement, 39.

Champlain, Samuel, first visit to Canada, 286;
  in Acadia, 287;
  settles Quebec, 288;
  attacks Iroquois, 288;
  surrenders, 290;
  return to Canada, 290.

Chancellor, Richard, voyage, 8.

Charles I., and Virginia, 91-96, 99, 105, 120;
  and Baltimore, 120;
  and Kent Island, 136-138;
  and Massachusetts, 204-209.

Charlestown, Walford's settlement, 175;
  laid out, named, 190;
  sickness, 196, 198.

Charters, Merchant Adventurers (1554), 8;
  trading (1566), 14;
  Gilbert (1578), 15;
  Raleigh (1584), 22;
  Virginia (1606), 36-38; (1609), 59-61; (1612), 76; annulled, 88;
  Virginia parliamentary, 105;
  Maryland (1632), 122-126;
  New England (1620), 152; resigned, 207;
  Massachusetts, (1629), 188, 189;
  Rhode Island (1644), 235;
  Gorges (1637), 275.
  _See also_ Grants.

Chelsea, settled, 175.

Church of England in Virginia, 80, 106;
  improved ministry, 110.

Claiborne, William, Kent Island settlement, 95, 134;
  and Harvey, 96;
  commissioner, 111, 112;
  opposes Baltimore's charter, 121;
  career, 121;
  denies Baltimore's authority, 135;
  arrest ordered, 136;
  appeals to king, 136, 137;
  conflict on island, 136;
  treachery of Evelin, 137;
  island seized, 138;
  attainted, 138;
  claim invalidated, 138;
  property confiscated, 138;
  return to Kent Island, 142;
  ascendency in Maryland, 147.

Cocheco. _See_ Dover.

Coddington, William, in Rhode Island, 229, 237;
  royal commission, 237, 238.

Colonies, English, Gilbert's charter, 15;
  immunities, 16;
  Gilbert's attempts, 16-21;
  debt to Raleigh, 32;
  Gosnold and Gilbert's attempt, 34;
  joint-stock companies, 36;
  royal administration, 96, 206;
  connected history, 282;
  bibliography, 329-331;
  bibliography on religious influences, 338;
  bibliography on social and economic conditions, 338.
  _See also_ colonies and companies by name.

Colonies, French. _See_ Acadia, Canada.

Colonies, Spanish, influence on Spain, 4;
  and Hawkins, 9, 10;
  Drake's attacks, 11, 12;
  Cavendish plunders, 13;
  bibliography on English relations, 337.

Commission for Foreign Plantations, 96, 206.

Communism in Virginia, 59, 73, 77, 79;
  in Plymouth, 167.

Conant, Roger, in Massachusetts, 170, 171, 183.

Congregationalism, beginnings, 154;
  established in Massachusetts, 190, 196, 201, 202, 210;
  disclaimed, 194, 197;
  Massachusetts clergy, 200, 205;
  opposition, 211, 212;
  Antinomian controversy, 219-228;
  in Connecticut, 258;
  in New Haven, 263;
  Cambridge platform, 320;
  effect, 321.
  _See also_ Pilgrims.

Connecticut, elements, 239;
  Plymouth's interest, 240-242, 245;
  Dutch in, 241, 249, 310, 316;
  migration from Massachusetts, 242-247;
  settled by organized communities, 247;
  Saltonstall's settlement, 248;
  Saybrook, 249;
  union of settlements, 250;
  Pequot War, 251-257;
  Fundamental Orders, 257-259;
  suffrage, 258;
  theocracy, 258;
  tenure of office, 259;
  growth, 259, 260;
  acquires Fenwick patent, 260;
  population (1653), 260;
  Massachusetts boundary, 304;
  river tolls, 304-306;
  bibliography, 335.
  _See also_ New England.

Constitutions, Connecticut (1639), 257-259.

Cotton, John, in Massachusetts, 205;
  character, 218, 243, 321;
  and Antinomianism, 220, 223, 226, 227;
  death, 321.

Council in Maryland, 129.
  _See also_ Assistants.

Council for New England, charter, 152;
  territory, 152;
  patent to Plymouth, 164;
  grant to Weston, 166;
  fishing monopoly endangered, 167;
  temporary activity, 168;
  division, 168, 185;
  discouraged, 169;
  grant to Massachusetts, 184;
  conflicting grants, 185;
  redivision, 207;
  resigns charter, 207;
  grants to Mason and Gorges, 266, 268;
  other Maine grants, 274-277.
  _See also_ Plymouth Company.

Courts, Maryland, 129;
  New England codes, 180, 203, 326;
  assistants, in Massachusetts, 202, 203;
  New Haven, 265.

Dale, Sir Thomas, deputy governor of Virginia, policy and discipline, 70;
  and Indians, 71;
  expeditions against French, 72;
  abolishes communism, 73;
  departs, 74.

Davenport, John, purpose, 260;
  in Boston, 261;
  settles New Haven, 261;
  organizes government, 262.

Davis, John, voyages, 15.

Delaware, Lord, governor of Virginia, 61, 78;
  arrival, 67, 68;
  administration, 68, 69;
  death, 78.

Delaware River, named, 72;
  Dutch on, 293;
  Dutch and Virginians, 294;
  Swedes on, 296;
  New Haven on, 296, 311, 315.

Denys, Jean, voyage, 284.

Dorchester, settled, 198;
  restless, 242;
  emigration to Connecticut, 245, 246;
  settles Windsor, 247;
  town government, 323.

Dorchester adventurers, settlement, 170;
  renewed activity, 183;
  patent, 184.
  _See also_ Massachusetts.

Dover (Cocheco), settlement, 175, 267;
  feeble existence, 268;
  Puritans control, 268;
  Antinomian settlers, 269;
  dissensions, 269;
  civil contract, 270;
  annexed by Massachusetts, 271.

Drake, Sir Francis, with Hawkins, 10;
  early years, 10;
  attack on Panama, 11;
  on Pacific settlements, 12;
  circumnavigation, 12;
  Elizabeth's reception, 13;
  rescues Raleigh's colony, 25.

Dudley, Thomas, agrees to emigrate, 193;
  deputy governor of Massachusetts, 193, 224;
  disclaims Separatism, 197;
  governor, 200, 215.

Eaton, Theophilus, purpose, 260;
  governor of New Haven, 263.

Economic condition, England (1606), 39;
  Virginia (1648), 110;
  New England (1652), 322;
  money in New England, 325.

Education, in Virginia, 116, 117;
  in Maryland, 147;
  in Plymouth, 181;
  public, in Massachusetts, 323;
  Harvard College, 324;
  in Connecticut, 324;
  extent in New England, 325.

Eliot, John, contumacy, 211;
  Indian mission, 303.

Elizabeth, and Hawkins, 10;
  and Drake, 13;
  and Frobisher, 14;
  and Gilbert, 15, 18;
  and Raleigh, 21;
  names Virginia, 23;
  support of Protestantism, 28;
  and Puritans, 153.

Endicott, John, grantee, 184;
  at Salem, 186;
  suppresses Merry Mount, 186;
  anticipates Oldham, 190;
  Congregationalist, 190;
  banishes Conformists, 191;
  and Morton, 192;
  defaces flag, 206;
  expedition against Pequots, 252;
  character, 321.

England, spirit of progress, 3, 4;
  religious conditions, 5;
  Spanish rivalry, 5;
  claim to America, 6;
  unprepared for colonization, 7;
  fisheries, 7;
  trade development (1550) 8;
  slave-trade, 8-10;
  trade under Mary, 9;
  private attacks on Spanish colonies, 10-13;
  search for northwest passage, 14;
  Spanish war, 28-30, 35;
  Armada, 30;
  economic condition (1606), 39;
  Puritanism, 153;
  Separatism, 154-156;
  and French colonies, 289;
  and New Netherland, 292;
  bibliography on Spanish relations, 337.
  _See also_ colonies, and sovereigns by name.

Evelin, George, and Kent Island, 137.

Exeter, settled, 269;
  civil contract, 270;
  annexed by Massachusetts, 272.

Falmouth (Casco), Cleves at, 277;
  submits to Massachusetts, 281.

Fenwick, George, patent, 260, 304.

Ferdinando, Simon, voyage, 17.

Fisheries, English interests, 9;
  New England monopoly, 168.

Frobisher, Martin, voyages, 14.

Fur-trade, New England monopoly, 168;
  French grants, 286, 287;
  Dutch, 291, 293.

Gates, Sir Thomas, governor of Virginia, 61, 70;
  at Bermudas, 62;
  at Jamestown, 62, 67.

Gilbert, Bartholomew, attempted colony, 34.

Gilbert, Sir Humphrey, purpose, 6;
  early years, 13;
  first efforts, 14;
  pamphlet, 14;
  charter, 15;
  first expedition, 16;
  preparation for second, 17;
  second, 18-21;
  death, 20.

Gorges, Sir Ferdinando, career, 151;
  colonial activity, 151;
  opposition to Massachusetts, 187, 204-209;
  grants, 207, 266, 268;
  general governor, 208;
  Massachusetts annexes grant, 209, 279, 280;
  settlements in territory, 272-274, 276, 277;
  charter and regulations, 275;
  and Plough patent, 277, 278;
  death, 278.

Gorges, John, patent, 187;
  grant to Oldham, 187;
  heir, 274.

Gorges, Robert, settlement, 168;
  and Weston, 169;
  grant, 185, 186;
  heir, 187.

Gorton, Samuel, settlement, 230, 233;
  character, 232;
  trouble with Massachusetts, 232-234;
  banished, 234;
  return, 234.

Gosnold, Bartholomew, attempted colony, 34;
  in Virginia, 42, 49;
  death, 51.

Governors, Virginia, under charter, 61, 79, 80;
  elective, in Plymouth, 179;
  in Massachusetts, 199, 202;
  in Connecticut, 258, 259;
  in New Haven, 263, 264.

Grants, Heath (1629), 120;
  Pilgrims, 159, 164, 172;
  Weston (1622), 166;
  Pierce (1623), 167;
  Massachusetts (1628), 184;
  conflicting, 185;
  Mason and Gorges (1622), 185, 266; (1629), 267, 268; (1631), 268;
  R. Gorges (1622) 185;
  Sheffield (1623) 185;
  E. Gorges (1623), 185;
  division of New England (1635), 207;
  Say and Brooke (1631), 248;
  various, in Maine, 274, 276;
  Plough, 277;
  Monts. (1604), 286;
  Alexander (1621, 1628), 289;
  Plowden (1632), 294.
  _See also_ Charters.

Grenville, Sir Richard, and Gilbert's plan, 15;
  conducts Raleigh's colony, 23, 26;
  captures Spanish ship, 24;
  death, 24.

Hakluyt, Richard, and Gilbert's plan, 15, 17;
  Western Planting, 22;
  buys trade right, 31;
  trade venture, 35;
  instructions to settlers, 42.

Hanham, Thomas, voyage, 39.

Hartford, Dutch fort, 241, 310, 316;
  English settlers, 247.

Harvard College, 324.

Harvey, John, governor of Virginia, 93;
  conduct, 96;
  deposed, 97, 136;
  reinstated, 98;
  called to account, 104.

Hawkins, Sir John, slave-trade, 9;
  attacked by Spanish, 10.

Hawkins, William, slave-trade, 8.

Haynes, John, governor of Connecticut, 200;
  effort for confederation, 297.

Higginson, Francis, minister at Salem, 191;
  death, 198.

Hooker, Thomas, in Massachusetts, 205;
  liberality, 243;
  goes to Connecticut, 247;
  effort for confederation, 297.

Hore, voyage, 7.

Houses, Virginia, 114.

Hudson, Henry, voyage, 291.

Hutchinson, Anne, doctrine, 219;
  following and controversy, 220-225;
  punishment of followers, 225, 226;
  banished, 226-228;
  in Rhode Island, 228;
  under surveillance, 231;
  removes, 231;
  slain, 231.

Indians, and Raleigh's colony, 27, 28;
  Virginia confederacies, 44, 45;
  houses, 45;
  religion, 45;
  adoption of victims, 46-48;
  maidens' dance, 48;
  and Virginia, 49, 51, 65, 66, 68, 71;
  massacres in Virginia, 85, 107;
  peace, 108;
  and Maryland, 127, 136, 139;
  pestilence in New England, 152;
  and Plymouth, 163-165, 177;
  and Massachusetts, 200;
  Roger Williams's influence, 213, 217, 253;
  Narragansett-Mohegan war, 233, 301;
  Pequot War, 251-257;
  and French, 288;
  and New England Confederation, 300-302;
  New England missions, 302-304;
  number of praying, 304;
  Dutch war, 296, 311.

Ingle, Richard, in Maryland, 141.

Iroquois, and English, 256;
  origin of hostility to French, 288.

James I., and London Company, 82, 83, 86-88, 90;
  and Separatists, 155;
  and Pilgrims, 159.

Jamestown, founded, 50;
  burned, 53;
  in 1634, 101;
  improved houses, 102.

Kent Island, occupied, 95;
  Virginia's claim, 134;
  Baltimore's authority denied, 135;
  seizure ordered, 136;
  conflict, 136;
  royal order, 137;
  Evelin's treachery, 137;
  reduced by Calvert, 138;
  decreed to Baltimore, 138;
  Claiborne's return, 142.

Kieft, William, governor of New Netherland, 296;
  and New England, 310-312.

Kittery, settlement, 278;
  submits to Massachusetts, 280.

Land, allotment in Virginia, 79;
  manors in Maryland, 130;
  division in Plymouth, 167;
  in Massachusetts, 189;
  Williams's objection to titles, 213, 214.

La Roche, Marquis de, colony, 286.

La Tour, Charles de, in Acadia, quarrel with Aulnay, 290, 306-309;
  Massachusetts aids, 291, 306-309.

Legislation, of Virginia's first assembly, 80;
  on tobacco, 103;
  initiative in Maryland, 131, 133;
  Maryland Toleration Act, 144;
  New England codes, 180, 203, 326;
  initiative in Massachusetts, 203;
  New England sumptuary, 326.

Lery, Baron de, attempted settlement, 284.

Literature in New England, 327.

London Company, charter, 36-38;
  patron, 37;
  government, 37-39;
  new charter, 59-61;
  third charter, 76;
  self-government, 76;
  policy, 76;
  control, 81;
  and the king, 82;
  Sandys's enterprise, 82;
  overthrow, 86-88;
  service, 88;
  loyalty of colony, 89;
  attempts to restore, 91, 95, 104-106;
  patents to Pilgrims, 159.
  _See also_ Virginia.

Long Island, Plowden's grant, 294;
  Alexander's grant, 294;
  English settlements, 296.

Lyford, John, in Plymouth and Massachusetts, 170, 171.

Lynn, settled, 198.

Mace, Samuel, voyage, 33.

Maine, Popham's colony, 40, 41;
  grants, 207, 266, 268, 274-277;
  Massachusetts annexes, 209, 279-281;
  settlements, 267, 273;
  origin of name, 272;
  Gorges's charter and regulations, 275;
  Massachusetts buys a patent, 276;
  Plough patent resisted and arbitrated, 277, 278;
  union of Gorges's settlements, 278;
  results of annexation, 281;
  bibliography, 336.

Manhattan purchased, 293.

Manors in Maryland, 129, 130.

Manufactures, New England, 322.

Maps, Virginia (1608), 57;
  New England (1614), 150.

Maryland, Virginia's protest, 96, 122;
  Puritan settlers, 109, 144;
  charter, 121, 122;
  boundaries, 121;
  named, 122;
  power of proprietary, 123-126;
  legislative power, 125;
  religious freedom, 125, 139, 140, 143, 144;
  first settlers, 126;
  leaving England, 126;
  and Indians, 127, 136, 139;
  settlement, 127;
  conditions favoring growth, 128;
  servants, 128;
  rural society, 129;
  government, 129;
  manors, 130;
  democracy, 130;
  origin of laws, 131, 133;
  composition of assembly, 133;
  Kent Island affair, 134-139;
  Catholic propaganda, 139;
  and Great Rebellion, 140;
  and Ingle, 141;
  Protestant revolt, 141, 142;
  Calvert regains control, 142;
  Stone governor, 143;
  and Parliament, 143, 145-147;
  oath of fidelity, 145;
  parliamentary control, 147;
  population (1652), 147;
  social conditions, 147;
  bibliography, 332-334.

Mason, John, grants, 185, 207, 266-268;
  opposition to Massachusetts, 204-208;
  death, 208;
  Massachusetts annexes grant, 209, 271, 272;
  settlements in territory, 268-270.

Mason, John, in Pequot War, 254-256.

Massachusetts, trade with Virginia, 104;
  minor settlements, 166, 168, 170, 175;
  Dorchester adventurers, 170, 183;
  Merry Mount, 174, 186, 192, 197;
  religion not primary interest, 184;
  patent, 184, 185;
  boundaries, 184, 270;
  conflicting grants, 185;
  Salem reinforced, 186;
  government for colonists, 189;
  land allotment, 189;
  and Oldham's claim, 187, 190;
  charter, government, 188, 189;
  Congregationalism established, 190, 192, 196, 201, 202, 210;
  religious persecution, 191, 201, 211, 237, 319;
  government transferred to America, 193;
  great emigration, cause, 193-195;
  sickness, 195, 196, 198, 199;
  towns (1630), 198;
  first general court, 199;
  governors, 199;
  and Indians, 200;
  rise of theocracy, 200-202;
  quality of clergy, 200, 205;
  assistants usurp power, 201;
  restricted suffrage, 202, 210, 211;
  criminal law, 202;
  representation established, 202, 203;
  popular elections, 203;
  origin of laws, 203;
  code, 203;
  opposition in England, 204-209;
  temporarily sustained, 204;
  and Laud, 205;
  increased immigration, 205;
  population (1634), 205; (1643), 209;
  charter demanded, 205, 208;
  prepares for resistance, 206;
  and English flag, 206;
  petition, 206;
  judgment against, frustrated, 208;
  annexes New Hampshire and Maine, 209, 271, 272, 279-281;
  opposition to religious despotism, 211, 212;
  Williams incident, 212-218;
  religious regulations, 218;
  Antinomian controversy, 219-228;
  its effect, 228;
  and Rhode Island, 230, 231, 235-238;
  and Gorton, 232-235;
  parliamentary grant, 235;
  and settlement of Connecticut, 240-242;
  emigration to Connecticut, 242-247;
  opposition to restricted suffrage, 243, 271, 319;
  and Pequot War, 251-253, 256;
  and Davenport's colony, 261;
  buys a Maine patent, 276;
  arbitrates on Plough patent, 277;
  influence of annexations, 281;
  and La Tour, 291, 306-309;
  boundary disputes, 298, 304;
  and trade with Canada, 309;
  and Parliament, 318;
  Cambridge platform, 320;
  "glacial period," 321;
  mint, 325;
  bibliography, 334.
  _See also_ New England.

Maverick, Samuel, settlement, 175;
  grant, 274;
  fined, 319.

Mayhew, Thomas, Indian mission, 302-304.

Merry Mount, settlement, 174;
  suppressed, 174, 186;
  Morton's return, 192.

Miantonomoh, and Gorton, 233;
  captured and slain, 233.

Minuit, Peter, governor of New Netherland, 293;
  Swedish colony, 296.

Mohegans, Narragansett war, 233, 300-302.

Money in New England, 325.

Monts, Sieur de, grant, 286;
  attempted settlement, 287.

Morton, Thomas, at Merry Mount, 174;
  sent to England, 175, 197;
  return, 192;
  attorney against Massachusetts, 208.

Mount Desert Island, French settlement reduced, 72, 149, 289.

Mystic, settled, 198.

Nantasket, settled, 170.

Narragansetts, and Plymouth, 165;
  Mohegan war, 233, 300;
  and Pequot War, 251, 253;
  and New England Confederation, 300-302.

Netherlands, Separatists in, 154-158;
  voyages to America, 291.

New England, coast explorations, 34, 35, 40, 150;
  map (1614), 150;
  named, 150;
  attempted settlement, 150;
  Indian pestilence, 152;
  settlements (1628), 175;
  population (1643), 209; (1652), 322;
  preparation against Dutch, 316;
  communication, 322;
  trade, 322;
  ship-building, 322;
  manufactures, 322;
  town government, 322, 323;
  education, 323-325;
  money, 325;
  marriage, 326;
  sumptuary laws, 326;
  criminal laws, 326;
  social character, 326;
  literature, 327;
  bibliography on Dutch relations, 337;
  bibliography on French relations, 337.
  _See also_ next title, Council for New England, Plymouth Company, and
  colonies by name.

New England Confederation, causes and attempts, 282, 297, 298;
  organized, members, 298;
  object, management, powers, support, 299;
  defects, 300;
  population, 300;
  and Indian war, 300-302;
  and Massachusetts, 301, 305, 306, 308, 310, 316, 317;
  appointment of commander, 301;
  and Indian missions, 302-304;
  boundary decision, 304;
  Connecticut River tolls, 304-306;
  and French, 308, 310;
  and Dutch, 311-313;
  Dutch treaty, 313, 314;
  war threats, 315-317;
  permanency thwarted, 317.

New Hampshire, Massachusetts annexes, 209, 271, 272;
  grants, 266, 267;
  settlements, 267, 269, 270;
  named, 268;
  feebleness, 268;
  dissensions, 269;
  civil contracts, 270;
  Massachusetts' claim, 270;
  suffrage after annexation, 271;
  and the confederation, 298;
  bibliography, 336.
  _See also_ New England.

New Haven, settlers' plan, 260;
  settled, 261;
  purchase from Indians, 262;
  government, 262-264;
  suffrage, 262-264;
  union, 264;
  growth, 265;
  on Delaware, 296, 311, 315;
  Kieft's bluster, 312;
  trade ventures, 315;
  migration considered, 315;
  bibliography, 335.
  _See also_ New England.

New London, settled, 260;
  jurisdiction, 304.

New Netherland, Argall in, 72;
  and Plymouth, 175, 240;
  on Connecticut, 239-242, 249;
  trade charter, 292;
  boundaries, 292, 313;
  English protest, 292;
  settlement, 293;
  patroonships, 293;
  English encroachments, 294-296, 310-312, 315;
  Indian war, 296, 311;
  New England boundary, 313, 314;
  New England war threats, 315-317;
  bibliography, 336, 337.

New Sweden, settlement, 296;
  bibliography, 337.

Newfoundland, English voyages, 7;
  fisheries, 7;
  Gilbert at, 19, 20;
  Calvert's settlement, 118.

Newport, Christopher, conducts Virginia colony, 42;
  in council, 49;
  seeks gold mine, 50;
  visits, 52, 53, 55-57, 62.

Newport, settled, 229.

Newtown, restless, 242;
  migration to Connecticut, 244, 246;
  settles Hartford, 247.

Northwest passage, search, 8, 14, 15;
  Gilbert's pamphlet, 14.

Norton, John, bigotry, 321.

Oldham, John, in Plymouth, 170;
  at Nantasket and Cape Ann, 170, 171;
  and Massachusetts Company, 187, 190;
  killed, 252.

Opechancanough, massacres, 85, 107;
  captured and slain, 108.

Parliament, trade charter (1566), 14;
  sanctions Raleigh's charter, 22;
  and Virginia, 111-113;
  and Maryland, 143, 145-147;
  and Massachusetts, 235, 318;
  charter to Rhode Island, 235.

Patents. _See_ Charters, Grants.

Patroonships in New Netherland, 293.

Pemaquid, settled, 273.

Pequot War, 251-257;
  killing of Stone, 251, 252;
  Massachusetts' expedition, 252;
  Narragansett alliance, 253;
  settlements attacked, 254;
  capture of Indian fort, 254-256;
  Pequots exterminated, 256;
  results, 257.

Percy, George, in Virginia, 43, 64, 65.

Pilgrims, English congregation, 155;
  leaders, 155;
  flight to Holland, 156;
  at Leyden, 157, 158;
  decide to settle in Virginia, 158;
  James I.'s attitude, 159;
  patents, 159;
  financial arrangement, 159;
  voyage, 160;
  land-fall, 160;
  compact, 161;
  settlement, 161.
  _See also_ Plymouth.

Piscataqua. _See_ Portsmouth.

Plymouth, settlement, 161;
  named, 162;
  scurvy, 163;
  and Indians, 163-165, 177;
  first summer, 164;
  patents, 164, 172, 178;
  first cargo, 165;
  and Weston's settlers, 166;
  trouble with partners, 167, 169;
  land division, 167;
  character of immigrants, 169, 170;
  conspiracy, 170;
  Cape Ann trouble, 170;
  buys out partners, 171;
  trading-posts, 172;
  reunion, 172;
  boundaries, 173;
  and Merry Mount, 174;
  and Dutch, 175, 240;
  French attacks, 176, 177;
  on Connecticut, 177, 239-242, 245;
  growth, 178;
  government, 179;
  suffrage, 180;
  code, 180;
  town government, 180;
  ministers, 181;
  education, 181;
  thrift, 181;
  significance, 182;
  and Roger Williams, 217, 218;
  boundary dispute, 298;
  bibliography, 334.
  _See also_ New England, Pilgrims.

Plymouth Company, charter, 36-38;
  patrons, 37;
  government, 37-39;
  attempted settlements, 39-41, 150;
  inactive, 149;
  Gorges's activity, 151;
  reorganized, 152.
  _See also_ Council for New England.

Plough patent, 277;
  resisted and arbitrated, 277, 278.

Pocahontas, rescues Smith, 46-48;
  dance, 48;
  seized, 71;
  married, 71;
  in England, 74;
  death, 77.

Popham, George, colony, 40;
  death, 41;
  fate of colony, 41.

Popham, Sir John, and Zuniga, 36;
  patron of Plymouth Company, 37;
  colony, 40;
  death, 41.

Population, Virginia (1629), 93; (1635), 100; (1652), 114;
  Maryland (1652), 147;
  Massachusetts (1634), 205; (1643), 209;
  New England (1643), 209, 300; (1652), 322;
  Connecticut (1653), 260.

Port Royal, Argall reduces, 72, 149, 289;
  settlement, 287;
   rebuilt, 289.

Portsmouth (Piscataqua), N.H., settled, 175, 267;
  feeble existence, 268;
  Anglicanism, 268;
  civil contract, 270;
  annexed by Massachusetts, 271.

Portsmouth, R.I., settled, 229.

Potato, introduction, 26.

Pott, John, in Virginia, 93, 94;
  and Baltimore, 119.

Poutrincourt at Port Royal, 287.

Powhatan, chief of confederacy, 44, 45;
  crowned, 56;
  and Virginia, 69-71;
  death, 85.

Prado, de, voyage, 7.

Presbyterianism, Massachusetts' attitude, 319-321.

Pring, Martin, voyage, 35, 39.

Providence, Md., founded, 109, 144.

Providence, R.I., settled, 218;
  growth, 230;
  and Gorton, 232;
  union with Rhode Island, 235, 237.

Puritans, in Virginia, 106;
  in Maryland, 109, 144, 145;
  rise, 153;
  Separatists, 154-156.
  _See also_ New England colonies by name.

Quebec, settled, 288;
  captured, 290.

_Quo warranto_ against Virginia Company, 88.

Raleigh, Sir Walter, and Gilbert's plan, 15;
  voyage with Gilbert, 16;
  appearance, 21;
  accomplishments, 21;
  royal favor, 21;
  charter, 22;
  exploring expedition, 22, 23;
  first colony, 23-25;
  second, 26, 27;
  introduces potato and tobacco, 26;
  third colony, 27;
  colony and Indians, 27, 28, 32;
  and Armada, 29;
  relief expeditions, 30;
  assigns trade right, 31;
  fate of colony, 31, 32;
  place in history, 32;
  fall, 33;
  in Guinea, 33;
  executed, 33;
  monopoly abrogated, 35;
  search for colony, 56.

Ratcliffe, John, in Virginia, 43, 49, 57, 63;
  president, 51;
  and Smith, 52, 63;
  deposed, 54;
  slain, 65.

Religion, influence on Spain, 4;
  on England, 5;
  freedom in Maryland, 125, 139, 140, 143, 144;
  persecution in Massachusetts, 191, 201, 211, 237, 319;
  theocracy in New England, 200-202, 258, 262-264;
  freedom in Rhode Island, 238;
  Indian missions, 302-304;
  bibliography on influence, 338.
  _See also_ sects by name.

Representation, Virginia, 79, 80, 92-94;
  and taxation in Virginia, 90, 96, 113;
  James I.'s policy, 91;
  Maryland, 125, 133;
  Plymouth, 179;
  Massachusetts, 202, 203;
  Connecticut, 250, 258;
  New Haven, 265;
  town unit, 322.
  _See also_ Suffrage.

Rhode Island, Providence settled, 218;
  island purchased and settled, 229;
  body politic, 229;
  union of settlements, 230, 237, 238;
  attitude of Massachusetts, 230, 231, 235-238;
  parliamentary charter, 235;
  boundaries, 235;
  Gorton's settlement, 232-235;
  Coddington's commission, 237, 238;
  Baptists in, 237;
  religious freedom, 238;
  and New England Confederation, 298;
  named, 292;
  bibliography, 335.
  _See also_ New England.

Richelieu and Canada, 288.

Roberval, colony, 285.

Robinson, John, character, 155;
  in Leyden, 157;
  remains there, 160;
  death, 172.

Rolfe, John, marries Pocahontas, 72;
  plants tobacco, 75;
  secretary of state, 77.

Roxbury, settled, 198;
  emigration to Springfield, 247.

Russia, English voyages, 8.

Sable Island, attempted settlements, 284, 286.

Saco, settlement, 273;
  and Plough patent, 277;
  submits to Massachusetts, 280.

St. Croix, French settlement reduced, 72, 149, 289.

St. Mary's, founded, 127.

Salem (Naumkeag), settled, 175, 183;
  Endicott at, 186;
  named, 186;
  sickness, 186, 195;
  and Roger Williams, 213-217.

Saltonstall, Sir Richard, agrees to emigrate, 193;
  attempted settlement, 248.

Sandys, Sir Edwin, in London Company, policy, 76, 78;
  treasurer, 81;
  enterprise, 82;
  royal opposition, 82;
  and Charles I., 91.

Say and Sele, Lord, grant, 248;
  buys Dover, 268, 271.

Saybrook, founded, 249, 259;
  sold to Connecticut, 260.

Scarboro, grant of site, 274;
  submits to Massachusetts, 281.

Scrivener, Matthew, in Virginia, 54, 57;
  death, 57.

Separatism, rise, 154;
  refuge in Holland, 154-156.
  _See also_ Congregationalism, Pilgrims.

Servants, in Virginia, 100, 115;
  in Maryland, 128.

Sheriff, in Maryland, 129.

Ship-building, New England, 322.

Slave-trade, English, 8-10.

Slavery, introduction, 81;
  social influence, 116, 147.

Smith, John, Virginia settler, 43;
  career, 43;
  rescued by Pocahontas, 46-48;
  arrested, 49;
  in council, 49;
  cape merchant, 51;
  supplies from Indians, 52;
  captured, 52;
  condemned by Ratcliffe, 52;
  restored, 53;
  president, 54;
  answer to company's complaints, 57;
  maps, 57, 150;
  sole ruler, 57, 63;
  avoids famine, 58;
  deposed, 64:
  leaves, 64;
  on coast of New England, 150;
  attempted settlement, 150;
  captured by French, 151;
  service to New England, 152.

Smith, Sir Thomas, buys trade right, 31;
  in London Company, 76, 78, 81.

Social conditions, slavery, 81, 116, 147;
  servants, 100, 115, 128;
  Virginia (1634), 101-103; (1648), 110;
  houses, 114;
  hospitality, 115;
  absence of towns, 115, 129;
  Virginia education, 116, 117;
  Maryland (1652), 147;
  New England criminal codes, 180, 203, 326;
  influence of Calvinism, 321;
  New England towns, 322, 323;
  education, 323-325;
  marriage, 326;
  sumptuary laws, 326;
  general characteristics, 326;
  literature, 327;
  bibliography, 338.

Somers, Sir George, at Bermudas, 62;
  death, 68.

Sources, on period 1574-1652, 329-331;
  on Virginia, 331, 332;
  on Maryland, 333;
  on Plymouth and Massachusetts, 334;
  on Rhode Island, 335;
  on Connecticut and New Haven, 335;
  on New Hampshire and Maine, 336;
  on New Netherland, 336, 337;
  on French colonies, 337.

Southampton, earl of, in London Company, 34, 35, 77, 82.

Southampton, joins Connecticut, 259;
  settled, 296.

Southold, union with New Haven, 265;
  settled, 296.

Spain, decay, 3;
  influence of colonial empire, 4;
  religious influences, 4;
  English rivalry, 5;
  and Drake's attacks, 13;
  attacks Gilbert's expedition, 16;
  English war, 28-30, 35;
  Armada, 30;
  power destroyed, 30;
  and English colonies, 36, 60, 74, 283, 284.
  _See also_ colonies.

Springfield, settled, 247;
  and river-tolls, 305.

Standish, Miles, Separatist, in Leyden, 158;
  exploration, 161;
  suppresses Merry Mount, 175.

Stone, William, governor of Maryland, 143, 144;
  removed and restored, 147.

Stuyvesant, Peter, and New England Confederation, 312;
  treaty, 313, 314.

Suffrage, Virginia, 116;
  Plymouth, 180;
  Massachusetts, 202, 210, 211, 243, 319;
  Connecticut, 258;
  New Haven, 262-264;
  New Hampshire, 271.

Taxation and representation in Virginia, 90, 96, 113.

Theocracy in New England, 200-202, 258, 262-264.

Thompson, David, settlements, 175, 267.

Tobacco, Raleigh introduces, 26;
  cultivation begun, 75;
  growth of trade, 83, 92;
  duty, 83, 93;
  monopoly, 86, 93;
  fall in price, 103;
  legislation, 103;
  in Maryland, 128.

Towns, absence in Virginia, 115;
  and in Maryland, 129;
  government in Plymouth, 180;
  unit in New England, 322;
  meetings, 323;
  selectmen, 323;
  business 323.

Trade, English, development (1550), 8;
  slave-trade, 8-10;
  direction under Mary, 9;
  Hawkins's voyages, 9;
  tobacco, 83, 86, 92, 103;
  Virginia, 100, 103;
  fur, 168, 286, 287, 291, 293;
  New England, 322.

Travel, New England conditions (1652), 322.

Treaties, St. Germain (1632), 290;
  Hartford (1650), 314.

Twiller, Wouter van, and claim to Connecticut, 242;
  governor of New Netherland, 293;
  and Eelkens, 294;
  recalled, 296.

Uncas, captures and slays Miantonomoh, 233;
  policy, 240, 302.

Underhill, John, at Dover, 269;
  and Dutch, 269.

Union, Rhode Island, 230, 237;
  Connecticut, 250;
  New Haven, 264;
  New Hampshire, 270, 272;
  Maine, 278.
  _See also_ New England Confederation.

Vane, Sir Harry, governor of Massachusetts, 200;
  and Antinomian controversy, 220-223;
  defeated, 224;
  returns to England, 225.

Verrazzano, John, voyage, 284.

Virginia, Raleigh's charter, 22;
  exploring expedition, 22, 23;
  named, 23;
  Raleigh's attempted settlement, 23-28, 31, 32;
  charter, 36-38;
  and Spain, 36, 60, 74, 283;
  boundaries, 37;
  regulations for settlement, 42;
  settlers, 42;
  topography, 43;
  Indians, 44-49;
  voyage, 49;
  quarrel, 49;
  first officers, 49;
  relation with Indians, 49, 51, 68, 71;
  Jamestown founded, 50;
  suffering and dissensions, 50-54, 58, 63-66, 69, 74, 84;
  search for gold, 51, 53, 56, 69;
  Smith's enterprise, 51, 52, 54;
  First Supply, 52;
  cargoes, 53, 54, 57;
  Second Supply, 55;
  first marriage and birth, 55;
  company's instructions (1608), 55;
  Powhatan crowned, 56;
  search for Raleigh's colony, 56;
  answer to company, 57;
  map, 57;
  Argall's relief, 59, 63;
  new charter, 59-61;
  gentlemen settlers, causes of calamities, 59;
  communism, 59;
  absolute governor, 61;
  Third Supply, 61-63;
  Starving Time, 66;
  abandonment decided upon, 67;
  Delaware's timely arrival, 67, 68;
  his administration, 68-70;
  deputy governors, 70;
  Dale's rule, 70-74;
  expeditions against Acadia, 72;
  communism abolished, 73;
  in 1616, 74;
  tobacco planting begins, 75;
  third charter, 76;
  company's policy, 76;
  Argall's tyranny, 77, 78;
  land division, 77, 79;
  charter of privileges, 78;
  Yardley governor, 78, 79;
  in 1619, 78;
  private associations, 79;
  representation, 79, 92-94, 123;
  church of England, 80, 106;
  first assembly, 80;
  first negro slaves, 81;
  cargo of maidens, 81;
  tobacco trade and regulation, 83, 86, 92, 103;
  prosperity, 84, 102;
  first massacre, 85;
  commission to investigate, 87;
  charter voided, 88;
  loyalty to company, 89;
  taxation and representation, 90, 96, 113;
  royal control, 90, 91, 95, 96;
  policy of James I., 91;
  population (1629), 93; (1635), 100; (1652), 114;
  Harvey's rule, 93, 96;
  deposed and reinstated, 97-99, 136;
  northern expansion, 94;
  and Maryland charter, 96, 120-123;
  Wyatt governor, 99, 104;
  servants, 100, 115;
  trade (1635), 100;
  settlements (1634), 101, 102; (1652), 113, 114;
  continued mortality, 102, 104;
  corn trade, 103;
  parliamentary charter, 105;
  Berkeley governor, 105;
  petition against charter, 105;
  loyalty to king, 105, 111;
  Puritans, 106, 108, 109;
  second massacre, 107;
  peace, 108;
  cavalier immigration, 109, 111;
  improved ministry, 110;
  in 1648, 110;
  and parliamentary commission, 111-113;
  control by burgesses, 113;
  houses, 114;
  hospitality, 115;
  absence of towns, 115;
  democracy, 116;
  influence of slavery, 116;
  education, 116, 117;
  and Baltimore, 119;
  origin of laws, 123;
  claim to Kent Island, 134-138;
  and Dutch on Delaware, 294;
  bibliography, 331.
  _See also_ London Company.

Voyages, Cabot (1497, 1498), 6;
  Prado (1527), 7;
  Hore (1535), 7;
  Willoughby (1553), 8;
  English, to Russia, 8;
  Drake (1577-1580), 12;
  Cavendish (1586), 13;
  Frobisher (1376-1578), 14;
  Davis (1585-1587), 15;
  Barlow and Amidas (1584), 22, 23;
  Denys (1506), 284;
  Aubert (1508), 284;
  Verrazzano (1524), 284;
  Cartier (1534-1536), 284;
  Alefonse (1542), 285;
  Hudson (1609), 291;
  bibliography, 329, 330.

Walker, John, voyage, 17.

Wars, Spanish-English (1588), 28-30, 35;
  Pequot (1637), 251-257;
  English-French (1627), 289, 290;
  English-Dutch (1652), 315.

Warwick, earl of, in London Company, 76, 81;
  grant, 185, 239.

Warwick settled, 230, 233-235.

Watertown, settled, 198;
  restless, 242;
  migration to Connecticut, 245, 246;
  settles  Wethersfield, 246.

Welles, founded, 272;
  submits to Massachusetts, 280.

West, Francis, in Virginia, 55, 92;
  and fishermen, 168.

West Indies, Spain and England in, 284.
Wethersfield, settled, 247;
  Indian attack, 254.

Weymouth, George, voyage, 35.

Weymouth (Wessagusset), settlement, 166, 168.

Wheelwright, John, and Antinomianism, 220-224;
  banished, 226;
  at Dover, 269;
  settles Exeter, 269;
  founds Welles, 272;
  return to Massachusetts, 272.

White, Andrew, Jesuit, in Maryland, 126;
  sent to England, 141.

White, John, water-colors, 26;
  governor of Raleigh's colony, 27, 28;
  attempted relief, 31.

White, Rev. John, and Salem settlement, 183;
  pamphlet, 194.

Williams, Roger, in Massachusetts, 212;
  harsh creed, 213;
  objections, 213;
  in Plymouth, 213, 217, 218;
  and Indians, 213, 217, 251, 253;
  on land titles, 214;
  trial, 214, 215;
  objection to oaths, 215;
  and Salem, 216;
  banished, 216, 217;
  flight, 217;
  settles Providence, 218;
  secures patent, 235;
  triumphal return, 236;
  Baptist, 237;
  thwarts Coddington, 238.

Willoughby, Sir Hugh, voyage, 8.

Wilson, John, Congregationalist, 196;
  sermons, 218;
  and Antinomianism, 220, 223.

Windsor, Plymouth fort, 242;
  Dorchester settlers, 245-247.

Wingfield, E.M., in Virginia, 43, 49, 51-53, 54.

Winslow, Edward, Separatist, in Leyden, 158;
  agent in England, 206, 279.

Winthrop, John, agrees to emigrate, 193;
  governor, 193, 224;
  Congregationalist, 196;
  and Antinomian controversy, 220-228;
  character, death, 243, 321;
  and La Tour, 307.

Winthrop, John (2), theoretic governor, 249;
  settles New London, 260.

Wyatt, Sir Francis, governor of Virginia, 85, 90, 92, 99;
  commissioner, 95.

Yardley, Sir George, governor of Virginia, 70, 75, 78, 92;
  death, 92.

York (Agamenticus, Gorgeana), government, 275, 276;
  submits to Massachusetts, 280.





End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of England in America, 1580-1652
by Lyon Gardiner Tyler

*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ENGLAND IN AMERICA, 1580-1652 ***

***** This file should be named 16294.txt or 16294.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
        http://www.gutenberg.org/1/6/2/9/16294/

Produced by Suzanne Shell, Gary Houston and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net


Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
will be renamed.

Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.



*** START: FULL LICENSE ***

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
http://gutenberg.net/license).


Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works

1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.  See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.

1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net

1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
1.E.9.

1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.

1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.

1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.net),
you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that

- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."

- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
     License.  You must require such a user to return or
     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
     Project Gutenberg-tm works.

- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
     of receipt of the work.

- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.

1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
your equipment.

1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.


Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm

Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.


Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.

The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
page at http://pglaf.org

For additional contact information:
     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
     Chief Executive and Director
     gbnewby@pglaf.org

Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
particular state visit http://pglaf.org

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
donations.  To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate


Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.

Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:

     http://www.gutenberg.net

This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

*** END: FULL LICENSE ***