Probably no complete record exists of all the patents issued by the

Council; and of those known to have been granted, the originals, or

even copies of all of them, are not known to be extant. As full a list

of these as has been collected may be seen in a Lecture read before the

Massachusetts Historical Society, Jan. 15, 1869, by Samuel F. Haven,

LL. D., entitled _History of Grants under the Great Council for New

England_, etc.,—a valuable paper with comments and explanations, with

which compare Dr. Palfrey’s list in his _History of New England_, i.

397-99.[545] Since Dr. Palfrey wrote, new material has come to light

respecting some of these grants. The patent of Aug. 10, 1622, which

Dr. Belknap supposed was the Laconia patent, and which he erroneously

made the basis of the settlements of Thomson and of the Hiltons, and

of later operations on the Piscataqua, is found not to be the Laconia

patent, which was issued seven years later, namely, Nov. 17, 1629.[546]

Later writers have copied him. Again, Dr. Palfrey refers the early

division of the territory by the Council, from the Bay of Fundy to

Cape Cod, among twenty associates, to May 31, 1622. By the recovery of

another fragment of the records of the Council in 1875, we are able to

correct all previous errors respecting that division, which really took

place on Sunday, July 29, 1623. This fact has appeared since Dr. Haven

wrote.[547]

An object of interest would be the map of the country on which the

different patents granted were marked off. Some idea from it might

be formed of the geographical mistakes by which one grant overlapped

another, or swallowed it up entirely. I know of no published map

existing at that time that would have served the purpose. The names

of the places on the coast from Penobscot to Cape Cod, mentioned by

Captain Smith in his tract issued in 1616, were rarely indicated on

his map which accompanied the tract. They had been laid down on the

manuscript draft of the map, but were changed for English names by

Prince Charles.[548] Quite likely the Council had manuscript maps of

the coast. Of the division of 1623, the records say it was resolved

that the land “be divided according as the division is made in the plot

remaining with Dr. Goche.” Smith, speaking of this division, says that

the country was at last “engrossed by twenty patentees, that divided my

map into twenty parts, and cast lots for their shares,” etc. Smith’s

map was probably the best published map of the coast which existed at

that time; but the map on which the names were subsequently engrossed

and published was Alexander’s map of New England, New France, and New

Scotland, published in 1624, in his _Encouragement to Colonies_, and

also issued in the following year in Purchas, vol. iv. p. 1872. This

record, as the fac-simile shows,[549] is a mere huddling together of

names, with no indication as to a division of the country, as it was

not possible there should be on such a map as this, where the whole New

England coast, as laid down, is limited to three inches in extent, with

few natural features delineated upon it.

The greatest trouble existed among the smaller patents. A large

patent, like that to Gorges, for instance, at the grand division, with

well-defined natural boundaries on the coast, between the Piscataqua

and the Sagadahoc, or the Penobscot, would not be likely to be

contested for lack of description; but there had been many smaller

patents issued within these limits, which ran into and overlapped

each other, and some were so completely annihilated as to cause great

confusion.

Some of these smaller patents had alleged powers of government granted

to the settlers,—powers probably rarely exercised by virtue of

such a grant, and which the Council undoubtedly had no authority to

confer.[550] The people of Plymouth, for instance, in their patent of

1630, were authorized, in the language of the grant, to incorporate

themselves by some usual or fit name and title, with liberty to make

laws and ordinances for their government. They never had a royal

charter of incorporation during their separate existence, though they

strove hard to obtain one. The Council for New England might from

the first have taken the Pilgrims under their own government and

protection; and Governor Bradford, in letters to the Council and to

Sir Ferdinando Gorges, written in 1627 and 1628, acknowledges that

relation, and asks for their aid.[551]

[Illustration: SEAL OF THE COUNCIL FOR NEW ENGLAND.]

The records of the Council, so far as they are extant, contain no

notice of the adoption of a common seal, and we are ignorant as to the

time of its adoption. In the earliest patent known to have been issued

by the Council, which was an indenture between them and John Peirce

and his associates, dated June 1, 1621, the language is, “In witness

whereof the said President and Council have to the one part of this

present Indenture set their seals.” This is signed first by the Duke of

Lenox, who I think was the first President of the Council, and by five

other members of the Council, with the private seal of each appended to

his signature. But in a grant to Gorges and Mason, of Aug. 10, 1622,

which is also an indenture, the language is, that to one part “the said

President and Council have caused their _common seal_ to be affixed.”

Here we have a “common seal” used by the Council in issuing their

subsequent grants. But it is very singular, that of the many original

grants of the Council extant no one of them has the wax impression

of the seal intact or unbroken; usually it is wholly wanting. It is

believed, however, that the design of the seal has been discovered in

the engraving on the titlepage of Smith’s _Generall Historie_; and

the reasons for this opinion may be seen in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,

March, 1867, pp. 469-472.[552] A delineation of it is given herewith.

In the absence of any record of the organization of the Council, or of

any rules or by-laws for the transaction of its business, we do not

know what officers, or what number of the Council, were required for

the issuing of patents, or for authorizing the use of the Company’s

seal. The only name signed to the Plymouth Patent of Jan. 13, 1629/30

is that of the Earl of Warwick, who was then the President of the

Council.

MASSACHUSETTS.[553]—The Massachusetts Colony had its origin in a grant

of land from the Council of New England, dated March 19, 1627, in old

style reckoning.[554] So far as is known, it is the first grant of

any moment made after the general division in 1623, but probably it

was preceded by the license to the Plymouth people of privileges on

the Kennebec. This patent to the Massachusetts Colony is not extant,

but it is recited in the subsequent charter. There is some mystery

attending the manner of its procurement, as well as about its extent.

The business was managed, in the absence of Sir Ferdinando Gorges,

by the Earl of Warwick, who was friendly to the patentees.[555] The

royal charter of Massachusetts was dated March 4, 1628 (O.S.). For

the forms used in issuing it, see _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, December,

1869, pp. 167-196. A discussion of the charter itself as a frame

of government for a commonwealth is found in Hutchinson’s _History

of Massachusetts_, i. 414, 415; Judge Parker’s Lecture before the

Massachusetts Historical Society, Feb. 9, 1869, entitled _The First

Charter_, etc.; and _Memorial History of Boston_, i. 329-382, and the

authorities there cited. As to the right of the Company to transfer the

government and charter to the soil, see Judge Parker, as above; Dr.

Palfrey, _New England_, i. 301-308; Barry, _History of Massachusetts_,

i. 174-186, and the authorities cited by them. The original charter, on

parchment, is in the State House in Boston. A heliotype of a section

of it is given in the _Memorial History of Boston_, i. 329.[556] The

duplicate or exemplification of the charter, which was originally

sent over to Endicott in 1629, is now in the Library of the Salem

Athenæeum. The charter was first printed, and from the “_dupl._”

parchment, “by S. Green, for Benj. Harris, at the London Coffee-House,

near the Town-House, in Boston, 1689.” It is entitled _A Copy of the

Massachusetts Charter_.[557]

The archives of the State are rich in the materials of its history. The

records of the government from its first institution in England down

to the overthrow of the charter are almost a history in themselves.

The student is no longer required to decipher the ancient writing, for

in 1853-54 the Records were copied and printed under the editorial

care of Dr. N. B. Shurtleff.[558] A large mass of manuscripts remains

at the State House, and is known as the _Massachusetts Archives_.

The papers were classified by the late Joseph B. Felt.[559] They are

the constant resource of antiquaries and historians, few of whom,

however, but regret the too arbitrary arrangement given to them by that

painstaking scholar.[560] The City of Boston, by its Record Commission,

is making accessible in print most valuable material which has long

slumbered in manuscript. The Archives of the Massachusetts Historical

Society are specially rich in early manuscripts, a catalogue of which

is now preparing, and its publishing committees are constantly at work

converting their manuscripts into print, while the sixty-seven volumes

of its publications, as materials of history, are without a rival.[561]

The first general _History of Massachusetts Bay_ was written by Thomas

Hutchinson, afterward governor of the province, in two volumes, the

first of which, covering the period ending with the downfall of Andros,

was published in Boston in 1764. The second volume, bringing the

history down to 1750, was published in 1767. Each volume was issued in

London in the year following its publication here. The author had rich

materials for his work, and was judicious in the use of them. He had a

genius for history, and his book will always stand as of the highest

authority. A volume of _Original Papers_, which illustrate the first

volume of the history, was published in 1769.[562] Hutchinson died in

England in 1780. Among his manuscripts was found a continuation of his

history, vol. iii., bringing the events down to 1774, in which year he

left the country. This was printed in London in 1828.[563] Some copies

of vol. i., London ed., were wrongly dated MDCCLX.

In 1798 was published, in two volumes, a continuation of Hutchinson’s

second volume, by George Richards Minot,[564] bringing the history

down to 1764. The work was left unfinished, and Alden Bradford, in

1822-1829, published, in three volumes, a continuation of that to the

year 1820.

The next most considerable attempt at a general _History of

Massachusetts_ was by John Stetson Barry, who published three volumes

in 1855-1857. It is a valuable work, written from the best authorities,

and comes down to 1820.

Palfrey’s _History of New England_, the first three volumes of which

were published in 1858-1864, and cover the period ending with the

downfall of Andros, must be regarded altogether as the best history of

this section of our country yet written, as well for its luminous text

as for the authorities in its notes.[565]

[Illustration: The Rev’d Dr. Cotton Mather. p Sarah Moorhead]

I will now go back and mention a few other general histories of New

England, including those works in which the history of Massachusetts is

a prominent feature.

Cotton Mather’s _Ecclesiastical History of New England_, better known

as his _Magnalia_, from the head-line of the titlepage, _Magnalia

Christi Americana_, was published in London in 1702, in folio.

Although relating generally to New England, it principally concerns

Massachusetts. While the book is filled with the author’s conceits and

puns, and gives abundant evidence of his credulity, it contains a vast

amount of valuable historical material, and is indispensable in any

New England library. It is badly arranged for consultation, for it is

largely a compilation from the author’s previous publications, and it

lacks an index. It has been twice reprinted,—in 1820 and 1853.[566]

John Oldmixon, Collector of Customs at Bridgewater, England, compiled

and published at London, in 1708, his _British Empire in America_, in

two volumes. About one hundred pages of the first volume relate to New

England, and while admitting that he drew on Cotton Mather’s _Magnalia_

for most of his material, omitting the puns, anagrams, etc., the author

nevertheless vents his spleen on this book of the Boston divine. Mather

was deeply hurt by this indignity, and he devoted the principal part of

the Introduction to his _Parentator_, 1724, to this ill-natured writer.

He says he found in eighty-six pages of Oldmixon’s book eighty-seven

falsehoods. A second edition of _The British Empire in America_ was

published in 1741, with considerable additions and alterations. In the

mean time the Rev. Daniel Neal had published in London his _History of

New England_, which led Oldmixon to rewrite, for this new edition, his

chapters relating to New England. Oldmixon’s work is of little value.

He was careless and unscrupulous.[567]

Mr. Neal’s _History of New England_, already mentioned, first appeared

in 1720, in two volumes, but was republished with additions in

1747.[568] It contains a map “according to the latest observations,”

or, as he elsewhere observes, “done from the latest surveys,” in one

corner of which is an interesting miniature map of “The Harbour of

Boston.” This book must have supplied a great want at the time of

its appearance, and though Hutchinson says it is little more than an

abridgment of Dr. Mather’s history,—which is not quite true, as see

his authorities in the Preface,—it gave in an accessible form many

of the principal facts concerning the beginning of New England. It of

course relates principally to Plymouth and Massachusetts. Neal was an

independent thinker, and differed essentially from Cotton Mather on

many subjects.

The Rev. Thomas Prince published in Boston in 1736 A _Chronological

History of New England in the Form of Annals_, in one volume, 12º, of

about four hundred pages. The author begins with the creation of the

world, and devotes the last two hundred and fifty pages to New England,

coming down only to September, 1630, or to the settlement of Boston.

After an interval of about twenty years the work was resumed, and

three numbers, of thirty-two pages each, of vol. ii. were issued in

1755, bringing the chronology down to August, 1633, when for want of

sufficient encouragement the work ceased. Prince was very particular in

giving his authorities for every statement, and he professed to quote

the very language of his author.[569]

In 1749 was published the first volume of a _Summary, Historical

and Political, ... of the British Settlements in North America_, by

William Douglass, M.D. The book had been issued in numbers, beginning

in January, 1747. The titlepage of the second volume bears date 1751.

The author died suddenly Oct. 21, 1752, before his work was finished.

A large part of the book relates to New England. It contains a good

deal of valuable information from original sources, but it is put

together without system or order, and the whole work appears more like

a mass of notes hastily written than like a history. Dr. Douglass was a

Scotchman by birth, and coming to Boston while a young man, he attained

a reputable standing as a physician. In the small-pox episode in 1721

he took an active part as an opposer of inoculation. He was fond of

controversy, was thoroughly honest and fearless, and gave offence in

his _Summary_ by his freedom of speech. The _Summary_ was republished

in London in 1755 and in 1760, each edition with a large map.[570] The

Boston edition was reissued with a new title, dated 1753.

* * * * *

For the origin of the brief settlement at Cape Ann, which drew after it

the planting at Salem and the final organization of the Massachusetts

Company, and for the narrative of those several events,—namely, the

formation in London of the subordinate government for the colony,

“London’s Plantation in Massachusetts Bay,” with Endicott as its first

governor, and his instructions; the emigration under Higginson in 1629;

the establishment of the church in Salem, and the difficulty with the

Browns; and the emigration under Winthrop in 1630,—see John White’s

_Planter’s Plea_,[571] Hubbard’s _New England_, chap. xviii.; the

_Colony Records_; Morton’s _Memorial_, under the year 1629; Higginson’s

_Journal_, and his _New England Plantation_;[572] Dudley’s _Letter

to the Countess of Lincoln_;[573] and Winthrop’s own Journal. For

the principal part of these documents and others of great value the

reader is referred to Dr. Alexander Young’s _Chronicles of the First

Planters of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay_,—a convenient manual for

reference, of the highest authority, containing ample bibliographical

notes and illustrations, which need not be repeated here. This book,

which was published in 1846, was unfortunately thrown into chapters as

of one narrative, as had been that relating to the Plymouth Colony,

published in 1841, whereby the original authorities, which should be

the prominent feature of the book, are subordinated to an editorial

plan.

For the original authorities of the history of the scattered

settlements in Massachusetts Bay, prior to the Winthrop emigration,

I cannot do better than refer to a paper on the “Old Planters,” so

called, about Boston Harbor, by Charles Francis Adams, Jr., in _Mass.

Hist. Soc. Proc._, June, 1878, p. 194; and to Mr. Adams’s chapter in

_Memorial History of Boston_, i. 63.

[Illustration: SHIP OF XVII^{TH} CENTURY.

[This fac-simile is from a map in Dudley’s _Arcano del Mare_,

1647.—ED.]]

In Captain John Smith’s _Advertisements for the unexperienced Planters

of New England, or anywhere_, London, 1631, he has two chapters (xi.

and xii.) on the settlement of Salem and Charlton (Charlestown), and

an account of the sad condition of the colony for months after the

Winthrop emigration. This is Smith’s last book, and his best in a

literary point of view, and was published the year of his death.[574]

The _New England’s Prospect_, by William Wood, London, 1634, is the

earliest topographical account of the Massachusetts Colony, so far

as the settlements then extended. It also has a full description of

its fauna and flora, and of the natives. It is a valuable book, and

is written in vigorous and idiomatic English. The writer lived here

four years, returning to England Aug. 15, 1633. His book is entered

in the Stationers’ Register, “7 Julii, 1634.” Alonzo Lewis, author

of the _History of Lynn_, thinks that he came over again to the

colony in 1635, as a person of that name arrived that year in the

“Hopewell.”[575]

The _New English Canaan_, by Thomas Morton, Amsterdam, 1637, “written

upon ten years’ knowledge and experiment of the country,” is a sort

of satire upon the Plymouth and Massachusetts people, who looked upon

the author as a reprobate and an outlaw. He came over, probably, with

Weston’s company in 1622, and on the breaking up of that settlement

may have gone back to England. In 1625 he is found here again with

Captain Wollaston’s company on a plantation at “Mount Wollaston,” where

he had his revels. He was twice banished the country, and before his

final return hither wrote this book. His description of the natural

features of the country, and his account of the native inhabitants are

of considerable interest and value, and the side-light which he throws

upon the Pilgrim and Puritan colonies will serve at least to amuse the

reader.[576] Morton’s book, though printed in Holland “in the yeare

1637,” was entered in the Stationers’ Register in London, “Nov. 18,

1633,” in the name of Charles Greene as publisher; and a copy of the

book is now (1882) in the library of the Society for the Propagation of

the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 19 Delahay Street, Westminster, London,

bearing this imprint: “Printed for Charles Greene, and are sold in

Paul’s Church-Yard;” no date, but “1632” written in with a pen. See

White Kennett’s _Bibliothecæ Americanæ Primordia_, p. 77, where this

copy is entered, and where the manuscript date is printed in the

margin. This date is, of course, an error.[577] Morton’s book was not

written till after the publication of Wood’s _New England’s Prospect_,

to which reference is frequently made in the _New English Canaan_. The

_New England’s Prospect_ was entered at the Stationers’, “7 Julii,

1634,” and was published the same year. Morton’s book is dedicated to

the Commissioners for Foreign Plantations,—a body not created till

April 28, 1634. The book must have been entered at the Stationers’ some

time in anticipation of its printing; and when printed, some copies

were struck off bearing the imprint of Charles Greene, though only one

copy is now known with his name on the titlepage.

[Illustration: AUTOGRAPHS OF LEADERS IN THE WAR.]

The first serious trouble with the Indians, which had been brewing for

some years, culminated in 1637, when the Pequots were annihilated.

This produced a number of narrations, two of which were published at

the time, and in London,—one by Philip Vincent,[578] in 1637, and

one by Captain John Underhill, in 1638.[579] The former is not known

to have been in New England at the time, but the minute particulars

of his narrative would lead one to suppose that he had been in close

communication with some persons who had been in the conflict. He could

hardly have been present himself. Captain John Underhill, the writer

of the second tract, was commander of the Massachusetts forces at the

storming of the fort, so that he narrates much of what he saw. He

prefaces his account with a description of the country, and of the

origin of the troubles with the Pequots. Both these narratives are

reprinted in 3 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, vi.

I may add here that there were other narratives of the Pequot War

written by actors in it. A narrative by Major John Mason, the commander

of the Connecticut forces, was left by him on his death, in manuscript,

and was communicated by his grandson to the Rev. Thomas Prince, who

published it in 1736. It is the best account of the affair written.

Some two or three years after the death of Mason, Mr. Allyn, the

Secretary of the colony of Connecticut, sent a narrative of the Pequot

War to Increase Mather, who published it in his _Relation of the

Troubles_, etc., 1677, as of Allyn’s composition. Having no preface or

titlepage, Mather did not know that it was written by Major Mason, as

was afterward fully explained by Prince, who had the entire manuscript

from Mason’s grandson.[580]

Lyon Gardiner, commander of the Saybrook fort during the Pequot War,

also wrote an account of the action, prefacing it with a narrative of

recollections of earlier events. It was written in his old age. It was

first printed in 3 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, iii. 136-160.[581]

For the history of the Antinomian controversy which broke out about

this time and convulsed the whole of New England, see the examination

of Mrs. Hutchinson in Hutchinson’s _Massachusetts Bay_, ii. 482;

Welde’s _Short Story_, etc., London, 1644; Chandler’s _Criminal

Trials_, Boston, 1841, vol. i.[582]

A small quarto volume published in London in 1641, entitled _An

Abstract of the Lawes of New England as they are now Established_, was

one of the results of an attempt to form a body of standing laws for

the colony. I may premise, that, at the first meeting of the Court of

Assistants at Charlestown, certain rules of proceeding in civil actions

were established, and powers for punishing offenders instituted. In

the former case equity according to circumstances was the rule; and

in punishing offences they professed to be governed by the judicial

laws of Moses where such laws were of a moral nature.[583] But such

proceedings were arbitrary and uncertain, and the body of the people

were clamorous for a code of standing laws. John Cotton had been

requested to assist in framing such a code, and in October, 1636, he

handed in to the General Court a copy of a body of laws that he had

compiled “in an exact method,” called “Moses his Judicials,” which

the Court took into consideration till the next meeting. The subject

occupied attention from year to year, till in December, 1641, the

General Court established a body of one hundred laws, called the Body

of Liberties, which had been composed by the Rev. Nathaniel Ward,[584]

of Ipswich. No copy of these laws was known to have been preserved on

the records of the colony; and of the earliest printed digest of the

laws, in 1648, which no doubt substantially conformed to the Body of

Liberties, no copy is extant.

[Illustration]

The _Abstract_ above recited, published in 1641, was therefore for many

years regarded as the Body of Liberties, or an abstract of them, passed

in that year. About forty years ago Francis C. Gray, Esq., noticed in

the library of the Boston Athenæum a manuscript code of laws entitled

“A Copy of the Liberties of the Massachusetts Colonie in New England,”

which he caused to be printed in 3 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, viii. 216-237,

with a learned introduction, in which he showed conclusively that this

body of laws was the code of 1641, and that the _Abstract_ printed

that year in London was John Cotton’s code, _Moses his Judicials_,

which the General Court never adopted. A copy having found its way

to England, it was sent to the press under a misapprehension, and an

erroneous titlepage prefixed to it. Indeed, that John Cotton was the

author of the code published in London in 1641 had been evident from an

early period, by means of a second and enlarged edition published in

London by William Aspinwall in 1655, from a manuscript copy left by the

author. Aspinwall, then in England, in a long address to the reader,

says that Cotton collected out of the Scriptures, and digested this

_Abstract_, and commended it to the Court of Massachusetts, “which had

they then had the heart to have received, it might have been better

both with them there and us here than now it is.” The _Abstract_ of

1641, with Aspinwall’s preface to the edition of 1655, was reprinted

in 1 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, v. 173-192. Hutchinson, _Papers_, 1769, pp.

161-179, had already printed the former.[585]

The religious character of the colony was exemplified by the

publication, in 1640, of the first book issued from the Cambridge

press, set up by Stephen Daye the year before; namely, _The Whole

Booke of Psalmes Faithfully Translated into English Metre_, by Richard

Mather, Thomas Welde, and John Eliot. Prince, in the preface to his

revised edition of this book, 1758, says that it “had the honor of

being the _First Book_ printed in North America, and, as far as I can

find, in this _whole_ NEW WORLD.” Prince was not aware that a printing

press had existed in the City of Mexico one hundred years before.[586]

He was right, however, in the first part of his sentence. Eight copies

of the book are known to be extant, of which two are in Cambridge,

where it was printed. Within a year or two a copy has been sold for

fifteen hundred dollars.[587] The first thing printed by Daye was the

freeman’s oath, the next was an almanac made for New England by Mr.

William Peirce, mariner,—so says Winthrop. What enterprising explorer

of garrets and cellars will add copies of these to our collections of

Americana? Probably one of the last books printed by Daye was the first

digest of the laws of the colony, which was passing through the press

in 1648. Johnson says it was printed that year. Probably 1649 was the

date on the titlepage. Not a single copy is known to be in existence.

Daye was succeeded in 1649 by Samuel Green, who issued books from the

Cambridge press for nearly fifty years.[588]

One of the most interesting and authentic of the early narratives

relating to the colony is Thomas Lechford’s _Plain Dealing_, London,

1642. Lechford came over here in 1638, arriving June 27, and he

embarked for home Aug. 3, 1641. He was a lawyer by profession, and

he came here with friendly feelings toward the Puritan settlement.

But lawyers were not wanted in the colony. He was looked upon with

suspicion, and could barely earn a living for his family. He did some

writing for the magistrates, and transcribed some papers for Nathaniel

Ward, the supposed author of the Body of Liberties, to whom he may have

rendered professional aid in that work. He prepared his book for the

press soon after his return home. It is full of valuable information

relating to the manners and customs of the colony, written by an able

and impartial hand.[589]

To the leading men in the colony, religion, or their own notion

concerning religion, was the one absorbing theme; and they sought

to embody it in a union of Church and State. In this regard John

Cotton[590] seems to have been the mouthpiece of the community. He came

near losing his influence at the time of the Antinomian controversy

but by judicious management he recovered himself. He was not averse to

discussion, had a passion for writing, and his pen was ever active. The

present writer has nearly thirty of Cotton’s books,—the _Carter-Brown

Catalogue_ shows over forty,—written in New England, and sent to

London to be printed. Some of these were in answer to inquiries from

London concerning their church estate, etc., here, and were intended

to satisfy the curiosity of friends, as well as to influence public

opinion there. Cotton had a long controversy with Roger Williams

relating to the subject of Williams’s banishment from this colony.

Another discussion with him, which took a little different form, was

the “Bloudy Tenet” controversy, which had another origin, and in

which the question of persecution for conscience’ sake was discussed.

Williams, of course, here had the argument on the general principle.

Cotton was like a strong man struggling in the mire.[591] Cotton’s book

on the _Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven_ shows his idea of the true

church polity. His answer to Baylie’s _Dissuasive_ in _The Way of the

Congregational Churches Cleared_ is really a valuable historical book,

in which, incidentally, he introduces information concerning persons

and events which relate to Plymouth as well as to Massachusetts. This

book furnished to the present writer the clew to the fact that John

Winthrop was the author of the principal part of the contents of

Welde’s _Short Story_, published in London in 1644, relating to

the Antinomian troubles and Mrs. Hutchinson. The Rev. Thomas

Hooker, of Hartford, entered with Cotton into the church controversy.

His _Survey of the Summe of Church Discipline_, etc., written

in answer to Rutherford, Hudson, and Baylie, Presbyterian

controversialists, was published within the same cover with Cotton’s

book last cited, and one general titlepage covered both, with the

imprint of London, 1648.

[Illustration]

Well known among Cotton’s other productions is his _Milk for Babes,

drawn out of the Breasts of both Testaments, chiefly for the Spiritual

Nourishment of Boston Babes in either England, but may be of like Use

for any Children_, London, 1646.[592]

[Illustration]

The discussion of Cotton and others having confirmed the colony in its

church polity,—“From New England,” says Baylie, writing in London

in 1645, “came Independency of Churches hither, which hath spread

over all parts here,”—it was thought best to embody the system in a

platform. So a synod was called for May, 1646, which by sundry meetings

and adjournments completed the work in August, 1648. The result was

the famous “Cambridge Platform,” which continued the rule of our

ecclesiastical polity, with slight variations, till the adoption of the

constitution of 1780. It was printed at Cambridge, in 1649, by Samuel

Green,—probably his first book,—and was entitled _A Platform of

Church Discipline_, etc. A copy of the printed volume was sent over to

London by John Cotton (who probably had the largest agency in preparing

the work)[593] to Edward Winslow, then in England, who procured it to

be printed in 1653, with an explanatory preface by himself.[594]

The important political union of the New England colonies, or a

portion of them, in 1643, has been already referred to. The Articles

of Confederation were first printed in 1656 in London, prefixed to

Governor Eaton’s code of laws entitled _New Haven’s Settling in New

England_,[595] to be mentioned further on.

The trouble of Massachusetts with Samuel Gorton was brought about by

the unwarrantable conduct of the colony towards that eccentric person.

Gorton appealed to England, and Edward Winslow, the diplomatist of

Plymouth and Massachusetts, was sent over to defend the Bay colony.

Gorton’s _Simplicitie’s Defence_, published in London in 1646, was

answered by Winslow’s _Hypocrasie Unmasked_, issued the same year.

This was reissued in 1649, with a new titlepage, called _The Danger of

tolerating Levellers in a Civill State_, the Dedication to the Earl of

Warwick, in the former issue, being omitted.[596]

Winslow had his hands full, about this time, in defending

Massachusetts. The colony was never without a disturbing element in

its own population, and about the time of the trouble with Gorton a

number of influential persons who held Presbyterian views of church

government were clamorous for the right of suffrage, which was denied

them. The controversy of the Government with Dr. Robert Child, Samuel

Maverick, and others, in 1646, need not be repeated here. An appeal

was made to England. Child and some of his associates went thither,

and published a book in 1647, in London, called _New England’s Jonas

cast up at London_, edited by Child’s brother, Major John Child, whose

name appears upon the titlepage. A postscript comments unfavorably on

Winslow’s _Hypocrasie Unmasked_. This book was replied to by Winslow

in a tract called _New England’s Salamander Discovered_, etc., London,

1647. These books are important as illustrating Massachusetts history

at this period.[597]

[Illustration: SHEPARD’S AUTOBIOGRAPHY.

[A fac-simile of the opening of the little book, which contains Thomas

Shepard’s autobiography, now the property of the Shepard Memorial

Church in Cambridge.—ED.]]

During this visit of Winslow to England, from which he never returned

to New England, he performed a grateful service in behalf of the

natives. By his influence a corporation was created by Parliament,

in 1649, for propagating the gospel among the Indian tribes in New

England, and some of the accounts of the progress of the missions, sent

over from the colony, were published in London by the corporation.

The conversion of the natives was one object set forth in the

Massachusetts charter; and Roger Williams had, while a resident of

Massachusetts and Plymouth, taken a deep interest in them, and in 1643,

while on a voyage to England, he drew up _A Key unto the Language of

America_,[598] published that year in London. In that same year there

was also published in London a small tract called _New England’s

First-Fruits_, first in respect to the college, and second in respect

to the Indians.[599] Some hopeful instances of conversion among the

natives were briefly given in this tract. In 1647 a more full relation

of Eliot’s labors was sent over to Winslow, who the year before had

arrived in England as agent of Massachusetts, and printed under the

title, _The Day breaking, if not the Sun rising, of the Gospel with

the Indians in New England_. In the following year, 1648, a narrative

was published in London, written by Thomas Shepard, called _The Clear

Sunshine of the Gospel breaking forth upon the Indians_, etc., and this

in 1649 was followed by _The Glorious Progress of the Gospel amongst

the Indians in New England_, setting forth the labors of Eliot and

Mayhew. The Rev. Henry Whitfield, who had been pastor of a church in

Guilford, Conn., returned to England in 1650; and in the following year

he published in London _The Light appearing more and more towards the

Perfect Day_, and in 1652, _Strength out of Weakness_, both containing

accounts, written chiefly by Eliot, of the progress of his labors. This

last tract was the first of those published by the Corporation, which

continued thenceforth, for several years, to publish the record of

the missions as they were sent over from the colony. In 1653 a tract

appeared under the title of _Tears of Repentance_, etc.; in 1655, _A

late and further Manifestation of the Progress of the Gospel_, etc.;

in 1659, _A further Accompt_, etc.; and in 1660, _A further Account_

still.[600] Eliot’s literary labors in behalf of the Massachusetts

Indians culminated in the translation of the Bible into their dialect,

and its publication through the Cambridge press. The Testament was

printed in 1661, and the whole Bible in 1663; and second editions of

each appeared,—the former in 1680, and the latter in 1685.[601]

Eliot was imbued with the enthusiasm of the time. As John Cotton had

deduced a body of laws from the Scriptures, which he offered to the

General Court for the colony, so in like manner Eliot drew from the

Scriptures a frame of government for a commonwealth. It was entitled

_The Christian Commonwealth; or, the Civil Polity of the Rising Kingdom

of Jesus Christ_, which he sent to England during the interregnum, and

commended to the people there. He had drawn up a similar form for his

Indian community, and had put it in practice. His manuscript, after

slumbering for some years, was printed in London in 1659, and some

copies came over to the colony. The Restoration soon followed. Eliot

had in his treatise reflected on kingly government, and in May, 1661,

the General Court ordered the book to be totally suppressed; and all

persons having copies of it were commanded either to cancel or deface

the same, or deliver them to the next magistrate. Eliot acknowledged

his fault under his own hand, saying he sent the manuscript to England

some nine or ten years before. Hutchinson, commenting on this whole

proceeding, says, “When the times change, men generally suffer their

opinions to change with them, so far at least as is necessary to avoid

danger.” How many copies of the book were destroyed by this order of

the court, we cannot tell. A few years ago the only copy known was

owned by Colonel Thomas Aspinwall, then residing in London; and from

this copy a transcript was made, and it was printed in 1846 in 3 _Mass.

Hist. Coll._, ix. 129.[602]

Eliot was not the only distinguished citizen whose book came under the

ban of the Massachusetts authorities. William Pynchon, of Springfield,

wrote a book which was published in London in 1650, entitled _The

Meritorious price of our Redemption_, etc., copies of which arrived

in Boston during the session of the General Court in October of that

year. The Court immediately condemned it, and ordered it to be burned

the next day in the market-place, which was done; and Mr. Norton was

asked to answer it. Norton obeyed, and the book he wrote was ordered to

be sent to London to be published. It was _A Discussion of that Great

Point in Divinity, the Sufferings of Christ_, etc., 1653. Pynchon in

the mean time was brought before the Court, and was plied by several

orthodox divines. He admitted that some points in his book were

overstated, and his sentence was postponed. Not liking his treatment

here he went back to England in 1652, and published a reply to Norton

in a work with a title similar to that which gave the original offence,

London, 1655. Pynchon held that Christ did not suffer the torments of

hell for mankind, and that he bore not our sins by imputation. A more

full answer to Norton’s book was published by him in 1662, called the

_Covenant of Nature_.[603]

John Winthrop died March 26, 1649. No man in the colony was so well

qualified as he, either from opportunity or character, to write its

history. Yet he left no history. But he left what was more precious,—a

journal of events, recorded in chronological order, from the time of

his departure from England in the “Arbella,” to within two months of

his death. This Journal may be called the materials of history of

the most valuable character. The author himself calls it a “History

of New England.” From this, for the period which it covers, and from

the records of the General Court for the same period, a history of

the colony for the first twenty years could be written. For over

one hundred years from Winthrop’s death no mention is made of his

Journal. Although it was largely drawn upon by Hubbard in his _History_

(1680), and was used by Cotton Mather in his _Magnalia_, it was cited

by neither, and was first mentioned by Thomas Prince on the cover

of the first number of the second volume of his _Annals_, in 1755.

Among his list of authorities there given, he mentions “having lately

received” this Journal of Governor Winthrop. Prince made but little

use of this manuscript, as the three numbers only which he issued of

his second volume ended with Aug. 5, 1633. Prince probably procured

the Journal from the Winthrop family in Connecticut. It was in three

volumes. The first and second volumes were restored to the family,

and were published in Hartford in 1790, in one volume, edited by

Noah Webster.[604] The third volume was found in the Prince Library,

in the tower of the Old South Church, in 1816, and was given to the

Massachusetts Historical Society. It was published, together with

volumes one and two, in 1825 and 1826, in two volumes, edited by James

Savage.[605] Volume two of the manuscript was destroyed by a fire

which, Nov. 10, 1825, consumed the building in Court Street, Boston, in

which Mr. Savage had his office.[606]

[Illustration]

The earliest published narrative—we can hardly call it a

history—relating generally to Massachusetts, is Edward Johnson’s

“Wonder-Working Providence of Sion’s Saviour in New England,”—the

running title to the book, which on the titlepage is called a _History

of New England_, etc., London, 1654. The book does not profess to

give an orderly account of the settlement of New England, or even of

Massachusetts, to which it wholly relates, but describes what took

place in the colony under his own observation largely, and what would

illustrate “the goodness of God in the settlement of these colonies.”

The book is supposed to have been written two or three years only

before it was sent to England to be published. It is conjectured that

the titlepage was added by the publisher.[607] The book has a value,

for it contains many facts, but its composition and arrangement are

bad.[608]

The Quaker episode produced an abundant literature. Several Rhode

Island Baptists had previously received rough usage here; and Dr.

John Clarke, one of the founders of Rhode Island, who had a personal

experience to relate, published in London, in 1652,—whither he had

gone with Roger Williams the year before,—a book against the colony,

called _Ill-Newes from New-England, or a Narrative of New-England’s

Persecution_, etc.[609]

[Illustration]

In 1654, two years before the Quakers made their appearance, the

colony passed a law against any one having in his possession the books

of Reeve and Muggleton, “the two Last Witnesses and True Prophets of

Jesus Christ,” as they called themselves. Some of the books of these

fanatics had been printed in London in 1653, and had made their way

to the colony, and the executioner was ordered to burn all such books

in the market-place on the next Lecture day. In 1656 the Quakers

came and brought their books, which were at once seized and reserved

for the fire; while sentence of banishment was passed against those

who brought them. The Quakers continued to flock to the colony in

violation of the law now passed against them. They were imprisoned,

whipped, and two were hanged in Boston in October, 1659, one in June,

1660, and one in March, 1661. Some of the more important books which

the Quaker controversy brought forth must now be named. An account of

the reception which the Quakers met with here soon found its way to

London, and to the hands of Francis Howgill, who published it with

the title, _The Popish Inquisition Newly Erected in New England_,

etc., London, 1659. Another tract appeared there the same year as _The

Secret Works of a Cruel People Made Manifest_. In the following year

appeared _A Call from Death to Life_, letters written “from the common

goal of Boston” by Stephenson and Robinson (who were shortly after

executed); and one “written in Plymouth Prison” by Peter Pearson, a

few weeks later, giving an account of the execution of the two former.

In October, 1658, John Norton had been appointed by the Court to write

a treatise on the doctrines of the Quakers, which he did, and the

tract was printed in Cambridge in 1659, and in London in 1660, with

the title, _The Heart of New England Rent at the Blasphemies of the

Present Generation_. After three Quakers had been hanged, the colony,

under date of Dec. 19, 1660, sent an “Humble Petition and Address of

the General Court ... unto the High and Mighty Prince Charles the

Second,” defending their conduct. This was presented February 11, and

printed, and was replied to by Edward Burroughs in an elaborate volume,

which contains a full account of the first three martyrs. This was

followed this year, 1661, by a yet more important volume, by George

Bishope, called _New England Judged_, in which the story of the Quaker

persecution from the beginning is told. Bishope lived in England, and

published in a first volume the accounts and letters of the sufferers

sent over to him. A second volume was published in 1667, continuing the

narrative of the sufferings and of the hanging of William Leddra, in

March, 1661. A general _History of the Quakers_ was written by William

Sewel, a Dutch Quaker of Amsterdam, published there in his native

tongue, in 1717, folio. Sewel’s grandfather was an English Brownist,

who emigrated to Holland. The book was translated by the author himself

into English, and published in London in 1722.[610] Joseph Besse’s

book,—_A Collection of the Sufferings of the People called Quakers,

for the Testimony of a Good Conscience_, 1753,—contains a mass of

most valuable statistics about the Quakers. Hutchinson’s _History of

Massachusetts Bay_ has an excellent summarized account, as do the

histories of Dr. Palfrey and Mr. Barry.[611]

[Illustration]

The records of the colony, as I have frequently had occasion to

observe, afford the richest materials for the colony’s history, and

never more so than in regard to the trials which the colony experienced

from the period following the Restoration to the time of Dudley and

Andros. The story of the visit of the royal commissioners here in 1665

is no where so fully told as there. Indeed, the principal source of the

history of Maine and of New Hampshire while they were for many years a

component part of the colony of Massachusetts is told in the records of

the old Bay State.

During the trouble with the Quakers Massachusetts was afflicted by a

wordy controversy, imported from Connecticut, but which did not reach

its culminating point till 1662. I refer to the “Half-way Covenant,”

for the discussion of which a council of ministers from both colonies

was called in 1657, in Boston, which pronounced in favor of the system

in question. A synod of Massachusetts churches in 1662 confirmed

the judgment here given, and the Half-way Covenant system prevailed

extensively in New England for more than a century. After the synod

was dissolved, and the result was published by order of the General

Court, the discussion continued, and several tracts were issued from

the Cambridge press, _pro_ and _con_, in 1662, 1663, and 1664.[612]

Of Morton’s _New England’s Memorial_ mention has already been made in

the preceding chapter, as it concerns chiefly the Plymouth Colony.

It contains, however, many things of interest about Massachusetts;

recording the death of many of her worthies, and embalming their

memories in verse. It ends with the year 1668, with a notice of the

death of Jonathan Mitchel, the minister of Cambridge, and of that of

John Eliot, Jr., the son of the apostle, at the age of thirty-two

years. There are five unpaged leaves after “finis,” containing “A Brief

Chronological Table.”

There was printed in London in 1674 _An Account of Two Voyages to New

England_, by John Josselyn, Gent., a duodecimo volume of 279 pages.

This author and traveller was a brother of Henry Josselyn, of Black

Point, or Scarborough, in Maine, and they are said to have been sons of

Sir Thomas Josselyn, of Kent, knight. John came to New England in 1638,

and landed at Noddle’s Island, and was a guest of Samuel Maverick;

thence he went to Scarborough, stayed with his brother till the end of

1639, and then returned home. In 1663 he came over again, and stayed

till 1671; and then went home and wrote this book. His own observations

are valuable, but his history is often erroneous. He frequently cites

Johnson. At the end of his book is a chronological table running back

before the Christian era. His _New England’s Rarities_, published

in 1672, giving an account of the fauna and flora of the country,

has been reprinted with notes in the American Antiquarian Society’s

_Transactions_, vol. iv., edited by Edward Tuckerman.[613]

The interest of John Ogilby’s large folio on _America_ is almost solely

a borrowed one, so far as concerns New England history, arising from

the use he made of Wood, Johnson, and Gorges.[614]

The modern student will find a very interesting series of successive

bulletins, as it were, of the sensations engendered by the progress of

the Indian outbreak of 1675-76, known as “Philip’s War,” and of the

events as they occurred, in a number of tracts, mostly of few pages,

which one or more persons in Boston sent to London to be printed. They

are now among the choicest rarities of a New England library.[615] It

was to make an answer to one of these tracts that Increase Mather

hastily put together and printed in Boston,[616] in 1676, his _Brief

History of the War_, which was reprinted in London in the same

year.[617] The year after (1677) the war closed,[618] Foster, the

new Boston printer, also printed William Hubbard’s _Narrative of the

Troubles with the Indians_, which likewise came from the London press

the same year with a changed title, _The Present State of New England,

being a Narrative_, etc.,—a book not, however, confined to Philip’s

War, but going back, as the Boston title better showed, over the whole

series of the conflicts with the natives.[619]

In the year 1679 it became known to the members of the General Court

that the Rev. William Hubbard, of Ipswich, had compiled a _History of

New England_, and in June of that year they ordered that the Governor

and four other persons be a committee “to peruse the same,” and make

return of their opinion thereof by the next session, in order “that

the Court may then, as they shall then judge meet, take order for

the impression thereof.” Two years afterward, in October, the Court

thankfully acknowledged the services of Mr. Hubbard in compiling his

_History_, and voted him fifty pounds in money, “he transcribing it

fairly into a book that it may be the more easily perused.” There was

no further movement made for the printing of the volume. The transcript

made agreeably to this order is now in the Library of the Massachusetts

Historical Society. The preface and some leaves of the text are

wanting. This was by far the most important history of New England

which had then been written. The compiler had the benefit of Bradford’s

_History_ and Winthrop’s Journal, though, after the fashion of the

time, he makes no mention of them, only acknowledging in a general

way his indebtedness to “the original manuscripts of such as had the

managing of those affairs under their hands.” The manuscript was first

printed in 1815 by the Massachusetts Historical Society; and a second

edition, “collated with the original MS.,” was printed in 1848.[620]

[Illustration]

The history of the struggles of the colony to maintain its charter

during the period immediately preceding the loss of it is largely told

in the pages of its records, and in a large mass of documents published

in Hutchinson’s volume of Papers, and cited in Chalmers’ _Annals_ and

in Palfrey’s _New England_. Reference may also be made to a paper by

the present writer in vol. i. of _Memorial History of Boston_, on this

struggle to maintain the charter.

The history of the Dudley and Andros administrations may be gathered

from numerous publications which came from the press just after

the Revolution; and, without mentioning their titles, I cannot do

better than refer to them as published in three volumes by the Prince

Society of Boston, called the _Andros Tracts_, edited with abundant

notes by William H. Whitmore.[621] Palfrey’s _History_ should be

read in connection with these memorials. The original papers of the

“Inter-charter Period” are largely wanting, though some volumes of the

Massachusetts Archives are so entitled.[622]

As materials for the history of the State it should be remembered that

there are many town histories which contain matter of more than mere

local interest. The history of the town of Boston is in a great degree

the history of the colony and State, and the several histories of that

town, notably those by Caleb H. Snow (to 1825) and Samuel G. Drake (to

1770), and the _Description_ of N. B. Shurtleff,[623] may be specially

mentioned; while the recently published _Memorial History of Boston_,

edited by Mr. Justin Winsor, is indispensable to any student who wishes

to know a large part of the story of Massachusetts.[624] The _History

of Salem_, by Dr. J. B. Felt, gives many documents of the first

importance relating to the settlement of that ancient town, where the

colony had its birth; and the same writer’s _Customs of New England_,

Boston, 1853, has a distinctive value.

The _Bibliography of the Local History of Massachusetts_, by Jeremiah

Colburn, Boston, 1871, a volume of 119 pages, deserves a place in

every New England library,[625] and it may be supplemented by the

brief titles included in Mr. F. B. Perkins’s _Check List of American

History_.[626] There is a good list of local histories in the _Brinley

Catalogue_, no. 1,558, etc. The _Sketches of the Judicial History of

Massachusetts_, by the late Emory Washburn, is a most important book

for that phase of the subject.

MAINE.[627]—The documentary history of Maine properly begins with

the grant to Sir Ferdinando Gorges. The previous operations under the

Laconia Company were partly, as we have seen, on the territory of

Maine, while in part also their history is preserved in the archives of

New Hampshire.[628]

The patent issued to Gorges at the general division, in 1635, of

the territory which he named “New Somersetshire,” is not extant. An

organization, as we have already said, took place under this grant, and

a few records are extant in manuscript.[629]

The royal charter of Maine, dated April 3, 1639, was transcribed into

a book of records of the Court of Common Pleas and Sessions for the

county of York, and, with the commissions to the officers, has been

printed by Sullivan in his _History of Maine_, Boston, 1795, Appendix

No. 1.

The first government organized under the charter[630] was in 1640, and

the manuscript records are also at Alfred with the commissions to the

officers. Extracts from the records were made by Folsom, as above,

pp. 53-57. After the submission of Maine to Massachusetts in 1653,

courts were held at York under the authority of the latter. Afterward,

when the royal commissioners came over and went into Maine, a portion

of the inhabitants were encouraged to rebel against the authority of

Massachusetts, and courts were temporarily set up under a commission

from Sir Robert Carr. Some records of their doings exist.[631]

[Illustration: AUTOGRAPHS.

[Mason was the proprietor of New Hampshire. Mr. C. W. Tuttle was

engaged at his death on a memoir of Mason, upon whom he delivered

addresses, reported in the _Boston Advertiser_, June 22, 1871, and

_Boston Globe_, April 4, 1872. Garde was the mayor of Gorgeana. Thomas

Gorges was the deputy-governor of Maine.—ED.]]

The Records of Massachusetts for the years 1652-53 show the official

relations which existed between the two colonies. The State-paper

offices of England contain a large quantity of manuscripts illustrating

the claims of Ferdinando Gorges, the grandson of the original

proprietor; and the principal part of these may be seen either in

abstracts, or at full length in Folsom’s _Catalogue of Original

Documents_[632] relating to Maine (New York, 1858), prepared by the

late H. G. Somerby.[633] Many of these papers may also be found in

Chalmers’ _Annals_, 1780, who had great facilities for consulting the

public offices in England.[634]

* * * * *

Of general histories of Maine, the earliest was that of James Sullivan,

entitled _The History of the District of Maine_, Boston, 1795, the

territory having been made a Federal district in 1779. Judge Sullivan

was too busy a man to write so complicated a history as that of

Maine; and he fell into some errors, and came short of what would be

expected of a writer at the present day. He was one of the founders

and at that time president of the Massachusetts Historical Society,

and doubtless felt the obligation to do some such work. The next

important _History of Maine_ is that of Judge William D. Williamson,

published at Hallowell, 1832, in two volumes. This contains a vast

amount of material indispensable to the student; but there are

serious errors in the work, made known by the discovery of new matter

since its publication. In 1830 there was published at Saco, Maine, a

small 12º volume, by George Folsom,[635] called _History of Saco and

Biddeford, with Notices of other Early Settlements_, etc. Although a

history of two comparatively small towns, now cities, yet they were

early settlements; and the author, who had a faculty for history,

made his work the occasion of writing a brief but authentic sketch of

the history of Maine under all her multiform governments and varying

fortunes. It was the best town history then written in New England, as

it was also the best history of the Province of Maine..

I might mention a volume of _Sketches of the Ecclesiastical History

of Maine from the Earliest Period_, by the Rev. Jonathan Greenleaf of

Wells, published at Portsmouth, 1821.

In 1831-33 William Willis published his _History of Portland_, in two

parts. The work embraced also sketches of several other towns, and it

was prefaced by an account of the early patents and settlements in

Maine; while the second edition, issued in 1865, is yet more full on

the general history of the province.

There are other valuable town histories, and I cannot do better than

refer the reader to Mr. William Willis’s “Descriptive Catalogue of

Books relating to Maine,” in _Norton’s Literary Letter_, No. 4, for

1859, and as enlarged in _Historical Magazine_, March, 1870.[636]

The _Collections_ of the Maine Historical Society,[637] in eight

volumes, contain a large amount of material which illustrates this

early period. The first volume was issued in 1831, and in fact forms

the first part of Willis’s _History of Portland_. The _Collections_ of

the Massachusetts Historical Society, and especially vol. vii. of the

fourth series, should be cited as of special interest here.

The _Relation_ of the Council for New England, the narratives in

Purchas, Winthrop’s Journal, Hubbard’s _Indian Wars_, and that

author’s _History of New England_ and the _Two Voyages_ of Josselyn,

have already been referred to, and they should be again noted in this

place, as should Dr. Palfrey’s _History of New England_ especially.

Gorges’ _Briefe Narration_, 1658, is most valuable as coming from the

original proprietor himself. Its value is seriously impaired by its

want of chronological order and of dates, and by its errors in date.

In what condition the manuscript was left by its author, and to what

extent the blemishes of the work are attributable to the editor or the

printer, can never be known. Sir Ferdinando died in May, 1647. The

work was written not long before his death, and was published some

twelve years afterward, with two compilations by his grandson and the

sheets of Johnson’s _Wonder-Working Providence_.[638] Notwithstanding

its blemishes, the tract has great value; but it should be read in

connection with other works which furnish unquestionable historical

data.

The _Memorial Volume of the Popham Celebration_, Aug. 20, 1862

(Portland, 1862), contains a good deal of historical material; but

a large part of it was, unfortunately, prepared under a strong

theological and partisan bias. In its connection with the settlement at

Sabino, it has been mentioned in an earlier chapter.

A valuable historical address was delivered at the Centennial

Exhibition at Philadelphia, Nov. 4, 1876, by Joshua L. Chamberlain,

President of Bowdoin College, entitled _Maine, Her Place in History_,

and was published in Augusta in 1877.

NEW HAMPSHIRE.—New Hampshire was probably first settled by David

Thomson, in the spring of 1623. The original sources of information

concerning him are the _Records_ of the Council for New England; a

contemporaneous indenture, 1622, recently found among the Winthrop

Papers, and since published; Winslow’s _Good News_, London, 1624, p.

50; Bradford’s _Plymouth Plantation_, p. 154; Hubbard’s _New England_,

pp. 89, 105, 214, 215; Levett’s Voyage[639] to New England in 1623/24;

Pratt’s Narrative, in 4 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, iv. 486, and Gorges’

_Briefe Narration_, p. 37. All these authorities are summarized by the

present writer in a note, on page 362 of _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, May,

1876, to a paper on “David Thomson and the Settlement of New Hampshire.”

For the settlement of the Hiltons on Dover Neck, and for the later

history of the town, see _Records_ of the Council; Hubbard; a Paper

on David Thomson in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, as above; 1 _Mass.

Hist. Coll._, iii. 63; _Provincial Papers of New Hampshire_, i. 118,

and the authorities (A. H. Quint and others) there cited; cf. Mr.

Hassam’s paper in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, January, 1882, p. 40;

Winthrop’s Journal, i. 276.

For the doings of the Laconia Company, and the settlement of

Portsmouth, see Belknap’s _New Hampshire_, who errs respecting the

Laconia patent and the date of the operations of the Company; Hubbard

as above; _Provincial Papers_, where the extant Laconia documents are

printed at length; Jenness’s _Isles of Shoals_, 2d ed., New York, 1875,

and his privately printed (1878) _Notes on the First Planting of New

Hampshire_; the paper on David Thomson, as above; Adams’s _Annals of

Portsmouth; N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, ii. 37.

For the history of the settlements of Exeter and Hampton see Belknap,

as above; and cf. Farmer’s edition, who holds to the forgery of the

Wheelwright deed of 1629; _Provincial Papers_ as above, pp. 128-153.

For a discussion of the genuineness of the Wheelwright deed, it will

be sufficient, perhaps, to refer to Mr. Savage’s argument against it

in Winthrop’s Journal, i. Appendix, which the present writer thinks

unanswerable, and Governor C. H. Bell’s able defence of it in the

volume of the Prince Society on John Wheelwright.[640]

Concerning the several patents issued by the Council to cover the

territory of New Hampshire, or parts of it, which afterward appeared

in history, one was made to John Mason, of Nov. 7, 1629, of territory

between the Merrimac and Piscataqua, which, “with consent of the

Council, he intends to name New Hampshire” (Mason was governor of

Portsmouth co. Hants). This grant[641] was printed in Hazard, vol. i.,

from “New Hampshire files,” and is in _Provincial Papers_, i. 21. The

Laconia grant of Nov. 17, 1629, to Gorges and Mason, was the basis of a

trading company, as we have already seen, and those associates took out

a new patent, Nov. 3, 1631, of land near the mouth of the Piscataqua.

The Laconia patent is in Massachusetts Archives, and is printed in

_Provincial Papers_, i. 38. The second grant is printed in Jenness’s

_Notes_, above cited, Appendix ii. Hilton’s patent of Dover Neck, or

wherever it may have extended, of March 12, 1629/30, is cited in the

Council _Records_, and is printed _in extenso_ in Jenness’s _Notes_,

Appendix i., which also should be read for a discussion relative to

its boundaries.[642] At the grand division in 1635 Mason had assigned

to him the territory between Naumkeag and Piscataqua, dated April

22, “all which lands, with the consent of the Counsell, shall from

henceforth be called New Hampshire.” Hazard (i. 384) printed the grant

from the “records of the Province of Maine,” and it is also printed in

_Provincial Papers_, i. 33. Mason never improved this grant. All his

operations in New Hampshire, or Piscataqua, as the place was called,

was as a member of the unfortunate Laconia Company. He died soon after

this last grant was issued, and bequeathed the property ultimately

to his grandchildren John and Robert Tufton, whose claims were used

to annoy the settlers on the soil who had acquired a right to their

homesteads by long undisputed possession.[643]

After the union of the New Hampshire towns with Massachusetts, their

history forms part of the history of that colony, and the _General

Court Records_ may be consulted for information. John S. Jenness’s

_Transcripts of Original Documents in the English Archives relating

to New Hampshire_, privately printed, New York, 1876, is a volume of

great value. An early map of Maine and New Hampshire, of about the

period of 1655, is prefixed to the book. The Appendix to Belknap’s _New

Hampshire_ also contains documents of great value. The _Collections_

of the New Hampshire Historical Society, consisting of eight volumes,

1824-1866, are rich in material relating to the State; and the three

volumes of _Collections_ published by Farmer and Moore,[644] 1822-1824,

in semi-monthly and then in monthly numbers, should not be overlooked;

nor should the _Collections_ of the Massachusetts Historical Society.

Of the general histories, that of Dr. Belknap is the first and the

only considerable _History of New Hampshire_, Philadelphia and Boston,

1784-92, 3 vols. The work early acquired the name of “the elegant

History of New Hampshire,” which it deserved. As a writer, Dr.

Belknap’s style was simple and “elegant.” Perhaps after Franklin he

was the best writer of English prose which New England had produced;

and there has been since little improvement upon him. He had the true

historical spirit, and was a good investigator.[645] He fell into an

error respecting some of the early grants of New Hampshire, and the

early part of his History needs revision. He probably never doubted the

genuineness of the Wheelwright deed; but John Farmer, the editor of a

new edition (1831) of his work, believed that document to be a forgery,

and made his book to conform to this idea, though other errors were not

corrected. Palfrey’s _New England_ is of the first authority here after

Belknap.[646]

CONNECTICUT.—“_Quinni-tuk-ut_, ‘on long river,’—now

_Connecticut_,—was the name of the valley, or lands on both sides

of the river. In one early deed (1636) I find the name written

_Quinetucquet_; in another of the same year, _Quenticutt_.”[647]

The name “Connecticut,” as designating the country or colony on the

river of that name, was used by Massachusetts in their commission of

March 3, 1635/36,[648] and it was early adopted by the colonists.[649]

_Quinnipiac_,—the Indian name of New Haven, written variously, and

by President Stiles, on the authority of an Indian of East Haven,

_Quinnepyooghq_,—is probably “longwater place.”[650] The name New

Haven was substituted by the Court Sept. 5, 1640.[651]

The first English settlement was made by the Plymouth people at Windsor

in October, 1633, when they sent out a barque with materials for a

trading-house, and set it up there against the remonstrances of the

Dutch, who had themselves established a trading-house at Hartford

some time before.[652] The history of this business is well told by

Bradford (pp. 311-314), with whose narrative compare Winthrop (pp.

105, 181) and Hubbard (pp. 170, 305 _et seq._).

The story of the settlement of the three towns on the Connecticut

River by emigrants from Massachusetts is told by Winthrop, _passim_,

and by Trumbull; and the _Records_ of Massachusetts show the orders

passed in relation to their removal, and define their political status

during the first year of the settlement, and indeed to a later period.

The Connecticut _Colonial Records_ give abundant information as to

their political relations until the arrival of the Winthrop charter

of 1662, when, after some demurring on the part of New Haven, the two

small jurisdictions were merged into one.[653] A spirited letter from

Mr. Hooker to Governor Winthrop of Massachusetts, written in 1638,

disclosing his suppressed feelings towards some in the Bay Colony for

alleged factious opposition to the emigration to Connecticut, may be

seen in _Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll._, i. 3-18. What is called the original

Constitution of Connecticut, adopted by the three towns Jan. 14,

1638/39, may be seen in the printed _Colonial Records_, i. 20-25.[654]

The story of John Winthrop’s second arrival from England, in October,

1635, with a commission from Lord Say and Sele, and Lord Brook and

others, and with £2,000 in money, to begin an independent settlement

and erect a fortification near the mouth of the Connecticut River, and

to be governor there for one year, is told in Winthrop’s Journal (i.

170, 173); and is repeated in full by Trumbull, vol. i. Possession

was taken in the following month. The patent to Lord Say and others,

which was the basis of this movement, is known as the “old patent

of Connecticut,” and may be seen, with Winthrop’s commission, in

Trumbull’s _History_, vol. i., both editions. It purports to be a

personal grant from the Earl of Warwick, then the President of the

Council for New England, bearing date March 19, 1631 (1632 N.S.).

Although the authority by which the grant is made is not given in

the document itself, as is usually the case, it has been confidently

asserted that the Earl of Warwick had received the previous year a

patent for the same territory from the Council for New England, which

was subsequently confirmed by the King.[655] The grant was interpreted

to convey all the territory lying west of the Narragansett River, one

hundred and twenty miles on the Sound, thence onward to the South

Sea.[656]

The first and second agreements with Fenwick, the agent of the

proprietors, dated Dec. 5, 1644, and Feb. 17, 1646, were first printed

by Trumbull.[657] The account of Fenwick’s arrival in the colony, in

1639, with his family, and his settlement, and the naming of Saybrook,

may be seen in Winthrop.[658]

The “Capital Laws,” established by Connecticut, Dec. 1, 1642, the first

“Code of Laws,” and the court orders, judgments, and sentences of

the General and Particular Courts, from 1636 to 1662, are printed in

_Connecticut Colonial Records_.[659]

The contemporaneous accounts of the Pequot War have already been

mentioned under “Massachusetts.” What relates specially to Connecticut

is largely told in the _Colonial Records_. Mason’s narrative is by

far the best of the original accounts which have been published. The

dispute with Massachusetts respecting the division of the conquered

territory; the allotments of the same to the soldiers; the account of

the younger Winthrop’s settlement in the Pequot country, and his claim

to the Nehantick country by an early gift of Sashions, not allowed by

the United Colonies,—may be seen in the records of Massachusetts and

Connecticut, and in the records of the United Colonies.[660]

The account of the settlement of New Haven by emigrants from

Massachusetts—indirectly from the city of London,—in 1638; of their

purchases of lands from the natives, and of the formation of their

government,—church and civil,—may be seen in Winthrop,[661] and in

_New Haven Colonial Records_.[662]

The Fundamental Articles, or Original Constitution, of the Colony

of New Haven, June 4, 1639, which continued in force till 1665, was

printed in Trumbull’s _History_, vol. i., in 1797, in Appendix, no.

iv., as also in the later edition, and in the _Colonial Records_, i.

11-17, in which volume the legislative and judicial history of the

colony is recorded for many years. The orders of the General Court,

the civil and criminal trials before the Court of Magistrates, with

the evidence spread out on the pages of the record, and the sentences

following, being, in criminal cases, based on the Laws of Moses,

furnish an unpleasant exhibition; perhaps not more so, however, than

other primitive colonies would have shown if their record of crimes had

been as well preserved. From April, 1644, to May, 1653, the _Records_

of New Haven jurisdiction are lost.

What is known as Governor Eaton’s[663] Code of Laws was sent to London

to be printed under the supervision of Governor Hopkins, who had

returned to England a few years before; and an edition of five hundred

copies appeared in 1656, under the title of _New Haven’s Settling

in New England_, etc. The code was first reprinted by Mr. Royal R.

Hinman, at Hartford, in 1838, in a volume entitled _The Blue Laws of

New Haven Colony, usually called Blue Laws of Connecticut, Quaker

Laws of Plymouth and Massachusetts_, etc.; and again, in 1858, at the

end of the second volume of _New Haven Records_, from a rare copy in

the Library of the American Antiquarian Society.[664] The “Articles

of Confederation” of the United Colonies of 1643, whose records are

a mine of history in themselves, were prefixed to this code, and were

here printed for the first time. The _Records_ were first printed by

Hazard in 1794, from the Plymouth copy, and they have more recently

been reprinted by the State of Massachusetts in a volume of the

_Plymouth Records_. Each colony had a copy of those records, but the

only ones preserved are those of Plymouth and of Connecticut. The

latter, containing some entries wanting in the former, are printed at

the end of vol. iii. of the _Connecticut Colonial Records_.

The Quakers gave little disturbance to either of these colonies. While

the people in Connecticut were divided with the “Half-Way Covenant”

controversy, the Quakers, in July, 1656, made their appearance in

Boston. The United Colonies recommended the several jurisdictions to

pass laws prohibiting their coming, and banishing those who should

come. Connecticut and New Haven took the alarm, and acted upon the

advice given. New Haven subsequently increased the penalties at first

prescribed, yet falling short in severity of the legislation of

Massachusetts.[665]

The territorial disputes of Connecticut and New Haven with the Dutch at

Manhados, which began early and were of long continuance, find abundant

illustration in Trumbull’s _History of Connecticut_, and in Brodhead’s

_History of New York_, and in the documentary history, of which the

materials were procured by Brodhead, but arranged by O’Callaghan.[666]

The records of the two colonies show the ample provision made for

public schools, and indicate a project entertained by New Haven as

early as 1648 to found a college,—a scheme not consummated, however,

till a later period.

The Winthrop charter of 1662, which united the two colonies, is in

Hazard, ii. 597, taken from a printed volume of _Charters_, London,

1766. It had been printed at New London in 1750, in a volume of _Acts

and Laws_, and is in a volume by Samuel Lucas, London, 1850. The

charter bears date April 23, 1662. In an almanac of John Winthrop,

the younger, for the year 1662, once temporarily in my possession,

and now belonging to the Hon. Robert C. Winthrop, I noticed this

manuscript note of the former owner, which I copied: “This day, May 10,

in the afternoon, the Patent for Connecticut was sealed.” The orders,

instructions, and correspondence relating to the procuring of this

charter are printed in the _Colonial Records_, text and Appendix, and

in Trumbull, vol. i., text and Appendix.[667]

The Restoration brought its anxieties as well as its blessings. The

story of the shelter afforded to the regicides Whalley and Goffe, by

New Haven, is an interesting episode. Dr. Stiles’s volume, _A History

of the Three Judges_ [including Colonel Dixwell] _of King Charles I._,

etc. (Hartford, 1794), is a minute collection of facts, though not

always carefully weighed and analyzed.[668]

The granting of the royal charter of 1662, which was followed next year

by that to Rhode Island, brought on the long controversy with that

colony as to the eastern boundary of Connecticut; and the revival of

the claim of the heirs of the Duke of Hamilton—a claim more easily

disposed of—added to the annoyances. The papers relating to these

controversies may be seen in the _Colonial Records_ of Connecticut, ii.

526-554, and of Rhode Island, ii. 70-75, 128.[669]

After the union, the earliest printed _Book of General Laws for the

People within the Jurisdiction of Connecticut_ was in 1673,—the code

established the year before. It was printed at Cambridge.[670]

[Illustration: COLONIAL SECRETARIES.

[These secretaries held office consecutively: Steele, 1636-39; Hopkins,

1639-40; Wells, 1640-48; Cullick, 1648-58; Clark, 1658-63; Allyn,

1663-65.—ED.]]

The authorities for the history of Philip’s War—so disastrous

to Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Rhode Island, but from which

“Connecticut,” says Trumbull, “had suffered nothing in comparison

with her sister colonies”—have already been given under the head of

“Massachusetts.” Without citing special documents, it may be said

that Trumbull’s _History of Connecticut_ and Palfrey’s _New England_

furnish abundant authority from this time down to the conclusion of

the government of New England under Andros, and the narrative of each

may be referred to as fitting, ample, and trustworthy. Trumbull’s

_History_, as an original authority, may well compare for Connecticut

with Hutchinson’s _History_ for Massachusetts. The first volume

(1630-1713) was published in 1797; and, although the titlepage to it

reads “Vol. I.,” the author says in the Preface to vol. ii., first

printed in 1818 (1713-1764), that he never had any design of publishing

another volume. The first volume was reprinted in 1818 as a companion

to vol. ii.[671]

The _Records_ of Connecticut for the period embraced in this chapter

are abundant, and are admirably edited, with explanatory notes, by Dr.

J. Hammond Trumbull, of Hartford, who has done so much to illustrate

the history of his State, and indeed of New England.[672] I might add

that Dr. Palfrey, in writing the _History of New England_, often had

the benefit of Dr. Trumbull’s learning in illustrating many obscure

points in Connecticut history.[673]

The _New Haven Colony Records_ end, of course, with the absorption

of that colony by Connecticut. These are well edited, in two volumes

(1638 to 1649, and 1653 to 1665), with abundant illustrations in the

Appendix, by Charles J. Hoadly, M.A., and were published at Hartford in

1857-58.

The _Collections_ of the Connecticut Historical Society have already

been referred to.[674]

The New Haven Colony Historical Society is a separate body, devoted to

preserving the memorials of that colony. It has issued three volumes of

_Papers_.[675]

Among the general histories of Connecticut was one by Theodore Dwight,

Jr., in Harper’s Family Library, 1840; also another by G. H. Hollister,

2 vols., 1855, and enlarged in 1857. A condensed _History of the

Colony of New Haven, before and after the Union_, by E. R. Lambert,

was published at New Haven in 1838; and a more extensive _History of

the Colony of New Haven to its Absorption into Connecticut_, by E. E.

Atwater, was published in New Haven in 1881.[676] There are some town

histories which, for the early period, have almost the character of

histories of the State,—like Caulkins’s _Norwich_ (originally 1845;

enlarged 1866, and again in 1874) and _New London_ (1852); Orcutt and

Beadsley’s _Derby_ (1642-1880); William Cothren’s _Ancient Woodbury_, 3

vols., published in 1854-79; H. R. Stiles’s _Ancient Windsor_, 2 vols.,

1859-63. Barber’s _Connecticut Historical Collections_ is a convenient

manual for ready reference.[677]

RHODE ISLAND.[678]—The first published history of the colony of Rhode

Island and Providence Plantations was an _Historical Discourse_,

delivered at Newport in 1738, on the centennial of the settlement of

Aquedneck, by John Callender, minister of that place, and printed at

Boston the next year.[679]

Twenty-seven years afterward,—that is, in 1765,—there appeared in

seven numbers of a newspaper (the _Providence Gazette_), from January

12 to March 30, “An Historical Account of the Planting and Growth of

Providence.” This sketch, written by the venerable Stephen Hopkins,

then governor of the State, interrupted by the disastrous occurrences

of the times, comes down only to 1645, and remains a fragment.[680]

_A Gazeteer of the States of Connecticut and Rhode Island_, with maps

of each State, was published at Hartford in 1819, in 8º, compiled

by John C. Pease and John M. Niles. It furnished for the time a

large amount of statistical and historical material. The work gives

a geographical sketch of each county, with details of each town,

and “embraces notices of population, business, etc., together with

biographical sketches of eminent men.”

“Memoirs of Rhode Island” were written by the late Henry Bull, of

Newport, in 1832, and published in the _Rhode Island Republican_

(newspaper) of that year.[681] _A Discourse embracing the Civil and

Religious History of Rhode Island, delivered at Newport_, April 4,

1838, by Arthur A. Ross, pastor of a Baptist church at Newport, was

published at Providence in the same year, and is full on the history of

Newport.

In 1853 there was published in New York an octavo volume of 370 pages,

entitled _History of Rhode Island_, by the Rev. Edward Peterson. “This

book abounds in errors, and is of no historical value. It is not a

continuous history, but is made up of scraps, without chronological

arrangement.”[682]

In 1859 and 1860 was published the _History of the State of Rhode

Island and Providence Plantations_, by Samuel Greene Arnold, in two

volumes,[683]—a work honorable alike to its author and to the State.

While Mr. Arnold was writing this history, Dr. Palfrey was engaged upon

his masterly _History of New England_. These writers differed somewhat

in their interpretation of historical events and in their estimate of

historical personages, and the student of New England history should

read them both. The value of these works consists not only in the text

or narrative parts, but also in the notes, which for the student,

particularly in Dr. Palfrey’s book, contain valuable information, in a

small compass, upon the authorities on which the narrative rests.

The late George Washington Greene prepared _A Short History of Rhode

Island_, published in 1877, in 348 pages, which formed an excellent

compendium, much needed. It is compiled largely from Mr. Arnold’s work.

“The Early History of Narragansett,” by Elisha R. Potter, was published

as vol. iii. of the _R. I. Hist. Soc. Coll._, in 1835. It is a valuable

collection of events, arranged in chronological order, and illustrated

by original documents in an appendix.

“The Annals of the Town of Providence from its First Settlement,” etc.,

to the year 1832, by William R. Staples, was published, in 1834, as

vol. v. of the _R. I. Hist. Soc. Coll._ The author says that the work

does not assume to be a “history;” but it is a valuable and authentic

record of events from the time of Roger Williams’s settlement on the

banks of the Mooshausic, in 1636, to the year 1832, illustrated by

original documents, the whole making 670 pages.

I ought not to omit the mention of several addresses and discourses

delivered before the Rhode Island Historical Society, some of which

have considerable historical interest, as illustrating the principles

on which it is claimed that Rhode Island was founded. Special mention

may be made of the Discourse of Judge Pitman, that of Chief Justice

Durfee, and that of the late Zachariah Allen.[684]

As Roger Williams is properly held to be the founder of the State of

Rhode Island; and as many of his writings had become quite rare, a

society was formed in 1865, called the “Narragansett Club,” for the

purpose of republishing all his known writings. Vol. i., containing

Williams’s _Key to the Indian Languages of America_, edited by Dr. J.

Hammond Trumbull,[685] was issued in 1866; and vol. vi., the concluding

volume, in which are collected all the known letters of Williams, in

1874. The volumes were published in quarto form, in antique style,

and edited by well-known historical scholars, and are a valuable

contribution to the personal history of Roger Williams and to the

history of the controversy on religious liberty, of which he was the

great advocate.[686]

The earliest publication of any of Williams’s letters was by Isaac

Backus, in his _History of New England_, etc., 1777, 1784, 1796, in

three volumes, written with particular reference to the Baptists.

It treats largely of Rhode Island history, and is a most authentic

work.[687]

A series of _Rhode Island Historical Tracts_, beginning in 1878, has

been issued by Sidney S. Rider, of Providence, each being a monograph

on some subject of Rhode Island history. No. 4, on _William Coddington

in Rhode Island Colonial Affairs_, is an unfavorable criticism on the

conduct of Coddington in the episode known as “the Usurpation,” by Dr.

Henry E. Turner.[688] No. 15, issued in 1882, is a tract of 267 pages,

on _The Planting and Growth of Providence_, by Henry C. Dorr. It is a

valuable monograph, and would have been more valuable if authorities

had been more freely cited.

One valuable source of the history of Rhode Island is the _Records_ of

the colony, and these have been made available for use by publication,

under the efficient editorship of the Hon. John Russell Bartlett, for

a number of years Secretary of State. To make up for the meagreness of

the records in some places, the editor has introduced from exterior

sources many official papers, which make good the deficiencies and

abundantly illustrate the history of the times. The first volume was

issued in 1856, and begins with the “Records of the Settlements at

Providence, Portsmouth, Newport, and Warwick, from their commencement

to their union under the Colony Charter, 1636 to 1647.”

The early history of Providence is so intimately interwoven with the

life of its founder, that some of the excellent memoirs of Roger

Williams may be read with profit as historical works. A _Memoir of

Williams_, by Professor James D. Knowles, was published in 1834, and is

a minute and conscientious biography of the man; but it is written with

a strong bias in favor of Williams where he comes in collision with the

authorities of Massachusetts.

A very pleasant memoir of Williams, by Professor William Gammell,

based on that of Knowles, was published in 1845, in Sparks’s _American

Biography_, reissued the next year in a volume by itself. This memoir

was followed in 1852 by _A Life of Roger Williams_, by Professor Romeo

Elton, published in England, where the author then lived, and in

Providence the next year. This is largely based on Knowles’s memoir,

but contains some new matter, notably the Sadlier Correspondence.

The original authorities for Williams’s career in Massachusetts and

Plymouth are Winthrop and Bradford and the controversial tracts of

Cotton and Williams, from which bits of history may be culled. For a

full presentation and discussion of the facts and principles involved

in Williams’s banishment from Massachusetts, and his alleged offence

to the authorities there, see the late Professor Diman’s Editorial

Preface to Cotton’s _Reply to Williams_, in the second volume of

the Narragansett Club, above cited; Dr. George E. Ellis’s Lecture

on “The Treatment of Intruders and Dissentients by the Founders of

Massachusetts,” in _Lowell Lectures_, Boston, Jan. 12, 1869; Dr. Henry

Martyn Dexter’s _As to Roger Williams_, etc., Boston, 1876;[689] _Mass.

Hist. Soc. Proc._, for February, 1873, pp. 341-358; _North American

Review_ for January, 1858, art. xiii. p. 673.

In Dr. John Clarke’s _Ill News from New England_, London, 1653,[690]

being a personal narrative of the treatment, the year before, by the

authorities of the Bay Colony, of Obadiah Holmes, John Crandall, and

John Clarke, and an account of the laws and ecclesiastical polity of

that colony, is a brief account of the settlement of Providence and of

the island of Rhode Island.

An important episode in the early history of Rhode Island was the

career of Samuel Gorton, who settled the town of Warwick. I have

already mentioned, under the head of Massachusetts, the original

books in which the story for and against him is told,—_Simplicitie’s

Defence_, written by Gorton, and _Hypocracie Unmasked_, by Edward

Winslow. The former was republished in the _R. I. Hist. Soc. Coll._,

vol. ii., in 1835, edited by W. R. Staples, with a preface, notes, and

appendix of original papers. Winslow’s book, now very rare, has never

been reprinted. A “Life of Samuel Gorton,” by John M. Mackie, was

published in 1845 in Sparks’s _American Biography_. After Nathaniel

Morton published his _New England’s Memorial_, in 1669, containing

some reflections on Gorton, the latter wrote a letter to Morton, dated

“Warwick, June 30, 1669,” in his own defence. Hutchinson had the

letter, and printed an abridgment of it in the Appendix to his first

volume. Some forty years ago or less, the original letter came into

the possession of the late Edward A. Crowninshield, of Boston, and he

allowed Peter Force to print it, and it appears entire in vol. iv. of

Force’s _Historical Tracts_, 1846.

The early settlers of Rhode Island had no patent-claim to lands on

which they planted. The consent of the natives only was obtained.

Williams’s deed, so called, from the Indians, may be seen in vols.

iv. and v. _R. I. Hist. Soc. Coll._; and that to Coddington and

his friends, of Aquedneck, is also in the Appendix to vol. iv. The

parchment charter which Williams obtained from the Parliamentary

Commissioners, dated March 14, 1643, is lost, but it had been copied

several times, and is printed in vols. ii., iii., and iv., _R. I. Hist.

Soc. Coll._ Some copies are dated erroneously March 17. See Arnold’s

_Rhode Island_, i. 114, note.

For a discussion of the “Narragansett Patent,” so called, issued to

Massachusetts, dated Dec. 10, 1643, see Arnold, i. 118-120; _Mass.

Hist. Soc. Proc._ for February, 1862, pp. 401-406; and June, 1862; pp.

41-77.[691]

The original charter of Charles II., dated July 8, 1663, is extant. It

was first printed as prefixed to the earliest digest of laws (Boston,

1719), and has been often reprinted.

The incorporation of Providence plantations under the charter of

1643/44 was delayed for several years, and took place in 1647, when a

code of laws was adopted. This code was first printed in 1847, edited

by Judge William R. Staples, in a volume entitled _The Proceedings

of the First General Assembly of “the Incorporation of Providence

Plantations,” and the Code of Laws adopted by that Assembly in 1647,

with Notes, Historical and Explanatory_ (64 pages). The original

manuscript of these laws is in a volume of the early records in the

Secretary of State’s office.

The earliest printed digest of laws, entitled _Acts and Laws_, was in

1719,—printed at Boston “for John Allen and Nicholas Boone.”[692]

In this, the following clause appears as part of a law purporting to

have been enacted in March, 1663-64: “And that all men professing

Christianity, and of competent estates and of civil conversation,

who acknowledge and are obedient to the civil magistrate, though

of different judgments in religious affairs (_Roman Catholics only

excepted_), shall be admitted freemen, and shall have liberty to choose

and be chosen officers in the colony, both military and civil.” This

same clause appears in the four following printed digests named above,

and it remained a law of the colony till February, 1783, when the

General Assembly formally repealed so much of it as related to Roman

Catholics. Rhode Island writers consider it a serious reflection upon

the character of the founders of the colony to assert that this clause

was enacted at the time indicated; and one writer (Judge Eddy, in

_Walsh’s Appeal_, 2d ed., p. 433) thinks it possible that the clause

was inserted in a manuscript copy of the laws sent over to England in

1699, without, of course, being enacted into a law. The clause, it is

said, does not exist in manuscript in the archives of the colony, and

is not in the manuscript digest of 1708, though Mr. Arnold, _History_,

ii. 492, inadvertently says it is there. If the clause was originally

smuggled in among the statutes of Rhode Island at a later period than

the date assigned to it (see _R. I. Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1872-73, p.

64), it was five times formally re-enacted when the several digests

named above were submitted by their revising committees, and passed the

General Assembly; and it remained a law till 1783.

In 1762, two persons professing the Jewish religion petitioned the

Superior Court of the colony to be made citizens. Their prayer was

rejected. The concluding part of the opinion of the court is as

follows: “Further, by the charter granted to this colony it appears

that the free and quiet enjoyment of the Christian religion and a

desire of propagating the same were the principal views with which this

colony was settled, and by a law made and passed in the year 1663,

no person who does not profess the Christian religion can be admitted

free of this colony. This Court, therefore, unanimously dismiss this

petition, as wholly inconsistent with the first principles upon which

the colony was founded and a law of the same now in force” (Arnold,

_History_, ii. 492-495). Arnold says that previous to this decision

several Jews and Roman Catholics had been naturalized as citizens by

special acts of the General Assembly.

Has there not been a misapprehension as to the bearing of this law

or clause disfranchising or refusing to admit to the franchise Roman

Catholics and persons not Christians, and as to Roger Williams’s

doctrine of religious liberty? The charter of Rhode Island declared

that no one should be “molested ... or called in question for any

differences of opinion in matters of religion.” The law in question

does not relate to religious liberty, but to the franchise. Rhode

Island has always granted liberty to persons of every religious

opinion, but has placed a hedge about the franchise; and this clause

does it. Was it not natural for the founders of Rhode Island to keep

the government in the hands of its friends while working out their

experiment, rather than to put it into the hands of the enemies of

religious liberty? How many shiploads of Roman Catholics would it have

taken to swamp the little colony in the days of its weakness? Chalmers

(_Annals_, p. 276) copied his extract of the law in question from

the digest of 1730, as per minutes formerly belonging to him in my

possession. As an historian where could he seek for higher authority?

Indeed, the clause had already been cited by Douglass in his _Summary_,

ii. 83, Boston, 1751; and by the authors of the _History of the British

Dominions in North America_, part i. p. 232, London, 1773. The latter

as well as Chalmers omitted the phrase “professing Christianity.” But

Chalmers was entirely wrong in his comments upon the clause where he

says that “a persecution was immediately commenced against the Roman

Catholics.”[693]

[Illustration]

EDITORIAL NOTES.

THE WINTHROP MAP (_Circa 1633_).

AMONG the Sloane manuscripts in the British Museum is one numbered

“Add: 5,415, G. 3,” whose peculiar interest to the American antiquary

escaped notice till Mr. Henry F. Waters sent photographs of it to the

Public Library in Boston in 1884, when one of them was laid before the

Massachusetts Historical Society by Judge Chamberlain, of that Library

(_Proceedings_, 1884, p. 211). It was of the size of the original,

somewhat obscure, and a little deficient on the line where its two

parts joined. At the Editor’s request, Mr. Richard Garnett, of the

British Museum, procured a negative on a single glass; and though

somewhat reduced, the result, as shown in the accompanying fac-simile,

is more distinct, and no part is lost.

The map is without date. The topography corresponds in the main

with that of the map which William Wood added to his _New England’s

Prospect_ (London, 1634), so far as its smaller field corresponds,

and suggests the common use of an earlier survey by the two

map-makers,—if, indeed, Wood did not depend in part on this present

survey. That its observations were the best then made would seem clear

from the fact that Governor Winthrop explained it by a marginal key,

and added in some places a further description to that given by the

draughtsman (as a change in the handwriting would seem to show,—for

instance, in the legend on the Merrimac River), if indeed all is not

Winthrop’s. Who the draughtsman was is not known. There had been in

the colony a man experienced in surveying,—Thomas Graves,—who laid

out Charlestown, before Winthrop’s arrival; but he is not known to

have remained till the period of the present survey, which, if there

has been nothing added to the original draught, was seemingly made as

early as that given by Wood. This last traveller left New England, Aug.

15, 1633; and his description of the plantations about Boston at that

time, which he professes to make complete, is almost identical with the

enumeration on this map, though he gives a few more local names. Wood’s

map is dated 1634; but it seems certain that he carried it with him

in August, 1633,—a date as late apparently as can be attached to the

present draught.

The key added by Winthrop to the north corner of the map reads as

follows:—

A: _an Iland cont[aining] 100 acres,

where the Gouven^r. hathe an orchard & a

vineyarde._

B: _M^r. Humfryes ferme [farm] house

at Sagus [Saugus]._

_Tenhills: the Gouern^{rs}. ferme [farm]

house._

_Meadford: M^r. Cradock ferme [farm]

house._

C: the Wyndmill}

D: the fforte } at Boston.

E: the Weere

_So far as the rivers are laid thus [shaded], they are navigable w^{th}

the Tide._

[SCALE.]

_Scale of 10: Italian miles

320 pches [perches] to the mile,

not taken by Instrument, but by estimate._

In the north the Merrimac is shown to be navigable to _a fall_. The

stream itself is marked _Merimack river; it runnes 100 miles up into

the Country, and falles out of a ponde 10 miles broad_. It receives

the _Musketaquit riuer_ [Concord] just south of the scale. The long

island near its mouth is Plum Island, but it is not named. The village

of _Agawam_ [Ipswich] is connected by roads [dotted lines] with

_Sagus_ [Saugus], _Salem_, _Winesemett_, and _Meadford_, which is

called “Misticke” in Wood’s text, but “Meadford” in his map. On _Cape

Anne_ peninsula _Anasquom_ is marked. The bay between Marblehead and

Marblehead Neck is called _Marble Harbour_, as by Wood in his map.

_Nahant_ is marked, as are also _Pulln Point_, _Deere I._, _Hogg I._,

_Nottles I._ Governor’s Island is marked _A._, referring to the key.

Charlestown is called _Char:towne_. _Spott Ponde_ flows properly

through Malden River, not named, into the Mystic; and _Mistick river_

takes the water of a number of ponds. The modern Horn Pond in Woburn is

not shown. The three small ponds near a hill appear to be Wedge Pond

and others in Winchester; the main water is _Mistick pond, 60 fathoms

deepe; horn ponde_ is the modern Spy Pond; Fresh Pond is called 40

_fathom deepe_. Their watershed is separated by the Belmont hills,

not named, from the valley of the Concord. The villages of _Waterton_

and _Newtowne_ [Cambridge] are marked on the _Charls River_. The

peninsula of _Boston_ shows Beacon Hill, not named, while _C_ and _D_

are explained in the key. _Muddy river_ [Muddy Brook in Brookline]

and _Stony river_ [Stony Brook in Roxbury] are correctly placed.

_Rocksbury_ and _Dorchester_ appear as villages. Hills are shown on

Dorchester Neck, or South Boston. _Naponsett river_ is placed with

tolerable correctness. The islands in Boston Harbor are all represented

as wooded. The _waye to Plimouth_, beginning at Dorchester, crosses

the Weymouth rivers above _Wessaguscus_ [Wessagussett]. Trees and

eminences are marked on _Nataskette_ [Hull], and Cohasset is called

_Conyhassett_. The same sign stands for rocks in the Bay and for Indian

villages on the land.

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

It may be well further to notice that since the printing of this volume

_A Briefe Discription of New England_, 1660, by Samuel Maverick, has

likewise been discovered in the British Museum by Mr. Waters, and is

printed in the _Proceedings_ of the Massachusetts Historical Society,

October, 1884, and in the _New England Historical and Genealogical

Register_, January, 1885.—ED.

EDITORIAL NOTES.

=A.= BIBLIOGRAPHICAL.—Rhode Island has been fortunate in its

bibliographer. Mr. John Russell Bartlett, the editor of the State’s

early _Records_, issued at Providence, in 1864, his _Bibliography of

Rhode Island, with Notes, Historical, Biographical, and Critical_

(150 copies printed). Mr. Bartlett began a “Naval History of Rhode

Island” in the _Historical Magazine_, January, 1870. As the adviser

of the late Mr. John Carter Brown in the forming of what is now so

widely known as the Carter-Brown Library, and as the cataloguer of

its almost unexampled treasures, not only of Rhode Island, but of all

American history, Mr. Bartlett has also conferred upon the student of

American history benefits equalled in the labors of few other scholars

in this department. Mr. Brown erected for himself in his Library a

splendid monument. There may exist in the Lenox Library a rival in

some departments of Americana, but Mr. Bartlett’s Catalogue of the

Providence Collection makes its richness better known. Mr. Brown began

his collections early, and was enabled to buy from the catalogues of

Rich and Ternaux. The Library is now so complete, and its _desiderata_

are so few and so scarce, that it grows at present but slowly.

Mr. Brown, a son of Nicholas Brown, from whom the university in

Providence received its name, was born in 1797, and died June 10,

1874. But fifty copies of the two sumptuous volumes (1482-1700)

constituting the revised edition of the catalogue (there is a third

volume, 1700-1800, in a first edition) have been distributed,

and they are the Library’s best history; but those not fortunate

enough to have access to them will find accounts of it in the

_Bibliotheca Sacra_, April, 1876; Rogers’s _Libraries of

Providence; N.E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, April, 1876; _American

Journal of Education_, xxvii. 237; _American Bibliopolist_, vi. 77,

vii. 91, 228.

The several volumes of the Rhode Island Historical Society, so far as

they relate to the period under examination, are noted in the preceding

text; but the Society has also issued a volume of _Proceedings_ for

the years 1872-1879. Two supplemental publications of the Rhode Island

antiquaries have been begun lately,—the _Newport Historical Magazine_,

July, 1880, and the _Narragansett Historical Register_, July, 1882,

James N. Arnold, editor, both devoted to southern Rhode Island.

=B.= EARLY MAPS OF NEW ENGLAND.—The cartography of New England in

the seventeenth century began with the map of Captain John Smith in

1614 (given in chap. vi.), for we must discard as of little value

the earlier maps of Lescarbot and Champlain. The Dutch were on the

coast at about the same time, and the best development of their work

is what is known as the “Figurative Map” of 1614, which was first

made known in the _Documents relating to the Colonial History of New

York_, i. 13, and in O’Callaghan’s _New Netherland_. The part showing

New England is figured in the _Memorial History of Boston_, i. 57. It

had certain features which long remained on the maps, and its names

became in later maps curiously mixed with those derived from Smith’s

map. It gave the Cape Cod peninsula (here, however, made an island) a

peculiar triangular shape; it exaggerated Plymouth’s harbor; it ran

Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket into one, and divided Long Island into

several parts. The marked feature of the interior was the bringing

of the Iroquois (Champlain) Lake close down to the salt water, as

Champlain had done in his map of 1612, and as he continued to do in

his larger map of 1632. Blaeu, in his _Atlas_ of 1635, while he copied

the Figurative Map pretty closely, closed the channel which made Cape

Cod an island, and gave the “Lacus Irocociensis” a prolongation in

the direction of Narragansett Bay. De Laet, in 1630, had worked on

much better information in several respects. Cape Cod is much more

nearly its proper shape; and he had got such information from the

Dutch settlements up the Hudson as enabled him to place Lake Champlain

with fair accuracy. A fac-simile of De Laet’s map is given in Vol. IV.

chap. ix. Meanwhile the English had enlarged Smith’s plot, as the map

given on an earlier page from Alexander and Purchas (_Pilgrimes_, iii.

853) shows. Champlain’s plotting in 1632 of the great river of Canada

could not, of course, have been known to this map-maker of 1624, while

Lescarbot’s was.

[Illustration]

Pure local work came in with the map which accompanied Wood’s _New

England’s Prospect_, which is called “The south part of New England

as it is planted this yeare, 1634.” It only shows the coast from

Narragansett Bay to “Acomenticus,” on the Maine shore, with a

corresponding inland delineation. Buzzard’s Bay is greatly misshapen;

Cape Cod has something of the contemporary Dutch drawing; and, in a

rude way, the watercourses lie like huge snakes in contortions upon

the land. There are fac-similes of the map in Palfrey, i. 360; Young’s

_Chronicles of Massachusetts_, p. 389, and in other places noted in

the _Memorial History of Boston_, i. 524. Two years later (1636), in

Saltonstall’s English version of the atlas of Mercator and Hondius, the

English public practically got De Laet’s map; and indeed so late as

1670, the map “Novi Belgii et Novæ Angliæ Delineatio,” which is given

alike in Montanus’s _De Nieuwe en Onbekende Weereld_ and in Ogilby’s

_America_, hardly embodied more exact information. The Hexham English

version of the Mercator-Hondius Atlas, intended for the English market,

but published in Amsterdam by Hondius and Jannson in 1636 (of which

there is a fine copy in the library of the Massachusetts Historical

Society), in its map of “Nova Anglia,” etc., kept up the commingling

of Smith’s plot and names with the present Dutch ones. Blaeu’s of 1635

was the prototype of the chart in Dudley’s _Arcano del Mare_ (1646), of

which a fac-simile is given in the preceding chapter.

[Illustration: NEW ENGLAND, 1650.

This is a reduction of a sketch of a part of a manuscript Map of North

America, dated 1650, of which a drawing is given in the _Massachusetts

Archives; Documents Collected in France_, ii. 61. The key is as

follows:—

1. Sauvages Hurons.

2. Lac des Iroquois [Lake Champlain].

3. Sauvages Iroquois.

4. Sauvages Malectites.

5. Sauvages Etechemins.

6. Pemicuit [Pemaquid].

7. Pentagouet.

8. Isle des Monts Deserts.

9. Baye de Kinibequi.

10. Sauvages Kanibas.

11. Caskobé [Casco Bay].

12. Pescadoué [Piscataqua].

13. Selem [Salem].

14. Baston [Boston].

15. NOVA ANGLIA.

16. Sauvages Pequatis [Pequods].

17. Plymuth.

18. Cap Malabar.

19. Sauvages Narhicans [Narragansetts].

20. Isle de Bloque [Block Island].

21. Isle de Nantochyte [Nantucket].]

For the next twenty years the Dutch plotting was the one in vogue.

Visscher, in 1652, disjoined the two principal islands south of

Cape Cod, and gave a better shape to that peninsula; but Crane Bay

(Plymouth) continued to be more prominent than Boston. The French

map of Sanson (1656) so far followed the Dutch as to recognize the

claims of “Nouveau Pays Bas” to stretch through Connecticut, Rhode

Island, and Plymouth Colony, as shown in the sketch in chap. xi. The

old Dutch mistakes and the Dutch names characterize Hendrick Doncker’s

_Paskaert_, in 1659, and other of the Hollanders’ sea-charts of this

time. In 1660, François du Creux’s (Creuxius) _Historia Canadensis_

converts into a Latin nomenclature, in a curious jumble, the names of

the English, Dutch, and French. This map is given in fac-simile in

Shea’s _Mississippi_, p. 50, and also in Vol. IV. of the present work.

The next year (1661) Van Loon’s _Pascaerte_ was based on Blaeu and De

Laet, and his _Zee-Atlas_, though not recognized by Asher, represents

the best knowledge of the time. There is a copy in Harvard College

Library. There are other maps of Visscher of about this same time, in

which Cape Cod becomes as excessively attenuated as it had been too

large before.

[Illustration: NEW ENGLAND, 1680.

This follows a manuscript French map preserved in the Depot des

Cartes et Plans at Paris, as shown in a sketch by Mr. Poore in the

_Massachusetts Archives; Documents Collected in France_, iii. 11.]

Of the later Dutch charts or maps, the chief place must be given to

that in Roggeveen’s Sea-Atlas, which is called in the English version

_The Burning Fen_, and which still insists in calling the Cape Cod

peninsula in 1675 a part of “Nieuw Holland,” as does one of Jannson’s

of about the same date, in which Smith’s names survive marvellously

when those of other towns had long taken their places. A map, _La

Nouvelle Belgique_, covering also New England, and fashioned on one

of Jannson’s, is annexed to an article, “Une Colonie Néerlandaise,”

by Colonel H. Wauwermans, in the _Bulletin de la Société Géographique

d’Anvers_, iv. 173. The Blaeu map, “Nova Belgica et Anglia Nova,”

found in the Atlas of 1685, still preserves most of the older

Dutch falsities; and that geographer made no one of these errors

so conspicuous as he did in making still nearer than before the

approach of “Lacus Irocociensis” to Narragansett Bay. A short dotted

boundary-line is made to connect them, and he dispelled the old Dutch

claim to southeastern New England, by putting “Nieu Engelland” east of

this line, and “Nieu Nederlandt” west of it. This map was substantially

followed in Allard’s _Minor Atlas_, of a few years later. A new English

cartography sprang up when there came a demand for geographical

knowledge, as the events of Philip’s War engaged general attention.

The royal geographer Speed issued in 1676 a map of New England and New

York in his _Prospect_; but he seems to have followed Visscher and the

other Dutch authorities implicitly, as did Coronelli and Tillemon in

the New England parts of their map of Canada issued in 1688. Stevens,

in his _Bibliotheca Geographica_, p. 229, notes an English map of New

England and New York, which he supposes to belong to 1690, “sold by T.

Bassett, in Fleet Street,” which is seemingly enlarged from so early a

Dutch map as De Laet’s of 1625. The text of Josselyn’s _Voyages_ was

used as the basis of _A Description of New England_, which accompanied

in folio a folded plate, entitled “Mapp of New England, by John Seller,

Hydrographer to the King.” It is without date, but is mentioned in the

_London Gazette_ in 1676, and could not have appeared earlier than

1674, when Josselyn’s book was printed. There is a copy in Harvard

College Library; and it shows the coast from Casco Bay to New York,

with a corresponding interior. These are precisely the bounds in the

map which is given in Mather’s _Magnalia_ in 1702, and which seems, in

parts at least, to have been drawn from Seller’s. Sabin (_Dictionary_,

vol. xiii. no. 52,629) gives _A Description of New England in

general, with a Description of the Town of Boston in particular_,

London, John Seller, 1682, 4º. Seller is also known to have issued a

small sketch map in his _New England Almanac_, 1685 (copy in Harvard

College Library); and still another, of which a fac-simile is given in

Palfrey’s _New England_, iii. 489. There is a map (5 x 4½ inches)

of New England by Robert Morden in R. Blome’s _Present State of his

Majesty’s Isles and Territories in America_, 1687, p. 210, which is

based on Seller’s, and which has been reproduced by the Bradford Club

in their _Papers concerning the Attack on Hatfield and Deerfield_, New

York, 1859. A different map, extending to New France and Greenland, is

given in the Amsterdam editions of Blome, 1688 and 1715. Hubbard’s map,

accompanying his _Narrative of the Troubles in New England_, 1677, a

rude woodcut,—the first attempt at such work in the colony,—extends

only to the Connecticut westerly; but northerly it goes far enough to

take in the White Hills, which in the London reissue of the map are

called “Wine Hills.” This is also given by Palfrey, iii. 155, after the

London plate, and further notes upon it will be found in the _Memorial

History of Boston_, i. 328. There is also a detailed delineation of the

New England coast in John Thornton’s _Atlas Maritimus_, 1701-21.

In this enumeration of the maps or charts which give New England, or

any considerable part of it, on a scale sufficient for detail, it

is thought that every significant draft is mentioned, though some

repetitions, particularly by the Dutch, have been purposely omitted.

Modern maps of New England, which indicate the condition of this

period, will be found in Palfrey’s _New England_, vol. i., showing

the geography of 1644, and in vol. iii. that of 1689; and in Uhden’s

_Geschichte der Congregationalisten, Leipsic_, 1840.