After several unsuccessful attempts to form settlements in the
southern part of North America, in which little more had been done
than giving the name of Virginia, in compliment to the virgin Queen
Elizabeth, to the country, a patent was obtained in 1606, from James
I., by Sir Thomas Gates and associates, for all lands there between
the thirty-fourth and forty-fifth degrees of north latitude; and, at
the patentees’ own solicitation, they were divided into two
companies;[1] to the former of which were granted all the lands
between the thirty-fourth and forty-first degrees of north latitude,
and to the latter all those between the thirty-eighth and forty-fifth
degrees. A part of the coast of the territory last mentioned being
explored in 1614, and a chart presented to the then Prince of Wales,
afterward Charles I., it received from him the appellation of New
England.
In the mean time, however, notwithstanding the claim of the English in
general to North America, and the particular grant to Sir Thomas Gates
and associates, above mentioned, the Dutch got footing on Manhattan or
New York Island, pushed up Hudson’s River, as high as Albany, and were
beginning to spread on its banks when, in 1614, they were compelled by
Sir Samuel Argal to acknowledge themselves subjects of the King of
England, and submit to the authority of the Governor of Virginia.[2]
For the better enabling them to accomplish their American
undertakings, the Plymouth Company, in 1620, obtained a new patent,
admitting new members of rank and fortune. By this they were styled
“The Council, established at Plymouth, for planting and governing the
said country called New England;” and to them were now granted all the
lands between the fortieth and forty-eighth degrees of north latitude,
and extending east and west from the Atlantic ocean to the South Sea,
except such as were then actually possessed by any Christian prince or
people.[3]
Not long afterward, the patentees came to the resolution of making a
division of the country among themselves by lot, which they did in the
presence of James I. The map of New England, etc., published by
Purchas in 1625, which is now become scarce, and probably the only
memorial extant of the result, has the following names on the
following portions of the coast:
Earl of Arundel, }
Sir Ferdinando Gorges, } Between the rivers St. Croix and
Earl of Carlisle, } Penobscot.
Lord Keeper, }
Sir William Belassis, } Between Penobscot and Sagadahoc
Sir Robert Mansell, } river.
Earl of Holderness, }
Earl of Pembroke, }
Lord Sheffield, }
Sir Henry Spelman, }
Sir William Apsley, } Between Sagadahoc and Charles
Captain Love, } river.
Duke of Buckingham, }
Earl of Warwick, }
Duke of Richmond, }
Mr. Jennings, }
Dr. Sutcliffe, }
Lord Gorges, }
Sir Samuel Argal, } Between Charles River and Narraganset.
Dr. Bar. Gooch. }
In the above map, no names appear on the coast north of the river St.
Croix, i. e., Nova Scotia, which was relinquished by the patentees in
favor of Sir William Alexander; the coast west of Narraganset is not
exhibited by Purchas, so that it is uncertain whether the division
above mentioned extended to that or not. Probably, it was not then
sufficiently explored. However, in 1635, the patentees, from the
exigency of their affairs, thinking a surrender of their patent to the
king, with reservation of their several rights with regard to the
property of the land, an advisable measure, a new division of the
coast was struck out, consisting of twelve lots, extending to and
comprising lands on the west side of Hudson’s River, and, of course,
the Dutch settlement at Manhattan. The following is an account of
these lots:
1. From the river St. Croix to Pemaquid.
2. From Pemaquid to Sagadahoc.
3. The land between the rivers Amarascoggin and Kenebec.
4. From Sagadahoc along the sea-coast to Piscataqua.
5. From Piscataqua to Naumkeak (or Salem).
6. From Naumkeak, round the sea-coast by Cape Cod to Narraganset.
7. From Narraganset to the half-way bound, between that and
Connecticut River, and so fifty miles up into the country.
8. From the half-way bound to Connecticut River, and so fifty
miles into the country.
9. From Connecticut River along the sea-coast of Hudson’s River,
and so up thirty miles.
10. From the thirty miles’ end to cross, up forty miles eastward.
11. From the west side of Hudson’s River thirty miles up the country
toward the fortieth degree, where New England beginneth.
12. From the end of the thirty miles up the said river, northward
thirty miles further, and from thence to cross into the land
forty miles.--(“Hutchinson’s History of Massachusetts Bay.”)
These divisions were immediately, on the above-mentioned surrender, to
be confirmed by the king to the proprietors, and proposed to be
erected into so many distinct provinces, under one general Governor of
New England. It is certain that this plan was not then carried into
execution in the whole. Several, if not all of the lots were formally
conveyed to their respective owners previous to the resignation of the
patent. How many were confirmed by the king is not known; there is
positive evidence of but one--to Sir Ferdinando Gorges.
The eighth and ninth lots nearly form the province of Connecticut,
taking its name from the great Indian king who reigned when the
English made their first inroads into the country.
But before I give an account of this event, it may be proper to
premise a few particulars concerning the Dutch, already spoken of as
having seated themselves on New York Island and the banks of Hudson’s
River, and also concerning the settlements formed by the English in
and near the Massachusetts Bay.
The same year which established the Council of Plymouth, established
also the Dutch West India Company, to whom the States of Holland are
said to have granted, the year after, all the lands between Capes Cod
and Henlopen.
Under their encouragement and support the Dutch at New York were
induced to look upon the act of Argal with contempt; accordingly, they
revolted from the allegiance he had imposed upon them, cast off the
authority of their English Governor, and proceeded in their colonizing
pursuits under one of their own nation; in which they seemed to have
employed their wonted industry, having, before the year 1637, erected
a fort on the spot where Hartford now stands.
A party of Brownists, who in 1619 are said to have obtained a grant of
land from the Virginia Company, set sail on the 6th of September in
the following year for Hudson’s River; but making on the 11th of
November the harbor of Cape Cod instead of the place of their
destination, and finding themselves not in a fit condition to put to
sea again at such a late season of the year, they ranged along the
coast till a commodious situation presented itself, when they
disembarked, and founded the colony of New Plymouth.
Seven years afterward a party of Puritans procured a grant of the
lands from Merrimack River to the southernmost part of Massachusetts
Bay. They made their first settlement at Naumkeak, by them now named
Salem, and a second at Charlestown. Great numbers of the Puritans
followed their brethren to New England, so that, within a few years,
was laid the foundation of Boston and other towns upon the
Massachusetts coast.[4]
Thus far had colonization taken place in the neighboring country when,
in 1634, the first part of the English adventurers arrived in
Connecticut from England[5] under the conduct of George Fenwick, Esq.,
and the Rev. Thomas Peters, and established themselves at the mouth of
the Connecticut River, where they built a town, and which they called
Saybrook, a church, and a fort.[6]
In 1636 another party proceeded from Boston under the conduct of Mr.
John Haynes and the Rev. Thomas Hooker, and in June settled on the
west bank of the Connecticut River, where Hartford now stands,
notwithstanding the Dutch had found their way thither before them.[7]
A third party of English settlers in Connecticut were headed by Mr.
Theophilus Eaton and the Rev. John Davenport, who left England early
in the year 1637, and, contrary to the advice of the people of
Massachusetts Bay, who were very desirous of their settling in that
province, fixing themselves in the July following on the north side of
a small bay wherein the river Quinnipiack empties itself, forty miles
southwest of Hartford, and there built the town of New Haven.[8]
Thus, within the space of three years, was Connecticut seized upon by
three distinct English parties, in three different places, forming a
triangle; by what authority I will now beg leave to inquire.
In favor of the first, it is alleged that they purchased part of the
lands belonging to the Lords Say and Brook, which land included the
eighth and ninth lots, and had been assigned to them by the Earl of
Warwick, who, about the year 1630, obtained a grant of the same from
the Council of Plymouth, and a patent from the king, and that Fenwick
was properly commissioned to settle and govern the colony.
Neal, Douglas, and Hutchinson, speak of the grant and assignment with
the greatest confidence, but make no reference where either may be
consulted.
They were very willing to believe what they said, and wished to palm
it upon the credulity of their readers as a fact too well established
to need proof. I shall endeavor to show the futility of their
assertions; indeed, Mr. Hutchinson himself inadvertently gives reason
to doubt the truth of them, writing of the transactions of 1622: “The
Earl of Warwick,” says he, “we are assured, had a patent for the
Massachusetts Bay about the same time, but the bounds are not known.”
It will appear presently that a part of the territory in question was,
in 1635, granted to the Marquis of Hamilton. Now, taking these several
items together, the Council of Plymouth are represented to have
granted not only to Massachusetts Bay in 1622, but also, in 1630, a
region of vast extent, including Connecticut, to the Earl of Warwick;
and then, in 1635, they have regranted the best part of the latter to
the Marquis of Hamilton. There is an infeasibility in this supposition
that, without proof, will deprive it of all credit among persons who
have no particular interest in the support of it.
True it is that Fenwick and his associates were properly authorized to
settle upon lands belonging to Lords Say and Brook; but that the lands
they did settle upon were the property of the Earl of Warwick is not
only without proof, but against it.
It seems to be generally agreed that the Lords Say and Brook were
understood to have a right to lands upon Connecticut River, but that
river being five hundred miles long, and running through the greatest
part of New England, the situation of their property was by no means
pointed out; whether it lay at the mouth, the middle, or the northern
end, was equally unascertained.
The settlers, indeed, established themselves at the mouth, but without
showing their right to the spot; they licentiously chose it. There
never has been produced any writing of conveyance of the land in
question from the Council of Plymouth to the Earl of Warwick, or from
the Earl of Warwick to the Lords Say and Brook, and therefore their
title to it must be deemed not good in law. By a letter from Lord Say
to Mr. Vane, in 1635, it appears that he (Lord Say), Lord Brook, and
others, had thought of removing to New England, but were not
determined whether to join the adventurers in Boston or settle a new
colony.--(Hutchinson’s “History,” vol. i., p. 42.)
If Connecticut had been assigned to Lords Say and Brook by the Earl of
Warwick, as it is pretended was done in 1631, it is very strange that
those lords should have been in doubt in 1635 where to fix themselves
in New England, since interest and ambition, as well as fertility of
soil, would naturally have led them to settle in Connecticut, where
they had land of their own, and where a settlement was already begun,
and bore a very promising appearance. Hence, it seems but reasonable
to suppose that if Lords Say and Brook were entitled to any land on
Connecticut River it could not lie within the province of Connecticut;
and, if their claims were derived from the Earl of Warwick, it may
fairly be concluded that their property lay much higher up the
country, since the coast appropriated to the Earl of Warwick by
Purchas is that at or about Cape Ann. Lords Say and Brook, therefore,
might have a right to send Fenwick, Peters, etc., to colonize on the
north parts of Connecticut River, but not southwardly, at the mouth of
it; and their neglect of the colony at Saybrook may easily be
accounted for, by supposing that they were sensible the settlers had
fixed upon a wrong site--an idea corroborated by this circumstance,
that Fenwick some years after sold his property there for a mere
trifle, when he might have sold it dear if his title had been good.
But, it may be asked, who were the real proprietors of the eighth and
ninth lots?
It is asserted that, on the Council of Plymouth’s resignation of their
patent to Charles I. in 1635, that monarch granted the latter to the
Earl of Stirling.
Possibly there is not now existing any written testimony of this
grant, yet it seems authenticated by the sale which the earl made in
1639, by his agent, Forrest, of the eastern part of Long Island, as
appertaining to his lot, to Mr. Howell. However, though his claim is
not, perhaps, clearly to be established, it is by no means liable to
the many objections urged against that of Lords Say and Brook, which
will in a manner be annihilated by the additional argument I am now
going to adduce from the positive proof there is to whom the eighth
lot really belongs.
It stands authenticated in the office of the Lords Commissioners of
Colonies that, in April, 1635, was conveyed to James, Marquis of
Hamilton, by a deed from the Council of Plymouth, the territory lying
between Narraganset Bay and Connecticut River.[9] The right to the
eighth lot, therefore, was clearly vested in the marquis; and it only
remains to be shown why his descendants are not in possession of it to
remove every doubt upon the matter.[10]
Unfortunately, in the civil broils of his time the marquis engaged and
died fighting under the royal banners, while the king’s enemies took
possession of his lands in Connecticut. At the restoration of Charles
II. to his crown, reason taught the children of royal sufferers to
expect a restoration at least of their landed property; and the
daughter of the Marquis of Hamilton petitioned Charles II. to grant
her relief with respect to the land lying between Narraganset Bay and
the Connecticut River--a relief she had the more reason to hope for, as
“her father had died fighting for his father.” But Charles had been
too much polished in foreign courts to do anything effectual for his
suffering friends. Afterward the Earl of Arran applied to William III.
for redress in regard to the same land; but that earl having acted on
the wrong side at the revolution, could not but expect as little from
William as the friends of Charles II. had received from him. However,
William III. ordered the Lords Commissioners of the colonies to state
his title, which they fairly did; and the earl was referred to try his
case in Connecticut, before the very people who had his lands in
possession.
The Governor and Company of Connecticut gave a formal answer to the
claims of the Earl of Arran, setting up a title under the Earl of
Warwick, as is above mentioned, who, they said, disposed of the land
in dispute to Lord Say and Seal and Lord Brook, and the Lords Say and
Brook sold the same to Fenwick, Peters, and others. The Earl of Arran
answered that, “when they produced a grant from the Plymouth Company,
of those lands to the Earl of Warwick, it should have an answer;” but
the colony was silent, and King William was silent also.--(_Vide_
“Records of New England,” A., pp. 170-201.)
Since, then, no proof of any title derived from the Earl of Warwick
could be produced by the Governor and Company of Connecticut, when the
question of right to the country was fairly brought into litigation,
and since there is a record of the grant of the eastern part of it to
the Marquis of Hamilton, it is evident that the claim of the present
possessors under Lords Say and Brook is not valid. The record of the
Marquis of Hamilton grant is an irrefragable proof that those lords
had no right to the tract between Narraganset Bay and Connecticut
River; and thence the conclusion is fair that they had no right to the
tract between Connecticut and Hudson’s River; for their title to both
having but one and the same foundation, it follows, of course, that
what destroys it in the former destroys it in the latter also.
However disputable the Earl of Stirling’s claim to the land between
Hudson and Connecticut Rivers may be, the Duke of Hamilton is
undoubtedly the rightful owner of that between the latter and
Narraganset Bay. This much I have proved, to show the errors of
Mather, Neal, Douglas, and Hutchinson, who assert what the above
record contradicts. I differ in opinion also with divines who say that
the world grows every day worse than it was the last. I believe the
world is growing better every year; and that justice will be
administered to the Duke of Hamilton, and other noble proprietors of
lands in New England, who have been wickedly supplanted by the
emigration of Puritans, republicans, regicides, and smugglers. The
time, I hope, is hastening, when the records I have quoted will be
considered, and unjust possessors be ordered to give up their
possessions to the right owners; for we have a king who honors his
crown, and prefers justice to policy.
Hooker and Haynes, who conducted the second of the three English
parties already spoken of as making inroads into Connecticut, and who
fixed their headquarters at Hertford, left Massachusets Bay for the
same reason they had before left England--to avoid being persecuted,
and to acquire the power to persecute. Hooker was learned, ambitious,
and rigid. He lived near Boston two years, in hopes of becoming a
greater favorite with the people than the celebrated Mr. Cotton; but,
finding himself rather unlikely to meet with the desired success, he
devised the project of flying into the wilderness of Connecticut, to
get a name. Accordingly, in 1635 he applied to the General Court for
leave to remove thither, but was refused. The next year, however, for
reasons which will hereafter appear, he found the fanatics more
compliant; and he and Haynes obtained permission to emigrate into
Connecticut, carrying with them, as Mr. Neal expresses it, “a sort of
commission from the government of Massachusets Bay for the
administration of justice” there.
But it cannot be supposed that Hooker and his associates could derive
any title to the soil, from this permission and commission granted by
the Massachusets colony, who had not the least right to it themselves.
The emigrants not only did not entertain any such idea, but, as soon
as they had discovered a situation that pleased them, they even set at
naught the commission which they took with them, the professed object
of which was to secure the authority and jurisdiction claimed by the
Massachusets colony over them. Knowing that they had passed the limits
of that province, they voted themselves an independent people, and
commenced despots, pleading the old adage, _Salus populi suprema lex_.
It has never been suggested, I believe, that this party entered
Connecticut with any other semblance of authority than this ridiculous
permission and commission of the Massachusets dictators.[11]
As to the third party, headed by Eaton and Davenport, they took
possession, as is already mentioned, without even pretending any
purchase, grant, permission, or commission, from any one. Of these
three parties, then, it appears that the last two had not the least
shadow of original right to the lands they possessed themselves in
Connecticut; and the claims of the first I have shown to be
ill-founded. I will now consider the right they are pretended to have
acquired after possession; in regard to which they seem to have been
put upon the same footing, by a general war between them and the
Indians, occasioned by the ambitious, oppressive, and unjust conduct
of Hooker and Davenport. This war opened a door to king-killing and
king-making, violence, and injustice, in America, similar to what we
have of late years shuddered to hear of in India. Hence the colonies
have endeavored to establish a title to the lands by purchase of the
natives. Accordingly, they have produced deeds of sale signed by
Sunksquaw, Uncas, Joshua, Moodus, and others, whom Mr. Neal and Dr.
Mather call sachems, and consequently owners of the soil. Whether
those gentlemen knew, or did not know, that Connecticut was owned by
these sachems only, who, with their wives and families, were killed by
the English, and who never would give a deed of any land to the Dutch
or English, is not material; since it is a fact that not one of those
Indians who have signed those famous deeds was ever a sachem or a
proprietor of a single foot of land claimed by the colony.
It is true that Uncas (whom Mr. Neal calls a sachem, because the
colonists declared him King of Mohegan, to reward him for deserting
Sassacus, sachem of the Pequods) gave deeds of the land that he had no
right or title to; and so did Sunksquaw, who, after murdering his
sachem Quinnipiog, was also declared sachem by the English
Dominion[12] of Newhaven. Gratitude, or pride, induced all those
English-made sachems to assign deeds to their creators.
After the death of Uncas, his eldest son, Oneko, became King of
Mohegan, who refused to grant any deeds of land to the colony;
whereupon, vexed at his wisdom and honor, they declared him an
incestuous son, deposed him, and proclaimed his natural brother,
Abimeleck, to be sachem of the Mohegans. Oneko gave a deed of all his
lands to Mason and Harrison, who were his friends; as did Abimeleck,
of the same lands, to the colony who had made him sachem. This laid a
foundation for a suit at law, which was first tried before the judges
of the colony, where Mason, of course, lost his suit. He appealed to
the King in Council, who ordered a special court to sit at Norwich, in
Connecticut: Mr. Dudley, a learned man, and Governor of Massachusetts
Bay, was president of it. The court met, and, having heard the
evidence and pleadings of both parties, gave a verdict in favor of
Mason’s claim. The colony appealed home to England, but never
prosecuted their suit to an issue. Mason died. The colony kept
possession under Abimeleck, their created King of Mohegan. About ten
years ago the heirs of Mason and Harrison petitioned the government to
decree that Dudley’s verdict should be enforced; but the colonists
found means to confound the claims of those competitors without
establishing their own. The truth is, neither the colonists nor Mason
and Harrison ever had any deed or title to those lands from Sassacus
or his heirs; their deeds spring from Uncas, already mentioned, a
rebel subject of Sassacus, without any royal blood in his veins.
Nevertheless, Mr. Neal, and others, who have written histories of New
England, have taken especial care to vindicate the justice of the
settlers, who always, they say, conscientiously purchased their lands
of the sachems. I have given the reader some idea of the purchases of
the first colonizers in Connecticut, who by their iniquitous act of
making Sachems have entailed lawsuits without end on their posterity;
for there is not one foot of land in the whole province which is not
covered by ten deeds granted by ten different nominal sachems to ten
different persons; and, what aggravates the misfortune, the courts of
justice differ every session concerning the true sachem, so that what
a plaintiff recovers at a hearing before one jury, he loses upon a
rehearing before another.
Enough, surely, has been said to nullify the colonists’ plea for
having bought their lands from the Indians.
As to any purchases made of the Saybrook settlers, those of Hertford
totally declined them till the farcical business respecting their
charter came into agitation between the two juntos who procured it, of
which I shall speak hereafter; and, so far were the people of Newhaven
from buying any right of Fenwick or his associates that they scorned
the idea of claiming under them; nay, it was one of their principal
views, in the machinations wherein they were continually employed, to
reduce the Saybrook colony under the tyranny of their own dominions as
having no more title to the country than possession gave them. And,
upon the other supposition, it is impossible to account for the
neglect of the colonizers of Hertford to secure their lands by such a
purchase, seeming as they did to ransack heaven and earth for a title
satisfactory even in their own eyes; they were conscious no purchase
of that kind could give them firmer footing than they had already.
The truth, therefore, undoubtedly is that Fenwick and Peters had no
legal right to sell the lands they occupied, whatever might be their
pretensions; nor, indeed, did they pretend to the power of selling
more on their own account than was granted to them severally by their
patrons--the Lords Say and Brook--which cannot be supposed but an
inconsiderable proportion of their American property.
No wonder, then, that we find another claim set up--a claim by
conquest. This was particularly agreeable to the genius of the
Hertford and Newhaven heroes, but will nevertheless appear to as
little for their right as their honor, from the following
considerations: 1. The invaders did not find Connecticut in a state of
Nature, but cultivated and settled by its Indian inhabitants, whose
numbers were thousands, and who had three kings, viz., Connecticote,
Quinnipiog, and Sassacus, of whom Connecticote was the emperor, or
king of kings--a dignity he and his ancestors had enjoyed, according to
the Indian mode of reckoning, twenty sticks,[13] i. e., time
immemorial; 2. They had no authority to invade, make war upon, and
conquer the Indians, who were not at war with the King of England, nor
his patentees, or their assignees; and, 3. Seizures, without legal
commission, of however long standing, do not convey right or title by
the English law.
Feeling the weight of these considerations, the colonists have been
obliged to found their claim to the country on their charter, which
was obtained in 1662--more than twenty-six years after they had taken
possession. Here, again, they are destitute of support, for the king,
any more than his subjects, could not give to others the property of
the Duke of Hamilton unless his title had been proved to be forfeited
by due course of law. But the charter created no title; it merely
conferred on the people the authority of a legal corporation, without
conveying any title to the lands. And, indeed, the prevarications of
the colonists themselves with regard to the charter-claim sufficiently
explode it. Whenever they find their property affected by any duty,
custom, etc., imposed by Parliament, and warranted by charter, they
allege that they got the lands in possession by their own arms,
without the aid of the King and Parliament of Great Britain; as
Charles II. allowed in granting the charter, which conveyed no title,
but was founded upon the title they possessed before the date of it.
At other times, when these selfish temporizers find it convenient
either for promoting their own, or preventing their neighbors’
encroachments, they then plead their charter as the one only thing
needful to prove their right of land even to the South Sea itself.
In short, and upon the whole, possession, begun in usurpation, is the
best title the inhabitants of Connecticut ever had, or can set up,
unless they can prove they hold the lands by a heavenly grant, as the
Israelites did those of Canaan.
This heavenly title was, indeed, set up by Peters, Hooker, and
Davenport, the first three ministers that settled Connecticut, and is
generally believed through the Colony to this day. They thus
syllogistically stated it: “The heathen are driven out, and we have
their lands in possession; they were numerous, and we but few;
therefore, the Lord hath done this great work, to give his beloved
rest.”
This much for the various pretensions of the occupiers of Connecticut
in regard to their right to the soil. I shall now give some account of
the proceedings of the first settlers with respect to their religious
and civil establishments, and of their political transactions, etc.
The party which settled at Saybrook, under George Fenwick, Esquire,
and the Rev. Thomas Peters, in 1634, contented themselves, in framing
the polity of their civil constitution, with the laws of England and a
few local regulations.
As to their ecclesiastical institutions, they voted themselves to be a
church independent on lords bishops, and Mr. Peters to be their
minister, whose episcopal ordination was deemed good, notwithstanding
he had been silenced in England. They voted presbyters to be bishops,
and possessed of power to ordain ministers when invited by a proper
number of people formed into a society by a license from the Governor.
They voted that a certain part of the liturgy of the Church of England
might be used--the Lord’s Prayer, the Apostles’ Creed, together with
one chapter in the Bible, to be read at morning and evening service,
or omitted, at the discretion of the minister; that extempore prayers
might be used at the pleasure of the minister, but that the surplice
should not be worn, nor should the sign of the cross at baptisms, the
ceremony of the ring at marriages, or saints’-days, etc., be observed,
as in the Church of England; that every society licensed by the
Governor, after having a minister ordained over it, be a complete
church, and invested with the keys of discipline, dependent only upon
Christ, the head of the church; that the minister should be the judge
of the qualifications of church-membership, and should censure
disorderly walkers; that the members in full communion should have
power over the minister, and might dismiss him from his parish by a
majority of voices and with the consent of the Governor; that all
children were the objects of baptism, and that none should be debarred
that sacrament for the sins of their parents, provided an orderly
liver would engage to bring them up in the ways of Christianity; that
all sober persons might partake of the Lord’s Supper, provided the
minister, upon examination, should find them sufficiently acquainted
with their duty; that what is commonly called conversion is not
absolutely necessary before receiving the Lord’s Supper, because that
sacrament is a converting ordinance; that all gospel ministers were
upon an equality in office; and that it was the business of every one
to admonish the transgressor, privately in the first place, and next,
if no attention was paid to his advice, before his deacons; then, if
their admonishment was disregarded, the offender should be presented
to the church (that is, the minister, deacons, and communicants,
united by the keys of discipline), and, upon his still continuing
refractory, he should be censured and rejected by the majority of
voters without any appeal; that deacons should be chosen by the
minister and communicants upon a majority of voices, and ordained by
the minister according to the holy practice of St. Paul; that it was
the duty of the Governor and civil magistrates to protect and nurture
the Church, but not to govern it, because Christ’s authority, given to
his Church, was above principalities and all civil powers, etc., etc.
The settlers of Hertford, having declared themselves to be an
independent Colony, and that their dominions extended from sea to sea,
voted Haynes to be their Governor, and appointed six councilors to
assist him in framing laws and regulating the State. The same spirit
of independence dictated their church discipline. They voted Mr.
Hooker to be their minister, and six of their church-members to ordain
him. Mr. Hooker accepted of their vote, or call, renounced his
Episcopal ordination, and was ordained by the six lay church-members,
over the church of the Independents in Hertford. Thus, Mr. Hooker, who
was born in Leicestershire, educated at Cambridge, ordained by a
bishop, silenced by a bishop in 1630, in England, and reordained by
six laymen in America, became what he wished to be--the head of the
Independents in the Dominion of Hertford, where he had the honor and
pleasure of exercising over all who differed from him in opinion that
violent spirit of persecution which he and his friends so clamorously
decried as too intolerant to be endured in England. Some of the
characteristic doctrines of this persecuting fanatic were of the
following purport: That Christ’s Church was not universal, but a
particular visible church, formed by general consent and covenant;
that Christ had committed the power of binding and loosening to
believers, without any distinction between clergy and laity; that
ruling and preaching elders are duly ordained to their office by the
election and the imposition of the hands of the people; that the
tables and seals of the covenant, the offices and censures of Christ’s
Church, the administrations of all public worship and ordinances, are
in the _cœtus fidelium_, or combination of godly, faithful men met in
one congregation; that a diocesan, provincial, or national assembly,
is incompatible with the nature of Christ’s Church, seeing all and
every member of Christ’s Church are to meet every Lord’s-day, in one
place, for the administration of the holy ordinances of God; that a
multitude of free people may elect and ordain a king over them,
although they were not, prior to that act, possessed of kingly power;
for the people of Israel imposed their hands on Levites, when they
themselves were not Levites (Numbers viii. 10); that Nature has given
virtual power to a free people to set up any Christian form of
government, both in church and state, which they see best for
themselves in the land; but Christ gave the power of his keys to his
Church, i. e., to his believing people, and not to Peter or to Paul as
ministers, but as professed believers, in conjunction with the rest of
true believers; that the Church hath not absolute power to choose whom
it will; it hath ministerial power only to choose whom Christ hath
chosen, i. e., such as He hath gifted and fitted for the work of the
ministry; that neither popes, bishops, nor presbyters, are necessary
to ordain ministers of Jesus Christ, because the power of the keys are
given by Christ to his Church, i. e., the people in covenant with God;
that as ordination is in the power of each church, no church hath
power over another, but all stand in brotherly equality; that it is
unlawful for any Church of Christ to put out of its hand that power
which Christ hath given it into the hands of other churches; that no
one church ought to send to ministers of other churches to ordain its
ministers or to censure its offenders; that baptism does not make any
one a member of Christ’s Church, because papists and other heretics
are baptized; therefore, to be a member of Christ’s Church is to own
the covenant of that particular church where God has placed such
members; that seven persons may form a Church of Christ, but fifteen
thousand cannot, because such a number cannot meet in one place, nor
hear, nor partake, nor be edified together; that no one can partake of
the Lord’s Supper till he be converted, and has manifested his faith
and repentance before the church, etc., etc.[14]
The laws made by the Governor and Council of Hertford are, in general,
much of the same stamp as those of the Newhaven legislators, of some
of which an abstract will be given hereafter.
The fanatics at Newhaven, in like manner with those of Hertford, voted
themselves to be a Dominion independent, and chose Eaton for their
Governor, and Davenport for their minister. The Governor and a
committee had the power of making laws for the State, and the
minister, assisted by deacons and elders, was to rule the church. The
following is a specimen of the tenets established by Davenport in the
latter:
That Christ has conveyed all power to his people both in church and
state; which power they are to exercise until Christ shall return on
earth to reign one thousand years over his militant saints--that all
other kings, besides Christ and his elected people, are pestilent
usurpers, and enemies of God and man--that all vicars, rectors, deans,
priests, and bishops, are of the devil; are wolves, petty popes, and
antichristian tyrants; that pastors and teachers of particular
congregations are of Christ and must be chosen by his people, i. e.,
the elect and chosen from the foundation of the world, or else their
entrance and ministry are unlawful; that all things of human invention
in the worship of God, such as are in the Mass-Book and Common-prayer,
are unsavory in the sight of God; that ecclesiastical censures ought
to be exercised by the members of particular congregations among
themselves; that the people should not suffer this supreme power to be
wrested out of their hands until Christ shall begin his reign; that
all good people ought to pray always that God would raze the old papal
foundation of the episcopal government, together with the filthy
ceremonies of that antichristian church; that every particular who
neglects this duty, may justly fear that curse pronounced against
Meroz (Judges v. 23): “Curse ye Meroz, because they came not to the
help of the Lord against the mighty” enemies of God and his church;
that every particular congregation is an absolute church, the members
of it are to be all saints; those must enter into covenant among
themselves, and without such covenant there can be no church; that it
is a heinous sin to be present when prayers are read out of a book by
a vicar or bishop; that subjects promise obedience to obtain help from
the magistrates, and are discharged from their promise when the
magistrates fail in their duty; that, without liberty from the prince
or magistrate, the people may reform the church and state, and must
not wait for the magistrate, etc., etc.
This Dominion, this tyrant of tyrants, adopted the Bible for its code
of civil laws, till others should be made more suitable to its
circumstances. The provision was politic. The lawgivers soon
discovered that the precepts in the Old and New Testaments were
insufficient to support them in their arbitrary and bloody
undertakings; they, therefore, gave themselves up to their own
inventions in making others, wherein, in some instances, they betrayed
an extreme degree of wanton cruelty and oppression, that even the
religious fanatics of Boston, and the mad zealots of Hertford, put to
the blush, christened them the “Blue Laws,” and the former held a day
of thanksgiving, because God, in his good providence, had stationed
Eaton and Davenport so far from them.[15]
The religious system established by Peters at Saybrook was well
calculated to please the moderate Puritans and zealots of all
denominations; but the fanatics of the Massachusets-Bay, who hated
every part of the Common Prayer-book worse than the Council of Trent,
and the papal power exercised over heretics, were alarmed at the
conduct of the half-reformed schismatics in that colony; and, thinking
that their dear Salem might be endangered by such impure worshipers,
consented, in the year 1636, to give Mr. Hooker and his associates
liberty to emigrate to Hertford, notwithstanding the preceding year
they had refused such liberty, seeing then no reason for Hooker’s
seizing the territory of other people. But when the New England vine
was supposed to be threatened by the Bible, Lord’s Prayer, and Ten
Commandments, the pious people of Massachusets-Bay permitted Hooker,
in 1635, to remove into and govern Connecticut by their authority, and
to impede and break up the worship of the Peterites at Saybrook.
Hooker, ever faithful to his trust, excepting that, when he got to
Hertford, he rejected the authority of his employers in the
Massachusets-Bay, set up a new Dominion, and persecuted the Peterites
under his own banner, though he called it the banner of Jesus. But for
his and Davenport’s tyrannical conduct, the colony of Saybrook would
have lived in peace with the Indians, as they did till their artful
and overbearing neighbors brought on a general war between them and
the English, which ended with the death of Sassacus and the
destruction of all his subjects. After that war great dissension arose
among the conquerors. Fenwick was sensible, of a calm disposition, and
very religious, yet not entirely void of ambition; he claimed the
government of Connecticut, and insisted upon payment for such lands as
were possessed by Hooker and Davenport and their associates; this, he
said, was common justice, due to his constituents, the Lords Say and
Brook. Hooker and Davenport, however, were not fond of his doctrine of
justice, but made religion, liberty, and power, the great object of
their concern, wherein they were supported by the people of
Massachusets-Bay, whose spirits were congenial with their own; hence
no opportunity was lost of prejudicing Saybrook, and the troubles in
the mother-country furnished their enemies with many. One step they
took, in particular, operated much to their disadvantage. The
Massachusets colony, eager to act against Charles I., agreed with
those of Hertford, Newhaven, Newhampshire, and Rhode-Island, to send
agents to England, assuring the House of Commons of their readiness to
assist against the king and bishops. The Saybrook settlers, though
zealous against the bishops, were not much inclined to rebellion
against the king, and therefore took no part in this transaction.
As the royal cause lost ground in England, the apprehensions of this
colony increased; and Fenwick, finding himself unsupported by the
Lords Say and Brook, thought it prudent to dispose of his colonial
property to Peters and his associates, and return to England.
Confusion being established in England, moderation became an
unpardonable sin in Saybrook, which both the neighboring colonies were
ready to punish by assuming the jurisdiction there: mutual jealousy
alone prevented it. At length, during Cromwell’s usurpation, the
inhabitants, fearing the effects of his displeasure for not joining in
the above-mentioned address to the Commons of England, especially lest
he should put them under the power of the furious Davenport, and at
the same time foreseeing no prospect of the restoration, judged it
advisable, by way of preferring the lesser to the greater evil, to
form a sort of alliance and junction with the people of Hertford,
where Hooker now lay numbered with the dead.
The colony was not only hereby enabled to maintain its ground, but
flourished greatly; and the minister, Thomas Peters, established a
school in Saybrook, which his children had the satisfaction to see
become a college, denominated Yale College, of which a particular
account will be given in the course of this work. He was a churchman
of the Puritanic order, zealous, learned, and of mild disposition, and
frequently wrote to his brother Hugh at Salem to exercise more
moderation, lest “overmuch zeal should ruin him and the cause they
were embarked in.”[16]
At his death, which did not happen till after the Restoration of
Charles II., he bequeathed his library to the school above mentioned.
The religious institutions of Hooker at Hertford were not only binding
on the Dutch, but even extended to the great Connecticote himself. The
Sachem did not like his new neighbours; he refused to give or sell any
land to them; but told them, that, as they came to trade, and to
spread the Christian Religion among his subjects, which Mr. Hooker
defined to consist only in peace, love, and justice, he had no
objection to their building wigwams, planting corn, and hunting on his
lands. The wisdom and steady temper of this great Sachem, and the vast
number of subjects at his command, made Haynes and Hooker cautious in
their conduct. Many people of Massachusets-Bay, hearing that Hooker
had made good terms with the Sachem, left their persecutors, and fled
to the fertile banks of Connecticut, that they might help Hooker
spread the Gospel among the poor benighted Heathen in the wilderness.
The Reverend Mr. Huet, with his disciples, fixed at Windsor, eight
miles north of Hertford; and the Reverend Mr. Smith, at Weathersfield,
four miles south of it. In the space of eighteen months, the Dominion
of Hertford contained seven-hundred white people, and seven
independent churches. Having converted over to the Christian faith
some few Indians, among whom was Joshua, an ambitious captain under
the great Sachem Connecticote, Hooker, Huet, Smith, and others, hereby
found means to spread the _Gospel_ into every Indian town, and, to the
eternal infamy of christian policy, those renowned, pious fathers of
this new colony, with the Gospel, spread the small-pox. This distemper
raged in every corner: it swept away the great Sachem Connecticote,
and laid waste his ancient kingdom. Hereupon, Haynes and his assembly
proclaimed Joshua Sachem; and such as did not acknowledge his sachemic
power, were compelled to suffer death, or fly the Dominion. Thus in
three years time, by the Gospel and fanatic policy, was destroyed
Connecticote, the greatest king in North-America. This remarkable
event was considered as the work of the Lord; and the savage nations
were told that the like calamities would befal them, unless they
embraced the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Joshua was grateful to the
English who had made him Sachem, and gave them deeds of those lands
which had constantly been refused by Connecticote. But Joshua had as
little honour as virtue and loyalty: he supported himself many years
by signing deeds, and gulled the English through their own imprudence
in neglecting to make a law for recording them.--These colonists,
having driven out the Heathen, and got possession of a land which
flowed with milk and honey, expelled the Dutch, as a dangerous set of
heretics;--and Hooker, after doing so much for this new Dominion,
expected the homage from every Church which is only due to a Bishop.
This homage, however, he could not obtain, because each Minister had
pretensions not much inferior to his. Disputes arose about Doctrine
and Discipline. Hooker taught that there were forty-two kinds of
Grace, though all of little value, except that of ‘saving Grace.’ As
to Discipline, he held, that, as he had received his ministerial
ordination from the Laity, who were members in full communion, he
considered those actual communicants as _Christ’s Church here on
earth_, and consequently as holding the keys of discipline; and he
maintained that the Minister had but a single voice, and was a subject
of the Church. Other Ministers, who had received episcopal ordination,
but had been silenced by their Bishops, judged themselves,
notwithstanding, to be Ministers of Christ; and alleged that the
installation of a Minister by prayer and imposition of hands of lay
communicants, was no ordination, but a ceremony only of putting a
Minister in possession of his Church, from which he might be dismissed
by a majority of voters of the Members in full communion. And those
Ministers taught for doctrine, that mankind were saved by Grace, and
that the Gospel told us of but one Grace as necessary to Salvation;
for that _he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God, is born of
God, and enjoys the Grace of God which brings Salvation_. The majority
of the People of course were on the side of Mr. Hooker, as his plan
established their power over the Minister; and they soon determined by
vote, according to their code of laws, in his favour. But the
Ministers and minority were not convinced by this vote, and, to avoid
an excommunication, formed themselves into separate bodies;
nevertheless, they soon felt the thundering anathemas of Hooker, and
the heated vengeance of the civil power. However, persecution, by her
certain consequence, fixed the separatists in their schism, which
continues to the present time.--Hooker reigned twelve years high-priest
over Hertford; and then died above sixty years of age, to the great
joy of the separatists, but, in point of populousness, to the
disadvantage of the colony of Saybrook, which was the little Zoar for
Hooker’s heretics.
Exact in tything mint and anise, the furies of Newhaven for once
affected the _weightier matters_ of justice. They had no title to the
land: they applied to Quinnipiog, the Sachem, for a deed or grant of
it. The Sachem refused to give the lands of his ancestors to
strangers. The settlers had teeming inventions, and immediately voted
themselves to be the _Children of God_, and that _the wilderness in
the utmost parts of the earth_ was given to them. This vote became a
law forever after. It is true, Davenport endeavoured to _christianize_
Quinnipiog, but in vain: however, he _converted_ Sunksquaw, one of his
subjects, by presents and great promises; and then Sunksquaw betrayed
his master, and the settlers killed him. This assassination of
Quinnipiog brought on a war between the English and Indians, which
never ended by treaty of peace. The Indians, having only bows and
arrows, were driven back into the woods; whilst the English, with
their swords and guns, kept possession of the country. But, conscious
of their want of title to it, they voted Sunksquaw to be Sachem, and
that whoever disputed his authority should suffer death. Sunksquaw, in
return, assigned to the English those lands of which they had made him
Sachem. Lo! here is all the title the settlers of the Dominion of
Newhaven ever obtained.--The cruel and bloody persecutions under Eaton
and Davenport in Newhaven soon gave rise to several little towns upon
the sea-coast. Emigrants from England arrived every year to settle in
this Dominion; but few remained in Newhaven, on account of Eaton,
Davenport, the Deacons, and Elders, who possessed all power there, and
were determined to keep it. The new-comers, therefore, under pretence
of spreading Christ’s kingdom, and shunning persecution, joined with
the settlers at Stamford, Guilford, and Stratford, where, however,
persecution domineered with as much fury as at Newhaven; for each town
judged itself to be an independent Dominion; though, for fear of the
Dutch and the Indians, they formed a political union, and swore to
bear true allegiance to the capital Newhaven, whose authority was
supreme. As all officers in every town were annually elected by the
freemen, and as there were many candidates, some of whom must be
unsuccessful, there was always room for complaints. The complainants
formed schisms in the Church, which brought on persecution; and
persecution drove the minority to settle new towns, in order to enjoy
Liberty, Peace, and Power to persecute such as differed from them.
Thus lived those ambitious people, under far worse persecutions from
one another than they ever experienced or complained of in
Old-England; all which they endured with some degree of patience, the
persecuted one year living in hopes that the next would enable them to
retaliate on their persecutors.
The laws made by this independent Dominion, and denominated
_Blue-Laws_ by the neighbouring Colonies, were never suffered to be
printed; but the following sketch of some of them will give a
tolerable idea of the spirit which pervades the whole.
“The Governor and Magistrates, convened in general Assembly,
are the supreme power under God of this independent
Dominion.
“From the determination of the Assembly no appeal shall be
made.
“The Governor is amenable to the voice of the people.
“The Governor shall have only a single vote in determining
any question; except a casting vote, when the Assembly may
be equally divided.
“The Assembly of the People shall not be dismissed by the
Governor, but shall dismiss itself.
“Conspiracy against this Dominion shall be punished with
death.
“Whoever says there is a power and jurisdiction above and
over this Dominion, shall suffer death and loss of property.
“Whoever attempts to change or overturn this Dominion shall
suffer death.
“The judges shall determine controversies without a jury.
“No one shall be a freeman, or give a vote, unless he be
converted, and a member in full communion of one of the
Churches allowed in this Dominion.
“No man shall hold any office, who is not found in the
faith, and faithful to this Dominion; and whoever gives a
vote to such a person, shall pay a fine of 1_l._ for a
second offence, he shall be disfranchised.
“Each freeman shall swear by the blessed God to bear true
allegiance to this Dominion, and that Jesus is the only
King.
“No Quaker or dissenter from the established worship of this
Dominion shall be allowed to give a vote for the election of
Magistrates, or any officer.
“No food or lodging shall be afforded to a Quaker, Adamite,
or other Heretic.
“If any person turns Quaker, he shall be banished, and not
suffered to return but upon pain of death.
“No Priest shall abide in the Dominion: he shall be
banished, and suffer death on his return. Priests may be
seized by any one without a warrant.
“No one to cross a river, but with an authorized ferryman.
“No one shall run on the Sabbath-day, or walk in his garden
or elsewhere, except reverently to and from meeting.
“No one shall travel, cook victuals, make beds, sweep house,
cut hair, or shave, on the Sabbath-day.
“No woman shall kiss her child on the Sabbath or
fasting-day.
“The Sabbath shall begin at sunset on Saturday.
“To pick an ear of corn growing in a neighbour’s garden,
shall be deemed theft.
“A person accused of trespass in the night shall be judged
guilty, unless he clear himself by his oath.
“When it appears that an accused has confederates, and he
refuses to discover them, he may be racked.
“No one shall buy or sell lands without permission of the
selectmen.
“A drunkard shall have a master appointed by the selectmen,
who are to debar him from the liberty of buying and selling.
“Whoever publishes a lye to the prejudice of his neighbour,
shall sit in the stocks, or be whipped fifteen stripes.
“No Minister shall keep a school.
“Every rateable person, who refuses to pay his proportion to
the support of the Minister of the town or parish, shall be
fined by the Court 2_l._ and 4_l._ every quarter, until he
or she pay the rate to the Minister.
“Men-stealers shall suffer death.
“Whoever wears cloaths trimmed with gold, silver, or bone
lace, above two shillings by the yard, shall be presented by
the grand jurors, and the selectmen shall tax the offender
at 300_l._ estate.
“A debtor in prison, swearing he has no estate, shall be let
out, and sold, to make satisfaction.
“Whoever sets a fire in the woods, and it burns a house,
shall suffer death; and persons suspected of this crime
shall be imprisoned, without benefit of bail.
“Whoever brings cards or dice into this Dominion shall pay a
fine of 5_l._
“No one shall read Common-Prayer, keep Christmas or
Saints-days, make minced pies, dance, play cards, or play on
any instrument of music, except the drum, trumpet, and
jews-harp.[18]
“No Gospel Minister shall join people in marriage; the
Magistrates only shall join in marriage, as they may do it
with less scandal to Christ’s Church.[19]
“When parents refuse their children convenient marriages,
the Magistrates shall determine the point.
“The selectmen, on finding children ignorant, may take them
away from their parents, and put them into better hands, at
the expence of their parents.
“Fornication shall be punished by compelling marriage, or as
the Court may think proper.
“Adultery shall be punished with death.
“A man that strikes his wife shall pay a fine of 10_l._; a
woman that strikes her husband shall be punished as the
Court directs.
“A wife shall be deemed good evidence against her husband.
“No man shall court a maid in person, or by letter, without
first obtaining consent of her parents: 5_l._ penalty for
the first offence; 10_l._ for the second; and, for the
third, imprisonment during the pleasure of the Court.
“Married persons must live together, or be imprisoned.
“Every male shall have his hair cut round according to a
cap.”[20]
Of such sort were the laws made by the people of Newhaven, previous to
their incorporation with Saybrook and Hertford colonies by the
charter. They consist of a vast multitude, and were very properly
termed _Blue Laws_; i. e. _bloody Laws_; for they were all sanctified
with excommunication, confiscation, fines, banishment, whippings,
cutting off the ears, burning the tongue, and death. Europe at this
day might well say the Religion of the first settlers at Newhaven was
fanaticism turned mad; and did not similar laws still prevail over
New-England as the common law of the country, I would have left them
in silence along with Dr. Mather’s _Patres conscripti_, and the
renowned Saints of Mr. Neal, to sleep to the end of time. No one, but
a partial and blind bigot, can pretend to say the projectors of them
were men of _Grace_, _Justice_, and _Liberty_, when nothing but
_murders_, _plunders_, and _persecutions_, mark their steps. The best
apology that can be made for them is, (I write in reference to those
times,) that human nature is every-where the same; and that the mitred
Lord and canting Puritan are both equally dangerous, or that both
agree in the unchristian doctrine of persecution, and contend only
which shall put it in practice. Mr. Neal says many call the first
Colonizers in New-England weak men for separating from the Church of
England, and suffering persecutions, rather than comply with
indifferent ceremonies; and, after asserting that they were men of
great learning and goodness, he appeals to the world to judge, which
were weak, the Bishops or the Puritans? My answer is, that those
Puritans were weak men in Old England, and strong in New England,
where they out-pop’d the Pope, out-king’d the King, and out-bishop’d
the Bishops. Their murders and persecutions prove their strength lay
in weakness, and their religion in ambition, wealth, and dominion.
Notwithstanding the perpetual jealousy and discordance between the
three colonies of Connecticut, (Saybrook claiming the whole under the
Lords Say and Brook, Hertford under Jehovah and Conquest, and Newhaven
under King Jesus and Conquest,) they judged it necessary, for their
better security against the Dutch and Indians, to strengthen each
other’s hands by forming a general confederacy with the Colonies of
New Plymouth and the Massachusets-Bay. A measure of this kind, which
they formally entered into in 1643, proved of the most salutary
consequence, in a war which many years after broke out between them
and Philip, sachem of the Pokanoket Indians, and which, for some time,
imminently endangered the Colonies, but at length terminated in the
destruction of that noted warrior and his followers.
The death of Cromwell in 1658 struck an awe throughout all
New-England. Hertford and Newhaven appointed their days of fasting and
prayer. Davenport prayed “the Lord to take the New-England Vine under
his immediate care, as he had removed by death the great Protector of
the protestant liberty:” nevertheless he lived to see the time when
Charles II. obtained the possession of his Father’s crown and kingdom,
in spite of all his prayers. However, in the midst of sorrows, they
were comforted by the presence of many regicides and refugees, who
fled from England not so much for religion as for liberty; among whom
were Whalley, Goffe, and Dixwell,[21] three of the judges and
murderers of Charles I. Davenport and Leet the then Governor received
them as Angels from Heaven, and blessed God that they had escaped out
of the hands of “Herod the son of Barabbas.”[22]
Newhaven Dominion being thus suddenly filled with inhabitants, saw
itself enabled to support its independence, and as usual despised
Hertford and Saybrook, and withal paid no attention to the King and
Parliament of England.--The People of Massachusets, who were ever
forward in promoting their own consequence, observing the temper and
conduct of those of Newhaven, conceived an idea at once of exalting an
individual of their own province, and of attaching Hertford and
Saybrook to their interest for ever. They sent Mr. John Winthrop
privately to Hertford, to promote a petition to Charles II. for a
charter, as a security against the ambition of Newhaven.--The
Bostonians boasted of having had the honour of settling Hertford,
which they therefore professed to consider in the light of a near and
dear connection. The proposal was accepted by the few persons to whom
it was communicated, but, in framing their petition, they found
themselves deficient in their title to the lands. This obliged them to
have recourse to a Junto at Saybrook, who claimed a title under Lords
Say and Brook.--A few purchases, or rather exchanges, of land now took
place between the Junto’s; after which a petition was drawn up,
containing an artful description of the lands claimed, “part of which
they said they had purchased, and part they had conquered.” They then
as privately appointed Mr. Winthrop their agent to negociate the
business in England, which he very willingly undertook. On his arrival
here, he applied to the agents of Massachusets-Bay, and with their
assistance procured from the incaution of Charles II. as ample a
charter as was ever given to a palatinate state; it covered not only
Saybrook, Hertford, and Newhaven, but half New-York, New-Jersey, and
Pensylvania, and a tract of land near 100 miles wide, and extending
westward to the South sea, 1400 miles from Narraganset bay. This
charter, which was obtained in 1662, well pleased the people of
Hertford, because it coincided with their former vote, viz. “that
their dominion extended from sea to sea.”[23] Newhaven Dominion too
late discovered the intrigues of her artful neighbours; and, after two
years opposition, submitted to the charter purely out of fear lest
some of her ministers and magistrates should suffer ignominious deaths
for aiding in the murder of their King.[24]
To the great joy of the People of Boston and Saybrook, Mr. Winthrop
was appointed, by the Charter, Governor of all Connecticut. Their joy,
however, sprung from different motives: Saybrook hoped for effectual
protection from the insults of Hertford and the persecutions of
Newhaven; and Boston expected to govern the Governor.
Mr. Winthrop settled at New-London, in the kingdom of Sassacus, or
colony of Saybrook, where he purchased lands of the claimants under
Lords Say and Brook. Wisdom and moderation guided Mr. Winthrop. He was
annually elected Governor till his death, which happened in 1676.
Whether it were owing to the discovery of any defect in the title of
the People of Connecticut to the soil, or of any undue arts practised
in obtaining their charter, or whether it must be considered as an
instance of Charles’s fickle or arbitrary disposition, that Monarch,
in the short space of two years after granting that charter, comprized
half Connecticut in another grant to his brother, the Duke of York, of
the territory between the rivers Connecticut and Delaware, called by
the Dutch New-Netherlands. This step excited much discontent in
Connecticut, especially when an actual defalcation of its territory
was discovered to be in agitation, after Colonel Nichols had succeeded
in an enterprise he was sent upon against the Dutch at New-York.
Commissioners were sent thither from Connecticut, the latter end of
1664, to defend the interests of the Colony; but, notwithstanding all
the opposition they could make, they were constrained to yield up the
whole of Long-Island and a strip of land on the east side of Hudson’s
river. This dismemberment is not easily to be justified; but,
probably, finding it necessary to the performance of a promise he had
made the Dutch of the enjoyment of their possessions, Nichols might
think himself at liberty of insisting upon it, furnished as he was
with almost regal powers as the Duke of York’s deputy. In that
capacity, he assumed the government of the conquered territory, but
does not appear to have intermeddled further with that of Connecticut.
With Colonel Nichols were associated three other gentlemen, in a
commission, empowering them to enquire into the state of the
New-England provinces, to hear and redress complaints, settle
differences, and check abuses of power: but the ill humour and
obstinacy of those of Connecticut and Massachusets-Bay, in a great
measure frustrated their endeavours.
By authority of the Charter, the freemen chuse annually, in May, a
Governor, a Deputy-Governor, a Secretary, a Treasurer, and 12
Assistants, and, twice a year, two Representatives from each town.
These, being met, constitute the General Assembly, which has power to
make laws, provided they are not repugnant to the laws of England, and
enforce them without the consent of the King.
The General Assembly meets in May and October without summoning. By it
the colony has been divided into six counties, viz. Hertford,
Newhaven, New-London, Fairfield, Windham, and Litchfield; and these
subdivided into 73 townships and 300 parishes.
Each town has two or more justices of peace, who hear and determine,
without a jury, all causes under 2_l._