« PreviousContinue »
possession upon it al this while, as them selves could not but know. And because they could not presently remove them selves tow it, because of present ingagments and other hinderances which lay at presente upon them, must it therfore be lawfull for them to goe and take it from them? It was well known that they are upon a barren place, wher they were by necessitie cast; and neither they nor theirs could longe continue upon the same; and why should they (because they were more ready, and more able at presente) goe and deprive them of that which they had with charge and hazard provided, and intended to remove to, as soone as they could and were able?
They had another passage in their letter; they had rather have to doe with the lords in England, to whom (as they heard it reported) some of them should say that they had rather give up their right to them, (if they must part with it,) then to the church of Dorchester, etc. And that they should be less fearfull to offend the lords, then they were them.
Ans: Their answer was, that what soever they had heard, (more then was true,) yet the case was not so with them that they had need to give away their rights and adventures, either to the lords, or them; yet, if they might measure their fear of offence by their practise, they had rather (in that poynte) they should deal with the lords, who were beter able to bear it, or help them selves, then they were.
1 When Edward Winslow became governor in 1636 the dispute was far from settlement, and the feeling of injustice among those of New Plymouth was strong. Writing to the younger Winthrop on June 22, 1636, Winslow gave expression to this feeling: “I perceiued by a letter of Mr. (Jonathan) Brewster of a mocion of yours to him to procure you hay for an 100 beasts. We had a purpose to haue sent some cattle thither, but so discouraged by him, through the injurious dealing of his intruding neighbours, as we feare there will not be long living for man or beast, but if you please to make vse of our right, my brother shall sett your servants to worke in our names and by our order, and affourd them what ever personall helpe shall be thought meet, to the utmost of our power. What we shall yet doe I know not, but will know ere long, and if New England will affourd no Justice, will appeale further; but God forbid we should be put on such extremities: But were it not for Christ's cause in that our profession
But least I should be teadious, I will forbear other things, and come to the conclusion that was made in the endd. To make any forcible resistance was farr from their thoughts, (they had enough of that about Kenebeck,) and to live in continuall contention with their freinds and brethren would be uncomfortable, and too heavie a burthen to bear. Therfore for peace sake (though they conceived they suffered much in this thing) they thought it better to let them have it upon as good termes as they could gett; and so they fell to treaty. The first thing that (because they had made so many and long disputes aboute it) they would have them to grante was, that they had right too it, or ells they would never treat aboute it. They (the) which being acknowledged, and yeelded unto by them, this was the conclusion they came unto in the end after much adoe: that they should retaine their house, and have the. 16. parte of all they had bought of the Indeans; and the other should have all the rest of the land; leaveing such a moyety to those  of Newtowne,' as they reserved for them. This. 16. part was to be taken in too places; one towards the house, the other towards New-townes proportion. Also they were to pay according to proportion, what had been disbursed to the Indeans for the purchass. Thus was the controversie ended, but the unkindnes not so soone forgotten.?
may come to suffer by it, we would not be satisfied with the tenth of our demand, but would hasten another way. These oppressors deserue no favor, their pride would be taken down. Tis pitty religion should be a cloake for such spirits. News I suppose I cannot send more then you heare. I haue now written to your Government, and exspect answere ere long. I thank you for the good office you endeauoured when you were aboue, but sorry to heare how little effect your words tooke with them. God in time I hope will shew them their folly.” 4 Mass. Hist. Collections, vi. 162.
· That is Newtown, on the Connecticut, later known as Hartford. Newtown and Dorchester adjoined, and each occupied a part of the lands claimed by New Plymouth.
2 On May 15, 1637, Thomas Prence, on behalf of the colony of New Plymouth, entered into an agreement with the inhabitants of Windsor, upon the Connecticut, which practically closed all disputes as to the lands between the two parties. For the sum of £37. 1os. he sold to Windsor all the land originally purchased from the sachems
They of New-towne delt more fairly, desireing only what they could conveniently spare, from a competancie reserved for a plantation, for them selves; which made them the more carfull to procure a moyety for them, in this agreement and distribution.
Amongst the other bussinesses that Mr. Winslow had to doe in England, he had order from the church to provide and bring over some able and fitt man for to be their minister. And accordingly he had procured a godly and a worthy 'man, one Mr. Glover; ? but it Sequasson and Nattawanut, reserving the sixteenth part allotted to New Plymouth. The sixteenth part of the meadow land amounted to 43 acres 3 quarters, which was measured off in the presence of Mr. Prence "in Plymouth meadow so called by that account.” The sixteenth part of the upland “they took up near the bounds of Hartford, 70 rods in breadth by the River, and so to continue to the ends of the bounds." One acre upon the hill (Stony Hill?) against their meadow came also to them. Stiles, History of Ancient Windsor, 35. The management of such an estate, so curiously situated in the matter of government, offered many difficult problems. The Plymouth Plantation, by a power of attorney executed October 20, 1637, authorized Lieutentant William Holmes to sell all the lands, houses, servants, goods and chattels, of the plantation in Windsor, and on May 3, 1638, the property was turned over to a purchaser, Matthew Allyn. Thus was extinguished the right and title of Plymouth on the Connecticut River. Ib. 43.
That the Indians of the river looked upon the Plymouth trading house as a protection, and sheltered themselves in its neighborhood, is shown by the complaint made by Aramamet, who succeeded Nattawanut as sachem, “aboute Leiftenant Holmes denying the planting of the old grounde planted the last yeere aboute Plymouth house. It was ordered that they should plante the old ground they planted the last yeer for this yeere onely, and they are to sett theire wigwams in the olde grounde and not withoute.” This action taken by the General Court of Connecticut on March 8, 1637-38, is suggestive as showing the extent to which it regulated the use of the land reserved under the agreement of 1637, to New Plymouth. Conn. Col. Rec., I. 16.
1 Before this sentence in the margin appears a capital Note).
2 This has been identified with Rev. Jose Glover, rector of Sutton, in the County of Surrey, who was suspended from his office in 1634 for refusing to publish to the people of his parish the Book of Sports, as required by the King's orders. He came to New England, it is supposed, in the summer of 1634, received an allotment of land, in the town of Boston, secured forty-nine acres near Rumney Marsh, and bought a windmill in Lynn. Returning to England, he labored for the foundation of a college in New England, purchasing types and press for the new institution, and in 1638 reëmbarked to return to Boston, when he died under the attack of a fever. The facts known about
pleased God when he was prepared for the viage, he fell sick of a feaver and dyed. After wards, when he was ready to come away, he became acquainted with Mr. Norton,' who was willing to come over, but would not ingage him selfe to this place, otherwise then he should see occasion when he came hear; and if he liked better else wher, to repay the charge laid out for him, (which came to aboute 7oli.) and to be at his liberty. He stayed aboute a year with them, after he came over, and was well liked of them, and much desired by them; but he was invited to Ipswich, wher were many rich and able men, and sundry of his aquaintance; so he wente to them, and is their minister. Aboute half of the charg was repayed, the rest he had for the pains he tooke amongst them.
him are ingeniously used by George E. Littlefield, in The Early Massachusetts Press, 1. 19. To establish his position it is necessary to concede that Bradford made a serious error in dates and even in statements; that the interview between Winslow and Glover took place in Boston, in 1634, and not in England; and that Glover never engaged himself to come to Plymouth. A family connection with Roger Williams is supposed to have been the cause of the attempt of Plymouth to secure his services. Bradford's statements are too general to offer evidence for or against this account of Glover. It is certain that Glover was free to come to New England, in 1634-35, but all knowledge of a negotiation with Plymouth rests upon Bradford's statement.
1 Cotton Mather in the way characteristic of him says much in his Magnalia (Book 11, chap. ii,) of John Norton, without giving the essential facts as to his coming to New England. Winthrop leaves a wrong impression when he states that the ship Your woepsito fece ei tee you in which Norton came “put into Plymouth by contrary winds, where he continued preaching to them all the winter,” as though Norton had not intended to go to that place. He had proposed to come to New England in 1634, in the same ship with Thomas Shepard, but the vessel was driven back, and, while waiting for another opportunity, met and engaged himself to Winslow. The two took passage in the Hopewell, Captain Babb, and, after experiencing another great storm, they arrived at Plymouth in October, 1635. Morton says he “stayed until the March following, and then went into the Bay and returned no more, but entertained an invitation to Ipswich, and after the death of Mr. Cotton he came to Boston, and was teacher of the Old Church until his death (1663).” Though Norton disliked the ceremonies of the English church, he had not separated from it, and the conditions at Plymouth did not satisfy him.
R. ED:WINSLOW was chosen Govserno]r this year.
In the former year, because they perceived by Mr. IV Winslows later leters that no accounts would be sente, they resolved to keep the beaver, and send no more, till they had them, or came to some further agreemente. At least they would forbear till Mr. Winslow came over, that by more full conferance with him they might better understand what was meete to be done. But when he came, though he brought no accounts, yet he perswaded them to send the beaver, and was confident upon the receite of that beaver, and his letters, they should have accounts the nexte year; and though they thought his grounds but weake, that gave him this hope, and made him so confidente, yet by his importunitie they yeelded, and sente the same, ther being a ship at the latter end of year, by whom they sente 1150 li. waight of beaver, and.200. otter skins, besides sundrie small furrs, as 55. minks, 2. black foxe skins, etc. And this year, in the spring, came in a Dutch man, who thought to have traded at the Dutch (215] forte; but they would not suffer him. He, having good store of trading goods, came to this
1 The Dutch West Indies Company sought to exercise a monopoly of the fur trade at New Netherland. Ships other than their own were excluded from the North River, and were held as interlopers. Even the patroons, on whom the future of the settlement depended, were obliged to pay tribute for every skin sent away, and sought to break the monopoly by claiming exemption from duty on the inland fur trade, and on trade conducted where no agent of the company was stationed. The force of the monopoly never succeeded in enabling the Company to obtain the profits that should have been its due, the mismanagement and dishonesty of its servants reducing its gains. "Private individuals purchased, or appropriated to themselves, the most valuable furs, leaving the refuse only to be shipped on account of the directors, by which means the character of the furs, offered by the latter for sale in Holland, was seriously injured, and the company's receipts diminished, for they were undersold by