halfe (which I thought good to send you, here inclosed). And what trouble and charge I shall be further at I know not; for they are coming dayly, and I expecte these back againe from below, whither they are gone to veiw the countrie. All which trouble and charge we under goe for their occasion, may give us just cause (in the judgmente of all wise and understanding men) to hold and keep that we are setled upon.' Thus with my duty remembred, etc. I rest

Matianuck, July 6.1635.

Yours to be comanded

JOHNNATHAN BREWSTER.2

Amongst the many agitations that pased betweene them, I shal note a few out of their last letters, and for the present omitte the rest, except upon other occasion I may have fitter opportunity. Wraisbury, on the Thames, in October, 1662. He came to New England with Winthrop, and held high office in the plantation of Massachusetts Bay. A resident of

ze cu long frid

all 40 y dwom

Roxbury, he married Frances Sanford, of the Dorchester church, and became interested in the proposed settlement on the Connecticut. Whether po

litical reasons influenced his removal, as they did that of Roger Ludlow, cannot be learned from existing records; but he was fined in March, 1634-35, for "refuseing to pay his parte of the last rate for Rocksbury, without distreyneing, because, as hee alleadged, that towne was not equally rated with others." Mass. Col. Rec., 1. 136. 1 Nearly a line has been carefully obliterated at this place in the letter.

2 Jonathan Brewster (1593-1659), eldest son of the Elder and wife Mary, was born at Scrooby, and in Holland practised the trade of a ribbon-maker. His first wife died before the migration, and by his second wife, Lucretia, he left descendants. He was one of four who removed to Duxbury in 1632. Placed in charge of the trading house on the Connecticut, he remained there until ousted by the Bay migration, giving good intelligence, June 18, 1636, of the hos

tile designs of the Pequots. 4 Mass. Hist. Collections, vII. 67. Later he removed to Duxbury, and thence to New London (before 1649), holding office in the two governments while a resident.

After their thorrow veiw of the place, they began to pitch them selves upon their land and near their house; which occasioned much expostulation betweene them. Some of which are shuch as follow.1

1 Dorchester was not alone among the older settlements in showing a desire to spread into new territory, and permission to remove was sought of the General Court. In May, 1635, liberty was granted to the inhabitants of Watertown to remove themselves "to any place they shall thinke meete to make choise of, provided they continue still vnder this gouernment." Mass. Col. Rec., 1. 146. Like permission was given to the inhabitants of Roxbury and to Dorchester; and when the latter received this privilege, the Court significantly granted three pieces of ordnance to the "plantations that shall remove to Conecticott, to Fortifie themselues withall." Ib. 148. This certainly amounted to a claim that Connecticut was "under the government" of the Bay, and the claim received further recognition when, in September, a constable of the plantations at Connecticut was sworn into office, and authority given "to any magistrate to sweare a constable att any plantačon att Conecticott, when the inhabitants shall desire the same." Ib. 159. It would appear that the Court looked for a movement to Connecticut from each of the three towns named, for each place was to contribute as a loan two barrels of powder for the new plantations. In fact some from Newtown and Watertown joined the Dorchester migration, but Dorchester contributed the largest number. These acts of the General Court were passed at the time it was taking into consideration the question of aiding Plymouth in an expedition against the French at Penobscot.

Another occurrence may have strengthened the determination of Massachusetts to control the settlements on the Connecticut. In August or September, the younger Winthrop landed in the Bay, bringing a commission to be "governor of the river Connecticut, with the places adjoining thereunto" for the space of one year, and to build houses and a fortification at the mouth of the river. Trumbull, History of Connecticut (1818), 1. 497. Winthrop was one of the court assistants of Massachusetts Bay. In November, 1635, the Dutch sent a sloop to take possession of the mouth of the river, but met there a party of English seeking to return to the Bay, who took two pieces of ordnance from the Rebecca, and would not suffer the Dutch to land. Winthrop, History, I. *175.

The patent issued to Lord Saye and his associates became known to Massachusetts Bay in the fall of 1635, and a joint letter signed by Sir Henry Vane, John Winthrop and Hugh Peter conveyed the information to the Dorchester settlement on the Connecticut. The letter raised the questions: whether the settlers would recognize the rights and claims of the new plantation, as represented by its governor, the younger Winthrop; under what pretence they had taken up their position, and under what government they intended to live, "because the said country is out of the claim of the Massachusetts patent"; and what reply should be given to the patentees, “if the

BRETHREN, having latly sent 2 of our body unto you, to agitate and bring to an issue some maters in difference betweene us, about some lands at Conightecutt, unto which you lay challeng; upon which God by his providence cast us, and as we conceive in a faire way of providence tendered it to us, as a meete place to receive our body, now upon removall.

We shall not need to answer all the passages of your large letter, etc. But wheras you say God in his providence cast you, etc., we tould you before, and (upon this occasion) must now tell you still, that our mind is other wise, and that you cast rather a partiall, if not a covetous eye, upon that which is your neigbours, and not yours; and in so doing, your way could not be faire unto it. Looke that you abuse not Gods providence in shuch allegations.1

said towns intend to intrench upon their rights and privileges." In all this discussion no word occurs to intimate that New Plymouth had any standing in the matter. Winthrop, History (Savage), 1. 477.

It is more than likely that the profits of the fur trade on the Connecticut received some attention in the Massachusetts Bay, and proved an influence in directing the steps of the emigrants. The trade sufficed to feed the traders of New Plymouth, and of Manhattan Island, and enough remained to tempt the irregular trader, such as Oldham. No exact figures of the quantity and description of furs coming from that river are available for this period; but after 1652 the note book of John Pynchon, who had purchased the fur privilege at Springfield and Nonottuck [Northampton] for £20 a year, shows the possibilities of the trade. See New England Hist. and Gen. Reg., XI. 217. The cessation of remittances from the Connecticut proved a heavy loss to New Plymouth, which may account in part for the feeling shown by Bradford over the seizure of the lands by the Dorchester people. As the leading manager of the trading monopoly he would be quick to see how much was involved in the projects of the Bay settlers.

1 Naturally New Plymouth protested against this more than trespass on their lands, and Governor Bradford wrote to those of Dorchester, "complaining of it as an injury, in regard of their possession and purchase of the Indians, whose right it was, and the Dutch sent home into Holland for commission to deal with our people at Connecticut." Winthrop, History, 1. *166. Having alienated the Dutch by their own conduct, the Plymouth Plantation now found themselves contending single handed against an even greater breach of their rights than had been committed upon the Dutch. In February, 1636, Winslow went to Boston to treat with those of Dorchester. Winthrop frankly states that when New Plymouth first broached the question of a

Theirs.

Now allbeite we at first judged the place so free that we might with Gods good leave take and use it, without just offence to any man, it being the Lords [213] wast, and for the presente altogeather voyd of inhabitants, that indeede minded the imploymente therof, to the right ends for which land was created, Gen: 1. 28.1 and for future intentions of any, and uncertaine possibilities of this or that to be done by any, we judging them (in shuch a case as ours espetialy) not meete to be equalled with presente actions (shuch as ours was) much less worthy to be prefered before them; and therfore did we make some weake beginings in that good worke, in the place afforesaid.

Ans: Their answer was to this effecte. That if it was the Lords wast, it was them selves that found it so, and not they; and have since bought it of the right oweners, and maintained a chargable joint occupation, it was doubtful whether the place was "within our patent or not," and having permitted Plymouth to purchase lands of the Indians, construct a trading house and contend with the Dutch without any participation of Massachusetts or a freeman of Massachusetts in the undertaking, the Bay would seem to have settled the question of control and government. The Dorchester people entered upon the lands of the Plymouth settlement without leave of New Plymouth, or of the traders at Matianuck, and without the express permission of the authorities of Massachusetts Bay. Winslow's mission at this time promised to come to some agreement, for he brought the following not immoderate proposition as a basis of settlement: the Dorchester people to give to New Plymouth one-sixteenth part of the land held by Plymouth, and £100; "which those of Dorchester not consenting unto, they brake off, those of Plimouth expecting to have due recompense after, by course of justice, if they went on." Winthrop, History, 1. *181. Some of the Dorchester settlers entertained doubts on the justice of their position, for Winthrop adds that, "divers resolved to quit the place if they could not agree with those of Plimouth." In the meantime a party of twenty, sent out by Sir Richard Saltonstall, had come from the Bay prepared to erect buildings at this very place. In the clash of claims which resulted, the Saltonstall party, or Patentees, though holding a patent from the Council for New England, and a confirmation of its terms by the King, was obliged to yield possession, and eventually (in 1645) sold their patent and claims to the Connecticut colony.

1 This text was a favorite one when the occupation of lands was in question. See Winthrop's "Reasons to be considered for iustifieinge the undertakers of the intended Plantation in New England," in Life and Letters of John Winthrop, 1. 309.

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

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