Page images

granted lands for severall townships,' and amongst the rest to the inhabitants of Sityate, some wherof issewed from them selves, and allso a large tracte of land was given to their •4. London partners in exercised their right until the following year. So that in 1648, the last year of this history, the body of deputies contained twenty-two representatives from ten towns, Plymouth still having a representation double that of other towns. Chalmers called the earlier plan, of all freemen constituting the legislature, as in the true spirit of Rousseau, and he believed the people enslaved themselves by establishing a house of representatives composed of deputies from the several towns. The criticism.emanates from an upholder of the divine right of kings.

1 The scattering of the population raised some unexpected questions, and among them one that concerned the use of farms, at a distance from a place of worship. The problem is stated in the letter from Reyner and Brewster, probably addressed to Rev. John Cotton, of which the following is a copy:

“REVEREND AND WELBELOVED IN OUR COMMON Savior. The Lord haueing called you with vs in the fellowship of the Gospell to mutuall helpfullness in the Lord as occasion is ministred we craue your serious thoughts and resolučons in some questions on foote among us concerneing the holding of farmes of which there is noe lesse frequent vse with your selues then with vs. The particulers we desire to commend to your serious consideration are these.

1. Whether in those parts especially in some places, and where people haue continued for some space of tyme it be not needfull for the comfortable and welbeing euen of the churches that places for husbandry be made use of though distant from the place of a mans habitacon and of the churches assembling three or foure miles or there abouts.

“2. Seing by meanes of such farmes a mans famylie is Diuided so that in busie tymes they cannot (except vpon the Lords day) all of them joyne with him in famylie duties whether to make use of them because of the forenamed needfulnes be not to doe evell that good may come of yt.

"3. Whether a master in the absence of some part of his famylie by occasion of his farm may not lawfully appoynt a son or servant, who is in some measure fited to performe Duties among them in his absence? or whether such a one be not as a substitute to a church officer in his non-residencie?

“4. Whether a man not haueing wherewith to mayntaine his stocke estate and place the Lord hath called him in, neare hand may vndertake and retaine such a farme abroad as abouesaid, when for the present hee wants and cannot procure such a servant in his famyly as may be helpfull there with the rest of his servants by prayer and instruccon?

“It is presupposed and provided in all those cases that such servants or others as on the weeke day are employed abroad at farmes doe report duly before the Lords Day to the famylies they belong too and continue there till the second Day, except

that place, viz. Mr. Sherley, Mr. Beacham, Mr. Andrews, and Mr. Hatherley. At Mr. Hatherley's request and choys it was by him taken for him selfe and them in that place; for the other •3. had invested him with power and trust to chose for them. And this tracte of land extended to their utmost limets that way, and bordered on their neigbours of the Massachusets, who had some years after seated a towne (called Hingam) ? on their lands next to

these parts. So as now ther grue great difference betweene these-2. townships, about their bounds, and some meadow grownds that lay between them. They of Hingam presumed to alotte parte of some one whoe is necessaryly Detayned there, though not usually from the publike assemblies.

“Some of us after agitacon of these things remayneing Darke and Doubtfull in them, if you shall by imparting to us what light you haue receiued concerneing them from the true light be meanes of guideing our feete in the wayes of truth and peace, we shall haue occasion hereby ministered of returneing thanks to the father of lighte in your behalfe. Now the Lord himselfe give vs with you vnderstanding in all things through him whoe is the way, the truth and the life. Farewell. Yours in the faith and fellowshippe of the Gospell "John REYNER.

WM. BREWSTER. “Plymouth moneth 6th the 5th day 1639." From the Cotton Papers, in the Boston Public Library.

1 Originally called Barecove or Bearcove.

? On July 1, 1633, the General Court adopted a resolution, that “the whole tract of land between the brooke at Scituate, on the norwest side, and Conahasset be left undisposed of till we know the resolučon of Mr. James Sherley, Mr. John Beauchamp, Mr. Richard Andrews, and Mr. Timothy Hatherly, as also that portion of land lately made choice of by Mr. Hatherly aforesaid.” The grant was duly accepted in 1637, and the lines were run in the following year. Plymouth Col. Rec., 1. 13, 68, 80. The adjustment was not in all respects satisfactory, and did not prove final. Some settlers had already come upon the land. Controversies arose, and continued for years. The settlement at Scituate, meanwhile, increased, and a church was there gathered in 1635, under the pastorate of John Lothrop. One year later Hatherley, a resident of Scituate, complained that the place was too straite for them, the landes adjacent being stoney, and not convenient to plant upon.Ib. XI. 25.

In May, 1637, Hatherley was, with three others, appointed by the General Courts of the two plantations to “veiwe the bounds betweene vs and Plimoth, and make returne how they find them lye to both courts.” Two of these commissioners, Hatherley and Nathaniel Tilden, were of Scituate, and two, William Aspinwall and Joseph


them to their people, and measure and stack them out. The other pulled up their stacks, and threw them. So it grew to a controversie betweene the .2. goverments, and many letters and passages were betweene them aboute it; and it hunge some :2. years in suspense. The Courte of Massachusets appointed some to range their line according to the bounds of their patente, and (as they wente to worke) they made it to take in all Sityate, and I know not how much more. Againe, on the other hand, according to the line of the patente of this place, it would take in Hingame and much more within their bounds.

In the end boath Courts agreed to chose •2• comissioners of each side, and to give them full and absolute power to agree and setle the bounds betwene them; and what they should doe in the case should stand irrevocably. One meeting they had at Hingam, but could not conclude; for their comissioners stoode stiffly on a clawes in their

graunte, that from Charles-river, or any branch or parte therof, 7 they were to extend their limits, and •3• myles further to the south

ward; or from the most southward parte of the Massachusets Bay, Andrews, were of the Bay. Andrews resided at Hingham. Mass. Col. Rec., I. 196. Their report is not to be found, but Winthrop and Bradford said they did not come to an agreement.

In April, 1638, Bradford laid before Winthrop the complaints of the Scituate settlers, that their lands were being taken by their neighbors of Hingham, a clear violation of their rights, which rested upon purchase from the Indians, a patent issued by the King's authority, and actual occupation and planting on the territory. Bradford to Winthrop, April 11, 1638. Winthrop replied that an effort had been made to set bounds that would be satisfactory to Hatherley; and, failing in that, Winslow was seen who answered "that what our Patent gave us we must have, and it was all one to them whither Scituate fell to them or to us, etc., and aduised us to sett out our boundaries.” This Massachusetts did, but refrained from final action. When Bradford demanded a reason for the act, Winthrop replied that he saw no need of giving a reason. He had never before heard of the purchase from the Indians, and he knew that the king did not confirm Indian grants. The Bay grant could easily have been enlarged to cover the disputed lands, and as for Hatherley's company "we thought it were better for us bothe, if they were further off.” They did not intend to advance that company's interest without advising with Plymouth, and they looked for the like courtesy from Plymouth. 4 Mass. Hist. Collections, vi. 157.

and : 3. mile further. But they chose to stand on the former termes, for they had found a smale river, or brooke rather, that a great way with in land trended southward, and issued into some part of that river taken to be Charles-river, and from the most southerly part of this, and.3.mile more southward of the same, they would rune a line east to the sea, aboute. 20. mile; which will (say they) take in a part of Plimoth it selfe. Now it is to be knowne that though this patente and plantation were much the ancienter, yet this inlargemente of the same (in which Sityate stood) was granted after theirs, and so theirs were first to take place, before this inlargmente.! Now their answer was, first, that, however according to their owne

1 The General Court of Massachusetts Bay appointed other commissioners in March, 1639, naming John Endecott and Israel Stoughton to "meete with our brethren of Plimoth, and to agree with them about the bounds, if they see cause.” Mass. Col. Rec., I. 254. In June. Plymouth appointed on her part William Bradford and Edward Winslow, to settle controversy over the boundary line, and for the “continuance and mayntenance of the auncient loue and amytie wee, the said inhabitants of the government of New Plymouth, haue alwayes most zealously desired to hold, obserue and keepe with our neighboures, the inhabitants of the said Massachusetts Bay.” Their commission is given in full in Plymouth Col. Rec., I. 127. Before this action had been taken by Plymouth, the Court of Massachusetts Bay came to the relief of the Hingham settlers, but at the expense, in whole or in part, of those of Scituate. “Whereas this Court did take order for a meeting to bee had betweene our commissioners and our neighbors of Plimoth, for seting out the bounds between vs, and that nothing hath bene done therein, in regard that their commissioners had not power to conclude any thing, and for that it appeareth vnto this Court, that our people of Hingham stande in great neede of hay, it is ordered, that they may make vse of so much of the ground neare Conihassett as lye on this side the ryver, wherevpon the bridge is, (which lands are vndoubtedly within the limits of our grant,) vntill some further order bee taken for a finall determination of the difference betweene vs, and till the Court shall make other disposition thereof.” Mass. Col. Rec., 1. 257. The commissioners settled the line as follows: "from the mouth of the brooke that runeth into Conihasset marshes, in a straight line to the middle of " Accord Pond. Deane, History of Scituate, 3 ; p. 281, infra. This determination satisfied neither party in the dispute, as each had granted lands claimed by the other, and a new commission was named in 1656, William Torrey and Richard Brackett for Massachusetts, and Josiah Winslow for New Plymouth. The dispute concerned some sixty acres of marsh lands. The decision was confirmed, and brought to a conclusion a troublesome question.

plan, they could noway come upon any part of their ancieante grante. [232] 2ly. They could never prove that to be a parte of Charles-river, for they knew not which was Charles-river, but as the people of this place, which came first, imposed shuch a name 7 upon that river, upon which, since, Charles-towne is builte (supposing that was it, which Captaine Smith in his mapp so named). Now they that first named it have best reason to know it, and to explaine which is it. But they only tooke it to be Charles river, as fare as it was by them navigated, and that was as farr as a boate could goe. But that every runlett or small brooke, that should, farr within land, come into it, or mixe their stremes with it, and were by the natives called by other and differente names from it, should now by them be made Charels-river, or parts of it, they saw no reason for it. And gave instance in Humber, in Old England, which had the Trente, Ouse, and many others of lesser note fell into it, and yet were not counted parts of it; and many smaler rivers and broks fell into the Trente, and Ouse, and no parts of them, but had names aparte, and divissions and nominations of them selves.1 Againe, it was pleaded that they had no east line in their patente, but were to begine at the sea, and goe west by a line, etc. At this meeting no conclution was made, but things discussed and well prepared for an issue. The next year the same commissioners had

· This information was local, for only a resident of one of the three counties on these rivers Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire or Lincolnshire would have cited it. Wewe The Ouse and the Trent both empty into the Humber. “The Trent lies well over towards the eastern side of this valley, skirting the western base of the hills. Its sluggish tributaries, the Idle and the Ryton, extend southward and westward; the former towards Nottingham and Newstead Abbey, the latter enriching itself from the springs of the border of the adjacent shire, and emptying into the Idle about six miles south-southeast of the junction of the three counties. The tongue of fenny land in the midst of encompassing moors, formed by the confluence at an acute angle of gently rolling hills within eyeshot on either side, and once admirably situated for hunting - being within easy ride of the famous old Sherwood Forest of Robin Hood, on the south, and of Hatfield Chase, on the north, and itself surrounded by the natural haunts of game — lies in the parish of Scrooby, Notts." Dexter, The England and Holland of the Pilgrims, 215.

« PreviousContinue »