The History of the Thirteen Colonies of North America 1497-1763 Part 6

[125] _Journal of a Voyage to New York in 1679-80._

[126] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1661-1668, p. 344.

[127] _Ibid._, p. 9.

[128] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1661-1668, p. 32.

[129] Burrough, _A Declaration of the Sad and Great Persecution and Martyrdom of the ... Quakers, etc._ (1660).

[130] Burrough, _A Declaration of the Sad and Great Persecution, and Martyrdom of the ... Quakers_, etc. (1660).

[131] Hutchinson, _A Collection of Original Papers_, etc. (1769).

[132] _The Warr in New-England Visibly Ended_ (1677).

[133] Fortescue, Introd.: _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1677-1680, p. xiv.

[134] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1677-1680, p. xviii.

[135] _Ibid._, p. 545.

[136] Fortescue, _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1677-1680, p.

xxi.

[137] Hutchinson, _A Collection of Original Papers relative to the History of the Colony of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay_ (1769).

[138] Egerton, _A Short History of British Colonial Policy_, p. 62.

[139] Mather, _Magnalia Christi Americana, II._ (1702).

[140] O'Callaghan, editor, _Doc.u.ments relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York_ (1854).

CHAPTER V

CONNECTICUT; RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATION; NEW HAVEN; MAINE; NEW HAMPs.h.i.+RE

The early history of the group of colonies which is now to engage the attention is less interesting than that of either Virginia or Ma.s.sachusetts. There is not the glamour of a first colony as in the case of Virginia; the men were not Pilgrim Fathers in the true sense as in Plymouth; the prosperity of Ma.s.sachusetts, the rivalries of Maryland, and the Spanish danger in the Carolinas, are all wanting in this portion of New England. There is therefore not only a lack of romance, but there is too a pettiness in the quarrels which continually occurred in these colonies.

The New England Company, when once it had started an active existence, made every effort to extract some advantage from the land which had been granted to it. In 1631 Lord Saye and Sele, Lord Brooke and others obtained from the Company a tract of land in the rich valley of the Connecticut River. Very little, however, came of this scheme; and the first true settlement was made against the strenuous opposition of the Dutch, by a party from New Plymouth. A fresh influx of settlers came from the already rising colony of Ma.s.sachusetts, for they had found that the land was somewhat sterile, at any rate not sufficiently fertile to support them all. The settlers on the Connecticut came from the town of Dorchester, and planted themselves at Windsor, to the disgust of the New Plymouth settlers, who were at last forced to retire. This proved, as often enough in future years, that the unscrupulous and overbearing temper of the men of Ma.s.sachusetts earned for them a reward which they did not deserve. The patentees, seeing their rights invaded by these Dorchester filibusters, sent out a small party to establish their privileges, but these in turn were routed, and the men of Ma.s.sachusetts were left in possession, though contrary to the wishes of their mother-settlement. When, however, the versatile John Winthrop, son of the more statesmanlike Governor, arrived with a commission as Governor of the new colony on behalf of the patentees, Ma.s.sachusetts ceased to complain, and allowed the secession to become complete. Within two years the new colony of Connecticut had a population of eight hundred men, women and children, grouped in three towns, Hartford, Wethersfield, and Windsor. The freemen of these towns declared in 1638 that their const.i.tution was the same as that of Ma.s.sachusetts; but there was one great dissimilarity, for no religious test was imposed. This const.i.tution occupies a famous place in the world's history, for not only was it the first written const.i.tution that actually created a government, but it has also been characterised as "the oldest political const.i.tution in America."[141] By means of this important doc.u.ment, issued in January 1639, all possible claims to sovereignty on the part of Ma.s.sachusetts were placed on one side for ever; or was there any reference to the sovereignty of Charles I. or the home parliament. The doc.u.ment was merely an agreement amongst the colonists themselves, and by abstaining from any religious tests, or intolerance, they earned the grat.i.tude and admiration of mankind, and throughout the whole colonial period bravely sustained this liberal spirit which had distinguished them so early in their history.

Before accomplis.h.i.+ng this great work the colonists had a hard fight for existence against the Pequod Indians. As early as 1633 a Virginian s.h.i.+p's captain, Stone, was killed by this tribe near the mouth of the Connecticut River; two years later John Oldham, a trader, was also murdered by a party of Narragansetts inhabiting Block Island. It was evident that the redskins must be taught a severe lesson if Englishmen were to live in peace. Endecott, with a small force from Ma.s.sachusetts, was despatched to punish the Narragansetts, but he utterly failed in his attack upon the island tribe. In retaliation the settlers in Connecticut were surrounded by the murderous Pequods, and cut off from the sea; fortunately, Roger Williams, having the confidence and goodwill of the redskins, managed, at this time of trial, to obtain the neutrality of the Narragansetts. This was a great advantage, as Ma.s.sachusetts deserted the new settlement, leaving it to fight its own battles. Leaders with plenty of courage were not wanting, and Captains Mason and Underhill, with ninety men, marched against the Pequods. Two hundred of these tribesmen had attacked Wethersfield, and "having put poles in their Conoos, as we put Masts in our boats, and upon them hung our English mens and womens s.h.i.+rts and smocks in stead of sayles, and in way of bravado came along in sight of us as we stood upon Seybrooke Fort."[142]

Captain John Mason was not the man to be discouraged by such warlike displays, and with considerable strategy attacked them on the flank and a.s.saulted their chief stronghold. The action was a hot one, for although only two Englishmen were slain, many were wounded, and six hundred Pequods are reported to have fallen. The men of Connecticut were desperate, and fighting for their lives. They were determined to annihilate the Pequod tribe once for all, and to establish peace by means of a sanguinary slaughter. Their actions may appear brutal, but they were necessary as Captain John Underhill took care to explain.

"Great and dolefull was the bloudy sight to the view of young souldiers that never had beene in Warre, to see so many soules lie gasping on the ground so thicke in some places, that you could hardly pa.s.se along. It may be demanded, Why should you be so furious (as some have said), should not christians have more mercy and compa.s.sion? But I would refer you to David's warre, when a people is growne to such a height of bloud and sinne against G.o.d and man, and all confederates in the action, there hee hath no respect to persons, but harrowes them and sawes them and puts them to the sword."[143] This ma.s.sacre and total destruction of the Pequods had the important effect of reversing the territorial relations between the English and the Indians; direct communication between the mouth of the Connecticut and Boston was now made possible, and some form of union could only be a matter of time.

As has already been shown Connecticut did join in such an union when it entered into the Confederation of New England in 1643, and it was as a member of that group that it pa.s.sed through the period of the civil wars. With the Restoration the ambitions of the settlers increased, and in 1661 John Winthrop went to England to obtain a charter which would define the boundaries of the colony, and include within it the smaller settlement of New Haven, the members of which protested in vain. The patent of incorporation was granted in 1662, and the doc.u.ment concludes with the words which ill.u.s.trate the interesting but absurd legal fiction under which the King granted land in America. The Governor and Company of the English colonists of Connecticut are to hold "the same of his Majesty, his heirs and successors as of the manor of East Greenwich in free and common soccage, yielding the fifth part of all gold or silver ore."[144] So ridiculous was this fiction that the colonists were actually supposed to be represented in the home parliament by the member of the borough containing the manor of East Greenwich. It is not surprising that even as early as this period these rigid Presbyterians felt that if the actions of the home government endangered their welfare they would be justified in ignoring that authority, and relying only upon the common weal as supreme law in the colony. But though they regarded with jealousy any attempt to limit their rights, they were too weak, owing to internal dissension, to throw off the yoke of the home authorities. They had in no way added to their strength by the incorporation of New Haven, but rather increased their weakness. This unstable condition is ill.u.s.trated in particular, first by the emigration of the people of the town of Branford, who, armed with their civil and ecclesiastical records, preferred to occupy lands near the Delaware rather than stay under the jurisdiction of Connecticut; and secondly by the description of Connecticut itself, as recorded by the Governor, William Leete, in 1680. He shows that for the last seven years the popularity of the colony had evidently declined in England, for only one or two settlers had come from the home country each year. The population had certainly increased by about five hundred in eight years; from 2050 in 1671 to 2507 in 1679; but there was very little unity of feeling or purpose owing to the religious sects being peculiarly mixed, some being Presbyterians, some "strict congregational men," some "more large congregational men," some Quakers, and four or five are cla.s.sified by the Governor as "seven-day men."[145]

For twenty-three years the people of Connecticut imagined that they enjoyed the benefits of the charter gained by Winthrop in 1662, "ye advantages and priviledges whereof made us indeed a very happy people; and by ye blessing of G.o.d upon our endeavours we have made a considerable improvement of your dominions here, which with ye defense of ourselves from ye force of both forraign and intestine enemies has cost us much expence of treasure & blood."[146] James II., however, cared for none of these things; the charter was forfeited in 1685; and like Ma.s.sachusetts, Connecticut felt the heavy hand of the too zealous Sir Edmund Andros. Being "commissionated by his Majesty,"[147] Andros appeared with sixty grenadiers in 1687 at Hartford, and took over the government. On his capture, as already recorded, the people of Connecticut in May 1689 joyfully fell back upon their old form of government under the late charter, the forfeiture of which had been declared illegal in England.

Owing to King William's War, Connecticut was within an ace of losing its government, and for purposes of defence being united, in 1690, with its stronger neighbour New York; the proposals fell through, and the fears of the citizens were set at rest by a legal confirmation of their const.i.tution. The colony from this time undoubtedly advanced. Its system of government was active and vigorous; each towns.h.i.+p controlled its own affairs, and in the early years of the eighteenth century local government lay entirely in the hands of the Select-men, to the exclusion of English officials. At the same time education was encouraged; a college was established by the clergy in 1698, which found its final home at Newhaven in 1717. Before this printing had been undertaken, the first press being erected in 1709 at New London; the immediate work done was not of a first-rate character, but it was the beginning of better things. At the same time it is only fair to point out that the colony was cursed by the presence of turbulent and quarrelsome negro and mulatto slaves; it was regarded with suspicion by the English governors as a protector of pirates; and it certainly must be blamed for its n.i.g.g.ardly contributions of both men and money in the great expeditions against the French.

Connecticut was not the only settlement that was partly formed by a secession from the parent colony of Ma.s.sachusetts; nor was it an isolated example of colonial establishments, for during the same period several other colonies grew up along the Eastern seaboard. The Reverend Roger Williams, after his banishment from Ma.s.sachusetts in October 1635, purchased land from the Indians, and with twelve other householders settled at Providence, by the advice of Mr Winslow, the Governor of New Plymouth. Thus Williams was able to describe himself many years later as "by G.o.d's mercy the first beginner of the mother town of Providence and of the Colony of Rhode Island."[148] Williams' settlers immediately started a simple form of government, by which all freemen were to hold quarterly meetings and settle judicial questions, while five Select-men were to transact all executive business. Following Williams' example, Mrs Anne Hutchinson, as another refugee from the intolerance of Ma.s.sachusetts, came to much the same district in 1637. She purchased from the Indians the island of Aquedneck, or, as it was afterwards known, Rhode Island. Her heretical followers soon founded the town of Portsmouth, and here the government was carried on by William Coddington as judge. Mrs Hutchinson, having now time for inventing new heresies, almost immediately caused a fresh secession, and some of her hitherto ardent admirers, finding her new doctrines intolerable, left Portsmouth, and under Coddington established themselves at Newport. The colonies were reunited in 1640, with Coddington as Governor, and a regular government was inst.i.tuted composed of two "a.s.sistants" from each towns.h.i.+p.

Providence and Rhode Island were regarded with dislike and suspicion by all the other colonies, being cla.s.sified as the asylum for sectaries, the hot-bed of anarchy, and the true home of extreme democracy. This att.i.tude is not surprising when it is remembered that both colonies owed their existence to parties of religious outcasts. Rhode Island nevertheless prospered, although throughout the first few years of its existence it was the centre of disorder, bickerings, and factious quarrels. At the bottom of most of the trouble was Samuel Gorton, a contentious and troublesome man, leader of a band of fanatics, who had forced themselves upon a party of Williams' settlers at Pawtuxet. The settlers appealed to Ma.s.sachusetts to remove him as "a proud and pestilent seducer";[149] and had indeed placed themselves under the jurisdiction of that colony for this very purpose. In 1643, Gorton, of "insolent and riotous carriage," with nine of his followers, was imprisoned for some months at Boston, for blasphemy. The quarrel, however, did not end here. It was carried by Gorton to England, where he appealed to the Parliamentary Commissioners, who commanded the General Court to allow Gorton and his band to dwell in peace. This, at last, the Ma.s.sachusetts' government consented to do with contemptuous indifference, but when Gorton pleaded for their protection against the Indians he pleaded in vain.

In the same year as the conclusion of the Gorton controversy, Providence, Portsmouth and Newport, combined into a properly const.i.tuted community. This was the outcome of a visit paid to England in 1643 by Roger Williams, who asked for a definite charter of incorporation. In 1647, therefore, a general a.s.sembly of freemen, governor and a.s.sistants, with a court of commissioners, was established for the "Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantation." At first the a.s.sembly met in the different towns by rotation, and the method of voting was most complicated and non-progressive; every matter had to be voted on in each town, and was to be considered as lost unless it was carried by a majority in every town. So complex a system proved inadequate, and in 1664 an ordinary representative a.s.sembly was created. What was equally important and showed Rhode Island to be more enlightened than most of the other colonies, was the clear announcement of the doctrine of freedom of conscience to all who "live civilly." To the annoyance of Ma.s.sachusetts the Rhode Island authorities consistently adhered to this doctrine, and refused to join in the barbarous persecutions of the Quakers.

The settlers expressly thanked Charles II. for sending Commissioners, and made great demonstration of their loyalty and obedience in 1665.

Such actions are rather surprising in a Puritan colony, but they may have been due to the King's grant of a charter, two years before, in which they obtained a definition of their boundaries. The colony of this period was described with some minuteness by the Commissioners, who called attention to the fact that Quakers and Generalists were admitted, and that owing to the variety of sects there were no places for the wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d, "but they sometimes a.s.sociate in one house, and sometimes in another."[150] The colony certainly did not advance with the strides that had been made by Ma.s.sachusetts, and the people were still extremely unpopular with the other colonists, being denounced on one occasion as "sc.u.m and dregs." Nevertheless under the government of Peleg Sandford in 1680, Rhode Island was a small, happy, self-sufficing colony. The chief town was Newport, built almost entirely of timber. As to exterior commerce it seems to have been non-existent; "wee have no s.h.i.+ppinge belonginge to our Colloney, but only a few sloopes," and "as for Merchants wee have none, but the most of our Colloney live comfortably by improvinge the wildernesse."[151]

This happy state of affairs was somewhat rudely disturbed by James II.'s action in depriving Rhode Island and Providence Plantation of that charter of which they were so proud, and which gave "full liberty of conscience provided that the pretence of liberty extend not to licentiousnesse."[152] James' harsh treatment did not last for long, and to the joy of the inhabitants after the Revolution the action of the Papist King was declared illegal. A time of peace and prosperity now followed. From 1696 to 1726 Rhode Island increased in wealth and population, under the annually elected Governor, Samuel Cranston, who, during these thirty years of office, proved himself a firm, popular, and successful administrator.

During the year in which Rhode Island was established, another colony, New Haven, was founded to the South. In 1637 Theophilus Eaton, a leader in the Baltic Company, and "of great esteem for religion,"[153]

together with a party of settlers who were wealthier men than most colonists, settled at the mouth of the Quinipiac River, facing Long Island. The religious beliefs of the settlers were of the most bigoted kind; their freemen were strictly limited to Church members; and their minister, "the reverend, judicious and G.o.dly Mr John Davenport,"[154]

a.s.serted that the scripture was sufficient guide for all civil affairs.

They soon found "a fit place to erect a Toune, which they built in very little time, and with very faire houses and compleat streets; but in a little time they over-stockt it with Chattell, although many of them did follow merchandizing and Maritime affairs, but their remoteness from Mattachusets Bay, where the chiefe traffique lay, hindered them much."[155] Ten years after its foundation, the colony was seen to be commercially on the decline, although other towns had grown up such as Guildford, Milford, and Stamford. They were all governed as one town without representation, and the executive was placed in the hands of an elected Governor and four a.s.sistants. The commercial depression did not last for long; trade began to increase again, and Newhaven became a flouris.h.i.+ng state, the inhabitants of which were noted for the magnificence of their buildings and their astonis.h.i.+ng opulence.

After the Restoration the colony fell under the displeasure of the Crown. Two of the regicides, William Goffe and Edward Whalley had, first, come to Boston, then to Connecticut, and finally to New Haven.

The home government ordered their arrest, and Winthrop was very active in sending these orders to the Governors of the different colonies, including the Governor of New Haven, who knew that these men had come within his rights of jurisdiction but took no steps to effect their arrest. For some time the King had had strong doubts as to the loyalty of New England as a whole; here, in any case, was a colony that needed watching; and so, in 1662, as has already been shown, New Haven was absorbed by Connecticut. There can be no doubt that Charles had now struck two hearty blows against the much vaunted New England Confederation. His refusal to allow the ill-treatment of the Quakers, and his punishment of New Haven, were sufficient to make the Confederation nothing more important than a triennial meeting of federal commissioners, who sat till 1684, but whose powers were nil, whose mutual beliefs were non-existent, and who were only in complete concord in resistance to the Indian raids.

Maine was yet another colony of New England, which had a purely independent foundation, but which was destined to be absorbed by its more prosperous neighbour. As early as 1623, Levitt established a settlement on Cas...o...b..y;[156] while at the same time, Sir Ferdinando Gorges, "the Father of English Colonisation in North America,"[157] made a plantation at Saco. He followed this up by the formation of a company in 1631, but four years later the whole territory then called New Somersets.h.i.+re was granted to Gorges. Five years later he received from Charles I. a charter granting to him "all that part and portion of New England lying and between the River Pascataway ... to Kenebeck even as far as the head thereof."[158] Sir Ferdinando very soon drew up a most grotesque const.i.tution for his colony, creating almost more officials than there were citizens, and whose t.i.tles were very magnificent, but quite meaningless. In exactly the same district the New England Company claimed to have proprietary rights, and it was not long before many semi-independent settlements were made in the neighbourhood of Gorges Colony.

The Civil War having broken out in 1642 Sir Ferdinando Gorges was too much engaged at home to pay any attention to Maine, "for when he was between three and four score years of age did personally engage in our Royal Martyr's service; and particularly in the siege of Bristow, and was plundered and imprisoned several times, by reason whereof he was discountenanced by the pretended Commissioners for foreign plantations."[159] Soon after his exploits at Bristol, Gorges died after proving himself a man of resolute purpose, but endowed with narrow ideas. He had certainly taken an active part in the struggle for gain and position amongst a large number of the most worthless and servile courtiers, but still around him and his memory there is a halo of grandeur, borrowed perhaps from the generation to which he really belonged, nevertheless reflecting upon his person something of that glory that ought to belong to him who was the last figure of that grand procession of giants which numbered amongst its train, Gilbert and Drake, Smith and Raleigh.

No sooner had Gorges pa.s.sed away than Edward Rigby claimed the whole of Maine under a grant from the New England Company. Against this the heirs of Sir Ferdinando put in a strong counter-claim; the decision between the disputants was left to the authorities in Ma.s.sachusetts, who divided the towns into equal halves, three being allotted to Rigby, and three to the Gorges claimant. The inhabitants of the colony were not consulted, and in 1649 they took the matter into their own hands and declared themselves a body politic with an elective governor and council. But this was not to last. In the early days of the settlement the colonists showed no signs of religious bigotry or of any religious views at all, but gradually they came to sympathise with both the religion and the political opinions of Ma.s.sachusetts, so that between 1651 and 1658 the towns.h.i.+ps of Maine readily accepted the authority of the greater colony.

Soon after the Restoration, Ferdinando Gorges, the grandson of the original patentee, sought to a.s.sert his authority over Maine, but his exertions were not supported by the Crown, and he was unsuccessful. In 1665 the home authorities set up a provisional government in the colony, but concerning its history very little is known. According to the Commissioners of that year the inhabitants themselves pet.i.tioned that they might continue under his Majesty's immediate government. They expressed their grat.i.tude to Charles II. for his "fatherly care of them after so long a death inflicted on their minds and fortunes by the usurpation of the Ma.s.sachusetts power,"[160] and they ask that the insults of others towards them may be prevented for the future by the appointment of Sir Robert Carr as their governor. But this statement seems very improbable and can hardly have expressed the general wishes of the people.

It is not surprising that Sir Robert Carr was anxious to obtain the government of the colony, as from contemporary descriptions it appears to have been a fertile and productive territory. "In these Provinces are great store of wild ducks, geese, and deer, strawberries, raspberries, gooseberries, barberries, bilberries, several sorts of oaks and pines, chestnuts and walnuts, sometimes four or five miles together; the more northerly the country, the better the timber is accounted."[161] The true value of Maine was realised by William Dyre, who pointed out to Charles II. the manifold advantages that he would gain if he purchased Maine for himself. By such an action the King would have absolute dominion over those seas and might settle a duty on all fisheries there; at the same time he might very easily reduce the turbulent spirits in Ma.s.sachusetts "to a ready subjection," while enriching himself with masts, tar, timber, etc., and thus "conduce to the safety of his maritime affairs."[162] There were, however, other very different views on Maine, and John Josselyn, an Englishman of good family, does not speak well of either the country or its inhabitants, but there are reasons for supposing that he may have been maliciously inclined. The people of Maine in 1675 "may be divided," he writes, "into Magistrates, Husbandmen or Planters, and fishermen; of the magistrates some be Royalists, the rest perverse Spirits, the like are the planters and fishers.... The planters are or should be restless pains takers, providing for their Cattle, planting and sowing of Corn ... but if they be of a droanish disposition as some are, they become wretchedly poor and miserable.... They have a custom of taking Tobacco, sleeping at noon, sitting long at meals sometimes four times in a day, and now and then drinking a dram of the bottle extraordinarily."[163]

The people of Maine may have been all that Josselyn said, but it is far from likely. They were sufficiently alert to resent the government of the Crown, and in 1668 the majority of the settlers acquiesced in the rea.s.sertion of authority by Ma.s.sachusetts. For ten years the quarrel between Ferdinando Gorges and Ma.s.sachusetts continued, but in 1678, although his grandfather is reported to have spent 20,000 on the colony, the grandson's claims were extinguished by the purchase of his rights for 1250. From this moment Maine ceased to exist as a separate colony, and continued incorporated with Ma.s.sachusetts for many years.

The last of this early group of colonies was New Hamps.h.i.+re, which, in turn, like its weaker brethren, became amalgamated with the colony of Ma.s.sachusetts. Early in the reign of Charles I., Captain John Mason, with Sir Ferdinando Gorges and others, formed for colonial purposes the Laconia Company. When Gorges was granted rights in Maine in 1635, Captain John Mason also received a grant of territory to the south, where a settlement was formed, and though by no means a true political community, was called New Hamps.h.i.+re. Mason died soon after the naming of his colony and received no benefits from his grant, which had embraced two earlier settlements: the first founded by David Thompson near the Piscataqua; the second fifteen miles up the Cocheco, founded by Bristol and Shrewsbury merchants, who had transferred their rights to Lord Saye and Sele and Lord Brooke. It was in this latter stretch of territory that purely independent settlements were made, such as Dover, Exeter, and Hampton. The latter town, realising its weakness as an independent community, soon chose to be regarded as within the jurisdiction of Ma.s.sachusetts.

The authorities of Ma.s.sachusetts undoubtedly suffered from "earth hunger," and the transfer of Hampton was merely the first of a series of aggressions, for between 1642 and 1643 the other towns of New Hamps.h.i.+re were swallowed within the greedy maw of the stronger colony. No remonstrance came from England, for the people of the home country had enough difficulties to contend with; while the Mason family appear to have made no serious attempts to recover their rights. After the Restoration, however, following the example of Ferdinando Gorges, the heirs of Mason pet.i.tioned the Privy Council to restore to them the rights and privileges contained in the grant of 1635. The law officers of the Crown took the matter into serious consideration, and although their verdict was against the Mason family, they declared at the same time that the colony of New Hamps.h.i.+re was outside the jurisdiction of Ma.s.sachusetts, which had annexed it and wrongfully renamed it Norfolk.

This was one more blow for the New England Confederation and for Ma.s.sachusetts in particular. The King and his ministers were only too pleased to have had such an opportunity, for the Royal Commissioners had but recently accused Ma.s.sachusetts of disloyalty. They had, in fact, declared that unless the King punished the authorities, the well-affected inhabitants would never dare to own themselves loyal subjects. To better effect the total subjugation of the colony, one of the Commissioners, Sir Robert Carr, proposed that he should be made governor of New Hamps.h.i.+re, a proposal which shows only too clearly the selfish aims of the Crown officials. The actual state of New Hamps.h.i.+re did not seem to trouble the Commissioners, and whilst the bickering between the home country and Ma.s.sachusetts continued, the unfortunate inhabitants of New Hamps.h.i.+re were suffering all the horrors of the already mentioned King Philip's Indian war. For this reason the settlers took the matter into their own hands and turned to the more powerful colony of Ma.s.sachusetts for a.s.sistance and protection. In 1678 the inhabitants of Portsmouth and Dover supplicated the Crown to be kept under the jurisdiction of the stronger colony. The pet.i.tion from Dover is particularly noteworthy because of its tawdry character. The pet.i.tioners speak of the favour of his Majesty, "which like the sweet influences of superior or heavenly bodies to the tender plants have cherished us in our weaker beginnings, having been continued through your special grace, under your Majesty's protection and government of the Ma.s.sachusetts, to which we voluntarily subjected ourselves many years ago, yet not without some necessity in part felt for want of government and in part feared upon the account of protection."[164] In spite of this pet.i.tion the Crown created New Hamps.h.i.+re a separate province, with a council and representative a.s.sembly. The first governor selected was John Cutts, "a very just and honest but ancient and infirm man,"[165] and with his appointment the people of Ma.s.sachusetts revoked all former commissions.

The colony did not forget its old guardian, and looked upon it always with loyal affection, a feeling which was intensified during the tyrannical governors.h.i.+p of Edward Cranfield. From 1682 to 1685 this man's disgraceful conduct was tolerated, but at last the men of New Hamps.h.i.+re could bear his despotism no longer, broke into open rebellion, and Cranfield fled for refuge to the West Indies. The desired result was immediately obtained, for New Hamps.h.i.+re was reunited to Ma.s.sachusetts.

This, however, was not to last for long, for after the Revolution in England the proprietors.h.i.+p of New Hamps.h.i.+re was again debated. Samuel Allen had purchased from the heirs of Captain Mason any rights which they continued to imagine they possessed; and by the corrupt connivance of an English official, Allen succeeded in obtaining a proprietary governors.h.i.+p with a council partly nominated by the Crown and partly by himself. It is a remarkable fact that, unlike the other colonies at this time, New Hamps.h.i.+re obtained no charter. The only freedom allowed to its inhabitants was the exercise of a few independent rights by means of the representative a.s.sembly elected by the freeholders.

The acceptance of the Revolution in America marks an epoch of American history. All the New England colonies had been established, and had either proved themselves st.u.r.dy enough to stand alone, or had been forced to find shelter beneath the wing of the more powerful Connecticut or Ma.s.sachusetts. The New England Confederation had been tried and found wanting. The time for union was evidently not ripe, but this embryo of the United States ceased to exist at identically the hour it was most wanted. A union of all the colonies was what might have been expected when French aggression and Canadian pluck taxed all the resources of the colonists; the scheme of union, however, failed, and the French had to be met in that haphazard and unprepared way in which, it would appear from history, Englishmen are accustomed not only to meet supreme danger, but to come through it with success.

FOOTNOTES:

[141] Bryce, _American Commonwealth_.