At this court, the magistrates were desired to write to the Dutch, and, as far as possible, to prevent their vending arms and ammunition to the natives, and to settle all disputes between them and the colony with respect to claims. But notwithstanding all their endeavours, the Dutch behaved with great insolence, and did much damage to both the English colonies.

The Dutch, at Hartford, gave entertainment to fugitives from the English; helped them when confined to file off their irons; and persuaded servants to run from their masters and then gave them entertainment. They purchased goods which had been stolen from the English, and would not return them. They also assisted criminals in breaking gaol.

Besides these misdemeanors, at Hartford, the Dutch governor, William Kieft, caused the English settlements on Long-Island, which had now advanced, on the lands purchased by captain Howe, as far as Oyster bay, to be broken up. Some of the English planters were forcibly seized and imprisoned, and others driven from their settlements. These were injuries done to Connecticut.

To the colony of New-Haven the Dutch were still more hostile and injurious. Notwithstanding the fair purchases which that colony had made, by their agents at Delaware, governor Kieft, without any legal protest or warning, dispatched an armed force, and with great hostility, burned the English trading houses, violently seized and for a time detained their goods, and would not give them time to take an inventory of them. The Dutch also took the company's boat, and a number of the English planters, and kept them as prisoners. The damages done the English at Delaware, were estimated at a thousand pounds sterling.1

The same year the Swedish governor 2 and Dutch agent uniting in a crafty design against Mr. Lamberton, a principal gentleman of New-Haven, made an injurious attempt upon his life. They accused him of having joined in a plot with the Indians to cut off the Swedes and Dutch. They attempted, by giving his men strong drink, and by threatenings and allurements, to influence them to bear testimony against him. They proceeded so far as to imprison and try him for treason. When, notwithstanding these unfair means, and that they were both his accusers and judges, they could not find any evidence against him, they arbitrarily imposed a fine upon him, for trading at Delaware, though within the limits of the purchase and jurisdiction of New-Haven.

At another time, when Mr. Lamberton was occasionally at Manhatoes, in the capacity of an agent for New-Haven, the Dutch 1 Records of the united colonies, and Smith's history of New-York, p. 4. 'John Printz. The plot against Lamberton must have been in 1643, a year later than our author places it. See deposition of John Thickpenny, in New-Haven Colonial Records, 1:97. From this it appears that the Dutch agent was not an accomplice in this plot.—J. T.

governor, Kieft, by force and threatenings, compelled him to give an account of all his beaver, within the limits of New-Haven, at Delaware, and to pay an impost upon the whole. The Dutch did other damages, and insulted the English in various other instances. Both Connecticut and New-Haven, from year to year, complained and remonstrated against them, but could obtain no redress.

While the colonies were increasing in numbers and settlements, progress in law and jurisprudence, in the regular establishment of courts and the times of their sessions, was also necessary, for the advancement, order and happiness of the respective jurisdictions.

This, so far as the numerous affairs of the colonies would permit, was an object of special attention. The capital laws of Connecticut were, this year, nearly completed, and put upon record. The several passages of scripture on which they were founded were particularly noticed in the statute. They were twelve in number, and to the following effect.

If any man or woman shall have or worship any God, but the true God, he shall be put to death. Deut. xiii. 6. xvii. 21. Exodus xxii. 2.

If any person in this colony shall blaspheme the name of God the Father, Son or Holy Ghost, with direct, express, presumptuous or high-handed blasphemy, or shall curse in like manner, he shall be put to death. Levit. xxiv. 15, 16.

If any man or woman be a witch, that is, hath or consulteth with a familiar spirit, they shall be put to death. Exodus xxii. 18. Levit. xx. 22. Deut. xviii. 10, II.

If any person shall commit wilful murder, upon malice, hatred or cruelty, not in a man's own defence, nor by casualty against his will, he shall be put to death. Exodus xxi. 12, 13, 14. Numb.

XXXV. 30, 31.

If any person shall slay another through guile, either by poisoning, or other such devilish practices, he shall be put to death. Exodus xxi. 14.

If any man or woman shall lie with any beast or brute creature, by carnal copulation, they shall surely be put to death, and the beast shall be slain and buried. Leviticus xx. 15, 16.

If any man lieth with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall surely be put to death, except it appear that one of the parties was forced, or under fifteen years of age. Levit. xx. 13.

If any man lie with his mother, or father's wife, or wife's mother, his daughter, or daughter in law, having carnal copulation with them, both of them have committed abomination; they shall be put to death, except it appear, that the woman was forced, or under fourteen years of age. Levit. xx. 11, 12, 14, and xviii. 7, 8.

If any man shall forcibly ravish any maid, or woman, by carnal copulation, against her consent, he shall be put to death, provided prosecution and complaint be made forthwith upon the rape. Deut. xxii. 25.

If any man steal a man, or mankind, and selleth him, or he be found in his hand, he shall be put to death. Exodus xxi. 16.

If any person rise up by false witness, wittingly, and of purpose, to take away man's life, he or she shall be put to death. Deut. xix. 16, 18, 19.

It was also enacted, that if any person should conspire against the commonwealth, attempt an insurrection, invasion, or rebellion against it, he should be put to death.

Wilful arson, the cursing and smiting of father or mother, and notorious stubbornness in children, after a certain age, were, soon after, made capital offences, by the laws of the colony, and added to the list of the capital laws.1

Before this time, unchastity between single persons, and wanton behaviour, had been punished with whipping at the tail of the cart, by fining, or obliging the delinquents to marry, at the discretion of the particular courts.

The general court approved of what the particular courts had done, in these cases, and authorised them, in future, to punish such delinquents by fines, by committing them to the house of correction, or by corporal punishment, at the discretion of the

court.

As some loose persons deserted the English settlements, and lived in a profane, heathenish manner, a law was enacted, that all persons who should be convicted of this crime, should be punished with three years imprisonment, at least, in the house of correction, with fine, or corporal punishment, as the particular court should direct.2

At a general court in New-Haven, April 5, 1643, considerable progress was made in the laws and government of that colony. Deputies were admitted to the court, and an addition was made to the number of magistrates. Stamford, for the first time, sent captain John Underhill, and Mr. Richard Gildersleve, to represent the town. Mr. Mitchel and Mr. Rayner were nominated for magistrates in Stamford. Mr. Rayner was appointed by the court. Captain Underhill, Mr. Mitchel, Mr. Andrew Ward, and Mr. Robert Coe were appointed assistant judges to Mr. Rayner. This court was vested with the same powers as the court at NewHaven, and was the first instituted in Stamford. Mr. William Leet and Mr. Desborough were admitted magistrates for Menunkatuck, and that plantation was named Guilford.

1 Records of Connecticut, and the old Connecticut code.

9 Records of Connecticut. When the Connecticut laws were printed, in 1672, was altered, and the term reduced from three, to one year's imprisonment.

This year John Haynes, Esq. was elected governor, and Mr. Hopkins deputy governor. Mr. Wolcott and Mr. Swain were chosen magistrates; and Mr. Phelps and Mr. William Hopkins were not elected.1 Mr. Whiting was chosen treasurer and Mr. Wells secretary. It appears to have been customary, for a number of years, to choose the secretary and treasurer among the magistrates.

Juries appear to have attended the particular courts, in Connecticut, from their first institution. They seem to have been regularly enrolled about the year 1641, or 1642. But the particular courts found great difficulties with respect to their proceedings. There were no printed laws for the inhabitants to study, and many of the common people had attended very little to law and evidence. The jury therefore, very often, would be so divided, that they could not agree upon any verdict; and when they were agreed, it did not always appear to the court that they brought in a just one. A pretty extraordinary law therefore passed this court, regulating the juries. The court decreed, that the jury should attend diligently to the case, and to the evidence, and if they could not all agree in a verdict, they should offer their reasons upon the case to the court, and the court should answer them, and send out the jury again. If, after deliberating upon the case, they could not bring in a joint verdict, it was decreed, that it should be determined by a major vote; and that this should, to all intents and purposes, be deemed a full and sufficient verdict; upon which judgment should be entered, and execution, and all other proceedings should be as though there had been a joint verdict of the jury. It was also provided, that if the jury should be equally divided, six and six, they should represent the case to the court, with their reasons, and a special verdict should be drawn, and a major vote of the court, or magistrates, should determine the cause, and all matters respecting it should be as though there had been a joint verdict of the jury.2

At this court, it was ordained, that a grand jury of twelve men should attend the particular courts, annually, in May and September, and as often as the governor and court should judge expedient. It was also enacted, that the grand jury should be warned to give their attendance. This is the first notice of a grand jury, at any court.

A general confederation of the New-England colonies, had been proposed, and in agitation for several years. In 1638, articles of union, for amity, offence and defence, mutual advice and assistance, upon all necessary occasions, were drawn, and for

1 Mr. Phelps, I suppose, was now dead, as he appears no more upon the records. He was one of the principal planters of Windsor, and chosen into the magistracy from the first settlement of Connecticut. He appears to have been the ancestor of the Phelpses in this state.

9 Records of Connecticut.

further consideration, referred to 1639. Connecticut and Mr. Fenwick agreed to confederate for these purposes. From this time, Connecticut had annually appointed some of her principal men, to go into the Massachusetts, to complete the designed confederacy. Governor Haynes and Mr. Hooker, in 1639, were nearly a month in Massachusetts, laboring to carry it into effect. New-Haven paid equal attention to an affair so important to the colonies. The circumstances of the English nation, and the state of the colonies in New-England, at this time, made it a matter of urgent necessity. For the accommodation of particular companies, the colonies had extended their settlements upon the rivers and sea coasts much farther, and had made them in a more scattering manner, than was at first designed. No aid could be expected from the parent country, let emergencies be ever so pressing. The Dutch had so extended their claims, and were so powerful and hostile, as to afford a just ground of general alarm. All the plantations were compassed with numerous tribes of savage men. The Narragansets appeared hostile, and there were the appearances of a general combination, among the Indians, in New-England, to extirpate the English colonies. There were, notwithstanding, impediments in the way of effecting even so necessary and important an union. The Massachusetts was much more numerous and powerful, than the other colonies. It was in various respects more respectable and important. It was, therefore, a matter of difficulty, to form an union upon equal terms. The other colonies were not willing to unite upon such as were unequal. There were also disputes between Connecticut and Massachusetts. The colony of Massachusetts claimed part of the Pequot country, on the account of the assistance which they afforded in the Pequot war. There was also a difference with respect to the boundary line between Massachusetts and Connecticut. Both colonies claimed the towns of Springfield and Westfield. These difficulties retarded the union.

However, Connecticut, New-Haven, and Plymouth, all dispatched commissioners to Boston, in May, at the time of the session of the General Court. The commissioners from Connecticut were, Governor Haynes and Mr. Hopkins; Mr. Fenwick, from Saybrook; Governor Eaton and Mr. Gregson, from NewHaven; Mr. Winslow and Mr. Collier, from Plymouth. The general court of Massachusetts appointed Governor Winthrop, Mr. Dudley, and Mr. Bradstreet, of the magistrates, and of the deputies, Mr. Hawthorne, Mr. Gibbons, and Mr. Tyng. There appeared, at this time, a spirit of harmony and mutual condescension among the commissioners, and on the 19th of May, 1643, the articles were completed and signed. The commissioners were unanimous in adopting them; but those from Plymouth did not sign them, as they had not been authorised by the court. At the