Accession of the New Hampshire to Massachusetts. Experiences of this kind taught the Piscataqua settlements that they were not in a condition to go on comfortably by themselves; the territorial claim of Massachusetts was always hanging over their settlements heads; the state of affairs in England precluded the expectation of any present attention from that quarter; and the communities were too dissimilar from each other, as well as singly toò feeble and heterogeneous, to find sufficient strength in a union together. The natural and prudent resource was to seek the protection of Massachusetts. At the end of more than a year's negotiation, Strawberry Bank1 and Dover placed June 14. themselves under the jurisdiction of that colony, with careful reservations of the rights of the English patentees to their property in the soil. Two Deputies were allowed to be sent "from the whole river to the Court at Boston"; and in all respects the persons now admitted were to have the privileges of settlers in Massachusetts. The freemen and deputies (the settlers at Strawberry Bank, and many at Dover, not being of the Puritan persuasion) were exempted from the obligation 1641. 1 The earliest use of this name, that I have observed, as a designation of the town at the mouth of the Piscataqua, was in September, 1642. (Mass. Col. Rec., II. 32.) "Strawberry Bank Creek," however, is referred to in the grant of the parsonage glebe in 1640. (See above, p. 523.) Strawberry Bank continued to be the name of the town till 1653. (Mass. Col. Rec., III. 309.) 2 The instrument of cession, which was executed by the patentees, is in Mass. Col. Rec., I. 324. (Comp. Ibid., I. 332. Winthrop, II. 38, 42.) It recites that the inhabitants residing at present within the limits of both the said grants had of late and formerly complained of the want of some good government amongst them, and desired some help in this 2 particular from the jurisdiction of the 1643. of being church-members, Massachusetts having now become strong enough to admit of this May 10. limited deviation from her fundamental policy.1 Exeter 2 before long followed the example of accession ;3 and Wheelwright, still jealous of the power of Massachusetts, besides being yet under her sentence of banishment, withdrew himself to the territory of Gorges. The three townswith Hampton, which had been planted by avowed subjects of Massachusetts, and with the neighboring settlements of Salisbury and Haverhill, on the northern bank of the Merrimack were made to constitute one of the four counties into which Massachusetts was now divided.* And for forty years this relation of the New Hampshire towns continued, greatly to their satisfaction and advantage. Annexation 1639. July 22. Meanwhile, reasons similar to those which satisfied the groups of planters about the Piscataqua had influenced a party of settlers on the remote border of the patent of Gorges; and Thomas Purchas and his company, who had sat down on the convenient of Pejepscot. spot called by the natives Pejepscot (now Brunswick), sought the protection, and by a formal instrument submitted themselves to the jurisdiction, of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay. Wheelwright, on leaving Exeter to escape from that government, betook himself, with some adherents, to 1643. a tract of land adjoining to York, which he April 17. had bought of Gorges, and gave it the name of Wells.o In the quiet of his new solitude, his past course presented itself to his reflections under a different aspect 1 Mass. Col. Rec., II. 29. 2 See above, pp. 515, 516. 3 Mass. Col. Rec., II. 37, 38, 43. 4 See below, p. 617. 5 The act of surrender is in Hazard, I. 457. — How long Purchas had been on this land, or what was his title to it, is not known. "Eleazer Way, in a deed to Richard Wharton of his right as son and heir to George Way, 1683, alleged, that Way and Purchas had a grant of the territory from the Council of Plymouth." (Willis, History of Portland, 41; comp. Ibid., 14, and Williamson, I. 266, 290.) 6 The deed of it is in Sullivan, 408. Remission of Wheel wright's sentence. from what it had worn in the ardor and pride of conflict. He had been there but a little time before he resolved to seek a reconciliation with the Massachusetts Sept. 10. magistrates and elders; and he wrote to the Governor, avowing that he had been misled by his own distempered passions." He professed himself "unfeignedly sorry that he had such a hand in those sharp and vehement contentions"; that he "did so much adhere to persons of corrupt judgment, to the countenancing of them in any of their errors or evil practices"; and that he "did appeal." He "confessed that herein he had done very sinfully, and he humbly craved pardon." To a letter offering March 1. him safe-conduct to Boston he sent a dignified reply, distinguishing between the offences which he acknowledged and those which he disavowed.1 He was answered with respect and courtesy; and at the next session of the General Court his sentence of banishment was revoked, "without his appearance." He continued, however, to reside with his new community a short time till it had taken root, and then returned to the neighborhood of his former residence, and lived seven years at Hampton. Next he sailed for England, where, like other ministers from New England, he enjoyed the special regard of Cromwell.2 1644. The Plough The Lygonia, or Plough,3 patent now emerged into some little importance. It covered a territory, forty miles square, including the lower part of the river Saco, and extending northeastward Patent. 1631. 1 The letters are in Winthrop, II. of sanctity. The chief part of his prop162, 163. erty, which was considerable, had remained at Wells. 2 He is said to have had a college friendship or acquaintance with the Protector. After the Restoration, he returned to America, and was minister at Salisbury, where, having lived to be the oldest minister in New England, he died, November 15, 1679, in the odor 3 The latter name, according to some authorities, commemorated the agricultural pursuits of the first colonists; according to others, it was the name of the vessel which brought them over. See above, p. 397, note. 1643. ly along the coast, nearly to Casco Bay. The patentees without delay made some attempts at settlement,1 but met with difficulties, and were soon discouraged. 2 At length, after the turn of affairs in England, the patent was purchased from the holders by Alex- April 7. ander Rigby, a patriot member of Parliament, who appointed George Cleaves to take possession and administration of his property. Cleaves had lived some years upon it, and it was probably at his instance (for he was then in London) that the purchase was made. A collision between Cleaves and the government of Gorges was naturally expected, as the two grants conflicted with each other. Cleaves, arriving at Boston, 1644. solicited the intervention of the Massachusetts General Court, who, however, declined to interfere. Proceeding next to organize a government upon the place, he was interrupted by a remonstrance from Richard Vines, who had been left at the head of Gorges's government, on the recent departure of the DeputyGovernor for England. Cleaves sent a proposal to Saco, to submit the question provisionally to the arbitration of the Massachusetts magistrates; but Vines refused to listen to it, and threw the messenger into prison. Cleaves then wrote to Boston, repeating his application for aid, and Vines came thither to represent his case in person; 3 but neither could obtain more than advice to remain quiet till further instructions should arrive from England. The parties were not strong enough, or near enough, to threaten each other with serious harm; neither probably was disposed, by the rejection of the counsel, to supply a reason for the inhabitants of the Bay to interpose to keep the peace between them; and here the controversy rested for the present. The loyal and hearty proprietor of Maine was now involved in his king's affairs; and when, if not before, he died, as he did soon after his capture by the Parliamentary forces at Bristol, his Transatlantic rights fell to the management of hands less diligent and able. 1621. 1622. While affairs were still so unsettled on the northeastern outskirts, the religious and thrifty people of Plymouth were keeping the even tenor of their way. Earnestly seeking peace and order, they arrived at an adjustment of some questions which, if left open, would have been a disturbance to their posterity. Their first patent had defined no boundaries. The second never took effect, having been surrendered by Pierce in the sequel of a dispute with the Associates. The grant in the third furnished the rule for determining the line between the jurisdictions of Massachusetts and Plymouth. If the patents conflicted in the descriptions of the territory conveyed, the claim of Massachusetts was best, as being prior in time; but it was maintained by Plymouth, 1630. Jan. 13. Boundary question between Massachu setts and Plymouth. that the other colony gave an unjustifiable interpretation to the name Charles River, in holding it to extend as far south as the most southerly of its tributaries. The Plymouth planters had assigned partly to their London associates, and partly to actual settlers, certain lands at a place called Scituate, contiguous to the Massachusetts town of Hingham, but understood by the Plymouth people to lie within their own northeastern border. A dispute which ensued between the neighbors was taken up by their respective governments. Commissioners, two on each side, met, and came to an agreement, which proved mutually satisfactory 1640. June 16. |