Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

Connecticut.

1663.

March 11.

But the triumphant tone of feeling in Connecticut did not respond to this appeal. In Winthrop's absence, John Allyn, of Hartford, a man of ability and resolution, was the leading spirit in the Colony. He had determined on a prompt and thorough assertion of its claim, and in his own circle there was no opposition to embarrass him. Connecticut made no reply to the letter from the sister Colony, except that, four months later, she raised Peremptory a committee of four Magistrates, Allyn being conduct of one, "to go down to New Haven to treat with their honored and loving friends about settling their union and incorporation." They were not authorized to consent to any concessions or compromises; the proposals which they made did not touch the main points of the controversy; and the mission proved unsuccessful. The General Court of New Haven, which met in the second following month, resolved to recognize no change in their government, and to go on as usual with their annual elections. At the same time, they sent another remonstrance, enlarging on the topics which had before been urged, and complaining of more recent usurpations.3 To this letter also no reply was

made.

May 6.

Meanwhile Winthrop, in England, heard with distress of the trouble which he had caused. "Having had serious conference" with the persons there charged with the busi

1 John Allyn was a son of Matthew In March, 1663, he was chosen SecreAllyn, who was an original proprietor tary (Ibid., 416), having previously at Hartford, but removed to Windsor performed some, at least, of the duties about 1644. In 1655, according to the of that office (Ibid., 398). Daniel Town Records, John Allyn was elected Clark, his predecessor, had been disa Towns-Man (selectman) of Hartford; placed for some fault (Ibid., 405; comp. and, in 1659, Town Register. In 1658, 401); but was soon restored to favor he was made cornet of the troop of (Ibid., 425, 429), though not to his horse raised in that place. (Conn. Rec., highest office, till after an interval of I. 309.) In 1661, he was a Deputy in another year (Ibid., II. 13). the General Court (Ibid., 372), and 2 Ibid., I. 396. the next year was promoted to be an Assistant, being then also a lieutenant.

N. H. Rec., II. 475-483.

ness of New Haven, he communicated his views upon the Mediation of subject in a letter addressed to "Major John Winthrop. Mason [who, as Deputy-Governor, was Chief March 3. Magistrate while Winthrop was abroad] and the rest of the Court at Hartford." "I gave assurance," he wrote, "before authority here, that it was not intended to meddle with any town or plantation that was settled under any other government; had it been any otherwise intended or declared, it had been injurious, in taking out the patent, not to have inserted a proportionable number of their names in it. ... If any injury had been done by admitting of freemen, or appointing officers, or other unjust intermeddling with New-Haven Colony," he recommended that it be forthwith recalled," and in no case repeated. "And unto this," he added, "I judge you are obliged, I having engaged to their agents here, that this will be by you performed." He expressed his confidence that, with such treatment, the desired union might be amicably formed.1

Persistence

of Connecticut.

His just and well-intended intervention was fruitless. A General Court of his Colony, which was held very soon after his letter should have been received, assumed the loftiest attitude. The Court appointed magistrates for Southhold, Stamford, and Greenwich; invited Deputies from plantations "according to the tenor of the charter;" and "voted that they would not send the patent, nor copy thereof, to

May 14.

1 The letter is in the possession of the Massachusetts Historical Society. (Trumbull MSS., XXII. 9.) There is a mystery about it, which I presume not to penetrate. "The copy of it was sent to Mr. Leete unsealed, with Mr. Winthrop's consent, and was written by his own hand." ("New Haven's Case Stated," in N. H. Rec., II. 523.) Its date (Ibid., 522) was "March 3, 1662" (N. S. 1663); yet the Connecticut Magis

trates, referring to it in their answer to "New Haven's Case Stated," say, in March, 1664: "Our honored Governor's letter to Major Mason yet never came to our honored Major or our hands." (Ibid., 534.) They add: “If it be with you, you had done well if you had sent it to us." But how could Leete have doubted that the original of his copy was in the hands of the persons to whom it had been addressed?

Aug. 19.

be read at New Haven." Three months later they proceeded to raise a committee "to treat," not with New Haven as a Colony, but "with their honored friends of New Haven, Milford, Branford, and Guilford," as if these were but separate communities. The committee was merely charged to inform the people of those towns, that "this Assembly could not well resent their proceeding in civil government as a distinct jurisdiction," and "could not but expect" that they would "yield subjection to the government established according to the tenor of the charter." The charter, of which a copy was still refused, was " publicly to be read in New Haven."2

Meeting of

Commission

Sept. 3.

This was rough treatment for men who had hitherto been known as the peers of the best in New England; and it was borne with exemplary dignity. At the annual meeting of the Federal Commissioners, which was held this year at Boston, Governor Leete the Federal and Benjamin Fenn appeared as Commissioners ers. for New Haven, and without opposition were recognized in that character. Winthrop, who had now returned from England, and Captain John Talcott, represented Connecticut. Massachusetts protested against a claim which, in violation, as was alleged, of an arrangement formerly made by the Federal Congress, was recently set up by Connecticut to that part of the Pequot country, east of Mystic River, which included the settle

1 Conn. Rec., I. 402, 403, 405.

Ibid., 407, 408.

• The time of Winthrop's arrival was not far from the last of June. He did not leave England till late in April, as appears from John Scott's letter to Edward Hutchinson, published by Mr. Arnold (Hist., I. 383). On the other hand, in the Connecticut Archives (Colony Boundaries, I. 7) is a copy of a paper expressing the desire of "the inhabitants and the proprietors" of lands in the Narragansett country "to

be under the government of Connecticut Colony." The date is July 3, and John Winthrop was one of the subscribers. It is probable that he took care to lose no time after his arrival in meeting his partners in order to secure in this matter the benefit of an agreement which he had made in England, to the effect that it should be optional with those "inhabitants and proprietors" to determine whether they would be governed by Rhode Island or by Connecticut. (See below, p. 564.)

ment of Southertown;1 and the Commissioners of Ply- mouth and New Haven advised the parties to "respite the matter at present," and resume it at the next meeting, unless they should meanwhile be able to agree.3 "Captain Denison, in the behalf of Southertown,” complained of the annoyance experienced from Connecticut in her claim for jurisdiction; and the Commissioners repeated their advice to Connecticut to desist. The Governor of New Netherland appeared with a complaint of the encroachments of Connecticut upon his domain. The Commissioners of that Colony replied, that it had received no notice on the subject, which was "of great concernment," and asked that the consideration of it might be deferred to the next annual meeting. But the other Commissioners agreed that the treaty made with the Dutch thirteen years before was "binding according to its true intent and meaning, and that they would not countenance the violation thereof." 4 New Haven, by her Commissioners, represented the usurpations from which she was suffering, and asked redress. The Commissioners from Connecticut replied; the Commissioners from New Haven rejoined; and those from the other two Colonies Bradstreet and Danforth for Massachusetts, and Prince and Josiah Winslow for Plymouth gave their judgment on the dispute. It was, that "the Colony of New Haven ..... might not, by any act of violence,

[ocr errors]

1 See above, pp. 382, 383; comp. Mass. Rec., IV. (ii.) 75; Conn. Rec., I. 389. It will be remembered that the question between Massachusetts and Connecticut, as to their respective rights to the lands on the Pequot River, was settled in 1658 by the Federal Commissioners, who made the river the dividing line. Southertown, on the east of it, thus belonged to Massachusetts. In 1659, the Commissioners of Connecticut "earnestly re

[blocks in formation]

have their liberty of jurisdiction infringed by any other of the United Colonies, without breach of the Articles of Confederation; and that, where any act of power had been exerted against their authority, the same ought to be recalled, and their power reserved to them entire, until such time as in an orderly way it should be otherwise disposed."1

It is likely that Winthrop returned from Boston fortified in the wish, rather than in the power, to moderate the severity of the course which his friends were pursuing. They had made up their minds that they had too efficient protection elsewhere, to need to be overawed by the judgment of a New-England confederacy. Again assuming that there was no longer a Colony of New Haven, they voted, that they could "do no less for their own indemnity than to manifest their dissatisfaction with the proceedings of the plantations of New Haven, Milford, Branford, &c., in their distinct standing in point of government," and that they "expected their submission according to the Charter, and his Majesty's pleasure therein expressed." The record is careful to note (perhaps by his own direction): "The Governor absent when this vote passed." "

Oct. 8.

Persistence of

Oct. 6.

The Committee of New Haven "sent a letter to Connecticut," urging her compliance with the Commissioners' award.3 It probably arrived imme- New Haven. diately before the vote just now mentioned was passed; and it brought no other answer. To complete its list of troubles, New Haven was greatly straitened in pecuniary resources by the revolt of so many of its people, for only three towns adhered to the old government; and, "considering the low estate of the Colony and many falling off," it felt obliged to reduce the provision for the Governor and Deputy-Governor

1 Records, in Hazard, II. 487, 488. Conn. Rec., I. 415.

VOL. II.

47

N. H. Rec., II. 501.

Oct. 22.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »