another, surreptitiously obtained from the Council by Pierce, for his own benefit; which was assigned by him, after his misfortunes, to the Adventurers. On the 13th of January, 1629-30, the Council, in consideration that William Bradford and his associates have for these nine years lived in New England, and have there inhabited and planted a town called by the name of New Plymouth, and have increased their plantation to near three hundred people," granted to them "all that part of New England aforesaid between Conahasset Rivulet towards the north and Naragansets River towards the south," &c. &c.

On the 19th of March, 1627-8, the Corporation conveyed to Sir Henry Rosewell, and others, all that part of New England at the bottom of the Massachusetts Bay, lying within the space of three miles north of Merrimack River and three miles south of Charles River. This grant was confirmed by King Charles I., at the solicitation of Viscount Dorchester,' March 4, 1628-9.

These grants to the Plymouth and Massachusetts Colonists involved the Council in difficulties with the "high-church-party." Certain persons having been banished from the Massachusetts Colony for refusing their assent to " new laws and new conceits of matter of religion, and forms of ecclesiastical and temporal orders and government," complained thereof to the Council," that had no sufficient means to redress, or give satisfaction to, the persons aggrieved." They then petitioned the King, and were referred by him to the Lords of the Privy Council, who summoned the Council of New England" to give account by what authority, or by whose means, these people (of the Massachusetts Bay) were sent over; " but they "easily made it appear" that they "had no share in the evils committed, and wholly disclaimed the having any hand therein, humbly referring to their Lordships to do what might best sort with their wisdoms; — who found matters in so desperate a case, as that they saw a necessity for his Majesty to take the whole business into his own hands, if otherwise the Council could not undertake to rectify what was brought to ruin."

Disheartened by the continual persecutions to which it had been subjected, and despairing of any better fortune for the future, the Council at length resolved to surrender its charter into the hands of the King; and accordingly, "at a meeting at the Earl of Carlisle's Chamber at Whitehall," April 25, 1635, it put forth "A Declaration for the resignation of the Great Charter, and the reasons moving thereto." On the 1st of May was presented to the King "The humble Petition of Edward Lord Gorges, President of the Council of New England, in the name of himself and divers Lords and others of the said Council," that his Majesty "would be graciously pleased to give order to Mr. Attorney General to draw Patents for Confirmation, for such parcels of land as by mutual consent have formerly been allotted to them; and on the 7th day of June the Council executed a formal Act of Surrender of their Charter, "with all and every the liberties, licences, powers, priviledges, and authorities therein and thereby given and granted."

See pages 80-2, 84-9, 100, 108 -9, 217-19, 226-33, 271-2, 618;

1 Chalmers (Political Annals, pp. 147-8,) gives "A copy of the docquet of the Grant to Sir Henry Rosewell and others," and observes that "it evinces that what was so strongly asserted, during the reign of Charles II., to prove that the Charter was surreptitiously obtained, is unjust." For an instance of this assertion see Robert Mason's Petition, in Farmer's Belknap, p. 441.

2 Dudley Lord Carlton, Baron of Imbercourt, was created Viscount Dorchester, July 25, 1628, was soon after appointed one of the Principal Secretaries of State, and died Feb 15, 1631-2, aged 59. Beatson, i. 93, 95, 400; Granger, i. 262-3; Collins's Peerage, ix. 463; Walpole's Royal and Noble Authors, ii. 262-71; Clarendon's History of the Rebellion, i. 113-15; Fisher's Companion and Key, pp. 515, 541.

Gorges's America, Part 2, pp. 22-33, 40-5; Chalmers's Political Annals, pp. 83, 90-1, 93-5, 100-2, 103-4, 288, 299-300; Laud's Diary, p. 4; Wade's British History, pp. 171-2; Pictorial History of England, Book VII. pp. 78-85; Peters's General History of Connecticut, (8vo. Lond. 1781,) pp. 1*-3; Hazard, i. 103-18, 151-2, 298-304, 390-4; Prince, pp. 198, 217-18, 221-2, 223-4, 268-70; Davis's Morton, pp. 73, 95-8, 104-6, 108-9, 361-3; Maine Hist. Coll. II. 40-1, 43-7, 77, 79-80; Bradford and Winslow, in Young's Chronicles of Plymouth, pp. 114-15; Hutchinson's Collection of Papers, (8vo. Bost. 1769,) pp. 1-23; Mason's Petition, in Farmer's Belknap, pp. 441-2.]

8. 1635, June. In Trinity Term, immediately upon the surrender of the "Great Charter," the Attorney-General, Sir John Banks, filed an Information in the Court of King's Bench against the Massachusetts Company. June 17th, a Quo Warranto issued, directed to the Sheriffs of London, against the Governor, Deputy-Governor, and Assistants of the said Company, fourteen of whom appearing, at different times, judgment was given for the King," that the liberties, priviledges, and franchises should be taken and seised into the King's hands," and Cradock "be convicted of the usurpation charged in the Information, and taken to answer to the King for the said usurpation." Those of the Patentees who did not appear "stood outlawed and noe judgment entred up against them." [But, in the opinion of the Crown-Lawyers, Jones and Winnington, (who were called upon, in 1678, to decide as to the validity of the Massachusetts Patent,) "the Quo Warranto was neither so brought, nor the judgment thereupon so given, as could cause a dissolution of the Charter."] See pages 268, 269, 272; Mass. Hist. Coll. XVIII. 97; Chalmers's Political Annals, pp. 405, 439; Mason's Petition, in Farmer's Belknap, p. 442.

9. 1636. A warrant sent to the Lord Admiral to stop "unconformable ministers" from going beyond sea. See Hazard, i. 420.

10. 1637, April 30. A Proclamation against the disorderly transportation of his Majesty's subjects to America. Hazard, i. 421.

11. 1637. A Commission, from the Commissioners for Plantations, to divers of the magistrates in New England, "to govern all the people till further order." [A copy of this Commission reached Boston June 3, 1637; "but the Commission itself staid at the Seal for want of paying the fees."] Savage's Winthrop, i. 225-6, 231.

12. 1637, May 3. An Order of the King in Council, that the AttorneyGeneral be required to call for the Massachusetts Patent. See pages 272-3; Mason's Petition, in Farmer's Belknap, p. 442; Hutchinson, i. 85. 13. 1637, July 23. Upon complaints of disorders in New England, the King makes known "his royal pleasure for establishing a general government there, declaring Sir Ferdinando Gorges to be Governor-General of the whole country, and requiring all persons to give their obedience accordingly." [The wars and troubles in Scotland and England prevented this measure from being carried into effect.] Mason's Petition, in Farmer's Belknap, p. 442; Chalmers, p. 162; also Belknap's American Biography, i. 385.

14. 1638, April 4. An Order passed by the Lords Commissioners requiring the Massachusetts Patent to be sent to them. See pages 268-9. 15. 1638, April 6. An Order of Council for a Proclamation to prohibit the transportation of passengers to New England without license. Hazard, i. 433 - 4.

16. 1638, May 1. Order of the Privy Council "for the stay of eight ships now in the River of Thames, prepared to go for New England." Hazard, i. 422.

17. 1638, May 1. A Proclamation to restrain the transporting of passengers and provisions to New England without license. Hazard, i. 434. 18. 1638, Aug 19. The warrant sent to the Lord Admiral in 1636 is repeated. Hazard, i. 420; Rushworth's Historical Collections, Second Part, (fol. Lond. 1680,) p. 721.

Page 276, note a. See the proceedings against John Smyth, Richard Sylvester, Ambrose Marten, and Thomas Makepeace, "for disturbing the publick peace," &c., in Savage's Winthrop, i. 289.

Page 276, note b. Rev. Richard Bernard, Rector of Batcombe, in Somer. set, died in 1641. About the year 1636 he sent over two books "in writing," one addressed to the magistrates, and the other "to his much esteemed and reverend brethren, the pastors and teachers, and his beloved the Christian believers as well without as within the congregations of Christ Jesus in New England," containing arguments against the manner in which the New England churches were gathered, &c. Whether these books were ever printed is not known. See Savage's Winthrop, i. 275, 289; Mass. Hist. Coll. ix. 16.

Page 276, note c. Rev. George Phillips, "the first pastor of the church of Watertown, a godly man, specially gifted, and very peaceful in his place," survived this connection for the period of five years, and died July 1, 1644, "much lamented of his own people and others."1

There is very great confusion among writers as to the place of Mr. Phillips's settlement before he came to this country. Hubbard states, on page 133, that he "had been minister of Bocksted, in Essex," and on page 142, speaks of him as "an able and faithful minister of the Gospel at Bocksted, near Groton, in Suffolk."

Mather tells us that, "devoting himself to the work of the ministry, his employment befel him at Boxford, in Esser," and he is followed by Allen, Eliot, and Blake, in their Biographical Dictionaries, by Rev. James Bradford, in his Centennial Address at Rowley, and by Thompson, in his History of Long Island.'

3

Prince, referring to the statements of Hubbard and Mather, says, "Boxford being in Suffolk, and Boxsted in Essex, and both near Groton, I suppose that Boxford in Dr. C. Mather is a mistake of the printer."

6

Dr. Francis informs us that Phillips "was settled in the ministry at Boxsted, Suffolk," (in which he is followed by Rev. S. Sewall,7) and adds, in a note, (after citing Prince, as above,) that "Prince, in correcting Mather about the town, has himself fallen into an error about the county, for Boxsted is in Suffolk."

Now, as it happens, Prince is correct, and the Doctor nevertheless is, in one respect, not wrong. There is a Boxsted in the Hundred of Lexden, County of Essex, about six miles south of Groton, in Suffolk; and there is also a Boxted in the Hundred of Babergh, County of Suffolk, about thirteen miles west from Groton, in Suffolk.

It is not very probable that Hubbard (who must have had some reason for settling Phillips "near Groton, in Suffolk,") would have called Borted in Suffolk, near Groton ;" especially when Boxsted, in Esser, is so much nearer; the Counties of Essex and Suffolk being only separated by the river Stour. We may, therefore, set Boxted, in Suffolk, aside, and consider the claims of Boxsted, in Essex, and Boxford, (which place Mather has erroneously located in Essex, when it is) in the Hundred of Babergh, County of Suffolk, one mile south of Groton.

Dr. Holmes and Dr. Young 10 agree in fixing Mr. Phillips at Borsted,

1 Savage's Winthrop, ii. 171. 2 Magnalia, (fol. Lond. 1702,) Book 1. p. 82.

3 Printed with Gage's History of Rowley, (12mo. Bost. 1840,) p. 16.

4 2d ed., 8vo. New York, 1843, ii. 459.

5 Annals, p. 375.

6 History of Watertown, (8vo. Cambridge, 1830,) p. 34.

7 Brief Survey of the Congregational Churches and Ministers in Middlesex County in Am. Qu. Register, xI. 53. 8 See Carlisle's Topographical Dictionary; Cary's Atlas; Bowen and Kitchen's English Atlas.

9 Annals, i. 276.

10 Chronicles of Mass., p. 299.

in Essex; and these, with Hubbard and Prince, seem to be the only authorities for that position.

As for Boxford, in Suffolk, Dr. Samuel Fuller, the physician at Plymouth, in a letter to Governor Bradford, dated at Charlestown, June 28, 1630, says, "here is come over, with these gentlemen, one Mr. Phillips, a Suffolk man.' "This is unquestionable authority as to the County; but the phrase "a Suffolk man," may apply either to Boxted or Boxford. The probabilities are in favor of the latter, inasmuch as Boxted is distant thirteen miles from Groton, Boxford only one mile, and therefore much more likely to be called "near Groton."

Rev. Samuel Phillips, eldest son of Rev. George Phillips, was ordained minister at Rowley, in June, 1651, and died April 22, 1696. From Rowley was set off another town, which was incorporated Aug. 12, 1685, by the name of Boxford. Now whence this name, if not in honor of Rev. Samuel Phillips, whose birthplace was, according to Farmer, Boxford, in England?

From a consideration of these particulars-Dr. Fuller's declaration that Phillips was "a Suffolk man," which settles the question as to the County; the inference to be drawn from Hubbard's statement, bungling as it is, when applied to the comparative distances of Boxted and Boxford from Groton, greatly to the advantage of the claims of the latter place; the partial testimony of Mather, and the reputed birth-place of Rev. Samuel Phillips, taken in connection with the name given to a part of Rowley,- it seems to be proved, satisfactorily, that the scene of Rev. George Phillips's ministerial labors was Boxford, in the Hundred of Babergh, County of Suffolk, one mile south of Groton, the residence of John Winthrop, the illustrious Father of the Massachusetts Colony.

Page 304, note a. At the close of Chap. XL., in the MS., is written "Chap. XL.," and then comes the following note:

"The next preeceeds Chap. was numbered XXXIX. by mistake; it ought to have been XL. & then there would have been no appearance of an omission here."

Immediately below is written:

"The memo. above was inserted by Rev. Dr. Belknap.

J. McKean, 1814."

Page 323, note a. By a blunder of the transcriber, Ded Hills in the MS., ingeniously rendered Dead Hills in the former edition. New Haven was called "The Red Hills," "Red Mount," or "Red Rock," by the Dutch, probably because of the appearance of the "East and West Rocks" near the place. See Hazard's State Papers, ii. 55, 68, 69; Barber's History and Antiquities of New Haven, (12mo. New Haven, 1831,) p. 25, and Connecticut Historical Collections, (8vo. New Haven, 1846,) p. 134.

Page 366, note a. Hubbard has fallen into a strange mistake with regard to this letter; for this is not the letter with an account of which he begins his paragraph, p. 365, but another, written after Wheelwright's visit to the Bay, while the former was, as Hubbard himself states, an application for leave to make that visit. Compare Savage's Winthrop, ii. 120, with ii. 162.

1 Mass. Hist. Coll. III. 74.

2 After having fully made up his own mind as to the settlement of Mr. Phillips, the writer of the above was most agreeably surprised to find that the same conclusion had been arrived at by no less an authority than John Farmer, who deliberately affirms, in Am. Qu. Register, VIII. 340, that he had been the minister of Boxford, a small place adjoining Groton, in the County of Suffolk, both places being in the Hundred of Baber, which is situated on the river Stour, separating it from the County of Essex."

Page 371, note a. "There being no ship which was to return right for England, they went to Newfoundland," (leaving Boston on Aug. 3d) accompanied by John Winthrop, Jr., and thence sailed for England. Peter and Welde were dismissed from their agency in 1646, and requested to return home, but they preferred to remain in England. Peter was executed for high treason, Oct. 16, 1660, aged 61. Welde was settled in the ministry at Gateshead, in the bishopric of Durham, and was one of those ejected from their livings in 1662. Hibbins returned home in September, 1642, and "made a public declaration to the church in Boston of all the good providences of the Lord towards him in his voyage to and fro," &c. See Savage's Winthrop, ii. 25, 31, 76; Hutchinson, i. 95, 140; Young's Chronicles of Mass., pp. 134-5, 511.

Page 371, note b. Jean Funck, (Latin Funccius) a Lutheran clergyman, was born at Werden, near Nuremberg, in 1518. Having married a daughter of Osiander, he felt himself obliged to defend the doctrines of his father-in-law, and in consequence of the enmity excited against him on this account he was forced to take refuge in Prussia, where Duke Albert made him Almoner. But having been convicted of seditious practices, he was beheaded at Königsberg, Oct. 28, 1566. A few moments before his execution he composed a distich, in which he begs others to take warning by his example. Biographie Universelle.

Page 372, note a. On the " 14th of the 4th month," (which Belknap calls April 14th, but which I take to be June 14th,) 1641, an instrument was subscribed, in the presence of the General Court, by George Wyllis, Robert Saltonstall, William Whiting, Edward Holyoke, and Thomas Makepeace, "for themselves and in the name of the rest of the Patentees," by which they submitted themselves and their possessions to the jurisdiction of Massachusetts; "whereupon a commission was granted to Mr. Bradstreet, and Mr. Simonds, with two or three of Pascataquack, to call a Court there, and assemble the people to take their submission;" and, by an Order of Court, Oct. 9, (Belknap says 8th) 1641, certain commissioners were empowered to appoint magistrates, &c., "to govern the people till further order." See Savage's Winthrop, ii. 28, 38, 42; Hutchinson, i. 98–9, 105-6; Farmer's Belknap, pp. 30-1.

Page 451, note a. No man can peruse the narrative of Miantonimo's capture and death without feelings of indignation such as words have no power to express. How shall we excuse the conduct of the "Commissioners of the United Colonies," who, after having formally declared that they had no "sufficient ground to put him to death," lent themselves to such a foul deed? Uncas would not have put his rival to death — his Savage soul doubted whether he ought to take away the life of a great King, who had fallen into his hands by misfortune; and, to resolve this doubt, he applied to the Christian Commissioners," at Boston, in September, 1643. And what was their conclusion? Why, "five of the most judicious elders" being sent for to give their advice, "they all agreed that he ought to be put to death," stating, as a reason for this most merciful decision, "that Uncas cannot be safe while Myantenomo lives, but that, either by secret treachery or open force, his life will be still in danger." But, like so many Pilates, they thought to wash their own hands of the murder, and therefore agreed that Miantonimo should be delivered to Uncas, and that "he should put him to death so soon as he came within his own jurisdiction, and that two English should go along with him to see the execution, and that if any Indians should invade him for it, they would send men to defend him. If Uncas should refuse to do it, then Miantonimo should be sent in a pinnace to Boston, there to be kept untill further consideration.” We are told that Uncas "readily undertook the execution, and taking