lowed. This is not probable. It was enough that, without reckoning the wounds, the abductions, and the losses of property by fire and rapine, Massachusetts had lost some two hundred men killed, and that there was no longer any thing to fight for, for the Indians appeared to be tired out for the time, and to be willing to be peaceable, if they could have some trading facilities, which it was not difficult to afford. No Connecticut men lost their lives in this war, though it caused the Colony an expenditure of some thousands of pounds. condition. 1709. June 8. 1713. But Connecticut managed her money affairs with a Financial prudence which shamed her neighbors. In consequence of the disastrous attempt upon Canada, under Nicholson, the Colony found itself compelled to issue bills of credit; but the amount was only eight thousand pounds. Four years later, just after the pacification of Utrecht, there was an order for a October. further issue of twenty thousand pounds; 3 but only a part of that sum was to be put in circulation from year to year, and the provisions for redemption were so judicious and so well enforced, that many years passed before the paper obligations of Connecticut ceased to have the whole value represented by them; and the depreciation never became considerable. Mob at Even the normal sobriety of Connecticut did not absolutely avert the danger of popular tumults. One which took place in the time of Governor Saltonstall was Hartford. of such violence as to call for an exercise of all his unfailing promptness and energy for its suppression. The right to a tract of land in and about what is now the town of Coventry was in dispute. A judicial decision dismissed the claim of Jeremiah Fitch, who was a Deputy in the General Court, and otherwise a man of consequence. For resisting the execution, Fitch 1722. March. 1 Trumbull, II. 78. 2 Conn. Col. Rec., V. 111. Ibid., 379; comp. 381. was committed to gaol in Hartford. His case was that of Oct. 22. a number of his neighbors, who thought that injustice had been done, and that their own turn would be coming next. Their resentment got the better of their discretion. Some fifty of them went in procession to the gaol, and demanded the discharge of Fitch, which being refused by the keeper, they battered down the door with a heavy piece of timber and released him and his fellowprisoners. The Sheriff, with such help as he could suddenly collect, pursued the party, but was defied and worsted by them. Oct. 24. Oct 28. A The Sheriff made his report of these doings to the General Assembly, which at the time was in session. at New Haven. The Assembly proceeded to its deliberation with closed doors, and with an injunction of secrecy upon its members. An Act was passed, declaring a riot to consist in the assembling of three or more persons for an unlawful purpose, and making it punishable by a fine of ten pounds, or imprisonment for not longer than six months, or whipping, or any two or all of these inflictions, at the discretion of the court. special session of the Superior Court was ordered to be held forthwith for the trial of the recent offenders, who were indicted for burglary, the gaol being under the same roof with the keeper's dwelling. Fifteen persons were arraigned and convicted. Fitch escaped unpleasant consequences, it being held to be no evidence of complicity in the crime of beating down the door that he walked out of it when he found the way clear. The sheriffs were invested with new power to call out the posse comitatus and the militia, and it was especially enjoined "that the sheriffs no more return that they cannot do execution." 1 1 Conn. Col. Rec., VI. 332, 341, 315, 346, 353, 375, 387. By some extraordinary inadvertence, Dr. Trum 1723. May. bull has wholly misconceived this transaction. (Comp. Hist., II. 9598.) 1683. Western The agreement made in the time of King Nov. 28. Charles the Second respecting the boundary line of Connecticut on the side of New York still reboundary. mained unexecuted as to its northwardly extension. Connecticut appointed commissioners to join with others from the sister Colony in marking the line and erecting monuments, "for the quieting the complaints and disorders of the borderers." 2 "Difficulties," which are not described, having "prevented the 1718. May. own.3 1719. May. 1720. 1723. May. execution of the order of the Assembly," its next Dec. 3. step was to ascertain the line by a surveyor of its The consent of a joint commission, however, being still considered as "of great consequence to the peace of his Majesty's subjects bordering on said line," Connecticut made the experiment again, but January again was disappointed. Well-nigh disheartened in her endeavors after joint action, Connecticut resolved, if one more proposal of it should prove fruitless, to solicit from the King an "order for the running and fixing said line, that the improvement of the lands bordering thereon may no longer remain under such discouragement." 5 The chance of a settlement, except by royal intervention, seemed desperate when a committee October. of the New York Legislature accused the government of Connecticut of having defaced former monuments, and the latter retorted the charge, pronouncing it, as against themselves, to be "very unreasonable and even monstrous." "" 6 Nothing can be more wearisome than the recital of the long strife about the boundary between Connecticut and Rhode Island. The reader will be relieved to know that it is approaching its end. The circumstances Eastern boundary. 1 See above, III. 440, note 3. Conn. Col. Rec., VI. 57, 71. 3 Ibid., 96. 4 Ibid., 126. Ibid., 382-386. 2 3 1703. May 12. 1714. of an agreement which had been made respecting this line have been related.' But it had never been run, though under instructions from the As- June 22. sembly the Governor of Rhode Island had twice appointed commissioners to meet commissioners June 15. from Connecticut for that purpose. The question was reopened by an order from England to send over 1719. a map of the contested territory; and commission- October. ers were appointed by both Colonies. Again they failed to agree, and again Rhode Island appealed to the King, sending over her Deputy-Governor, Jenckes, to urge her claim, and charging treacherous conduct upon John Winthrop in obtaining the charter for his Colony.* 1721. The King in Council referred the matter to the Board of Trade. The Board reported that the Rhode Island was not good in law, though they thought it probable "that King Charles the Second March 22. was surprised in his grant to Connecticut;" and they concluded that, as a convenient end to the dispute, it would be well for them to be annexed to New Hampshire.5 The Privy Council communicated this judgment to Partridge, agent for Rhode Island, and to Dummer, agent for Connecticut, who both, after a time sufficient to communicate with America, reported the disinclination of their respective constituents to the proposal. Again commissioners were appointed by the two Colonies June 19. case of 1723. July 17. 1724. to establish the boundary by mutual agreement, October. but no account of proceedings of theirs has been preserved." Connecticut, perhaps alarmed by the scheme of union with 1 See above, pp. 234, 356; comp. R. I. Rec., III. 474; IV. 175, 251, 273-285, 291. 2 R. I. Rec., III. 476; comp. 480; IV. 175; Conn. Col. Rec., V. 443, 468. 8 R. I. Rec., IV. 263; Conn. Col. Rec., VI. 188, 196, 197, 203, 219, 227. 4 See above, p. 474; comp. R. I. Rec., IV. 277. See above, p. 468; comp. R. I. Rec., IV. 303–308. Ibid., 333, 334. 7 Ibid., 346, 354; Conn. Col. Rec., VI. 538. 1723. New Hampshire, had resolved to agree to any settlement, rather than have the dispute prolonged. That Colony wrote to the Board of Trade, "notwithstanding Oct. 28. the priority of our charter to that of Rhode Island, his Majesty's determination will, on our part, put a perpetual end to the controversy, and confirm that peace between us and them which your Lordships have been pleased to express such a regard for." An order in Council accordingly determined the boundary to Feb. 8. be a line drawn from the mouth of Ashaway River, where it falls into the Pawcatuck River, and thence extending north to the south line of the Massachusetts Bay." 2 The boundary thus established has been continued to this day. King's Province, included within Rhode Island, took the name of King's County,3 the other counties of the Colony being called respectively Newport and Providence. 1726. 1729. June. The settlement of the eastern boundary of Connecticut The charter by the Privy Council might seem to be a confirmain danger. tion of the charter of that Colony from the highest authority, and a relinquishment of the long-cherished scheme to make Connecticut a royal estate. But the permanent jealousy in England of Connecticut as well as of Massachusetts, as aspiring to be independent, and as failing to enforce the English laws for the regulation of commerce, was constantly stimulated by the selfishness of English merchants. As long ago as before the death of King William, Joseph Dudley, then in Parliament, had been concerned in the preparation of a bill for vacating the three New England charters, as well as those of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and some of the West India governments. The bill was defeated, when proposed 1 Conn. Col. Rec., VI. 373. 2 Ibid. In October, 1781, the name was changed to that of Washington County. See above, pp. 164, 200. |