Canonicus frequently needed groceries, for which he never thought of paying. The deeds of purchase were followed by gifts and goods for the Sachems, and the use of his boats at their will.' The Indians expected such unceasing returns, that gifts from were them very dear bargains. Notwithstanding his

love for Williams, Canonicus never did anything for him for which he did not exact a full equivalent in cloth, stores or other supplies, especially sugar. He never gave the slightest aid to Williams's benevolent designs, but he allowed him to pursue them without molestation. The Indians' practice in their private dealings was of a like nature. "The Indians of this countrie have a way of" "giving their commodities freely, by which they get better bargaines then if they stood stiffly on their tearmes of" "trading." "And when not satisfied to the utmost they grudge, revile, &c." The chiefs followed a like course of dealing in their grants of the tribal lands.

But worse than this, the Indians seem to have regarded a gift as revocable at pleasure. The phrase "an Indian gift" has descended to us, as a synonym for anything but an act of generosity. The chiefs may have been ready to make grants of land, if they thought that they could resume them at their will. Throughout the lifetime of Canonicus, the Plantations were in effect, his tributaries, however they may have endeavored to conceal the fact, even from themselves. He permitted Williams to instruct his people in civilisation and decency, on condition of receiving all his groceries for nothing. Williams in later days, well said that the friendship of Canonicus was purchased at a "dear-bought rate." During ten years, he had what he wanted from Williams's trading-house, without pay, and when he felt that his end was near, he sent a parting message, that (1) See also Winthrop's Journal, (October 21, 1636), I. 237. (2) See Callender's Discourse, pp. 85-86.

5

(3) Williams to Commissioners of the United Colonies, October 18, 1677. Narr. Club Pub., VI. 393.

(4) Bloody Tenent yet more Bloody," (ed. 1652) p. 217. (Narr. Club Pub., IV. 367).

(5) October 18, 1677. Narr. Club Pub., VI, 393.

he expected to be buried in cloth, to be furnished by Mr. Williams, as a free gift. But he fulfilled his obligations as he understood them. He could not prevent occasional brawls or murders. But after the grant of the "Plantations," he restrained his inferior Sachems, sanctioned no insults or hostilities, and gave quiet, and facilities for trade.

Among all the tribes of North America, the monarchy is, in general, hereditary. But the rule is not without important exceptions. The son of a Sachem may be set aside and another member of his family, or even a distinguished warrior, may be exalted to his place. Fitness and merit, according to the Indian conception of them, might be required in a successor. At the settlement of Mooshassuc, the Narragansett sovereignty afforded a signal illustration of this ancient rule. The sons of Canonicus had been displaced from the family birthright, perhaps as incompetent to its duties, and Miantonomo his nephew had been joined with him in the Sachemship, as his associate and successor. Williams, with his slight interest in Narragansett history, gives no explanation of the fact. The sons of Canonicus make but little display during the remaining years of their tribe. It is unknown whether it was by his own consent, that his posterity were thus deposed, or whether the unwelcome act of superseding his own children was forced upon him by a national council of the Narragansetts. Williams found Miantonomo acting conjointly with his uncle in the gravest matters of sovereignty. The new chief was young, active, courageous, and well qualified for barbarian rule, but had not yet acquired his uncle's self-control. From Williams's brief notices of him, we learn that he shared a not unnatural pride in his race and lineage. He was anxious to gain the approval of the English, and did not conceal his disappointment when he failed to secure it. From Winthrop we learn that he was sensitive to any disrespect which might bring him into discredit with his own people,that he had a "good understanding in the principles of justice and equity." He joined with Canonicus in the sale of the

(1) Savage's Winthrop, ed. 1853, II. 98.

Plantations to Williams, recognizing the "many kindnesses and services" which Williams had done to them both. They both showed sufficient zeal for the punishment of the Pequot murderers of John Oldham at Block Island. Miantonomo on

all occasions proved himself friendly to Massachusetts. But the more kindly spirit of Williams gained an influence over him, and his judgments were always treated with respect. The nearer neighbourhood of Samuel Gorton in Warwick, gave him more frequent access to the young Sachem, and opportunity for disastrous counsels. Gorton was bold, pertinacious, and had the courage of his convictions, but his wisdom and discretion have been questioned. Gorton had a kindly feeling towards the Narragansetts, and in his way, had sought to do them good. He had thus gained the regard of Miantonomo, who was guided by him in much of his policy. He had received from Gorton his arms and goods, as well as many of his lessons of civilised life. In return, it was the desire of the desire of the Sachem that Warwick should be a possession of Rhode Island and not Massachusetts. While he lived, he was the most formidable obstacle in the way of the elders and magistrates of Boston. These scrupled at no means of ridding themselves of a chief who would not be their instrument or subject. His murder, with the assent of the authorities of the Puritan colonies, was the only reward which he received for the aid which he gave them in their Pequot war. It was not an event to be forgotten, and doubtless gave fierce vindictiveness to the efforts of the Narragansetts in the last days of Philip of Mount Hope.

It is not probable that, had he lived, Miantonomo could have greatly prolonged the national life of the Narragansetts. But under the influence of Williams, he might have guided to better issues, the passions which wrought their destruction."

(1) See Savage's Winthrop, I. 225-28, 229, 265-66, 283, 291.

(2) His character has been sufficiently vindicated by Mr. Savage, the learned editor of Winthrop, (II. 98, 100-1, 159-61, 162), against the counsel of the five "most judicious [Boston] elders," who advised that Miantonomo should be put to death. p. 158.

These were the chiefs-then in full popularity and power, with whom Williams dealt on his first arrival in Mooshassuc. If he over-estimated their love for him, they on their part were equally mistaken in a matter of graver importance, which involved the peace, perhaps the existence of the colony. Before his banishment, some of the chiefs had visited Boston, and had there seen Williams and Coddington associating upon terms of equality with the great English Sachems of "the Bay." They were not well informed of the current politics of Massachusetts, and did not know that Williams (after 1636), sustained very different relations with his former friends. They received him, believing him to be, not an exile, but an agent, or pioneer of Massachusetts, whose firmness of will they had already learned to respect. Williams himself was not aware of their mistake, and when he learned it, it would have been unsafe to inform the Indians of the real weakness of his position. After two years' abode among them, they had not learned that he was a fugitive. In June 1638,' Williams wrote to Winthrop :

"The Sachems" "have ever conceived that myself and Mr. Coddington, (whom they knew so many years a Sachem at Boston), were far from being rejected by yourselves, as you please to write, for if the Lord had not hid it from their eyes, I am sure you had not been thus troubled by myself at present.

To increase the perplexity of the founders, there was one more error which yielded its fruit in later days. It may be doubted if the Indian grants were ever understood by both parties, in the same sense. The Sachems and their subjects seem to have intended to convey only a present, and usufructuary right,—a mere user, or a right of common, and not a permanent exclusive and individual title, and estate. The original documents were drawn by Englishmen, in terms and phrase

(1) Narr. Club Pub., VI. 104-5.

(2) This letter was written after the Pequot war (1636-7). It proves the influence of Williams among the Narragansetts, while they believed him to be an agent of Massachusetts. It preserves a fact not mentioned elsewhere the Indian ignorance of their true position, which preserved the lives of Williams and Coddington, until they could gain a firm foothold upon the territory.

ology adapted to their own law, and were subscribed by Indian communists, who had no conception of separate, and hereditary estates in fee simple, as understood in Westminster Hall. If the English interpretation were correct, Canonicus had sold the best portion of the tribal lands to strangers for a mere transitory consideration. After the grant of Mooshassuc to Williams, of Acquetneck to Coddington, and of Shawomet to Gorton, the most valuable fields and fisheries of his subjects were nearly gone. He had little ground on which he had a right to set his foot. It is difficult to believe that the shrewd old Sachem intended to dispossess his own people, or to give to strangers a better title than that enjoyed by the Narragansetts. The Indians themselves gave this construction to the grants of their chiefs, and as ever before, showed that they had no conception of permanent and individual property in land. Wherever one of them fouud among the white settlements, a field uncultivated, he had no hesitation in planting his corn with a mere "squatter's" title. On the other hand, when the Englishmen bought out an Indian occupant, he only bought out his user or right of occupancy for the season, or at the most, his growing crops, and in another year, the process must be repeated, with the next Indian planter. The Sachems probably regarded the English as their tributaries and their grants as revocable, differing only from Indians, in living under the rule of their own magistrates and laws. The inferior Indians planted the lands at Providence and Warwick, after they had been sold, in the same manner as before. Without asking permission they lived indiscriminately among the English, with "mingled fields." The chiefs still exercised sovereignty and jurisdiction over their own people residing upon the lands which had been granted to the white men. The tenures of the lands were not very important so long as the English were too few to cultivate or possess the estate which they had purchased. Englishmen and Indians lived together in near neighborhoods until in the second generation, their society became a nuisance, of which each We may well believe that even such grants

desired to be rid.

even to