tives [it] spread universal destruction in New England, and threatened the total ruin and extirpation of the English from the country, and finally determined the fate of the Indians, proved their overthrow, and gave the undisputed possession [of] the whole country to the English. [It was] conducted by that great and memorable sachem whose Indian name was Metacomet.

Philip's father, for above thirty years after their arrival, and until his death,1 was a great friend and benefactor of the English. Being sachem of all that part of the country where the English first settled, he had it in his power to do them very essential services. During his life the English of Plymouth colony had no apprehension of danger from the neighbouring Indians.

He died about 1656. He was succeeded by his eldest son, Wamsutta, or Alexander, who was suspected of plotting with the Narragansetts against the English. Mr. Josias Winslow, with 8 or 10 stout men, armed, took him by surprise at a hunting (illegible) about six miles distant from the English town, and carried him to the governor.

2

3

This raised his indignation and affected him so much that it threw him into a fever which put a period to his life and plot together. Philip, his brother, then young, succeeded him. He was of a bold, enterprising, undaunted spirit. His conduct soon raised suspicions of a design against the English. He was therefore sent for before the court in Plymouth. He on the 6th of August, 1662, signed a paper, expressing his desire "to continue the amity and friendship that had formerly been between the governor of Plymouth and his deceased father and brother;" and promised that he and his successors would always remain faithful subjects to the King of England, and that he

(1) About 1656.

(2) Plymouth.

(3) Hubbard's "Narrative of the Indian wars," ed. 1865, I. 50-51.

would never alienate his lands without the consent of the government of New Plimouth.1

The following anecdote will serve to give the true reason of this war. After it was generally reported that war was like to break out between the Indians and the English, Mr. John Borden, (who then lived at Rhode Id.), who was intimately acquainted with Philip, determined to persuade him to use his endeavors for peace and amity, urging the reciprocal and [illegible] benefits which must result, to both parties. To which Philip replied in this striking manner :3

"The English, (who,) when they came first to this country were but an handful of people, forlorn, poor and distressed. My father was then sachem. He relieved their distresses in the most kind and hospitable manner. He gave them land to build and plant upon. He did all in his power to serve them. It was observed1 that others of their own countrymen came and joined them. Their numbers rapidly increased. My father's counsellors became uneasy and alarmed, lest, as they were possessed of firearms, (which was not the case with the Indians) they should finally undertake to give law to the Indians and take from them their country. They therefore advised him to destroy them before they should become too strong and daring, and it should be too late. My father was also the father of the English. He represented to his counsellors and warriors that the English knew many sciences which the Indians did not; that they improved and cultivated the earth, and raised cattle and fruits, and that there was sufficient room in the country for both the English and the Indians. His advice prevailed. It was concluded to give victuals to the English. They flourished and increased. Experience taught that the advice of my father's counsellors [was right?]. By various means they got possession of a great part of his territory. But he still remained their friend till he died.

My elder brother became sachem. They pretended to sus(1) A memorandum here occurs in the manuscript, referring to the account in Hutchinson's "History of Massachusetts Bay," I. 277.

(2) From the Foster Papers, IX. 316.

(3) This is in print in Arnold's "Rhode Island," I. 394–95.

(4) Arnold's version varies in several particulars from this account, which he follows in the main.

(5) The English.

(6) Wamsutta, or Alexander.

pect him of evil designs against them. He was seized and confined, [and] thereby thrown into sickness and died. Soon after I became sachem, they disarmed all my people. They tried my people by their own laws; (and) assessed damages against them, which they could not pay. Their land was taken. At length a line of division was agreed upon between the English and my people, and I myself was to be answerable. Sometimes the cattle [of] the English would come into the cornfields of my people, as they did not make fences like the English.

I must then be seized and confined, till I sold another tract of my country for satisfaction of all damages and costs. Thus, tract after tract is gone. But a small part of the dominions of my ancestors remains. I am determined not to live till I have no country."

[THE ADMINISTRATION OF SIR EDMUND ANDROS.3]

The historians of New England in general have set the character of Sir Edmund Andros in a very unfavourable light. He was employed by an arbitrary prince to establish in New England a mode of government which from its nature could not be otherwise than odious to the people in general, however well it might be administered. This raised against him a general prejudice which found its way into the histories of his time. When we consider the arduous task of bringing a whole people, of the bold and republican spirit of the New Englanders in general, even at that time, peaceably to submit to a government which depended solely upon the mind of one man ;—That he himself was the man who gave absolute law to the whole country, & to a people who by their charters had before the whole administration of gov[ernment] in their own hands, as they annually chose all their officers, and by their representatives

(1) Arnold's version has "responsible."

(2) This statement, says Professor Diman, "preserves the traditions respect. ing the causes of the war that lingered in Philip's own neighborhood, and among those who knew him best." (Address at "Two hundredth anniversary of Bristol" p. 38).

(3) In manuscript in the Foster Papers, IX. 313-14. There is a gap here of about ten years, 1676-86. (Endorsed as being received from Governor Hopkins's verbal account, Oct. 12, 1781.)

(4) This was long the point at issue between the colonists and the home gov

ernment.

made all their own laws;-And when we consider, in addition to this, the natural reluctance there is in the mind of all men to surrender such great and darling privileges ; and that Sir Edmund Andros effected all this, and governed all New England for several years without any material difficulty, till the revolution' took place in England, we shall find more to admire2 in his character than at first we should be aware of.

Having occasion to go to Virginia" with a party of troops, Sir Edmund assisted with his own hands [in erecting a log house,] and as the timber hurt his shoulder, he clapped his hat under it. Which being observed by one of his officers, the officer begged his Excellency to desist, saying it was the business of his soldiers, and not his, to do such servile labour. Upon which Sir Edmund replied: "That officer who in a time of hurry, when it is necessary that labour should be done, will not diligently assist with his own hand, and set a good example to his troops, is unworthy to command.”

While Sir Edmund Andros was at Hartford, he met Dr. Hooker one morning, and said: "I suppose all the good people of Connecticut are fasting and praying on my account." The Dr. replied: "Yes. We read: This kind goeth not out but by fasting and prayer.' ”

[THE ADMINISTRATION OF GOV. SAMUEL CRANSTON3].

1698-1727.

He [Governor Cranston]" was elected gov[ernor] 1698,

(1)Of 1688-89.

(2) There is certainly very little in Sir Edmund Andros, or his character, to admire. The circumstances of his assuming command over the colonial governments were, it is true, such as tended to deepen unduly the prejudices against him. Yet, had it been otherwise, his character is not one which would have shone in any way.

(3) This part of the account, says the manuscript, was told to Gov. Hopkins "By Samuel Comstock." (Foster Papers, IX. 314).

(4) Copied by Senator Foster from Dr. Stiles's "manuscript itinerary,” (May 25, 1764). Foster Papers, IX. 239.

(5) Foster Papers, IX. 14. There is a gap of about ten years, 1688-98. (6) His father, John Cranston, had also filled the governor's chair, 1678-80.

and died [in office], April 26, 1726. He was elected 30 times gov [ernor] without opposition. What was very remarkable with respect to him was his singular and uncommon popularity during this long period. The people had the highest confidence in his political integrity. It remained unimpaired and undiminished during his life; and in the memorable year 1715 (when there was a great political revolution in the state,' and when every member of both houses of the legislature were [sic] turned out of office except himself and two of the deputies of Warwick), he was not only continued unopposed as governor, but the interests of his family so increased that at [the] May session, 1716, his son, Samuel Cranston, Junr., was elected one of the deputies for Newport; and his nephew, John Cranston, [Jr.], also one of the deputies for the same town,* and at that session [John Cranston] was appointed speaker of the House of Representatives, so that in the year 1716 three of the Cranston family were members of the legislature from the same town."

2

5

(1) See Arnold's "Rhode Island," II. 55.

(2) Anthony Low and Moses Lippit.

(3) R. I. Col. Records, IV. 203.

(4) Ibid.

(5) Ibid., IV. 209.

3

(6) At this point Senator Foster's memoranda are brought to a close.

It is proper to state the typographical considerations which have been observed in printing the two foregoing accounts.

Careful comparison has been made with the copy in each instance,in Senator Foster's case, his own manuscript; and in Governor Hopkins's case, the Gazette copy, his manuscript not being preserved. The author's spelling has been reproduced throughout, but where quotations from other writers or from records are introduced in the text, the original has been followed, rather than the version of either Hopkins or Foster. What has just been said as to the spelling applies equally to the use of such characters as ' &"; "ye" for "the"; and of figures, (as "8" for eight). It also applies to punctuation, with the exception of a portion of Senator Foster's memoranda, which, being hasty jottings, were left almost unpunctuated. It does not, however, apply to the use of capitals, and a sparing use of these letters is for the most part observed. No omissions occur in Governor Hopkins's narrative. Those in Senator Foster's memoranda are designated by asterisks, and occur (1) when the account had been fully given by Governor Hopkins; (2) where Senator Foster had himself used unnecessary repetition; and (3)in instances of irrelevant matter in the manuscript. The reader who is desirous of satisfying himself on these points can readily verify them from the bound manuscript volume constantly accessible in the library of the Rhode Island Historical Society.